Moderator: Moderators
Yes, in those cases where it is warranted, it is immoral. The morality is in a societies or individuals assessment of the activity.DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 20 by bluethread]
regards to accidental deaths sometimes we punish sometimes we don't a lot has to do with the context of the action.
The reason why not using a condom can be immoral while still being a mitigating factor is this. The intent, but this is also dependent on knowledge. If one knows whether or not an individual has an STD that is life threatening or debilitating and whether or not a pregnancy is wanted or alternative means of prevention have been established also are factors into the morality of the condom use. But generally speaking to knowingly not put on a condom is to increase the risk of you and the partner(s) involved hence the immorality of it.
Sure, not using a condom can be considered immoral, as can having multiple casual sexual partners. As you stated and I pointed out two pages ago, it is increased risk that establishes something as socially immoral, not intent.
Well, if one uses condoms while having casual sex with multiple partners, one is not taking every step to mitigate whatever harm and risk involved. The casual nature and multiple partners add risk.When one knows they can cause harm and does not take the proper precautions that is an negligent/intended action. These types of decisions are immoral. If one takes every step to mitigate whatever harm and risk involved then one is not making an immoral choice.
No you are arguing relative morality. We are not talking about having sex, we are talking about having casual sex with multiple partners. That is comparable to gathering hamburgers from various vendors in an unregulated country, and casually trading them with others. This is indeed immoral, because there is a risk of spreading e-coli and other things.There is a risk to nearly everything in life. From drinking water to sex to shaking hands. This does not make these actions immoral. If I were to sleep with 1000 women and did not produce a single unintended pregnancy or spread a single disease is it immoral? You are more likely to die from eating a hamburger than having sex. The immorality placed upon sex is ridiculous considering all the other more harmful things in this world that have actual intent to cause harm.
Let's compare apples to apples. Though not quite accurate, I will give you the swimming in a pool comparison as long as we are comparing swimming in ones own pool with having sex with one's own spouse, or swimming in a public pool with having sex in a highly regulated brothel. Casual sex is like swimming in whatever water hole one happens to pass. Even then in advanced societies, they post signs at the water holes that are unsafe, that indicates that those societies find that kind of swimming to be immoral. If we throw in wearing a condom, is that safer than using a full wetsuit when swimming, wearing rubber gloves while fist bumping, wearing a face mask while breathing, or taking care of the sick in a bio-suit? A soldier or cop who casually incarcerates or kills someone is also immoral, just look at the mess in Ferguson. Since, you asked me whether I make straw man arguments much, let me point out that the firefighter and giving birth examples are clearly straw man arguments. Firefighters do not engage in casual firefighting and I am not arguing that all sex is immoral. To your last point, some abortion advocates make that argument to support abortion on demand. I find it silly, but there are people who believe that bringing a pregnancy to term is immoral, if the child will not live what they consider to be a good life. So, in conclusion, when evaluating the morality of a given activity contributing factors are important. However, when one is speaking about a particular activity in general, it is not inappropriate to for society to establish general moral standards and the labeling of casual sex with multiple partners as immoral is not an unreasonable social standard, in general.If you are going to take the risk doctrine with regards to morality you have to show significant risk in the participation of the act when proper mitigating factors are applied. Other wise swimming in a pool is just as immoral as sex, eating sushi is just as immoral as sex, eating a hamburger is just as immoral as sex, shaking hands is just as immoral as sex, breathing is just as immoral as sex, taking care of the sick is just as immoral as sex, being a soldier is immoral, being a cop is immoral, being a fire fighter is immoral, giving birth to a child is 100% immoral as the child will die at some point in its life.
Just an observation that may help the conversation:originally you said 'drinking water is illegal' then later went on to add more. If you would have added the 'potable' description earlier, it might have saved some confussion and show more of an open character.Yes, indiscriminate breathing, drinking water and swimming are not only immoral, but they are illegal.
Drinking water is illegal???????? you are joking right I hope this is sarcasm.
No, it is immoral to drink water that is not potable. People who do so are subject to public derision.
Yes, and the repeated pattern of Daniel's posts is to add caveats to promiscuous sexual behavior to make it acceptable, ie condoms, full disclosure of one's medical condition, etc. The OP does not talk about promiscuous sex with disease free partners. Daniel has just focused on stating that promiscuous sex is not the proximate cause of sexually transmitted disease. In the same way, not paying attention to whether water is potable or not is not the proximate cause of water born illness.Wordleymaster1 wrote: [Replying to post 12 by bluethread]Just an observation that may help the conversation:originally you said 'drinking water is illegal' then later went on to add more. If you would have added the 'potable' description earlier, it might have saved some confussion and show more of an open character.Yes, indiscriminate breathing, drinking water and swimming are not only immoral, but they are illegal.
Drinking water is illegal???????? you are joking right I hope this is sarcasm.
No, it is immoral to drink water that is not potable. People who do so are subject to public derision.
So 2 wrongs make a right? Nice to know.Yes, and the repeated pattern of Daniel's posts is to add caveats to promiscuous sexual behavior to make it acceptable, ie condoms, full disclosure of one's medical condition, etc.
That is not what I said. He included drinking in a list of activities that are not considered immoral. I was pointing out that promiscuous is the significant term, by stating that, along with the other things on the list, drinking is also immoral, if it is done in a promiscuous fashion.Wordleymaster1 wrote: [Replying to post 24 by bluethread]
So 2 wrongs make a right? Nice to know.Yes, and the repeated pattern of Daniel's posts is to add caveats to promiscuous sexual behavior to make it acceptable, ie condoms, full disclosure of one's medical condition, etc.
That is not a caveat, that is an assertion, which we are testing in this discussion.DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 24 by bluethread]
Not really caveats:
A. I still maintain the act itself is not immoral
That is a caveat that was not in the original OP. The two caveats in the original OP were honesty and intent to do harm. Even those two limit the promiscuity, thus this thread is not talking about all promiscuity, but only honest promiscuity where there is no intent to do harm. Within that narrow definition of promiscuity, you wish now to narrow things even more to promiscuity that takes knowledge about safety and reproduction into account. Even, if one accepts this rather narrow view of promiscuity, one is left with determining what is sufficient safety and reproduction considerations, and how one would apply moral standards to such a complicated situation.B. The morality involved is the application of knowledge about safety and reproduction.
I have never contested that intent to cause harm is a factor.C. The intent of causing harm is also a factor.
So it is the intent that is immoral not the act itself
Another immoral action would be to disregard knowledge one posses about sexual reproduction and associated risks.
I did not say that an act devoid of associate risks and behaviors is immoral. I began this discussion by pointing out that morality is established based on the risks that a given activity poses to an individual or society. It is you who rejected risk as a determining factor in the establishment of a moral standard. Now, one can make an act devoid of associated behaviors, but one must be able to show how one can be sure that those associations are not present.You still have yet to show how the act itself devoid of associated risks and behaviors is immoral.
Not true, many consider handshakes to be immoral. That said, just because certain acts in general are not immoral does not mean that similar specific acts are moral. Mixing up a bottle or cup, when one is ill, is indeed an immoral act. I have addressed the handshake issue earlier. Fist bumps with a given number of people, while wearing a rubber glove is indeed less risky than having sex with the same number of people while wearing a condom. The potability of water is the one response your list of generally moral acts that has been latched on to. However, as I pointed out before, you have seriously limited the definition of promiscuity in at least four ways, honesty, intent to do harm, safety and reproduction considerations. When one applies these limitations to the other actions that you presented as moral, the comparison is not even close, promiscuous sexual behavior cares a much greater risk.All of these actions are not deemed immoral yet they carry the same if not greater risk factor. Your caveat about potability is the only true caveat discussed thus far. [/img]Further more this potable non-potable nonsense about water is baloney. Plenty of diseases are spread within potable water. Ever mix a bottle/cup of liquid up with a family member? Ever shared a drink with someone? Ever shake someones hand? ever touch a door knob.
It's not what you SAID but it's what you said IMPLIED. At least that's how it came across just so you can be awarebluethread wrote:That is not what I said. He included drinking in a list of activities that are not considered immoral. I was pointing out that promiscuous is the significant term, by stating that, along with the other things on the list, drinking is also immoral, if it is done in a promiscuous fashion.Wordleymaster1 wrote: [Replying to post 24 by bluethread]
So 2 wrongs make a right? Nice to know.Yes, and the repeated pattern of Daniel's posts is to add caveats to promiscuous sexual behavior to make it acceptable, ie condoms, full disclosure of one's medical condition, etc.
