Subject:
|
Re: Family values?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 4 Jan 2001 18:25:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
333 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes:
> > > This is why sex outside of marriage is morally wrong.
> >
> > It isn't.
>
> Why not? Bill gave reasons for why it is morally wrong - as a debate reader
> and sometime participant, I prefer well-reasoned rebuttals to "that's just
> the way it is" statements. Granted, something may fundamentally just Be, but
> tell me why.
I can't speak for Chris, but I will point out that as a human invention
(and in the form we're discussing, a Modern Western Invention at that),
marriage does not determine the moral correctness of anything. That is, of
course, unless morality is a human invention, too, in which case something
is only "morally wrong" until we decide it isn't. If, on the other hand,
"morally wrong" is self-evident in the universe, then marriage still has
nothing to do with it because marriage is not self-evident in the universe.
From his prior postings I infer that Chris rejects--as I do--the notion that
morals are somehow assigned by a higher power. Therefore, morals are either
self-evident (in which case marriage--which is not self-evident--has no
bearing on them) or morals are an invention (in which case the rightness or
wrongness of extramarital sex is only as permanent as the morality du jour).
That's just the way it is.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Family values?
|
| (...) Current "Western" ([American, Western European, Canadian, Australian) as a functional (as opposed to formal) culture and economic region]) society may have it's own particular flavor, it's own particular "style" of marriage, but I think that (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Family values?
|
| (...) Why not? Bill gave reasons for why it is morally wrong - as a debate reader and sometime participant, I prefer well-reasoned rebuttals to "that's just the way it is" statements. Granted, something may fundamentally just Be, but tell me why. (...) (24 years ago, 4-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
48 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- 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
|
|
|
|
