Atheism

Nope. Chaos/Fast Entropy/Destabilization. Might take more than a couple of days or months, but that type of existence isn't sustainable. In infringes on free will, and while the reaction may not be immediate, it will occur in some form, though potentially not directly on the actor.

As compared to murder, Rape has a tad more tolerance, from the standpoint of human reaction. But any scenario overlooks the basic principles of Newton's Third Law and the conservation of energy (in terms of redirection of the negative social energy in a "closed" subsystem)...

 

It wasn't my intent to misconstrue your argument or to put words in your mouth. I took your argument for what it was but this is just a message board on the internet and assumptions are bound to happen since we're basically having a text based discussion and it's harder to elaborate in this medium.

As to your example I disagree to an extent. Societies in the past and present day "work" quite well with completely immoral behavior. Slavery in society was once as commonplace as running water is today and it "worked". Germany had no problem working the moral killing of Jews into their world view and societal framework. The treatment and equality of middle eastern women is immoral right now but it's "working" in that culture and society. I think it is a very short sighted view of history and culture to think that amoral behavior does not and has not gone on in abundance with little to no consequences.

Now, I do agree that a society puts pressure in the individual to conform for the betterment of the society as a whole but as in many of the examples I've cited above that does not always constitute moral behavior which is my point in the first place.

Even Niche said that the death of God meant the advent of Nihilism.

 

You are still making the mistake of looking at things from a very myopic time frame, a point I tried to make clear when we first started this discussion. What happened to the Nazis?

Don't overlook human reaction to events in my discussion. It is a very necessary part of the equation.

Look at this another way - Sustainable life (biological) and sustainable society exist at a band or frequency range of intersection between Order and Chaos. Any action tips its own seperate scale on the greater equillibrium - either to a tolerable level or an intolerable level. Just as too much Chaos is unsustainable, so is too much Order (stifling). We talk good and evil because they are easily embraced and romanticized, but that's the real balance.

 

I don't see what bearing time has on morality being objective or subjective except the time evolution would have to taken to form morals if you believe them to simply be biological. In fact, I would argue that I'm looking at this from a time line of since man first came to be.

The Nazi's fall from power didn't occur in itself because of their immoral behavior but because they lost a war. Look at how many ruthless amoral empires exterminated entire societies, assimilated cultures and prospered. You're trying to apply some type of balance or yin/yang, chaos-order theory to our discussion of morality and where it comes from when it makes no difference in my premise that morals are objective and set forth by God.

Is there a balance to the universe? Yes.
Can a society survive in complete order or complete chaos? No.
What that has to do with if morals or objective or subjective. Nothing.

Even in your argument you talk of order vs. chaos, good vs. evil. If that is a universal constant in man you must have an objective standard of which to say what IS good and what IS evil. If morals are just the product of bio-societal evolution then they are subjective and exist as nothing more that social constructs that exist in our collective imaginations.

I think we are beginning to argue two different premises with some overlap. Our disagreement is in the origin of morals, not in the validity and sustainability of a society through the absence or over abundance of those morals.

 

you see, you're framing your answer based on societal norms -- "common medical procedure". if it was it was common to rape your daughter when she turned 10, would you call that immoral or would you call it a "common cultural right of passing"?

i really don't think there's much benefit to male circumcision. the babies aren't asking for it, but it's the norm for our society so it's generally done.

do you think the jewish ritual circumcision which is not a medical procedure? and of course, there's the whole aspect of female "circumcision". yea or nay?

 

you do realize you're actually making the point that morality is determined by society, right? i mean, with all the slavery going on, did christians stand up and say "this is wrong!" or did they go along with what everybody else was doing?

 

Societal norms are the basis of much of what is considered not only moral but acceptable. Look at the changes in race relations, interracial marriage, child labor, marital ages, fashion, etc. in our own culture over the last 100 years.

 

I really don't know how else I can possibly explain what I'm talking about so that you'll get it. Instead of getting frustrated or saying something nasty, I'll just end the conversation between me and you and go play with the others.

Yeah, really, it's time for me to give up. BIOLOGICAL???

 

Actually, there is. Reduction in infections, reduction in STD transmissions, etc. I was going to mention it earlier but I wanted to see where y'all were going. In the case of snipping the guys, it's a bit more than societal norms.

 

Ive read it both ways. It seems relatively harmless, so most people do it out of tradition.