Moderator: Moderators
I can understand this perfectly clear. The problem I have with the HIV/AIDS context is you are using an extreme and fallacious example to prove a point that is not relevant. There are ways to deal with HIV/AIDS aside from abstinence.In my view of morality not all immoral acts are equal and, risks to others and society are a consideration.
This is simply not true. I agree that you must consider your risk to others and society. It is interesting that you brought up Freddie Mercury. He had a very active sexual lifestyle until he was diagnosed with HIV. At which point he stopped being sexually active. He took his consideration of his potential risk to others and decided it was better not to expose another individual to the potential risk of transmitting the disease.It appears that in your version of morality neither of those are the case.
Drinking water is illegal???????? you are joking right I hope this is sarcasm.Yes, indiscriminate breathing, drinking water and swimming are not only immoral, but they are illegal.
not 1 definition there are 2 definitions there. I provided both to be as fair and open as I can be. You are right that one who is selective and discriminating in their behavior is less promiscuous in some sense of the word but that does not mean one is not promiscuous. I dare say aside from sex addicts we are all selective, attraction and arousal play huge roles in this.The operative terms with regard to the question at hand from the definition you presented below are undiscriminating or unselective. If one is mitigating ones behavior, one is not being as promiscuous.
Neither, 50% of all marriages in the US end in divorce(the majority of which are irreconcilable differences not adultery) The damage a divorce can wield upon a child is more significant the older the child is. That is just marriages let alone all of the other committed non-married relationships that exist.Which is less moral, risking condom failure in a committed relationship or a one night stand? A one night stand where one is honest about one's intentions, or sex in a relationship where ones intentions have been tested over time?
DanieltheDragon wrote: The risks of said behavior don't necessarily make it immoral.
For example sky diving is not an immoral act yet it carries a high health risk with it. More so than HIV.
Yes, sky diving without proper training and equipment is immoral. Promiscuous behavior is behavior that does not take into account relevant factors and risk to others and society are relevant factors.
You say that risk is not a factor in your morality. Let's keep that in mind as we move forward. Regarding the doctors treating ebola the personal risk of infection is countered by the reduction of risk to others and society involved in the research and comfort provided to others. Visiting people with ebola without such a countervailing social benefit and with the intent of returning to the general population is immoral. There are very few actions that are absolutely moral or immoral.To clarify so as to not play the guess my morality game I define morality as this
mo·ral·i·ty
məˈralətē,mô-/Submit
noun
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
That being said I do not include the potentialities of danger in a given behavior as part of the scope of morality.
A health risk related to a behavior is just that it is not good or bad in a moral sense it is simply a risk that one takes when performing a specific action. As I mentioned before one can practice safe consensual sex and greatly lower/eliminate their risk to a potentially life threatening disease.
I mean seriously is it immoral for doctors with out borders to treat patients with ebola? there is a HIGH risk for infection more so than HIV/AIDS.
It appears that you are not talking about being sexually promiscuous in general, but fornication, having multiple sexual partners without commitment. Those two concepts overlap, but are not necessarily the same. You appear to be arguing for responsible fornication.If you want to be morally promiscuous:
1. get tested regularly for std's so you are aware of your risk to others
2. practice safe sex(condoms can greatly eliminate dangerous STD's like HIV/AIDS)
3. use birth control devices(condoms, birth control pills, IUD, etc) you can virtually eliminate unwanted pregnancies.
You can remove STD's from the equation if you take the proper precautions to ones health and safety. The question really then becomes not the amount of sex one is having but whether or not as you put it consider the "risks to others and society are a consideration."
I would agree that knowingly and willingly transmitting an STD whether benign or not is immoral. However, we live in an age where we have the education and tools to reduce/eliminate the risk to others and society. The largest issue in this regard is those that don't practice the above.
Not according to the documentary I saw. However, that goes to the point. You appear to be saying that if he did not change his behavior that would be immoral.This is simply not true. I agree that you must consider your risk to others and society. It is interesting that you brought up Freddie Mercury. He had a very active sexual lifestyle until he was diagnosed with HIV. At which point he stopped being sexually active. He took his consideration of his potential risk to others and decided it was better not to expose another individual to the potential risk of transmitting the disease.
No, it is immoral to drink water that is not potable. People who do so are subject to public derision.Drinking water is illegal???????? you are joking right I hope this is sarcasm.Yes, indiscriminate breathing, drinking water and swimming are not only immoral, but they are illegal.
Again, you are narrowing the behavior of the fornicator and expanding the behavior of the married individual to make them more and more similar. Yes, if a fornicator acts exactly like an adulterer, they are both immoral. Also, if a fornicator provides for his sexual partners exactly like a polygamist, they are both just as moral in that regard.Neither, 50% of all marriages in the US end in divorce(the majority of which are irreconcilable differences not adultery) The damage a divorce can wield upon a child is more significant the older the child is. That is just marriages let alone all of the other committed non-married relationships that exist.Which is less moral, risking condom failure in a committed relationship or a one night stand? A one night stand where one is honest about one's intentions, or sex in a relationship where ones intentions have been tested over time?
So when you bring up the issue of having a child through condom failure which is less than 1% so we are not even talking about the majority in this case odds are the relationship is not likely to last whether it is committed or not. The important thing is how the adults involved handle the care of the child.
Also another important thing if the couple involved has a child through condom failure odds are they were trying to prevent a pregnancy from occurring as they were likely not emotionally or financially prepared. Clearly from your example all sex then should be immoral until one is financially and emotionally prepared to have a child. Given that only a tiny fraction of the worlds population fits this bill you are going to have a lot of sexually frustrated individuals in the world.
You are also forgetting an important point though. Using a backup method of contraception. i.e combining condoms and birth control.
If you are asking whether someone with a lifestyle that includes multiple sexual partners and one night stands could be considered moral, that is a much narrower question. Promiscuity has irresponsibility implicit in the definition.
Hold it. When I mentioned this in passing earlier, you said that was an invasion of privacy and immoral.Heck if I really wanted to be safe I would just ask any partners I decide to plan on having sex with have a recent STD test provided.
Seeing as many swinger clubs actually require this to participate. How are they being immoral? Whom are they harming?
Monogamy the majority of the time does not work when the life expectancy is 75+ people change its a fact. That is why you get irreconcilable differences. Casual sex is not for everyone. However, we as individuals should have that right to make that choice for ourselves. The immorality I see is one trying to force another to live their lifestyle. If monogamy is good for you great, if its not that's fine. I am not a promiscuous person, however I see no valid reason given the age we live in to limit and denounce those that wish to have a more open sexual lifestyle.
That is because you presume a myriad of caveats that may or may not be the case.
Yes, that is your moral standard. However, another person would say that intent means nothing and that it is the outcome that is important. Even if one does not intend on causing trouble, that does not mean that trouble can not occur. Is it still moral if one intends no harm, but harm occurs anyway? In short, it's all fun and games until someone gets hurt. That is the point of morality, to limit societal risk.So as to be clear
My opinion on the matter is that so long as you are conscientious of the risks involved and take care to limit/eliminate them so as not to harm yourself or others than you are acting in good moral accordance.
Thus it is not the frequency and range of ones sexual behaviors but the intent to do harm that is the immoral behavior.
Where do those principles come from? Who decides what is right and wrong and what criteria do they use?principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
The problem with that view is the intent of the negligent man. It was not the intent of either the instructor or the student in the negligent killing of the instructor with an AK-47 by the 12 year old student. Intent is a factor in morality, but only with regard to conscience. Societies establish things as moral and immoral based on the possible effects on those societies. Applying morality to intent, as Yeshua did with regard to HaTorah, is a fence designed to limit immorality to unintentional acts.DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 12 by bluethread]
Promiscuous sex can still be responsible sex. Given the first definition for the word 1.having or characterized by many transient sexual relationships. I can understand the immorality of it if we exclusively talk about the second definition in which an individual does not consider the impact of ones actions and just does what they want to do.
I think intent is a huge factor here. If the intent is to disregard the safety of others that is immoral.Very few things are exclusive to a particular behavior. It is not really valid to reject causation based on a lack of exclusivity. Regarding the novelty of HIV/AIDS, I was not limiting myself to that disease, before that there were other diseases related to sexual activity. One of the reasons for the moral limitations is related to the invasiveness of the act. The more invasive that act, the greater to threat to the individuals involved and society as a whole. Therefore, societies tend to place more moral restrictions on those behaviors.I don't like HIV arguments etc because it is not exclusive to promiscuous behavior. Nor for that matter is it limited to sex. Sex just happens to be the easiest means in coming into contact with an exchange of bodily fluids. Not to mention you are arguing extremes. Not typical encounters. HIV/AIDS is a relatively recent thing. Your argument is dependent on a set time frame. What happens when HIV/AIDS is cured? What happens when there is a vaccination? Then your argument using HIV/AIDS is irrelevant. Mind you these things will happen. Its not a matter of if but when.
Yes, we do disagree. I believe that morality is primarily related to actions and only secondarily related to intent. If intent is the primary factor in morality, what do see as the primary purpose of morality?I think intent is a much more important factor than risk.
Then it appears that you only believe morality covers intentional acts and not negligence, ie murder in immoral, but homicide is moral, because homicide does not require intent.To me it is not casual promiscuous sex it is the intent at which it is carried out that is the issue. In which case the act itself is not the immoral thing it is the decision to harm that is immoral.
negligence intent etc. are not the actions themselves they are the thought processes that lead to the actionsThe problem with that view is the intent of the negligent man. It was not the intent of either the instructor or the student in the negligent killing of the instructor with an AK-47 by the 12 year old student. Intent is a factor in morality, but only with regard to conscience. Societies establish things as moral and immoral based on the possible effects on those societies. Applying morality to intent, as Yeshua did with regard to HaTorah, is a fence designed to limit immorality to unintentional acts.
No you have not established causation. In fact you have repeatedly failed to do this and continue to assert that you have.It is not really valid to reject causation based on a lack of exclusivity.
Morality is a ruler that a society or an individual sets to determine the actions of individuals. That is the purpose of morality. It is a form of judging that we perform when we interact with other individuals., what do see as the primary purpose of morality?
Straw man much? Nice way to parse my words. I have been very specific.Then it appears that you only believe morality covers intentional acts and not negligence, ie murder in immoral, but homicide is moral, because homicide does not require intent
When talking about morals the only person that really needs to be concerned about what is or isn't moral is the person themselves. It doesn't matter what I think of your morals since I don't have to be responsible for them. It should only matter to you.DanieltheDragon wrote: It has repeatedly been pointed out to me while debating on this site that a part of moral decline is promiscuous sexual behavior?
I am really confused on how this is exactly morally bad
Question for debate is promiscuous sexual behavior morally bad?
I am not talking about someone cheating on someone that has more to do with lying than being promiscuous. If one is honest and does not have an intent to cause harm by their promiscuous sexual behavior how is it morally bad?
I couldn't agree more. It's not really my bi'ness who does what with who so long as it's not me (unless I want to of courseDanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 17 by Wordleymaster1]
That is a nice sentiment, however others do try to legislate and enforce their morals on others it does effect me and other people people. Sex education is an example of that. Abstinence only education is a scuorge.
In the US during Bush's abstinence only education system abortions were higher rates of std transmission were high and teen pregnancy was higher. I am not advocating everyone to go have casual sex. I am advocating like you pointed out that we need to say out of each other's personal business.
) No, with regard to morality in general, I understand that it is composed of folkways and morays established by groups and individuals to support social or individual world views. I also note that since we have yet to develop the ability to read peoples minds, societies can only establish morals based on actions or inferences from actions. Intent is one of those inferences. Actual intent can only be known by the individual.DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 15 by bluethread]
It appears that you see things in very stark black and white left and right views.
Here it is you who is apparently narrowing morality to thought processes. If that is the case there can be no social morality, because thought processes can not currently be read, but can only be inferred from actions. Two people can perform the exact same action, one with ill intent and the other with no ill intent, and there can be no way of differentiating one from the other. That is where the reasonable doubt defense comes from.negligence intent etc. are not the actions themselves they are the thought processes that lead to the actions
Sorry, my desire to get the point caused me to be less than accurate regarding the age and weapon type. That said, I acknowledge that the instructors negligent actions contributed to theThe recent shooting of an instructor by an 8 year old with an oozie is a good example of that. The actual shooting was not the immoral event. The immoral event was a lack of oversight at the gun range with regards to a child's ability to handle a particular weapon. The parents were led to believe that it would be safe so the parents can't be at fault. The trust was placed in the hands of the instructor to know about the weapons that were being handled. The instructors negligence to take into account the strength of the little girl and the recoil of the weapon led to his death.that resulted in his death.action
The social moral standard is not on the intent of the owner and instructor, it is on theIt was the responsibility of the owners of that gun range and the instructors to provide a safe environment. Through negligence there was an accident. The immorality involved was the negligence not the shooting.that are required. Their failure to follow those procedures does not change the immorality of that failure. It is less immoral than it would be if one could prove, through their actions that they did not intend on following those procedures. However, without actions, society can not hold them responsible for their intent.actions
As You say, these are moral obligations. However, you are now differentiating between an immoral act and a failure to meet a moral obligation. What is an immoral act, if not a failure to meet a moral obligation? What immoral acts are not obligations?So when looking at the intent involved
The girl: Shooting at a target
The parents: Providing a safe environment for a child to handle a weapon
The instructor: to provide that safe environment.
The instructor failed his moral obligation to provide a safe environment. I wouldn't necessarily call this immoral but a failure of moral obligation. The intent was not to cause harm but through negligence harm was caused.
As am I.I am very specific when I talk about morality and I am not a person who is going to lump everything that is gray into a black bucket.
Admittedly, sex with many casual partners is not the proximate cause of pregnancy and disease, but neither is failure to use a condom. They are both mitigating factors. Your conclusion does not follow. I have never suggested that sex is an immoral act. I said that sex without the presence of certain mitigating factors is immo0ral, as you have with regard to the use of condoms.No you have not established causation. In fact you have repeatedly failed to do this and continue to assert that you have.It is not really valid to reject causation based on a lack of exclusivity.
I reject it on several grounds
Sex does not cause a virus to manifest. It does not appear magically out of no where. Viruses and bacteria evolve and adapt to the environments in which they reside. HIV/AIDS used to reside in chimpanzees. Since chimpanzees share a strong genetic similarity to Humans it was able to latch on to a human(possibly as a result of poaching) at which point it adapted to the human body. Sex did not cause AIDS sex does not cause AIDS. That is an absurd claim to make.
Secondly and more importantly when we are talking about HIV/AIDS the immorality is not having sex with many casual partners. The immorality is not using condoms.
Therefore it is illogical to suggest that the sex is the immoral act.
Not using condoms immoral
Using condoms moral
1 & 2 are mitigating factors and 3 & 4 are intentions, the first can not assure no harm and that latter may fail to result in harm. If immorality is only applicable to a proximate cause, then none of the above has moral relevance. However, if mitigating factors and intent are contributors to the immorality of an act, then it is the risk of harm that establishes actual immorality. Therefore, avoiding sex with many casual partners and using a condom only speak to the extent of that risk, not whether that risk is or is not socially acceptable.Having sex with many partners can only be immoral under the following criterium
1. Lack of condoms
2. Lack of birth control when trying to prevent a pregnancy
3. Intent to cause emotional harm
4. Intent to cause physical harm
I am being specific in my criteria so you can understand my position.
Yes, it is an evaluation of actions. Intent is only established as part of that evaluation. Therefore, it is the nature of the action, not the intent that establishes it as moral or immoral. The intent is merely one of many factors used in evaluating the morality of a given act.Morality is a ruler that a society or an individual sets to determine the actions of individuals. That is the purpose of morality. It is a form of judging that we perform when we interact with other individuals., what do see as the primary purpose of morality?
As you say intent is a factor. This is progress. You believe it to be the primary factor. We may not punish them to the same extent, but as you imply, we do punish an accidental death. If it were not immoral, it would not be punished. I do not contest the existence of amoral acts and varying degrees of moral and immoral acts. I merely contend that they are acts and intent is generally only a factor in social morality when the act is successful. I the intended act does not occur or does not leave any physical evidence, it is not generally not judged immoral by society. It may be judged so by one's personal morality, but that puts us in a completely different context.Straw man much? Nice way to parse my words. I have been very specific.Then it appears that you only believe morality covers intentional acts and not negligence, ie murder in immoral, but homicide is moral, because homicide does not require intent
To me the main issue involved when determining whether an action is moral or immoral is intent. There are other mitigating factors but that is the primary one.
Homicide or the act of killing another human can be moral in some cases depending on your viewpoint. INTENT is very important. Accidents are not immoral in of themselves. We don't punish an intentional murder the same way we punish an accidental death do we? It appears you can't separate the to.
There are things that are not moral or immoral these things are amoral and there are varying degrees between them. Things are not black and white there is a whole spectrum of morality and varying degrees in between.
