What dictates taboo and what is good?

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Jester
Prodigy
Posts: 4214
Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 2:36 pm
Location: Seoul, South Korea
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

What dictates taboo and what is good?

Post #1

Post by Jester »

It came up another topic it might be good to discuss the reasons why we believe the ethics that we believe.
Questions:
Is there any logical grounding for ethics, that some behavior is inherently right or wrong regardless of human opinion?
What is the basic source of ethics? A deity? Evolutionary biology? Social constructs? Some combination of these? Something else?
We must continually ask ourselves whether victory has become more central to our goals than truth.

User avatar
Jester
Prodigy
Posts: 4214
Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 2:36 pm
Location: Seoul, South Korea
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

Post #41

Post by Jester »

McCulloch wrote:Most of evolution is not that some individual had a beneficial mutation and passed it on to his progeny. Evolution doesn't work like that. If it did, then it would be somewhat self defeating. The one with the mutation would breed with those who didn't have it and thus in a few generations, the mutation would be reduced in effect. What evolution does it take advantage of the naturally occurring variations within a breeding group. If within a breeding group, having a certain trait (be it longer fingers or a neurological predisposition to ethics), provides a selective advantage, then those with a greater than average amount of that trait will breed more than those with a less than average amount of that trait. Thus, over generations, average measure of that trait will increase in that population.
Okay, this sounds reasonable enough, and I'm not really in a place to do research right now. So, I'll either come back at you six months from now with another response, or (more likely) read up enough to realize that you were right all along.
Until then, consider the point retracted.
Jester wrote:This is reasonable enough (though, even in a purely secular discussion, I'd mention personal opinion/choice myself). In any case, this seems an explanation as to how we came to believe that ethics exist objectively, rather than a comment about whether or not they do.
McCulloch wrote:Well, yes and no. Just as Steven Pinker and Noam Chomsky point out, in linguistics there seem to be a certain innate faculty of mind for language that shows evidence of a universal grammar. I agree with Pinker, Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins that many other human mental faculties such as ethics are adaptive. There is probably a kind of universal ethics, based on empathy, the concept of fairness and common (group) benefit.
I'm not sure I understand your point clearly. I'll answer what I consider to be the two possibilities. Let me know which, if either, is correct.
1. If by "universal", you mean something to the effect of: true for all organisms, then I would contend that this doesn't adequately address the point. Biological evolution would account for the basic drives of all organisms, but would be silent on the matter of whether or not any universal (in that sense) ethics had any objective reality of their own. Here we've explained how humans and other species developed this idea that there are laws to behavioral choices. We have not, however, established that these laws exist outside of our concept of them. In this case, one could not say that they were objectively real.
2. If you mean to say that ethics are part of nature beyond natural drives, then I don't see the source here. Thing such as empathy and the concept of fairness would require an organism or deity to exist.
Jester wrote:Our inability to measure something perfectly does not establish it's non-existence.
McCulloch wrote:I agree, but in order to exist, something should be in principle, measurable. Pain is a good example. We have no well defined measure of pain, yet very few deny its existence. However, since pain is carried by nerve impulses and registered in the brain, we could, in principle, devise a measure for it.
As the case would have it. I also have two responses to this one.
First is the fact that I believe any set of ethics can be somewhat measured for, but in terms of conscience, rather than behavior. In theory, analysis of brain chemistry could, in the future, measure such things materialistically.
Second is that I'm not a naturalist. I'm not convinced that all things are measurable. As an example, I don't believe that the fact that we can't really measure the overall value of a particular human being (which is qualitatively different from measuring aptitudes, I would add) means that humans have no intrinsic value.
I'd even site that a peripheral matter is even debated within science. Specifically, the Indeterminability Principle claims that there is a limit to what we can measure. This doesn't prevent us from measuring basic forces, I will quickly add, but does seem to work against the idea that nothing can exist that we can't measure. Basically, we know very little about the universe, and to conclude that we can measure it all might be analogous to a colony of ants believing that they can understand advanced science. None of this is conclusive, but it is enough that I wouldn't simply accept this idea without reason to believe it.
We must continually ask ourselves whether victory has become more central to our goals than truth.

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #42

Post by Cathar1950 »

Jester wrote:
Jester wrote: This is reasonable enough (though, even in a purely secular discussion, I'd mention personal opinion/choice myself). In any case, this seems an explanation as to how we came to believe that ethics exist objectively, rather than a comment about whether or not they do.
McCulloch wrote:Well, yes and no. Just as Steven Pinker and Noam Chomsky point out, in linguistics there seem to be a certain innate faculty of mind for language that shows evidence of a universal grammar. I agree with Pinker, Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins that many other human mental faculties such as ethics are adaptive. There is probably a kind of universal ethics, based on empathy, the concept of fairness and common (group) benefit.
I'm not sure I understand your point clearly. I'll answer what I consider to be the two possibilities. Let me know which, if either, is correct.1. If by "universal", you mean something to the effect of: true for all organisms, then I would contend that this doesn't adequately address the point. Biological evolution would account for the basic drives of all organisms, but would be silent on the matter of whether or not any universal (in that sense) ethics had any objective reality of their own. Here we've explained how humans and other species developed this idea that there are laws to behavioral choices. We have not, however, established that these laws exist outside of our concept of them. In this case, one could not say that they were objectively real.
We see bonding and empathy in other social animals with language and culture we have more to learn and more possible responses, including creative ones, but they may be a natural need for social animals to bond. It doesn't seem far fetched to see our needs for empathy and fairness to have been selected for as culture and language evolved. It might even be why they evolved or they could have evolved with it. Asking why must have been a pretty big deal but it does suggest explanation.

Jester wrote: 2. If you mean to say that ethics are part of nature beyond natural drives, then I don't see the source here. Thing such as empathy and the concept of fairness would require an organism or deity to exist.
We are organisms. I don't think he is saying that. It seems to be part of our nature.
We can see the rudiments of empathy in other animals especial primates and mammals that are social in nature. Taking care of our children allows them more time to acquire language, culture and even morality or proper behaviour. They work well in the animal world but but there are always problems. Our language and meaning make it much more complex while giving us more alternative responses or behavior.

User avatar
Jester
Prodigy
Posts: 4214
Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 2:36 pm
Location: Seoul, South Korea
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

Post #43

Post by Jester »

Cathar1950 wrote:We see bonding and empathy in other social animals with language and culture we have more to learn and more possible responses, including creative ones, but they may be a natural need for social animals to bond. It doesn't seem far fetched to see our needs for empathy and fairness to have been selected for as culture and language evolved. It might even be why they evolved or they could have evolved with it. Asking why must have been a pretty big deal but it does suggest explanation.
I have already agreed that this is a reasonable explanation as to how organisms came to believe in ethics. The point I am driving at above is the fact that this says nothing about whether or not ethics have any objective nature. That is to say, do they have validity in themselves, or are they simply something that we have evolved to believe in as having objective weight in spite of the fact that they do not?
Jester wrote:2. If you mean to say that ethics are part of nature beyond natural drives, then I don't see the source here. Thing such as empathy and the concept of fairness would require an organism or deity to exist.
Cathar1950 wrote:We are organisms. I don't think he is saying that. It seems to be part of our nature.
I don't think so either. I simply wanted McCulloch to have the opportunity to speak for himself.

As to the rest of your comment, apologies for not answering it more specifically. I have the same response as what I've written above, however.
We must continually ask ourselves whether victory has become more central to our goals than truth.

Angel

Post #44

Post by Angel »

Jester wrote:I have already agreed that this is a reasonable explanation as to how organisms came to believe in ethics. The point I am driving at above is the fact that this says nothing about whether or not ethics have any objective nature. That is to say, do they have validity in themselves, or are they simply something that we have evolved to believe in as having objective weight in spite of the fact that they do not?
I agree. Also, it doesn't speak much to the validity of morals from that process when we're able to change those standards. For example, I used to think that fornication or unmarried sex was okay, and now I don't. I have nothing inherent in me that tells me that I'm wrong or right other than my opinions or belief. I'd think a biological foundation of morality would inhibit my ability to change my moral standards but as life shows, that aint the case plus we're faced with the problem of not being able to "know" if those standards are indeed true to reality or objective to begin with.

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #45

Post by McCulloch »

Jester wrote:Let me know which, if either, is correct.
1. If by "universal", you mean something to the effect of: true for all organisms, then I would contend that this doesn't adequately address the point. Biological evolution would account for the basic drives of all organisms, but would be silent on the matter of whether or not any universal (in that sense) ethics had any objective reality of their own. Here we've explained how humans and other species developed this idea that there are laws to behavioral choices. We have not, however, established that these laws exist outside of our concept of them. In this case, one could not say that they were objectively real.
2. If you mean to say that ethics are part of nature beyond natural drives, then I don't see the source here. Thing such as empathy and the concept of fairness would require an organism or deity to exist.
Within the concept of languages, linguists and neurologists are only at the point of having discovered that there is apparently a universal grammar. It is too early to posit any kind of source. In the case of ethics, we really have not even got that far. My own intuition is that both universals are somehow rooted in the principles of nature, logic and biological laws.
Jester wrote:First is the fact that I believe any set of ethics can be somewhat measured for, but in terms of conscience, rather than behavior. In theory, analysis of brain chemistry could, in the future, measure such things materialistically.
That would raise interesting ethical questions. What if we had a DNA test for criminal pathologies?
Jester wrote:Second is that I'm not a naturalist. I'm not convinced that all things are measurable. As an example, I don't believe that the fact that we can't really measure the overall value of a particular human being (which is qualitatively different from measuring aptitudes, I would add) means that humans have no intrinsic value.
Agreed, the fact that we cannot measure something does not mean that it does not exist. However, the fact that we could never, even in principle, measure something, makes its existence meaningless.
Jester wrote:I'd even site that a peripheral matter is even debated within science. Specifically, the Indeterminability Principle claims that there is a limit to what we can measure. This doesn't prevent us from measuring basic forces, I will quickly add, but does seem to work against the idea that nothing can exist that we can't measure. Basically, we know very little about the universe, and to conclude that we can measure it all might be analogous to a colony of ants believing that they can understand advanced science. None of this is conclusive, but it is enough that I wouldn't simply accept this idea without reason to believe it.
In the case of quantum uncertainty, in the weird realm of the quantum scale, it has been shown that the more you know about one attribute (say the velocity of a particle) the less can be known about another (say the position). However, we can know with a high degree of accuracy a probability function of these measures and a cumulative amount for a group of these.
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

User avatar
Jester
Prodigy
Posts: 4214
Joined: Sun May 07, 2006 2:36 pm
Location: Seoul, South Korea
Been thanked: 1 time
Contact:

Post #46

Post by Jester »

McCulloch wrote:Within the concept of languages, linguists and neurologists are only at the point of having discovered that there is apparently a universal grammar. It is too early to posit any kind of source. In the case of ethics, we really have not even got that far. My own intuition is that both universals are somehow rooted in the principles of nature, logic and biological laws.
That is a reasonable position, given what we know, but doesn't really address the issue of whether or not ethics exist as something more than a collection of inherited opinions.
Jester wrote:First is the fact that I believe any set of ethics can be somewhat measured for, but in terms of conscience, rather than behavior. In theory, analysis of brain chemistry could, in the future, measure such things materialistically.
McCulloch wrote:That would raise interesting ethical questions. What if we had a DNA test for criminal pathologies?
It would indeed.
As to your specific question, I would say that DNA tests would only ever tell us about tendencies toward certain types of behavior. Criminal pathologies, in my opinion, are far more a matter of nurture and choice than DNA.
McCulloch wrote:Agreed, the fact that we cannot measure something does not mean that it does not exist. However, the fact that we could never, even in principle, measure something, makes its existence meaningless.
It means that its existence is meaningless only if we take a naturalistic perspective. I see no reason, however, to conclude that there is no meaning in something that cannot be measured scientifically.
McCulloch wrote:In the case of quantum uncertainty, in the weird realm of the quantum scale, it has been shown that the more you know about one attribute (say the velocity of a particle) the less can be known about another (say the position). However, we can know with a high degree of accuracy a probability function of these measures and a cumulative amount for a group of these.
I agree that this is not an exact example of my point. If it were, frankly, we would have left the realm of science. By definition, therefore, I cannot really give a scientific example of my point.
I agree with your assessment; it fits my understanding as well, but continue to doubt that the inability to measure something would mean that it has no effect on reality. This seems to me to be a philosophical, rather than scientific, position. Indeed, if something cannot be measured, science has no comment and we've entered philosophy. All this would mean that insisting on scientific measurement is potentially as valid as the next position, but is not itself scientifically defensible. Thus, I mentioned quantum mechanics to point out that even science suggests that there are at least small things effecting our reality without being measurable.
So, apologies. I did not mean to suggest that this is directly evidenced by science. By definition, it cannot be.
We must continually ask ourselves whether victory has become more central to our goals than truth.

User avatar
Wellington
Apprentice
Posts: 200
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 2:37 am
Location: The Zoo

Post #47

Post by Wellington »

Angel wrote:
That may be a motive but there's nothing wrong with that as long as we use that to explore the issue before we draw conclusions.
I see a potential danger in this. Looking for something because you hope it exists means you have a bias. It is either there or it isn't. It doesn't matter whether you want to to be there or not and desire for it to be there has the potential to cloud your findings.
To a lot of people perhaps, the world would be of less value and meaning without objective morals. It would turn out that we only judge people as moral or immoral based on a subjective or made up concepts perhaps to make ourselves feel better or dignified. I'm sure we're all guilty of this since we're all have made moral judgements and are using a subjective concept to run our lives. Something which lots of atheists accuse religionists of doing I might add. Or we can take the alternative view and say objective morals can potentially exists, we just don't know about them completely.
I would say that you should follow your logic rather than your desires. If logic leads you to conclude something that may be unsettling, you shouldn't adopt the scenario that makes you feel better based on a lack of evidence of it's existence. Objective moral values may exist, but there isn't anything that supports this view other than our own wishful thinking. So from a practical standpoint....to the degree that we can ever be certain of anything...we can say they do not exist.


Wellington wrote:
I agree. But to the degree that we can ever really be sure of anything from a practical standpoint. Can we determine that they don't when you admit that you have no way to test for them? There may be an invisible teapot floating in outerspace in orbit between earth and mars. we don't know that there isn't. and we would have to have absolute knowledge in order to say with absolute certainty that there isn't one there. But from a practical standpoint, does that mean we can't rule it out? How about pluto's orbit? We have never seen pluto make a complete orbit around the sun. We don't know with absolute certainty that pluto revolves around the sun because it takes longer for it to orbit than the number of years that has expired since it's discovery. But from a practical standpoint, to the degree that we can ever be certain of anything, can we determine that pluto orbits the sun?

If we can do these things for objective truths such as pluto's orbit and the invisible teapot, why is an objective moral standard something we cannot? why are we making arguments from ignorance? "We don't know if objective moral values exist and we have no way to test for them...therefore they exist and we simply need to find out how to discover them."

I agree with your conclusion for now.
Do you? Can you get past the notion of absolute certainty and apply the same reasoning we give to the invisble teapot and pluto's orbit and apply it to objective ethics that can not be seen or proven to exist?

Wellington wrote: Even if there was a morality gene, if they don't produce the same morals for everyone than that wouldn't be objective, that would be relative.
No. Don't confuse relativity wth subjectivity. If you have a dog, the fact that your neighbor has a different type or looking dog that behavesdifferently than yours doesn't mean you both don't own a dog. Your dog and his dog exist independant o what someone thinks as do their shared characteristics.

Second. Objectivity and relativity are not mutually exclusive. Time is both objective and relative.
As we see now, we don't just simply have mankind having different views on morality, we have views that are even contradictory to each other.
I agree.
That is not how reality is and that therefore isn't objective.
I disagree. That is precisely how reality is. People are different. The fact that people are different is an objective truth we can measure and observe. An objective ethical moral standard isn't something we can say the same thing for.
Seeing that we’re not even saying that evolutionary biology produces objective morals but only some morals in generals then that is not an issue.
I think evolutionary biology is neccesary for the development of what we would call an ethical standard but by no means is it primarily responsible. people born with mental disabilities or genetic variations could have a bioloigically "impaired" sense of morality through no fault of their own. Degenerative diseases often display degenerative senses of ethics and many people are more prone gentically to these "abnormalities" However, Many of these genetic variations are triggered by social and envirnmental interactions. Again, a nature versus nurture debate. I won't try to make the case foran ethics gene because there isn't a casethere to make.


Wellington wrote:If that were true then that would mean for those who make moral judgements, they're living under the illusion that someone is evil or good when in reality evil nor good exist. It's made up or subjective. Someone may say that we at least make up laws and we judge on the basis of those, but I wonder what would that matter for someone outside of your country who has a different set of laws? You wouldn't be able to tell that person their country's laws are false while yours are right. You'd be reduced to making moral judgements based on relativism or what's relative to your country which again isn't objective.
Precisely. It isn't very comforting to be able to hide behind an objective moral standard. It means you actually have to take into consideration why someone else considers something wrong that you do not. We can't go around telling eachother something is wrong because our God established it as wrong. We have to relate right and wrong to our own personal desires and recognize other parties are going to do the same. Because...maybe...just maybe...you might agree with how they arrived at why they consider something wrong in the first place. We can't claim to be the adheret to an objective righteous standard that we can't prove exists.
I am saying logically or objectively speaking, we don't know if objective morals exist or not. I am not saying that they don't exists.
Can you say, from a practical standpoint, to the degree that you can ever know anything, whether they exist or not? Start with deciding on what evidence you would bse your decision on and know that you have the ability to chang your mind if you ever discover evidence in the future.
Although to me, if a God exists, like one described in the Bible, then all I'd need is just seeing that He exists and I'd accept the rest of the story about what He's put in place.
I wouldn't. All proof of God would give us is proof of god. It would not give us proof of objective morality. It might make a stronger case via circumstantial evidence, but we can't assume that just because God exists an objective moral standard exists because if we do....we encounter the three problems i have aready outlined.
If we were able to see that God exists, then He could actually reveal these morals to us which Christians claim He's already done. We wouldn't need to then explore or discover them for ourselves.
I'm not so sure about that one. Again, it goes back to the nature versus nurture debate. Even if the objective moral standard was something we could provide evidence for, my guess is it would still be something we would have to learn even if it was self evident. I was born with legs but I still had to learn how to walk.

User avatar
Wellington
Apprentice
Posts: 200
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 2:37 am
Location: The Zoo

Post #48

Post by Wellington »

Angel wrote: We can only speculate but it's not something that I'll worry about. As long as He has to deal with us, I'm sure He'll always will apply moral standards. I don't see Him having to change His mind without a reason. If He does, I presume He'll do it for a purpose that would work out.
You are taking a lot on faith here. I would start ith the most obvious question which is essentially what I have been asking of you. Does God command something because it is good or is it good because God commands it?
I honestly don't know the answer to this point. I'll have to read up more on moral theories that involve God. I know your objection is that saying God is good doesn't answer the question of what good is. Please let me know if I'm leaving something out.
That is correct. It is a tautology.

These problems I present aren't anything new. It is called the "euthrphro dilemma" (if you are going to look up more info about it).
God did have "some" good standards inherent in Him but He also created additional standards of good or other moral goods. So "some" moral goods have always existed and some did not until they were created.
In that case, what is good remains objectiv and would exist independant of god...which is fine...however it means that Good is greater than God. We shouldn't be looking to God to discover what is right and wrong. We should be looking to the moral standard that existed before he created the others. this is option number 2.
That raises the question where did God get these standards from. I'm thinking for that this may be answered or be analogous to the uncaused cause argument about existence. Perhaps the standards of good never had a cause outside of God, they were just there just as the uncause cause (which is necessary) did not come from anywhere, it was just there.
The ethical moral standards, like God have an uncaused cause? Again, this implies they are at the very least on par with God. But since god abides by them Iwould say they are greater than God.
My previous theory would've involved God being amoral at some point but then choosing to create morals. This theory may be suffice.
I was trying to incorporate another theory of some theists regarding good being inherent in God. I did that to respond to your point in the case of if God would have to be accountable to Himself even while He was the only one existing which would mean He could not have been amoral at any point. He would need a standard to hold Himself accountable to. I'm still working on this issue but the best I got for now is what I explained in this post in the previous response regarding good being like an uncaused cause.
Just remember that any of the three scenarios you adopt do not lead back to the three problems again because that is right where you started. originally you eiminated option number two and went with option number one. In attempting to justify number one you incorporated option number two. You don't needoption number one of you are oing to try to legitimize it with option number two. Just address the problems of number two and make sure you don't use option number three and number one to do it because then your arguments are reduced to circular logic.

I am glad to see you are open to considering the dilema and looking for potential answers to them. personally I think the arbitrary standard is the one that holds the most water, I just don't see any value in that ethical standard it if that was indeed the case.

Angel

Post #49

Post by Angel »

Wellington wrote:
Angel wrote: Even if there was a morality gene, if they don't produce the same morals for everyone than that wouldn't be objective, that would be relative.
No. Don't confuse relativity wth subjectivity. If you have a dog, the fact that your neighbor has a different type or looking dog that behavesdifferently than yours doesn't mean you both don't own a dog. Your dog and his dog exist independant o what someone thinks as do their shared characteristics.

Second. Objectivity and relativity are not mutually exclusive. Time is both objective and relative.
There are some things that are relative but logic isn't for example especially if what you're describing as being relative contains contradictions. Such is the case with our views of morality. You can't call lets say someone having a moral gene that tells them stealing is good and then have someone else with a gene telling them stealing is bad. If the purpose of morals is to keep order and to have accountability among other things, having two contradictory moral standards will cause chaos. That also can't be said to be good even on a common sense level besides the objective level. We're able to change our morals as well which is something else I would think a moral gene would inhibit us to do if it's function was to program us to act a certain way.


Wellington wrote:
Angel wrote:God did have "some" good standards inherent in Him but He also created additional standards of good or other moral goods. So "some" moral goods have always existed and some did not until they were created.
In that case, what is good remains objectiv and would exist independant of god...which is fine...however it means that Good is greater than God. We shouldn't be looking to God to discover what is right and wrong. We should be looking to the moral standard that existed before he created the others. this is option number 2.
I don't totally agree with you here. I believe God could still be used as a reference to acquire knowledge of those morals since He possess complete and perfect knowledge of everything via His omniscience and infallibility. It would be like using a computer to find out something except that God would be an actual living being with common sense and understanding. Our cognitive abilities are no where near that nor will they probably ever be.


Some of the other points you made, I would have to think and read on more. I don't have an answer of my own yet.

Angel

Post #50

Post by Angel »

Wellington wrote:
Angel wrote: To a lot of people perhaps, the world would be of less value and meaning without objective morals. It would turn out that we only judge people as moral or immoral based on a subjective or made up concepts perhaps to make ourselves feel better or dignified. I'm sure we're all guilty of this since we're all have made moral judgements and are using a subjective concept to run our lives. Something which lots of atheists accuse religionists of doing I might add. Or we can take the alternative view and say objective morals can potentially exists, we just don't know about them completely.
I would say that you should follow your logic rather than your desires. If logic leads you to conclude something that may be unsettling, you shouldn't adopt the scenario that makes you feel better based on a lack of evidence of it's existence. Objective moral values may exist, but there isn't anything that supports this view other than our own wishful thinking. So from a practical standpoint....to the degree that we can ever be certain of anything...we can say they do not exist.
The problem is there is no logically based scenario when it comes to morals. When it comes to morals, we adopt which morals to follow out of of necessity and we also do at times adopt the ones that make us feel better. Both necessity and what makes us feel better do not objectively nor logically prove anything. So we are still left applying subjective concepts to run our lives. That is concepts that we don't absolutely, scientifically, nor logically know for certain if whether or not they are actually things that would be truly good or bad for us in reality otherwise they would've come up with consistent or non-contradictory conclusions and provided scientific evidence to back their agreement.. That would include atheists and not just religionists, and I've even tested the idea myself.

In a chat room, I've asked one atheists if having sex with other women while married is something that's morally wrong. One of them tells me no. I proceed to ask how does he know and he couldn't explain himself beyond just his opinion or how his wife would feel. Another one says it's okay if his wife wasn't pleasing him. A Christian or the NT would tell you that you can't cheat on your wife no matter what. Who's right here? The conflicting positions would alone would tell you that everyone here is going by their opinion and that they have no way of proving their assertions logically nor scientifically. And this example only speaks for the morals that are common, this does not even speak for other morals that people can make up on their own just like all the other mainstream moral standards that were made up as well.

Post Reply