OT: Will non net-neutrality kill the internet?

[Maxim S. Shatskih]

practice, since morality and morality exist independently of the people

themselves

This is truth in the framework of religion only, where there is God to maintain morality.

In agnostic/atheistic framework, morality arises from the human pshychology as an _interpersonal regulator_, and surely can be different in different social groups.

For instance, let's compare the peasant (especially serf, of, say, Russia-pre-1861) commune with the modern Western mid-classers.

Commune dwellers have the moral debt to help each other, which the "yuppies" have not. But, on the other hand, commune dwellers have nearly no respect to privacy, compared to "yuppies".

 

[Stephen Sprunk]

A very minor number of pedophiles and child abusers among the clergy
(Catholic only, BTW, ...) - does not mean that the clergy is bad.

Only a handful of denominations call their clergy "priests", and by
numbers the majority of "priests" are Roman Catholic.

Also, we have no idea what the true percentages are; perhaps only a
small fraction have been caught so far. The RCC's deliberate sheltering
of accused priests/child molesters and the general difficulty in getting
children to report being molested (particularly by someone they've been
taught represents God) makes it hard to know.

First of all, please prove even the coincidence between being a child
molester and being a priest/monk.

Then please prove the cause-and-effect link between the two.

Prove? Well, there's certainly evidence that suggests causality:

The RCC requires homosexuals and clergy to be celibate, so many
homosexuals will logically enter the clergy since they're required to be
celibate anyway, whereas most heterosexuals will not choose such a life.
It then puts its clergy in a position of unsupervised authority over
altar boys, which will naturally tempt many such homosexuals into
becoming child molesters.

Without these evidences, the topic is bullshit. This is like a good
old joke on:

"
- The governement must issue a law to imprison all Jews and bikers!
- And why bikers?
- And why Jews?
"

I don't understand this "good old joke".

S

 

[Stephen Sprunk]

and morality? Is it moral to have more than one wife. There are some
mormon sects that take multiple wives. Technically illegal. Is it
immoral?

It's only illegal in the US; Mormons in Mexico are free to practice
polygyny because Mexico has never gotten around to passing a law against
polygamy. LDS calls it immoral, but they were blackmailed into that
position; other Mormon sects disagree and say that it is immoral _not_
to practice polygyny.

ah, the technical subtleties eluded me.

He must not have heard of "honor killings", a common practice in the
Middle East that is moving into Europe and the US along with Muslim
immigrants.

(In short, if an unmarried woman is found to be not a virgin, she is
considered a whore and her family must kill her to protect their honor.)

which makes my point. The law has an opinion on extra-marital sex

Sharia law is religion.

I think I've pretty well demonsatred that it doesn't

I don't think so.

One could well claim that there is a single real morality and that any
observed variations are failure to interpret God's message correctly.
You have not adequately refuted that point--and that's coming from
someone who (so far) agrees with you.

a billion muslims disagree. So do quite a few stricter christian
sects.

Indeed. The Baptists here have managed to keep it illegal for liquor
stores* to open on Sundays for "moral" reasons--though they were unable
to stop the repeal of the laws prohibiting bars* (and most** other
businesses) from opening on Sundays. I don't understand why they'd
care, since their members are prohibited from drinking at any time.

(* My state's laws draw a distinction between selling alcohol for on-
and off-premises consumption, and a business cannot be licensed to do both.
** Car dealerships are still required to close on either Saturday or
Sunday, but they can now choose which, in deference to groups that
observe the Sabbath differently.)

I'm leaving this in simply because it is breathtaking in its arrogant
disregard of anything I'd call morality.

Indeed. Part of the point of morality is that it is absolute, that one
cannot "justify" one's way out of judgment for one's acts.

you seem to be confusing money with morality. How many dollars to
excuse a murder?

I'm sure the RCC has some indulgence price lists in storage somewhere.

S

 

[Maxim S. Shatskih]

however, DUI's, and other acts generally considered misconduct, would still

be prosecuted, just that the rather arbitrary "no drinking until 21" rule is
stupid IMO.

And what is the civil law adult age in the US? 21? or 18? from what age the person is considered to be adult (and fully legally capable - manage property, commit deeds, be married) in the US?

In Russia there was a fun with the official adult age of 18 (lasts long since the USSR times), conscription army service at 18 and... attempts to introduce the law of "no drinking until 21".

Good that this illogical idiotic stuff failed.

should only have one wife. (since the Bible itself says one wife, this
means, effectively, that the "no spouse" requirement for Catholics and
similar is essentially in conflict with the Bible).

Bible is not the _only_ sacred source for both Catholic and Orthodox. The Council decision, if not even the will of Pope, can be considered as sacred as the Bible.

As about married priests in Orthodox: the priest can be married, but, if the priest becomes a bishop, his wife must become a nun somewhere geographically far from the husband's territory of control. This is what some canonical stuff says (some Council maybe, I don't know).

Since enforcement of such a rule is nearly impossible, the tradition became that the Orthodox bishop must be unmarried, and, in modern Russian church, bishops are usually ex-monks.

I would also point that the marriage ban for clergy (or at least the lack of legally recognized heirs among clergy) is a very old thing, goes to some ancient times like the priests of Mesopotamian or ancient Greek gods.

this comes under the description of "points" with names like "irresistable
grace" and "total depravity" and similar...

Yes, this is the Calvinist point, which differs Calvinism from most other Christian confessions - from RC to LDS.

For instance, in Orthodox the human being must commit some deeds to accept the grace, the grace cannot be pushed by God to him, and, if the human commit sins (thus rejecting grace) - then he will not be saved.

deciced to leave out a big mass related to MBTI and Socionics

Socionics? This funny para-psychology by ex-Soviet school teacher, who even lacked a normal degree in psychology?

Yes, a well-known thing here in Russia next to NLP trainings to seduce girls

 

[Nick Keighley]

Laws are always based on some deeper things.

I think you and I are largely in agreement. I was disagreeing with
those people who seemed to think morality was a fixed set of rules
with no cultural variation at all. I was not arguing for complete
moral relativity (though it may have sounded like it at times!). I was
simply trying to get some rather rigid people to see that there were
other (reasonable) points of view.

Among these things I can name the two a) moral tradition of the particular
nation b) the logically explained and deduced statements about the "social
gain", the gain of the whole society.

Item a) is natural law. Item b) is positive law.

hmmm. I'm not convinced it's easy (or useful) to draw a line between
these. Is a sense of justice natural? Probably. And many "positive"
laws (progressive laws?) are probably based on an underlying sense of
justice. These laws free slaves, give women property rights and
protection aginst violence. They give votes to jews, catholics, non-
conformists, black people and women. They give protection to social
and sexual minorities.

So, if the tradition of some nation says that being a gay is a pathetic
and humiliating way of life - then the legislation will _with large
probability_ install a homosexuality ban law.

and most of western europe had such laws until historically recently.

Once again - depends on religious and cultural tradition of the nation.

Nearly all Christian nations do believe in something sacred,
transcendent behing the institute of marriage, and thus practice monogamy.

Nevertheless, even among Christians there were some (old LDS church) who
practiced polygamy.

This is about "moral".

again it was an attempt to point out that "moral" is not a fixed
uniform code

As about "legal" - "legal" is derived from "moral" (see above), and thus,
for instance, in Russia there is a criminal law (with small punishment,
but criminal nevertheless) for registering a marriage by the person already
in another not-yet-terminated marriage.

in english this crime is called "bigamy". And it's a moderatly serious
offence. It involves a false contract and can mislead someone as to
their financial position. (Besides the emotional betrayal).

Surely. Also - "don't betray".

this is school yard morality as well. You don't betray another child
to adults. (I don't know if this suggests criminals are children or
children are criminals!)

Professional Russian criminals developed a rather serious moral code,
called "the notions". This is a good old idea of _customary law_ actually.

The Mafia supposedly had such customary law as well

And this is what the whole topic is about!

They are people. Doing immoral stuff, which is despised by many. Immoral people.

this may be where I was expressing astonishment. I think there was a
certain element of "you are wicked, therefore you deserve to be
punished" "I wouldn't hurt or kill you but I'm not too unhappy if
someone else does".

Nevertheless, in the questions of life and death, they are _the same
kind of people as any others_.

More so, even in the question of property protection they are like
all other people.

So, the modern Western-European-"white"-Christian civilization
considers not only murder, but just getting a service and escaping
the payment - to be a worse immoral deed that prostitution and adultery.

well I'm there on the murder.

 

[Maxim S. Shatskih]

- The governement must issue a law to imprison all Jews and bikers!

I don't understand this "good old joke".

It's about the fact that Jews cause some connotations, while bikers do not, though both are just social groups, and anti-Semitism is as funny as irrational hatred to bikers.

 

[Maxim S. Shatskih]

He must not have heard of "honor killings", a common practice in the

Middle East that is moving into Europe and the US along with Muslim
immigrants.

(In short, if an unmarried woman is found to be not a virgin, she is
considered a whore and her family must kill her to protect their honor.)

Yes, and this is not Shariat. Islam itself does not require this.

These are the tribal traditions of Muslim people, called "adats". They survived, because Shariat is very mild about them.

Also note that yes, this _is_ honor, just in such an ancient sense. On the other hand, the consumerist Western civilization loses the very notion of honor more and more.

 

[Stephen Sprunk]

It's about the fact that Jews cause some connotations, while bikers do
not, though both are just social groups, and anti-Semitism is as funny
as irrational hatred to bikers.

As a biker, I don't find it particularly funny, and I'm pretty sure none
of my Jewish friends would find it funny either since many of them had
family members imprisoned (and executed) simply because they were Jewish.

It may be an old joke, but it's not a good one. Either way, though, I
fail to see its relevance to the discussion at hand.

S

 

[Maxim S. Shatskih]

I think you and I are largely in agreement.

Maybe.

I was disagreeing with those people who seemed to think morality was a fixed set of rules

This is a religious mindset.

hmmm. I'm not convinced it's easy (or useful) to draw a line between
these. Is a sense of justice natural? Probably. And many "positive"
laws (progressive laws?) are probably based on an underlying sense of
justice.

Oh yes. Soviet too The Country Of Great Social Justice.

Most of the USSR bans are based on _positive_ sense of law. More so, I think that only the positive side of law was respected in the USSR, as about the natural law the official position was - obsolete prehistorical tribal stuff, like the customary law.

USSR is what occurs when there is nearly only positive law and no natural.

Well, even in capitalism - customs laws cannot be explained in the terms other then "positive law". So are much of trade restriction and governemental control laws.

These laws free slaves, give women property rights and
protection aginst violence. They give votes to jews, catholics, non-
conformists, black people and women.

And all of this was in the USSR too. In the cursed USSR, which is considered to be Evil Empire. More so, racial and to some degree female equality in the USSR _predate_ the ones in the West.

Minorities is the other thing. Soviet authorities did hate minorities. Any. More so, this became something like the nation-wide attitude like "oh these non-normal fsckers do desire something? why are they important?"

and most of western europe had such laws until historically recently.

Russia till 1991-1992.

again it was an attempt to point out that "moral" is not a fixed
uniform code
Exactly.

in english this crime is called "bigamy". And it's a moderatly serious
offence. It involves a false contract and can mislead someone as to
their financial position. (Besides the emotional betrayal).

In Anglophone countries, the things are even more serious then in Russia, since IIRC the intentionally broken bethroten state (groom-bride) can cause at least civil law consequences.

this is school yard morality as well. You don't betray another child
to adults. (I don't know if this suggests criminals are children or
children are criminals!)

Same in the barrack of the degraded military.

No, this IMHO only suggests that _official authorities are hated_ in these societies, nothing else.

Major hatred to any official power, very major. Just as much as if some octopus-like race of mini Cthulhus landed on their spaceships and conquered Earth - there would be the similar hatred to them.

Classic Russian professional criminals/prison inmates do hate the correction officers the same way as if the latter were such mini-Cthulhus.

 

[Stephen Sprunk]

And what is the civil law adult age in the US? 21? or 18? from what age
the person is considered to be adult (and fully legally capable - manage
property, commit deeds, be married) in the US?

In general, it's 18. However, adults under the age of 21 can't legally
purchase (or consume, with some exceptions) alcohol. State laws vary on
how old you have to be to marry, but many are under 18. State laws also
vary on the age at which one is considered an adult by the criminal
courts; in mine, it's 17.

There's also the concept of an "emancipated minor" who is granted all
the legal rights of an adult by a court, but that's rare.

In Russia there was a fun with the official adult age of 18 (lasts long
since the USSR times), conscription army service at 18 and... attempts
to introduce the law of "no drinking until 21".

That is one of the main sources of complaints about the US drinking age:
at 18 you are old enough to be sent off to die in some stupid war
(assuming you're male; women can't be conscripted under US law), but you
can't legally buy a drink.

Good that this illogical idiotic stuff failed.

Unfortunately, the US Congress passed a law in the '80s denying federal
highway funds to states with a drinking age lower than 21, and all
states complied rather than lose that money.

Bible is not the _only_ sacred source for both Catholic and Orthodox.
The Council decision, if not even the will of Pope, can be considered
as sacred as the Bible.

Obviously, though, those denominations that do not recognize the Pope
don't care what some guy in a pointy hat decrees.

S

 

[Robert Redelmeier]

It's about the fact that Jews cause some connotations,
while bikers do not, though both are just social groups,
and anti-Semitism is as funny as irrational hatred to bikers.

Ah, you mean bicyclists. Bikers often means motorcyclists,
who are subject to prejudice in many places.

-- Robert

 

[Maxim S. Shatskih]

As a biker, I don't find it particularly funny, and I'm pretty sure none

of my Jewish friends would find it funny either since many of them had
family members imprisoned (and executed) simply because they were Jewish.

It may be an old joke, but it's not a good one

And old joke of the Soviet Jews. The most important idea is - to show that anti-Semitism is nonsense.

 

[Maxim S. Shatskih]

Ah, you mean bicyclists. Bikers often means motorcyclists,

who are subject to prejudice in many places.

Yes, bicyclists, this would be more exact.

It's new for me that motorcyclists are subject to prejudice. They have their informal culture, but they are surely not offenders in any meaning of this word and I've never heard that they are considered negatively.

 

[Stephen Sprunk]

in english this crime is called "bigamy". And it's a moderatly serious
offence.

Bigamy a felony where I live, which makes it serious. (The length of
imprisonment depends on the age of the spouse(s), but not intent.)

In US jurisdictions that follow the Model Penal Code on this point,
bigamy is a misdemeanor unless done "in purported exercise of plural
marriage", in which case it is upgraded to a felony.

It involves a false contract and can mislead someone as to their
financial position. (Besides the emotional betrayal).

It is a false contract only because the law prohibits such contracts,
which makes using that as justification for needing said law a circular
argument.

Emotional betrayal assumes that the various spouses were not aware of
each other, which is often not the case, e.g. for traditionalist Mormons
and Muslims.

I can agree with a church (or other religious group) refusing to marry
people who are already married, or refusing to allow polygamists in
their congregation, if that violates their religious beliefs. However,
I don't see that as justification for prohibiting polygamist marriage by
churches (or other religious groups) that don't have a problem with it
or by civil authorities. Ditto for same-sex marriages.

Then again, marriage is fundamentally a religious thing which IMHO the
government shouldn't be involved with anyway. The government should
restrict itself to recognizing (for tax and other purposes) domestic
partnerships, which could have any number or gender of partners.

S

 

[Maxim S. Shatskih]

In general, it's 18.

Same in Russia, except the criminal law.

how old you have to be to marry, but many are under 18.

In Russia, officially it is 18, but, under a personal permission from the local child care governement office, the pre-18 minor can be allowed to officially marry.

In this case, (s)he is also fully emancipated in civil law, and this emancipation is not revoked if this marriage ruins.

vary on the age at which one is considered an adult by the criminal
courts; in mine, it's 17.

Depends on particular kind of crime too?

In Russia it is 16 generally, but for some crimes (heaviest) it's 14, and for some (which are like "abusing minor this way of that way" - sexually, pulling minor to crime, pulling minor to antisocial activity) - 18.

There's also the concept of an "emancipated minor" who is granted all
the legal rights of an adult by a court, but that's rare.

In Russia, this automatically occurs if the minor is allowed to marry, but I don't think there are other cases.

That is one of the main sources of complaints about the US drinking age:
at 18 you are old enough to be sent off to die in some stupid war
(assuming you're male; women can't be conscripted under US law), but you
can't legally buy a drink.

Exactly so here, and I think the parliament dismissed such a bill.

Also note that Russia has a long history of very bad situation with alcohol in the country, and many governements tried to limit drinking - the most famous of them is Gorbachev, who raised the alcohol beverage prices ~3 times, established a criminal law against pulling minors to drinking, and banned alcohol sales pre-14:00 morning time.

With the USSR downfall, the campaign failed to be replaced with _absolute_ freedom of drinking, but from these times (92-93), there were many governemental actions against drinking - ban of TV ads on anything stronger then beer (beer is regulated separately), ban on selling from open street kiosks without the hall, and now - ban on selling from 23:00 till 9:00 or such.

Unfortunately, the US Congress passed a law in the '80s denying federal
highway funds to states with a drinking age lower than 21, and all
states complied rather than lose that money.

Now you understand the anti-American attitudes in many countries? The Great American Freedom is mostly a hypocritical lie (the above discussion shows this), and, in reality, the country is more regulated then the EU countries, modern Russia etc.

 

[Stephen Sprunk]

Yes, bicyclists, this would be more exact.

It's new for me that motorcyclists are subject to prejudice. They have
their informal culture, but they are surely not offenders in any meaning
of this word and I've never heard that they are considered negatively.

In the US, at least, "biker" often refers to a member of a motorcycle
club ("biker gang"), many of which are fronts for organized crime
engaged in smuggling, arms dealing, illicit drug manufacturing and
distribution, human trafficking, etc. They are difficult for the
authorities to deal with because they were highly mobile (moving from
place to place before local cops could make a case against them) and
could easily evade car-based law enforcement. Biker gangs were
considered a serious threat in decades past, and the FBI still keeps
track of many, but they've largely been overshadowed by the territorial
car-based gangs in inner cities and international airplane- and
boat-based drug cartels.

As a result, most US motorcyclists prefer not to use the term "biker",
and I've never heard the term applied to bicyclists, though both groups
commonly refer to their vehicles as "bikes".

S

 

[Robert Redelmeier]

Yes, bicyclists, this would be more exact.

It's new for me that motorcyclists are subject to prejudice. They
have their informal culture, but they are surely not offenders
in any meaning of this word and I've never heard that they are
considered negatively.

I have seen "no bikers" signs/policies in restaurants/cafes
in the US and France. The proprietors may feel the presence
of bikers (esp in a large group) intimidates other customers.

-- Robert

 

[BGB / cr88192]

<snip>

The point I was making is that both law and morality vary from society
to society. I know you'd like to think that morality is a fixed
christian code inarient in time an space for ever. But the fact is
what people (even within you society) thinki is moral ir immoral
varies. This covers sexual mores, drug/alchohol consumption, marriage
and other things.

The biggies like murder and theft are less variable.

this variability seems to be fairly minor, from what I have seen, and
typically there is much more variation within a society than between them...

and morality? Is it moral to have more than one wife. There are some
mormon sects that take multiple wives. Technically illegal. Is it
immoral?

there is not enough information to draw a determination...

"generally assumed" by whom? A few hundred million people of european
cultural descent. Some Morman sects and most of Islam think multiple
wives is perfectly legal an moral.

Paul wrote about it in the NT.

ah, the technical subtleties eluded me.

yeah.



which makes my point. The law has an opinion on extra-marital sex

under sharia yes, but not necessarily in other places or for other
religions.

should it be legally enforced?

doubtful.
it "should" be a social obligation though.
but, I guess in modern times, many youth ignore parents anyways, so this is
weaker.

it's far from universal though (which is my point...)

ok.



ok, thanks for the correction. But my point remains. Not all
christians agree with your "literal interpretation"

differences in doctrinal interpretations are, typically, rarely a big deal.

?

not going to try to explain this.

this is where the theist and the atheist part company. I don't
actually believe in your "moral cost".

moral costs need not exist supernaturally.
it can also manifest as social, interprersonal, or economic or legal
costs...

for example, being arrested may be considered a cost for an act, just as
well as someone becomming upset may also be a cost, ...

I think I've pretty well demonsatred that it doesn't

not sufficiently.

you have only argued about peoples' opinions of what is and is not moral,
which is very different from the morality of an act itself...

peoples' opinions of something can be dead wrong, but it doesn't change the
matter of whatever is the case...

ah, an easy mistake for an unbeliever. "guilt" to me is an emotional
or legal state not a theological or spiritual one.

all of these may exist.
the legal and spiritual sense are not entirely different, it is just a
question of whos laws and who is the judge...

since I don't believe in this spiritual debt its essentially a non-
existant cost.

yes, but a teenager with some credit cards may try to argue the same thing.
it changes little.

eventually though, it will catch up with them (maybe in this life, maybe
not), and this is what a person may need to be concerned over.

[...] nothing stops a person from being immoral, so long as they
acknowledge this, and accept the respective guilt for doing such.

<--
but should I feel guilty if I do something you view as immoral but I
don't? Do you get to decide my moral code?
-->

most people agree on most things, from what I have observed.

obvious things like murder, rape and theft. But what about sex outside
marriage and other sexual mores?

most are agreed on.

well no actually. Watch some TV sometime. Talk to people who aren't a
member of your church.

most US TV is a show of depravity...

a billion muslims disagree. So do quite a few stricter christian
sects.




nonsense. You live in a very narrow world.

it is only a minority who don't use alcohol in communion, or who don't
practice communion...

I wasn't thinking three laws of robotics but seldon's psycho-history,
a mathematisation of mass psychology.

ok.



because morals are not absolute. Costs and benefits cannot be measured
absolutly. Is it moral to kill one man to save ten? One child? These
things simply don't fit into quantafiable science.

I don't say they are absolute, per-se, but they may be universal.


an inability to measure does not mean that they don't exist, nor that they
exist in some objective manner (similar to the other sciences, or at least
along the lines of sociology or economics, ...).

I don't claim to have exact knowledge as to what the morals are (in terms of
how exactly the system works, what things exactly are moral or immoral, ...
but a rough estimate is possible via things like observation and
classification).


now, as for the guess:
assuming that all 11 in this case were roughly equal weight (equal social
status, with similar level of societal contribution, ...), then killing 1
person to save 10 is a reasonable outcome.

however, there are edge cases, for example, killing 1 CEO to save 10
vagrants would not be a good tradeoff.

a child will typically have a reduced immediate contribution, but will
typically have a higher contribution later on, whereas an older person is
unlikely to provide much contribution (apart from existing status).

thus, the value of a child is likely greater than that of an older person,
.... however, the exact weighting and evaluation is likely to depend on the
other factors involved, ...


but, with a sufficiently detailed model, and a sufficiently complete
definition of the underlying ethics, it may be possible to come to an
unambiguous conclusion as to the best outcome in many such cases.

the problem with applying this strategy at the present time, is that it is
likely to be somewhat inaccurate given limited amounts of information likely
to be available.

the best tradeoff then is to use heuristics and abstractions...

back to the example of someone killing a prostitute: is their any real
way a person can morally justify killing her to save some money, if he
himself had made use of her services. [...]
to take a vigilante stance, one would also need to not make use of
them;
and, to make use of them, one is obligated to pay them.

you are aware that prostitutes are actually people? That killing
someone is murder except in some very exceptional circumstances?
Saving money doesn't seem to count as "very exceptional circumstances"
from where I'm standing.

whether or not a person is a person may not itself matter regarding
ethical
concerns regarding them.

as remarked earlier you people scare me sometimes. The fact that it is
a person being killed *is* entirely relevent to the ethics of the
situation.

well, in this sense, yes.
however, the person can also be abstracted away.
an evaluation need not always consider the topic in question in terms of the
question, but may instead switch out for a suitible analogue.

for example, present and future social contributions, ... could be
considered, as well as possible impacts to friends and family members, on
various companies and systems, ...

then one could attempt to answer:
if this person were gone, what is the most likely overall impact?...
a person commiting an act might also consider how it might hurt or benefit
them, ...


however, in nearly all situations, the outcome is likely to be clear:
this is not a good line of action.

I'm leaving this in simply because it is breathtaking in its arrogant
disregard of anything I'd call morality.

you have any clearly better ideas?...

you seem to be confusing money with morality. How many dollars to
excuse a murder?

well, in most cases, there is not a direct exchange...


just, in physical reality, it would require:
however much to pay off the net balance this person would have eventually
resulted in (although, a person who dies as a debtor could easily give
credit back to the killer on this front);
however much is needed to pacify their friends and family (possibly large),
and would be needed to bribe all people involved not to press charges, ...

the result is, likely fairly large... (for a typical person it could be
easily several $M or more).

from another POV, it would be like:
what if a family member were to disappear, but as a result a large quantity
of money would appear at their door.

people would be unhappy about the loss, but likely still net happy with the
appearance of a large pile of money.


granted, even if someone did so, probably thr creator would still be rather
unhappy with them.
(Catholics would call this a "moral sin", and probably with good reason,
even if their doctrine regarding the matter is likely a bit off...).

so, even if people can keep everyone happy, they may still end up in hell,
so it is a net loss, and the creator can't be bought off with money...

!

this doesn't seem all that drastic.
the net result is likely to be the same regardless of the exact means of
evaluating the answer...

that *wasn't* a compliment

I must re-read "The Handmaidens Tale". For evil to triumph etc...

hmm...


well, I don't exactly claim to be a supporter of humanist ideals or
similar...

 

[Nick Keighley]

It's only illegal in the US; Mormons in Mexico are free to practice
polygyny because Mexico has never gotten around to passing a law against
polygamy.  LDS calls it immoral, but they were blackmailed into that
position; other Mormon sects disagree and say that it is immoral _not_
to practice polygyny.

you seem strangly unable to answer the question. Is it immoral to have
more than one wife at the same time?

He must not have heard of "honor killings",

I don't see how you can deduce that. I was simply not making the
fornication/adultary distinction. The point you are rather activly
trying to avoid is that the law covers extra-marital sex in some
societes. In Iran adulterers are stoned to death. Leagally. Men and
women.

So-called honour killings have occurred in the UK.

a common practice in the
Middle East that is moving into Europe and the US along with Muslim
immigrants.

Hindu as well. Probably a generation ago it wasn't unknown in southern
europe.

(In short, if an unmarried woman is found to be not a virgin, she is
considered a whore and her family must kill her to protect their honor.)

actually just dating the wrong person can get you killed. A muslim
dating a christian. A hindu dating the wrong cast.

But this is tangential to my point.

MORALITY IS NOT A UNIVERSALLY AGREED CODE

and sexual mores are some of the most contentious areas.

Sharia law is religion.

it is also law in many muslim countries (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and
Iran all use the cane)

I don't think so.

One could well claim that there is a single real morality and that any
observed variations are failure to interpret God's message correctly.

well you could but I'm not going to agree with you.

You have not adequately refuted that point--and that's coming from
someone who (so far) agrees with you.

we'll have to agree to differ. Fortuately my country is not yet a
theocracy and a minority of religious people are not able to impose
their ideas of morality on others.

Indeed.  The Baptists here have managed to keep it illegal for liquor
stores* to open on Sundays for "moral" reasons--though they were unable
to stop the repeal of the laws prohibiting bars* (and most** other
businesses) from opening on Sundays.  I don't understand why they'd
care, since their members are prohibited from drinking at any time.

(* My state's laws draw a distinction between selling alcohol for on-
and off-premises consumption,

so does mine

and a business cannot be licensed to do both.

but pubs (bars) are commonly licensed to do both

** Car dealerships are still required to close on either Saturday or
Sunday, but they can now choose which, in deference to groups that
observe the Sabbath differently.)

parts of some cities in the UK have different sabbath days (it makes
less difference these days as many sunday trading restrictions have
been removed)

Indeed.  Part of the point of morality is that it is absolute, that one
cannot "justify" one's way out of judgment for one's acts.

you'll have grabbed the idea by now that I don't agree. Some morality
is fixed much of it is simply an arbitary social code that varies from
place to place.


<snip>

 

[Chris H]

In message <[email protected]

I don't see how you can deduce that. I was simply not making the
fornication/adultary distinction. The point you are rather activly
trying to avoid is that the law covers extra-marital sex in some
societes. In Iran adulterers are stoned to death. Leagally. Men and
women.

So-called honour killings have occurred in the UK.


Hindu as well. Probably a generation ago it wasn't unknown in southern
europe.

Actually this sort of thing happens everywhere. Even in the rural US
where it manifest's itself as a shot gun wedding. There are many
tribal/family feuds that erupt into violence in any society.

MORALITY IS NOT A UNIVERSALLY AGREED CODE

There are NO moral absolutes.

you'll have grabbed the idea by now that I don't agree. Some morality
is fixed much of it is simply an arbitary social code that varies from
place to place.

And time to time......

there are NO MORAL ABSOLUTES. Not one.