| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> If it feels good, do it, is a claim of moral reletivism. I know that it's
> too simplistic, so lets dispense with that 'cause I think we all agree that
> having that as a driving force in your life could lead to all sorts of things.
Not only do I think "if it feels good, do it" is a grand philosophy, I think
it's the only philosophy. It's the one that we all follow every day, every
time we make any kind of decision. You make the assumption that it must be
short-sighted, but that's just a contrivance. I'm typing right now because I
enjoy it. I've informally weighed all things and this is what I'm choosing to
do. So I'm not willing to dispense with it.
> My moral absolutes come from what can be best described as 'russian
> roulette' philosophy--I can either play and hope I 'dodge the bullet', or I
> can not play at all. For me, weighing what is 'won' by playing, i.e.
That doesn't sound like morality to me, and certainly not absolute morality.
it sounds more like an avoidance strategy. Which is fine. But not morality.
> instant gratification of banging your neighbours wife, against what can
> potentially be lost, i.e. your marriage, is no contest.
that could be turned around thus: "Choosing not to swap partners, against the
chance of losing your marriage when things grow stale, is no contest."
> No one can say to me that sleeping around has *no* consequenses, and even if
> we rationalize it with 'Well, it's okay for all parties involved and we're
> all virus free', we still cannot rationailize the impact of this lifestyle
> over the course of our lives. Do we know how we're going to 'feel' when
> we're 60? Are we 'better' people for sleeping around compared to those that
> stayed in a faithful relationship?
You can't say what the ramifications of _not_ boffing the neighbor's wife will
be after 60 years either. You can't rationalize the impact of your lifestyle
over the course of your life. Are we 'better' people for not sleeping around
compared to those that did?
> The number one cause of broken? More than all the rest combined? 'He (or
> she) cheated on me.' Yes then it's *not* consenting by all parties, but
> just 'cause you can keep your willy in your pants unless your wife gives you
> the 'go ahead', well, whatever... Dodging bullets. That's moral relativism.
That's silly. You've essentially resorted to the argument: "well, because!"
> Teenage pregnancy, abortion issues, VD, STD's--moral relativism. I'm here
> to help where I can.
Me too! ;-0
> Safe sex is a myth like the easter bunny and, what's more, everyone knows it
That's absurd.
> Y'know how *not* to get pregnant, wholeheartedly fer sure with no worries?
Yeah, nail guys. Or women with hysterectomies. Or your preference, going
without. But you could also nail just about anyone you please with a little
caution and the chances of having children are damn near zero.
> Teach that to your kids along side the pill and condoms. I know I
> will be mentioning it to mine.
My son already knows where babies come from. His sister was born in our LEGO
and game room.
> Can you imagine if, in this hypothetical world, say, somewhere down the
> road, one of these women i slept with came knocking on my door with child in
> tow? Well, I'm sure I'd love the child, but it shows that there are
> consequenses, there are ramifications way down the road that we don't even
> know about yet. None of this has *anything* to do with Christianity and God.
There are possible negative consequences to every action or even to every
inaction. You can't control them all. You just can't. Why do you think that
the adverse posibilities of sleeping with many partners are worse or more than
those associated with having a single parter?
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) You forgot to mention vasectomies, which are the "best" of the above, IMO, because one man can impregnate 100s of women, but not the reverse ;-) (i.e., 1 man and 10 women can easily result in 10 or more babies within a year, but 10 men and 1 (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: slight
|
| (...) Skin heads feel better if there are no coloured people around. 'If it feels good, just do it' is *not* a grande philosophy. I'm debating in this thread now because I enjoy it--the second I stop enjoying it is the second I'm outta here, but (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: slight
|
| (...) Love is limitless, 'cause, for me it comes from a limitless God, but that's neither here nor there. If it feels good, do it, is a claim of moral reletivism. I know that it's too simplistic, so lets dispense with that 'cause I think we all (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
225 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
