Fornication. What really is the problem with it?

[OnceConvinced]

In another thread I was talking about sexual urges and how our inherent human nature kicks in when it comes to sex. Automatically the Christian I was debating with assumed I was talking about some form of infidelity and that infidelity had serious consequences. I agreed. However fornication is far more than just adultry. Fornication includes any type of pre-marital sex too.

So if two consenting, SINGLE adults decide ot have premarital sex and they use protection, what really is the problem with it? Why is it so wrong and what are the ramifications. And please don't bother with the answer "Because God says it's wrong". Let's try to apply some reasoning and logic to this.

Why is it so sinful?

What are the ramifications of doing it?

If there are ramifications just how serious are they and how likely are they to occur?

[Defender of Truth]

It is wrong because a test is to determine one's knowledge on something or whether one can be entrusted with certain tasks. If one cheats, then they may be entrusted to perform tasks which they do not have the ability to do. This could have serious ramifications.

Not only that but the person who cheated gains benefits that they don't deserve, while others who work hard and fail get nothing. It's all about being fair to everyone and ensuring that everyone gets the same opportunities. A cheat wishes to find away around this and get something for nothing.

It's all about being fair to everyone? Why? You're saying you can't cheat because that's unfair. Why should I be fair? If I can get an A without having to work at it, I should be proud of myself. I should become a politician!

As far as the "serious ramifications" are concerned, you're not saying cheating is "wrong", you're saying cheating is "dangerous". There's a big dif.

Of course I don't advocate this view, I'm just pointing out that "you shouldn't cheat because it's unfair to the other classmates" seems to me as absolutely absurd (absolutely no offense intended). If you accept unconvincing evidence for the argument that cheating is wrong, then why can't you accept unconvincing evidence that premarital sex is wrong?

[McCulloch]

It's all about being fair to everyone? Why? You're saying you can't cheat because that's unfair. Why should I be fair? If I can get an A without having to work at it, I should be proud of myself. I should become a politician!

We don't need God or religion to teach that fairness is a good thing. Most of us figure it out in early childhood. Humans are a social animal. The concept of fairness is a social glue that keeps our communities together.

[justifyothers]

In another thread I was talking about sexual urges and how our inherent human nature kicks in when it comes to sex. Automatically the Christian I was debating with assumed I was talking about some form of infidelity and that infidelity had serious consequences. I agreed. However fornication is far more than just adultry. Fornication includes any type of pre-marital sex too.

So if two consenting, SINGLE adults decide ot have premarital sex and they use protection, what really is the problem with it? Why is it so wrong and what are the ramifications. And please don't bother with the answer "Because God says it's wrong". Let's try to apply some reasoning and logic to this.

Why is it so sinful?

What are the ramifications of doing it?

If there are ramifications just how serious are they and how likely are they to occur?

Well, since I'm the 'christian' that the 'atheist' speaks of in the OP - I guess I'll chime in.....

I'm not so positive that it is sinful. BUT, I think it is the intent behind the act that is important. Sharing loving times with someone can be beautiful. Does a document say this for us - or is it the love between the two involved that say this?

We all know 'religious' people who waited for sex, got their paperwork in order first. Many (half??) are divorced now - gone on to re-marry. Does this make their past marital sex acceptable? What if they are married again? Again? Again?

I think it is our intent that matters. Do we intend to 'use' somebody? Are we 'using' them if they are willing? Sometimes.

It seems like IDEALLY, it would be great to know somebody first, become best friends, get married, enjoy a long married life of blissful sex and happiness. But, we all know that the IDEAL is not always available. So, I think if we are trying to do what we think is right, it is the best we can do. IOW, I think our intent may be more important to God. Just my guess, though.

Having said that, I think we can all agree on the opposite situation - mulitple partners forever can't really be great. It can lead to unwanted children, abortions, spread of sexually transmitted disease, and may be a symptom of a harmful emotional issue...

[Defender of Truth]

We don't need God or religion to teach that fairness is a good thing. Most of us figure it out in early childhood. Humans are a social animal. The concept of fairness is a social glue that keeps our communities together

I concluded from my survey on the streets of Philadelphia that most all people believe that "fairness" is right. "Unfairness" is wrong. However, I have yet to find an answer as to the "why" it's wrong. They say it's unjust, all that, but that is not an adequate response, it's more of a "begging the question" response.

You say most of us figure it out in early childhood. "It" is referring to "fairness" being a good thing. "To figure" means "to conclude". So basically you concluded that fairness is wrong. I already knew that. We're back to square one. Why did you conclude that fairness is good?

concept of fairness is a social glue that keeps our communities together

Granted, but if someone didn't care for our communities and decided to cheat on a test and was willing to accept any "ramifications" for his actions, he didn't do anything "wrong". Yes, there were consequences, but he thought it was worth it and he willingly traded the consequences for the A. How did he do something wrong?


Please keep in mind that I do not advocate this view. I'm trying to decide how OnceConvinced concludes that anything is wrong outside of God. He says we can't use God to say premarital sex is wrong, but if we can't use God, how can we decide if anything is wrong? So I selected cheating as an example, and I'm still waiting for a reply.

[McCulloch]

We don't need God or religion to teach that fairness is a good thing. Most of us figure it out in early childhood. Humans are a social animal. The concept of fairness is a social glue that keeps our communities together.

I concluded from my survey on the streets of Philadelphia that most all people believe that "fairness" is right. "Unfairness" is wrong.

I think that you would find a lot of support for the concept of fairness in the streets of Philadelphia. Every hood and crook justifies to himself his own actions based on a perception of an unfairness in his own situation.

However, I have yet to find an answer as to the "why" it's wrong. They say it's unjust, all that, but that is not an adequate response, it's more of a "begging the question" response.

As is the answer that it is unfairness is bad simply because God has said it, as was pointed out by Plato 24 centuries ago.

You say most of us figure it out in early childhood. "It" is referring to "fairness" being a good thing. "To figure" means "to conclude". So basically you concluded that fairness is wrong. I already knew that. We're back to square one. Why did you conclude that fairness is good?

I don't know. Do you? I concluded long before I even thought about God that fairness is good. I concluded it even before I thought about society. From where I sit, it looks as if the concept of fairness must be genetic, somewhat like our innate ability to learn and comprehend language. Our various moral codes are all based on the principles of fairness, empathy and loyalty. These three principles seem fundamental to human ethical systems, just as verbs, nouns and modifiers seem fundamental to human languages. Our inherent feeling that unfairness is wrong has contributed to our success as a species.

[Defender of Truth]

I think that you would find a lot of support for the concept of fairness in the streets of Philadelphia

You are correct.

However, I have yet to find an answer as to the "why" it's wrong. They say it's unjust, all that, but that is not an adequate response, it's more of a "begging the question" response.

As is the answer that it is unfairness is bad simply because God has said it, as was pointed out by Plato 24 centuries ago.

Ahhh... The Euthyphro dilemma. I would be happy to discuss this. However, right now I'm not even claiming that God is the standard of morality, I'm trying to determine what you say is the standard of morality.

But again, how in the world is it "begging the question"?

I don't know. Do you? I concluded long before I even thought about God that fairness is good. I concluded it even before I thought about society. From where I sit, it looks as if the concept of fairness must be genetic, somewhat like our innate ability to learn and comprehend language. Our various moral codes are all based on the principles of fairness, empathy and loyalty. These three principles seem fundamental to human ethical systems, just as verbs, nouns and modifiers seem fundamental to human languages. Our inherent feeling that unfairness is wrong has contributed to our success as a species.

Don't you see? That's my point exactly! If the concept of fairness is genetic, then we only feel likes it's wrong, because if we don't feel this way then the human race will die off (according to the theory). But my point is that (according to the theory) cheating isn't wrong! It just feels wrong because evolution put the feeling in our genes. But it doesn't extend past that. Evolution didn't create a standard of morality, it merely created a feeling that something was wrong. So I can cheat and feel like I did something wrong, but in the large scope of the universe and reality I did nothing wrong. That is, of course, according to the theory.

I mentioned this before in a different thread. What if aliens from outerspace *ohhhahhhohhhh* came to earth. They had a different biological evolution (for instance, they reproduce very fast so even if they kill one another and cheat on tests, they'll still survive) so they don't have this feeling that cheating is wrong. Would it be wrong for them to cheat? Not at all! You see, we only feel that it's wrong, because of our biological history, but it's not really wrong.

By the way, would you say that the concept of fairness being good is more of a feeling then a conclusion? Because if you "figured" it out at a young age as you said, then it means you looked at the evidence, and made a reasonable conclusion that fairness is "wrong". Now it looks like your saying it's just a feeling, and it's not really wrong!

[McCulloch]

If the concept of fairness is genetic, then we only feel likes it's wrong, because if we don't feel this way then the human race will die off (according to the theory). But my point is that (according to the theory) cheating isn't wrong! It just feels wrong because evolution put the feeling in our genes. But it doesn't extend past that. Evolution didn't create a standard of morality, it merely created a feeling that something was wrong. So I can cheat and feel like I did something wrong, but in the large scope of the universe and reality I did nothing wrong. That is, of course, according to the theory.

In the large scope of the universe, we'll all be dead, our planet burned to a crisp when our star goes supernova, so yes, it will not matter at all if you or I sin.

Maybe I am amoral, but I don't see the difference between something that feels wrong because it is bad for the survival of our species and something actually being wrong, whatever that means.

I mentioned this before in a different thread. What if aliens from outerspace *ohhhahhhohhhh* came to earth. They had a different biological evolution (for instance, they reproduce very fast so even if they kill one another and cheat on tests, they'll still survive) so they don't have this feeling that cheating is wrong. Would it be wrong for them to cheat? Not at all! You see, we only feel that it's wrong, because of our biological history, but it's not really wrong.

Yes, and your point? Rape is wrong for humans. However it seems to be the norm for cats.

By the way, would you say that the concept of fairness being good is more of a feeling then a conclusion? Because if you "figured" it out at a young age as you said, then it means you looked at the evidence, and made a reasonable conclusion that fairness is "wrong". Now it looks like your saying it's just a feeling, and it's not really wrong!

I guess that I may have used the expression figured out somewhat metaphorically. The very young do not often form values based on evidence. That kind of thinking comes later. Morality is relative. From a human perspective it would be wrong to eliminate all humans from the earth, but from the perspective of the Siberian Tigers or the Lowland Gorillas it would seem to be a good course of action.

[Defender of Truth]

In the large scope of the universe, we'll all be dead, our planet burned to a crisp when our star goes supernova, so yes, it will not matter at all if you or I sin.

But what is one tiny tiny planet compared to the universe? And not only that, but I didn't even sin, I only felt like I sinned. If I'm willing to accept the consequences of extinction (which I doubt would happen if I cheated on a test) , then I didn't sin. It appears as if you're making the standard of morality the consequences of the act.

I'm drawing that conclusion from various statements made, including this

I don't see the difference between something that feels wrong because it is bad for the survival of our species and something actually being wrong,

You're saying that if the consequences are bad (if the consequence is bad for the survival of our species) then it's wrong.

What are the consequences of cheating? xyz. Therefore, cheating's wrong. Regardless of what happens, regardless of whether the planet goes supernova, regardless of whether or not I get an A when I should have gotten a B, is cheating wrong? What if I rape someone but in the end they like it and we get married. Was I wrong? I still forced her to have sexual intercourse with me against her will, it's just that when all was said and done she liked it. If you say that I'm not wrong, does this mean that you think the standard of morality is the consequences of our actions?

If it's true that you believe the standard of morality is the consequences of our actions, then this could be said of cheating: If you cheat on a test but get caught, you didn't do anything wrong.

If you rob a bank but get caught and the money is returned then you did nothing wrong.

If you commit adultery but everyone in the community is fine with it, then you did nothing wrong.

If you murder someone but then have a baby and everyone's okay with it then you did nothing wrong.

You see? If the undesired consequences are what make an action wrong, then as soon as you're willing to accept those consequences and you'd rather accept the consequences and do the action then have neither, you've done nothing wrong!

Besides the above, I'd like to ask a question (and I admit this is a long rant if after all you don't believe the standard of morality is consequences). How would you go about proving this as the standard of morality? If I disagree, how can you impose your standard as truth, what evidence would you give that I'm wrong?[/quote]

[McCulloch]

It appears as if you're making the standard of morality the consequences of the act.

What other standard could there be? Theists standards of morality is that as a consequence of an act, God is angry, disappointed or otherwise unapproving.

You're saying that if the consequences are bad (if the consequence is bad for the survival of our species) then it's wrong.

Yes. But not just the consequences of a single act, but the consequences of a pattern of action. If I cheat on a test, the consequences may not be so bad. But if cheating is generally acceptable, then the value of testing has been destroyed. If I steal software and use it, the consequences are negligible. If it becomes generally acceptable that all software can be freely copied, a whole industry would crumble.

What if I rape someone but in the end they like it and we get married. Was I wrong? I still forced her to have sexual intercourse with me against her will, it's just that when all was said and done she liked it. If you say that I'm not wrong, does this mean that you think the standard of morality is the consequences of our actions?

If you had a reasonable expectation that she would like it, then it would not be rape. If not, then at the time you commit the act, you are intending to do wrong. The fact that it turned out ok is incidental.

If you commit adultery but everyone in the community is fine with it, then you did nothing wrong.

Yes. If everyone in the community includes your current partner and your paramour.

How would you go about proving this as the standard of morality? If I disagree, how can you impose your standard as truth, what evidence would you give that I'm wrong?

Individuals do not create standards of morality. Societies collectively create standards of morality. There are common patterns to those standards of morality, empathy, loyalty and fairness, just as there are common patterns in our languages. I cannot invent my own language and expect to communicate. Neither can I invent my own standard of morality and expect to be accepted in my community. Apart from human society, morality is meaningless. If we were solitary creatures, like tigers, then killing our own kind would not be immoral. We are a social species. We cannot survive without the smooth functioning of our societies.

[Defender of Truth]

I think you're missing one of my main points. The point is that according to your theory cheating is not wrong, but feels wrong. It feels wrong because the feeling evolved into our genes so we could survive. However, if I don't care if we survive or not, and I'm willing to suffer the consequences of cheating on a test, it's not wrong. I only feel wrong because of my genes. That would make cheating on a test okay as long as you're willing to accept the consequences.