Welcome to Gaia! ::

eek I don't know what half of those terms in the poll are. [/ignorance]

But personally, I feel that morality isn't necessarily a self-creation. We'd all like to think it is, because it makes us, as human beings, feel more in control and more powerful. However, there is no possible way to deny the fact that a person's roots defines them and their moral decisions.

I mean, I'd like to be able to say that my decision to be straightedge (no smoking, drugs, alcohol, or sex) was born solely of my personality and my desire to be a strong, mature individual... but I'm well aware that the fact that my family members (including myself) are born-again Christians has had a strong influence on me. It also has slight Buddhist backing, as self-denial comes together for the greater good. Something along those lines.

That's just a personal example here.

Even if one chooses to have many promiscuous sexual relations, that moral decision is also influenced by the environment around the person. Maybe they're rebelling against a strict Christian family; maybe they're feeling the pressure to fit in; maybe they're doing it to gratify self.

I guess to wrap it all up, I think that as much as we'd like to deny it, our surrounding environment, culture, and roots define our morality just as much (if not more) our own personal choices and decisions.

Well, when I speak of culture and environment, I'm just referring to the general ideals of an area.

For example, here in the U.S., if a staid family were to pick to watch either a) an extremely violent movie, or b) a sexually explict movie, the family would most likely pick the violent movie. I know this from experience; I go to a church that's all born-again Christians. Most families there are extremely strict (mine's really, really lenient), and look down upon watching a sexual movie with innuendo and the like. However, the parents have allowed their kids to see rated R movies, that have been rated that way for violence and gore. This doesn't even pertain to Christians... in fact, much of the US is the same way.

To continue with my point, in western Europe, it's the opposite. Sexuality is a topic that is much more open, and violence and war are rather looked down upon. Families tend to be more casual about sex and stricter with violence.

Good point. xd Me = pwned.

Obviously biggrin

The question of "why do we seek what is right?" has been posed by philosophers since the beginnings of thought. It's quite a heavy one at that. It was first laid out in Plato's The Republic, in the form of a short parable known as "The Ring of Gyges". You might read up on it if you're interested. (It reminds me an awful lot of Lord of the Rings). Plato actually sets out an answer to this question in his writings, but I haven't ever had enough time to devote to reading and actually understanding it. rofl Someday perhaps...

As to the absolutes of morality, it all goes back to what theory you subcribe to. Kantian Theory uses the logical form of Reductio Ad Absurdum to prove that all immoral acts are "inherently illogical", which means that, once you run them through the argument form, the act you wish to commit, if immoral, will contradict itself. He also has 3 formulations of something he calls the Categorical Imperative, the first two formulations being the most well-known and usable. The first formulation states that we should act while thinking at the same time that our actions should become universal law. For example, If I were to steal something, I should believe that it should become a law that everyone should steal. However, if everyone should steal, then that which I have stolen will be stolen from me, since everyone's now stealing. I now end up with nothing, which makes the act of stealing illogical and thus immoral. Does that make any sense? The second formulation simply states that I should always treat myself and those around me as a means and an end, or simply as an end, but never as a means only. In other words, I should never do something to someone against their will or without taking their autonomy into consideration. Ever. Kant was a huge fan of autonomy.

Kant is the easiest to understand, because there's no gray area with him. He defines our moral obligations as "Categorical Oughts". These are things we must never do under any circumstances if we are to act morally, such as "Don't Cheat", "Don't Lie", "Don't Kill", things like this.

Now obviously, Kant is just one man with his own opinions. Who is he to tell us what's right or wrong? The fact that his entire view of morality is deeply rooted in basic logic does give him a lot of heft, but many people feel that ethics and morals are more complex than Kant's "Yes or No" formulations. In that case, pick your poison. There are many good, solid ethical theories to choose from. However, our best guess at determining what's really moral comes foward when areas of major theories overlap.

Perception does indeed play a large part in our quest for truth, should we decide to undertake it; but how large a role should it be granted? Personal history, state of mind, religion, relationships - such things define how we will experience any given situation. But does the world exist in spite of our ability to perceive it? Of course it does! The real kicker of being human is that we will always and forevermore be limited by our own understanding and perception. And that really sucks! crying

You and I may never agree on an issue's morality, or even how morality should be determined. Yet ultimately, raunchy porn is either morally permissible or it's not. Period.



My oh my, look how I've rambled on... rofl
If you actually read all of that, you're much more patient (and probably more bored) than I! heart

If I should(or ought to) watch porn, then everyone should(or ough to) watch porn. Yes. According to Kant.



Okay then. Lets run this scenario through the ol' reductio.

I should watch porn.
If I should watch porn, then everyone should watch porn.
If I should watch porn, and everyone should watch porn, then kids should watch porn.
Therefore, kids should watch porn.

This seems like a roundabout way to get there, but under Kantian Ethical Theory, allowing kids to watch porn would be morally permissible, according to the First Formulation.

This may disturb you. You may whole-heartedly believe that kids should never be allowed to watch porn under any circumstances. Think of the emotional damage such a thing could wreak upon young, developing minds! Sadly, this argument would fall under Consequentialism, which asks that we weigh the possible consequences of a given action against all other possible actions and choose that action which serves at least as well or better than all alternatives. You would have a point, were we discussing consequentialism. xd



If I should make porn, then everyone should make porn. The act doesn't contradict itself, and would seem to be perfectly moral. However, if we look to The Second Formulation, we may find some grounds for argument. In regards to an individual's autonomy (which is their rational ability to determine what is or is not in their best interest and their choice to act upon that information), there are certain populations, or groups of people, that are unable to "speak for themselves" as it were, such as unborn children, infants, and the mentally handicapped. There are also groups of people known as "protected populations" (this is mostly used in the field of human-based medical research, yet could be applied to any situation) which are protected under law because of the ease with which they might be coerced, such as children, prisoners, the impoverished, and pregnant women (especially impoverished pregnant women). The issue of coercion may be raised in the form of money for the poor, the threat of punishment for the prisoner, things like this. Using different forms of coercion, people may end up doing things they would normally never even consider. This would be a flagrant violation of their autonomy.

Because of these conditions, one would be walking a thin line in deciding to produce child porn. If the child is rational enough to decide that he or she wishes no part in the production, then forcing him or her to do so would be immoral. In a case where the child is too young to decide form himself, a legal guardian would have to be entrusted with the decision. If that guardian is in turn coerced by any means, then the act is again immoral. However, in a case where no coercion of any kind is found, and all parties enter willingly into the production, then it's perfectly fine. neutral



According to Kant, it's perfectly moral, so long as you avoid violating someone's autonomy to produce it or to watch it.



If I ought to do it, then everybody ought to do it. This is not the answer to the question of morality, but the premise that we set to derive morality from. That would be like me asking you "Hey Kj, what's the answer to 2+2?" and you responding "Well, you sexy sexy sexy man, the answer is 'now add them together' (instead of 4)" Do you understand the difference? Maybe that didn't make too much sense. meh...

So, if you're into Kant, then it's okay to be into porn.



heart

Beg pardon? Although a scrotum does lack vocal abilities, I can't see one having the intelligence to grasp the English language. Although I could quite possibly be wrong. Stephen Hawking's scrotum could be more intelligent than Bush. In fact I find it a likely scenario.

Personally I'm not a fan of monkeys, though. Although I do favour them in relation to Platyhelminthes, primarily the Cestoda class that live in the digestive tracts of vertebrates as adults and often in the bodies of various animals as juveniles.

Symptoms vary widely in the host, depending on the species causing the infection. Symptoms may include upper abdominal discomfort, diarrhea, and loss of appetite. However, infestations are usually asymptomatic. Worm segments or eggs may be found in the stool of an infected.

The largest tapeworms can be 80 feet or longer. Tapeworms harm their host by stealing vital nutrients, causing malnutrition and if left untreated can cause intestinal blockages.

There are two subclasses in class Cestoda, the Cestodaria and the Eucestoda. By far the most common and widespread are the Eucestoda, with only a few species of unusual worms in subclass Cestodaria. The cyclophyllideans are of the most importance to humans because they infect people and livestock. Two important tapeworms are the pork tapeworm, Taenia solium, and the beef tapeworm, T. saginata. Different types of tapeworms have radically different larval stages, which cover two completely different lines of conversation in their own right, which I won't go into detail about.