I think the discussion in the article of how to define perversion is interesting. Nowadays it is difficult to say that certain consensual sexual practices are morally wrong without being condemned as a bigot.
Nowadays it is difficult to say that certain consensual sexual practices are morally wrong without being condemned as a bigot.
That's probably good, because I'm finding it difficult to think of any consensual sexual practices that could feasibly be defined as "morally wrong" without the accuser being fairly described as a "bigot". I'd be interested to hear examples though.
Here's one: partaking in a pedo or Lolita fantasy. Doesn't sit right with most people, though that on its own doesn't make it immoral. One could argue that exploration of, say, violent or depraved acts as mere fantasy is apologist, increases risk of partakers trying to up the ante with non-consensual participants to get their rocks off, and is plainly psychologically unhealthy. Fantasizing about what is deemed "evil" is not immoral (we all have fantasized about inflicting violence) but what of habitually doing so to the point where it transforms us? May it be socially considered immoral to genuinely want to commit ill-will even if it isn't performed? Obviously actions are the only "actionable" thing as far as repercussions go, but our thinking changes us perpetually: it is in a sense an action, to choose ourselves. I believe we can choose to be exceptionally deviant, and can choose otherwise, and that the former could have negative consequences both for the self and society. In some capacity, this touches morality...
According to many religions, there are many kinds of consensual sex that are morally wrong. Is every person who believes in the teachings of such a religion a bigot?
Keep in mind that, outside of some contrived examples, beliefs themselves are rarely bigoted -- it's the reason why that belief is held that makes the determination.
For example, a coworker of mine is extremely against illegal immigration. Most people that don't know them assume that this belief stems from a hatred toward immigrants from certain 'undesirable' countries. But once you get to know them it turns out that it actually stems from a belief that the law should always be followed to a t -- they don't actually care one way or another about the issue itself, if the law said we had open borders then it would be no problem.
But we sort of run into a problem when people proxy their beliefs -- for my coworker it's the law, and for the religious it's their doctrine. Are people who subscribe to a belief system responsible for any or all of the intolerance that underpins it? Do people have a moral responsibility to audit their beliefs systems and look for intolerance? Do people have a moral responsibility to not follow an unjust law? Where you fall on these questions probably determines the answer to your question.
Here's an interesting thing I've seen from people making such claims. Yes they are bigots even if they say, "What you're doing is wrong, but I'll let you be (aside from denouncing the behavior)". This is actually not really bigoted by the definition "a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions." That's were this discourse is. If someone doesn't AGREE, they are bigots. Hell, tolerance just means putting up with their view. You can tolerate and still try to teach another path. Unfortunately for many on the Left, disagreeing and arguing against without seeking any force of law is the same as being a bigot.
Is that for using a personal moral definition of consent (even if it is quite a popular one) or using a scientific definition? I find most people will find scientifically consensual cases morally wrong when considering the edge cases (since the scientific tests for consent are not based on age and instead based on measuring ability, they are mostly developed for studying mentally disabled adults, but the finding apply regardless).
I suppose that gets more into agency? I would assume, barring a good reason, that in most conversations 'consent' would imply that the persons involved in fact had agency to give consent.
Nope. There is no such thing as morality apart from God. The universe doesn't care (it can't). All morality then is man made. To say something is morally wrong is to create an absolute. No one has the power to do so. The best you can say is that you think it's wrong, which means you don't feel something as positive.
On a fundamental level I agree with your point. Truly absolute morality implies some kind of external rule of law, which implies some kind of external lawmaker.
Where I disagree is this idea - whether you intended it or not - that non-absolute morality is somehow arbitrary, or worth less than absolute morality.
I don't agree with that: I believe that torturing someone is immoral because humans dislike being tortured (if you're in that 1% who doesn't mind torture, it's not immoral - torture away). You reduce that to "most humans don't feel positive about being tortured". But that's not a choice that 99% of humans made: it's a fact of human biology. Humans don't choose to feel pain when someone rips out their fingernails. You can say "disliking pain is arbitrary". It may be arbitrary in some sense, but not in the context of humanity, and we're all humans.
If you want to say that this kind of "moral thinking" isn't "true morality" because it's not absolute, fine. That's valid stance to take. But whether you call it morality or something else doesn't make it less valid or less useful. And to suggest that humans should not take our innate likes (warmth, safety, respect) and dislikes (pain, insecurity, lack of respect) into account when we interact with each other simply because human biology isn't "absolute" is - pardon me - fucking insane.
My issue is that people make absolutist arguments. They get high and mighty about something they think is True. They then attempt by force of law or culture to make others act within their world view.
Morality is nature-made, not God-made. All you need is empathy, and it turns out that mammals have empathy, and so do birds and others. The golden rule follows from empathy.
Natural Law is NOT a new idea, really. Nor is it foreign to religion! St. Thomas of Aquinas is the father of Natural Law -- almost a millenium ago now -- and a big deal in Christianity. Natural Law is a big deal in the Catholic Church, for example. One might say that St. Augustine vs. St. Aquinas is just a religious expression of the Plato vs. Aristotle.
You'll find plenty of well-read, well-educated, very religious people who take a Natural Law approach to morality and who would agree that what happens in private between consenting adults is almost entirely moral (with some limits, such as perhaps that giving one's life up consensually is not moral). (I myself am agnostic, but still, I take a Natural Law approach to morality.)
Of course, there are schools of thought that reject Natural Law, but you must at least acknowledge Natural Law as a concept. And you should at least accept that Natural Law works for others even if not for you. You have to co-exist with the rest of us.
(Us noticing that other animals have empathy is fairly new though, I think.)
I'm not sure I follow, though it seems we might agree?
You say something is wrong, I can say you saying that something is wrong is, in itself wrong. Ultimately, it either doesn't matter at all (we're all just talking), or enough other people agree with us that there is some social consequence.
It just means we're the arbiters of morality; it's a universalism that evolves. It's a social contract. There are some things that don't go right by people.
I strongly disagree. I am atheist but have no doubt that wantonly killing people (or for that matter, animals) is morally wrong. Empirically, I don't think atheists are much more likely than theists to commit crimes.
Why do you say it's wrong? Wantonly killing a rapist is wrong? Wantonly killing a person in direct competition to resources is wrong? How are you proving any of this? Nature doesn't show that. There are many species that survive using that exact technique.
You need to analyze your basis. It's probably something like, "I don't want to be killed, so I don't". That's fine, but why is that a good idea? Why is life good? Look around at the suffering. It could all be over tomorrow if everyone died. Honestly, atheists assume a moral view from theists. Stalin was right: kill your enemies is fine. You can't prove a moral absolute. You can only prove a feeling set that achieves an end you declare is right.
As to committing more crimes, of course not. Why would an atheist put themselves in harms way of the masses? They know that the masses will quickly end their lives for certain crimes. For other crimes, their lives are functionally ended due to incarceration. According to the rational atheist worldview, living is good. Living as free as possible is better. Therefore only commit the crimes you know you can probably get away with.
Ultimately, an atheist can no more say, in an absolute sense, that Joker is worse than Batman.
Yes. Ethics is nothing more than an arbitrary complex of rules which seek an arbitrary end. The degree to which the individual approximates the system defines how ethical they are.
That's probably good, because I'm finding it difficult to think of any consensual sexual practices that could feasibly be defined as "morally wrong" without the accuser being fairly described as a "bigot". I'd be interested to hear examples though.