What prompts you to “strive for the best quality of life” for someone you don’t know and will never meet?
1 Okay, now for the $64,000 question: Why? Why is striving for the highest quality of life for one’s self or others moral? How is this a basis? I have a reason for exploring this.
2 And as I said, I believe that data has already been compiled. I really ought to dig it up.
As I said: I mean you need data it in general. It’s NOT necessary to dig it up. I do NOT complain that you didn’t linked studies. I say: In GENERAL you need a tangible basis if you want to issue a law.
Which basis has this assumption?
Striving for the highest quality in the long term = Moral
Implicitly you supported this view – at least partially – when you said: Forbid porn because it leads to addiction, cheapening of sex and broken families. (I know you considered “god arguments” too but not only.) You said: Do some research. Find evidence that it causes psychological hurt.
On a more abstract level you said: Forbid porn because it leads to a decrease of quality of life.
You said: porn-prohibition is morally correct because porn-prohibition increase quality of life
of yourself or of other conscious beings in the long term.
It’s kind of axiomatic. What is moral good for? What is moral?
Moral is a set of behaviour guidelines. To what end?
To be able to practice good behaviour. But which behaviour is GOOD?
Behaviour is good, if it leads to an increase of wellbeing/quality of life/happiness… for one’s self or for other beings in the longterm. What else?
So, can you support the assumption:
Basis of moral is the endeavour to increase quality of life of yourself or of other conscious beings (long term)?
If not - Why?
I said: “The basis of every moral is the endeavour to increase quality of life of yourself or of other conscious beings in the long term.”
emphasis on “or” actually it is an “and/or”
So who decides what is the “highest quality”?
1 Oh, okay. But I could still stand to find the studies for reference.
2 Actually, I see those things as evidence of why God forbids such.
3 Not quality of life per se; but because porn promotes a lie that gets in the way of holiness, although I didn’t express that clearly.
4 But without a religious context, what constitutes “long-term?” Ten years? A hundred? A hundred trillion? Without the religious context, it all comes to nought when death of the individual, death of the human race, and death of the universe by entropy occur. That’s the ultimate long-term. If it all proves futile in the end, where’s the morality?
I don’t understand this.
Do you mean “as a reason why he forbids it” or “evidence (it indicates) that he forbids”?
Below the line – from your perspective – porn decreases quality of life. Below the line and in the long term. I think this is what you believe.
Yes, good question. From my perspective the latter.
Why should all prove futile in the end? What about life after death?
It is the quality experienced by the individuals (every conscious being).
In other words, everyone decides their own “highest quality.” That equals chaos.
1 A reason why (not the only one; and I imagine He has reasons aplenty that we know nothing of).
2 My turn not to be sure what you’re saying.
3 But a hundred trillion years is still finite; it comes to and end; and lives lived in those years and things done in them still come to naught without the religious context. Life after death requires that religious context; science hasn’t observed it.
4 But different individuals have different and often conflicting definitions of quality of life. If morality isn’t absolute and universal and only depends on the whim of the individual, what function does it serve? And for that matter, why should the quality of this life be paramount when life after death in the religious context isn’t finite or temporal?
O.K. So, would you say that even God uses the Moral-Axiom I proposed?
(He forbids precisely those things that lead to a low quality of life.)
As a reminder: Basis of every moral
is the endeavour to increase quality of life of yourself or of other conscious beings (long term).
When I say “quality of life in the long term” should be as high as possible, I do not refer to THIS life, but to this life (on earth) plus life after death.
But you have to find out IF the religious assertions are true, before you can build up laws upon them. If you would KNOW that porn leads to hellfire, I would be to first who would promote an anti-porn law.
We originally talked if government and religion should be separated. Your argument was: You need religion because you need something where moral can be derived from. I said: No, you don’t!
I said, there is a very plausible and axiomatic moral system which works without religion. And the core idea of this moral system is the following sentence:
Moral = endeavour to increase quality of life of beings in the long term.
Indeed I would say this isn’t just a good moral system but it’s the only valid. You yourself said that even God uses it.
So, do we need religion to found laws? My answer is: If we include quality of life in life after death in our calculation, we need to know the rules of the game of life after death.
Do you know them with certainty? Do the Jehovah know them with certainty? Does science know anything about it?
I don’t know – What would you say?
Why is that unfortunate? Why is that a bad thing? Free market capitalism is exactly this. Nothing is wrong with the chaos of individualism… When individuals harm the rights of others to do live life on his or her own terms, that’s when we should step in. Porn and prostitution should be legal among consenting adults, with the decisions of those involved judged by God. We should step in and stop human trafficking,. And as free individuals we also should be free to make whatever case we can against them. They certainly do have negative consequences.
I referred to Susanna’s second sentence. Chaos in sense of theft, murder…
I’m glad to hear this.
(I added if it turns out that pornography were as dangerous as heroin it would be different,
or would you legalize heroin? I wouldn’t)
1 I would be more inclined to say that God created it. Without God, there would be nothing, including the concept of quality of life. There’s something else here that’s bugging me about your argument, but I haven’t figured out what it is yet. I know that a good Christian apologist would identify it. I feel like I’m on a rabbit trail instead of the actual issue.
2 Men have made many laws on untrue assertions, but that’s a side issue. I don’t know that I can offer you any evidence that would satisfy you on the validity of religion in law.
3 Why must it be strictly a matter of avoiding hell? Why not just because the God who created us doesn’t want us to do it?
4 The obvious answer to me is one that you’ve expressed disinterest in accepting: The Bible. I said earlier that I wouldn’t attempt to convince you of the validity of the Bible. But I’m going to bend that a little and ask if you’d be interested in discussing your reasons. We could start another thread in the Faith and Beliefs forum.
5 I believe God knows everything, including quite a bit that we think we know. I don’t think that science can offer an objective basis for morality. Without a moral law giver, there’s too much lattitude as to what is good, or what qualifies as quality of life. And don’t even get me started on what happens when the lawyers get ahold of it…
I do not say that avoiding the (potential) hell is the only reason to avoid porn. It was just an example. I do not believe that hell is a coercive consequence of porn. But if you would enter hell, this would be a good example for something that would substantially decrease your quality of life (the basis of my axiomatic moral system). Wouldn’t it?
Since for religious people avoiding hell is the reason to avoid porn (beside other quality-of-life decreasing consequences like broken families), they are following – willful or not – exact yond axiomatic moral I outlined above.
I would say the axiomatic moral emerges as soon as conscious beings exist. Actually it doesn’t matter were the axiomatic moral comes from. The point is – and this was your original concern – that it is possible to create laws, order and moral beyond religion.
As a reminder
Axiomatic Moral says: Moral is what increases long-term quality of life.
Why not? Good is what increases long-term quality of life.
(These could be supernatural things too, e.g. heaven.)
If porn brings you to hell,
the axiomatic moral would say: Porn is immoral (hell = decrease of quality of life)
If porn leads to broken families,
the axiomatic moral would say: Porn is immoral (broken familily = decrease of quality of life)
If porn would have no negative consequences at all
the axiomatic moral would say: Porn is moral (because increase of quality of life, at least short-term)
I think the Bible is inspired by something higher – no doubt something supernatural. But as I said above, I don’t believe everything that’s written in the Bible and I don’t think that the Bible is the only sacred writing that contains truth.
We can, but: Why is it so important for you that everyone exactly believes what you believe?
So then then what the Donner party did way back when was “moral” because cannibalism allowed some of them to live a bit longer?
No, you are citing me out of context!
Read how I defined the axiomatic moral above.
Cannibalism significantly decrease quality of life of the eaten. So below the line it’s immoral.
Hold on there! The Donner party didn’t KILL others. They ate the bodies of those who’d died. Is it THEN “moral” to do so?
If it had no negative consequences for anyone: Yes.
Do you think that eating dead bodies would increase quality of life in the long term? Or why are you asking?