I was just trying to keep it G-rated, ML. The PG-rated analogy is that someone may think that oral sex is moral and someone else may not, I'll leave it at that but you can see where I am going, I hope.

The point is that Harley does not attempt to tell you what is moral and what is not, his concepts are based on mutual needs meeting and enthusiastic agreement. Other people's morality should not affect the couple's actions. That is something that I really like about the Harley concepts, they are practical and universal, unlike Bible or similar teachings.

AGG

AGG,

Individual morality is a neat term. It assumes that we make our own rules. Every wayward would agree with that.
All of MB principles are based on Moral Law.
If there is no moral law than adultery would be okay because both sex partners agree to it

HDW, we've been around the block on this topic before of course. Tell you what, I'll be happy to live by your morals as soon as you agree to live by the Taliban's... Until then, let's not tell others what is moral for them...

As to your specific example, it is of course absurd, because the people having an affair are violating the vows they made to someone else, so they are indeed violating their morals. Had they agreed to an open marriage, then their behavior in fact would not have been immoral.

AGG

Uh-oh, I think I've seen this discussion before somewhere: the absolute vs. relative morality debate. As I remember, posters went round and round and didn't really settle anything.

Some believe in absolute morality where right and wrong are determined regardless of context. Others believe in relative morality where right and wrong are different for different people. I'm sure it goes deeper than that, but that's the starting point.

I don't think there's a simple answer here, and we might be headed towards another philosophical stalemate. Just wanted to point this out to avoid a potential impasse.

Yup, you are right . I actually don't feel like rehashing that all over again, so I think I'll sit out unless someone brings something new to the party, not the old "morality is absolute" line...

AGG

Just to clarify why I think this is an impossible situation to resolve:

Absolute moralists believe that relative moralists have re-defined absolute morality to suit their own humanity; therefore, relative moralists are wrong.

Relative moralists believe there is no absolute morality, and therefore absolute moralists are wrong.

How do you resolve the discrepancy between the two lines of thinking? I don't know, but I feel it deserves its own thread.

Morals are not a matter of taste like color or food preferences. Many of the things you cite are not moral issues at all,[holding hands] they are matters of taste and culture. Chopping someone's head off is not moral in any place in the universe, unless you are trying to say the Nazi's were justified in the mass murder of millions. We don't get to make up our own right and wrong. Wrong and right are universal principles or they are not principles at all.

We don't excuse the Nazi's mass murder by saying "morality is in the eye of the beholder." Just because a certain culture engages in evil does not make it right or moral..

Moral relativism sounds really cute and trendy on paper but it falls apart under very minor scrutiny. I have never met someone that truly believed that intellectually and morally bankrupt philosophy in practice.

People expect to be TREATED with moral absolutes when it comes to their best interest.

For example, if your banker stole all of your money, I seriously doubt you would accept being robbed by saying nonsense like "morality is in the eye of the beholder." Or if I pistol whipped you I seriously doubt you would say "morality is in the eye of the beholder."


Lets see if you say that if you are ever robbed.

P.s. a moral relativist cannot object to moral absolutism either because they forfeited that right when they asserted that "morality is in the eye of the beholder!" They have no grounds from which to object.

But there are women with a high SF need too, let's not forget.

I would find abstinence insanely difficult if I were in love. I think this is why some posters are asking for pragmatic reasons as to why they should abstain. Because they need reasons to do a difficult thing.

If you don't have religious moral convictions but want to be morally responsible in your relationship for yourself and for the other person, well you want the lowdown as to how it can possibly hurt you or the other person.

Abstaining is difficult for many people. Giving in to premarital sex doesn't feel like an investment or a sacrifice either for a great many people.

Both Markos and Melody Lane are making very good points as to the practicality of it, though.

It sounds very similar to the probems with living together before marriage though. Maybe just puts a renter relationship under too much confusion and strain and clouds the decision-making process.

An open marriage would not work, last or survive. And it would hurt people in spite of being honest.

One of the things that make MB so accessible is Dr H always focuses on cause and effect.

When explaining why pornography is wrong - he explains the contrast effect.

MB is quite scientific, focusing on the mechanics of our actions in that sense, as well as being based on scriptural values.

A beautiful combination.

But a robber would understand they were hurting someone, unless they were very mentally deficient.

Not everyone who is unmarried and having sex would consider they were doing something hurtful to their loved one, unless they had the facts as to why it is damaging.

But why? If morality is "in the eye of the beholder" then there is no universal standard at all, so "hurting someone" can't be a moral standard unless the robber decides it is so. According to the principle of moral relativism we all get to decide this on our own. The robber may have decided that robbing is a moral act. He may have decided that hurting people is a good thing. The MR has to accept this because he rejects any universal principle.


I don't understand your point. Can you be more specific?

Put another way, a moral relativist only believes in moral relativism when it is someone ELSE'S ox being gored. When it is their own, that trendy little philosophy goes right out the window!

I never said morality was in the eye of the beholder. What if the beholder is a thief, murderer or wayward?

I merely make the point that most moral laws are based on not hurting people. The commandments are all about respecting and loving your neighbour as yourself.

As do other cultures and most laws.

Even a four year old knows its bad to hurt others.




It is very clear why physical violence is harmful to others. It harms people physically.

It is not as clear why premarital sex is harmful. The harmful results are not obvious to two willing partners who are in love.

Which is why I think people are asking what those harmful results are likely to be.

And I agree. This is why I soundly reject the notion of "morality is in the eye of the beholder." A moral relativist rejects the presence of any such universal standard.

As far as premarital sex goes, what folks do is their own business. I don't care one way or the other. I have my perspective about it and others have theirs.

My only objection on this thread is the assertion that one has to have sex before marriage to determine compatibility. That is simply not true. Many people choose to wait until marriage and there are no reason not to.

But you just contradicted yourself. You told HDW what is "moral." If all morals are equal you are not in a position to lecture HDW or to condemn the Taliban. OR anyone else for that matter.

You forfeited that right when you said "morality is in the eye of the beholder." Does this principle not apply to HDW? Or to the Taliban?


That doesn't make any sense, though because you have just told us every person gets to choose their own morals. Their moral might be that it is ok to abandon vows made just yesterday.

The people having the affair are living by your standard that "morality is in the eyes of the beholder." [they even tell us this all the time] If standards are all based on individual choice, then every person is free to abandon or choose any standard at any time. You can't condemn any person for "violating their morals" when you have just asserted there is no absolute moral standard. You aren't being logically consistent.

Huh? Where exactly did I say that, or did you make that up?

AGG

I actually think that this is pretty close to my beliefs, you are correct.

I think that what I said is fairly simple English, I am not sure why it's causing so much comprehension trouble: One person's morals may not be another person's morals, pure and simple. I thought my examples of how different cultures have different sense of what is "universal" morality were simple enough, but apparently not. I get the impression that some folks here believe that only their morality is the universal set of principles, and that is their right. But I don't agree with their principles. I am more closely aligned with other principles which I deeply respect, though I don't try to impose them on others. Maybe I'll rot in he11, who knows . Or not.

AGG