Posts by peacefulpete

163

Moral absolutes

by Aztec in

i keep saying i am going to start a thread on this topic so here goes.... what, if anything, is always morally wrong?

murder, rape, incest?

how much do you think your belief, or lack thereof, in a higher power influences your opinion?.

Tex...Your conundrum is the result of the difficulty of labeling specific acts of behavior as all right or all wrong. A lot of this confusion is semantics but if we always ask WHY an action or inaction is helpful or harmless or hurtful,and this includes awareness of the sensitivities of others, we will always see clearer the course to take. Reborn's comment while provocative is not about right and wrong as you pointed out. His was a choice between wrongs. While the choice may have been the right one(debatable) the action forced upon the child continued to be wrong. Therfore the scenario does not illustrate a moral wrong becoming a moral right.

War similarly is harmful and therefore morally wrong but yet at times justifiable due to choices needing to be made. Harming can never be made right, it can only be made appropriate. Morally right behavior does not haunt us in our dreams.

As I said earlier, alot of this is semantics. If we always as "WHY do I feel this is wrong? What harm is coming from this?" before condemning another's actions as immoral we will likely find ourselves doing a lot less condemning.

163

Moral absolutes

by Aztec in

i keep saying i am going to start a thread on this topic so here goes.... what, if anything, is always morally wrong?

murder, rape, incest?

how much do you think your belief, or lack thereof, in a higher power influences your opinion?.

peacefulpete

I just want to separate my comments from those of reborn2002. While contextural ethics may be justification for a wrong to be commited it does not negate the wrong or make it helpful or harmless. The end does not justify the means. This one of the many ethical problems I have with human sacrifice as endorsed by the Bible. My stand does not involve convoluted situations that could conceivably relegate evil (ie. harm) done to an innocent. I am attempting to illustrate that "harm" is itself a measurable commodity, and as such it is the sole determinant of wrong. The child sex issue is naturally volatile. We all know the emotional damage done to a child forced to do what was not regarded as natural. We all know the pain of anal sex with small children. These indignaties and assaults upon the child are wrong, wrong absolutely. The question is left only to define the wrong. Was it in fact the contact of body parts or the assault and disregard for individual rights? These of course appear inseparable in any one instance, but as a matter of principle they are separate issues. For example. The same contact (fondling of genitals)may occur with the doctor after the assault experience without the obvious psychological impact or harm. Why? Of course if the child was violently forced or mentally coerced, this is an obvious distinction, but assuming this case did not involve these, why does the experience not similarly trigger psychological trauma or humiliation? Does not the social construct shape those reactions? Again that this is in fact an a causual factor for the harm does not negate the guilt of the offender not lessen the harm to the child.

I hoped to steer the conversation away from this example. I was not equating the sibling sex scenario to forced child abuse. The point was to illustrate the elusiveness of formulating legal absolutes. The only true absolutes are again (helpful,harmless, and harmful)it is up to a society to frame law that ensures the best odds of protecting from "harm" and promoting "help" while minding it's own buisiness with matters that are "harmless". And never did I feel you are being unreasonable.

16

What Is God's Real Name?

by Latin assassin from Manhattan in

if your name is mike, would you translate it to swahili, korean or russian?

american presidents never translate their names and they're the most powerful men on the planet.

is it possible that god's name is in fact, a hebrew name and that jws don't want to use this name because it will not bring in converts?

peacefulpete

An interesting translation of The Lord'sPrayer, "Let your name be taboo, let your theocracy come...." I often wondered why Jesus would have praised the name of God, yet address him as simply Father. This translation may be the answer. The author of the words shared the prevaling view of jews in the first century that the name was too holy to declare out loud. This was the position that existed since the 2nd century BC. Remember in the "Life of Brian" the old man being stoned for saying "jehovah"? This was a well researched movie on many counts. If in fact Jesus had gone around saying the Name of God he would have been charged with blaspheme. Altho the authors of the Jesus stories depicted the religious leaders as taking issue with his teaching never once was this charge raised.

22

all sex and nothing to show for it!!!!!!!!!!

by petespal2002 in

reading the thred on vasectomy got me musing; if we were put on earth to populate it, and given sex organs purely for this purpose, what about all the jw's who 'sacrifice' having a family so they can 'do more' in the service.

would it not be improper to use your sex organs purely for pleasure, or do they give up having sex as well?

peacefulpete

Actually until recent centuries the life expectancy was about the age the a woman ceased menstruating. Purpose? Sex feels good because those who enjoyed it did it more and their genes dominated. This selection process has accumulated till we have orgasms that blow the mind. Female orgasm is aparently a fairly recent evolutionary leap, a nice one.

163

Moral absolutes

by Aztec in

i keep saying i am going to start a thread on this topic so here goes.... what, if anything, is always morally wrong?

murder, rape, incest?

how much do you think your belief, or lack thereof, in a higher power influences your opinion?.

peacefulpete

Big Tex....I realize that you think me insensitive or just ignorant. If I could better convey my thoughts I am sure you would not find our positions so far apart. This choice of examples is perhaps too close to home or politically charged to serve as a test of absolute universal morality.

lets use a new one. Sex with a sibling. Lets say that a brother and sister go camping together and while alone they decide to experiment with sexual activity. Both are legal adults. Both are consensual. Birth control is used. After enjoying each others bodies they discuss their feelings. Both agree that it was pleasurable, but due to the public opinion they agree to keep it their secret and not risk doing it again. Did they do wrong? If you say yes explain why. This is a test of the moral ambiguity we all harbor. We instinctively feel disgust but can't really explain why. This demonstrates the loading of moral perception that our culture has implanted in us. This is not bad, just a reality. Other cultures have fewer taboos or none about sibling marriage. Lets run with this example for now if the topic still interests you.

163

Moral absolutes

by Aztec in

i keep saying i am going to start a thread on this topic so here goes.... what, if anything, is always morally wrong?

murder, rape, incest?

how much do you think your belief, or lack thereof, in a higher power influences your opinion?.

peacefulpete

Big Tex...I know this is not a topic easy to objectify. It repulses me as well when children or adults are "forced" to act in a way they recognise as wrong. I'm afraid that you have yet to catch my meaning. I have merely said that there is no genetic or congenital sense of harm associated with sexual behavior. Tho it is tempting to declare as much, the evidence from both biological and social sciences does not suport it. Does this legitamize the behavior in a culture that forbids it? No. Your commment seems to overlook my statement about the society's and child's approval and consent of the behavior. In Greece it was regarded an honor to have the affections of a rich or prestigious older man. Forcing anyone to do something of this nature is harming them it is true. But then we are not talking about sex with minors anymore, we are discussing granting personal dignity and respect for the rights of others. These priciples again return us to the universal and quantifiable concepts of ,"helpful,harmless,and harmful". In other words it is not the act of body parts touching that is objectionable, it is the humiliation, the fear, and the resultant loss of self respect that needs to be condemned. These are of course unlegislatable priciples. Each society then is compelled to frame into law prohibitions that regulate those acts which are deemed by that body as offending those fundemental principles. These laws result from the unique cultural sensitivities of that society. The shear preponderance of those sensitivities molds even the very young's opinion of behavior worthy of pride or shame. Shame is painful and can have far reaching consequencs. As I said earlier, and you agreed, a child that feels hurt is hurt.

163

Moral absolutes

by Aztec in

i keep saying i am going to start a thread on this topic so here goes.... what, if anything, is always morally wrong?

murder, rape, incest?

how much do you think your belief, or lack thereof, in a higher power influences your opinion?.

peacefulpete

Siegswife...Your comment is well expressed. The definition of "morals" inherently implies absolutes. The question really is one of universality of the standards. What is absolutely "wrong" in one culture is not so regarded in another. This does not necessarily mean that any one culture's opinion is better than another, it MAY be more informed, or it my be that the environment in which the culture evolved was different and therefore different standards worked for the betterment of the whole. Polygamy is considered both illeagal and a fundemental betrayal in our society, but as we know that in others it is not considered so by the men or women in other cultures. What is considered universally wrong is betrayal. What constitutes betrayal is each society's right to determine.

I was expecting fallout from my sex with minors comment. In my first post I made clear that a society's standards are real and effective methods of constraint. This means that to individuals within that system everything they feel or believe passes thru this lens. Feelings are real. Therefore a child that is feeling hurt is hurt. Due to the growing consensus about the undesirability of sex with minors, many have been tempted to attribute mysterious psychological certainty of harm to behavior that is ultimately entirely physical. The emotional and psychological loading of the behavior is again cast by the social norms of each culture. It is not up to individuals within that society to callously impugn or defy those conventions.
To do so would inevitably emotionally/psychologically "harm" others.

To compare my comment to that of an aberant counterculture is to miss th very point of my post.

TJ....you are wisely seeking to define terms like "murder" because that definiion is the very crux of the matter. Your definition is predjudicially loaded to match your sense of fairness and yet includes allowance for those culturally accepted occassions when killing is sanctioned.

Doesn't it simply all boil down to those universally recognised concepts of, "helpful, harmless, harmful"? As they say,the rest is commentary.

29

Who really writes the talks

by anglise in

hallo everyone.

the earlier thread about the min school reminded me of the number of times that i researched and at least partly put together items and pub talks for 'he must be obeyed'.. this was necessary because he worked full time in a demanding job which left very little leeway for cobbling the many assignments together.

at first being a good dub wife i felt guilty at doing this but in talking to others whose husbands also worked full time and were not part time cleaners or window cleaners i found that several other elders wives had always done this.. not only the talks but also sorting out the school assigments, the schedules, field service arrangements, sorting the auditing, coach and accomodation for the dc and ca, checking the accounts etc.. lots of these sisters also helped their children put together their items.. rather makes a mockery of the male privilege of "taking the lead".. most elders and ms are unable to cope with all the pressures and work if their wives dont do most for them.

peacefulpete

Mizpah..Really nothing significant has changed officially. Those sensitive to the direction from the WT have aways and still are the janitors and common laborers in the community. Here in the midwest U.S. we often shook our heads in judgement of those on the coasts who pursued an education or sought a "career" rather than a job. They were the weak materialistic ones surely reaping a bitter fruitage. Perhaps what is happening (altho I don't really see it here) is that more are choosing to listen discriminantly to the direction, clinging to a few sentences in the WT over the years about earning a "decent living" while dismissing the call for more pioneers.

163

Moral absolutes

by Aztec in

i keep saying i am going to start a thread on this topic so here goes.... what, if anything, is always morally wrong?

murder, rape, incest?

how much do you think your belief, or lack thereof, in a higher power influences your opinion?.

peacefulpete

Iraneus like many others confuse the absolutism of the scholastic terminology,"right and wrong" for the universally recognised and quantifiable concepts of, "helpful and hurtful". Declaring something "wrong" is often just an abbreviated convienience designed to preclude difficult discussion. Remember our parents used similar techniques. When we were not acting the way they desired us to, the reasoning was often limited to a simple, "NO" or "because I said so". Even as children we sensed that this was arbitrary and unsatisfying. It certainly did not broaden our understanding of the world.
This is what can happen in an unprepared society theatened by change and diversity. Narrow view fundementalism (not necessarily religious) becomes attractive for it's simplicity and mental abrogation.

18

Nazareth/Nazarite....answers?

by peacefulpete in

especially gumby may be interested in this bit of speculation i found on the net.

some time ago a thread was started that revealed that nazareth was founded as a village 100-300 years too late to have been the birthplace of jesus, so what is the explanation for the gospel story?

at www.essenes.crosswinds.net/naz01.htm a possible answer in offered.

peacefulpete

why are you stil here?