Who Is A Threat To Society?

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

every society is different with morality so if my society says x and another society says Y who is correct? neither right? because every society is entitled to their morality that fits them. This means there is not universal standard correct? or is reducing harm the universal standard for mortality if this is the case and Christians around the world are causing harm should they be put in prisons to reduce harm as to follow this new universal standard?

[Thurisaz]

Shooting from the hip: If someone causes harm to another without a damn good objective justification for it, that's immoral. Or better, unethical.

[amateur]

Is this confusing morality with laws?  If I have sex with two men in one night in my house, it's not illegal.  If I have sex in the park (on a picnic bench, at noon) with those same two guys then we'll be arrested for "public indecency" and I'm sure a couple other charges.  In the first instance, it would only be considered immoral in the society if people knew we had sex AND if consensual sex among unmarried people was considered immoral in that society.  In the second instance, in the park at noon it would be immoral in most societies, as society would not just know it happened but could see it, and also children could witness it which adds another level of immorality AND illegality.

 

So if the harm that xians are causing is breaking laws, then it's illegal in the way the public sex act was.  The sex act itself, or the xianity itself, is not illegal, it's either the location of the event or an actual act that xianity made happen (say if a xian decided to publically stone an adulterer at that park at noon).  Xianity would not be on trial, but murder would be.

 

Just as I would be appalled if anybody who had "immoral" sex privately in their home was imprisoned, so would I be if xians were randomly imprisoned.  I would, however, be relieved if a person having sex at noon at the park on a picnic bench was put in jail, as I would be if a xian who stoned to death someone in the park was imprisoned.  

 

Now the subject of morality and "social punishment" is different altogether.  If people who engaged in immoral sex acts, according to that society, were shunned by society, then that's the way it is in that society.  The individual who engages in those acts can choose to either cease the activity, attempt to hide it better, move from the society, try to change the morality of the society, or accept the shunning and possibly not even care about it or even revel in it.  If someone living in an atheistic society was caught practicing any religion and was shunned by society for it, then that's the way it is in that society.  The religious person would have the same options as the sexual person in the previous example.

 

I would defend either person -- the sex person or the religious person -- if they were arrested for engaging in their activity in private and causing no physical harm or emotional harm (forcing children to witness a sex act)  to others.

 

That's how I see it.

 

If other people want to get into "religious abuse" of children, they can, but I'm not.  I think it's wrong, but it gets too nebulous and unless you can prove physical harm or abuse (physically beating a child, withholding medication, locking a child in a closet for days as punishment) which is illegal, it gets too difficult to legislate morality.  "Terrifying a child with hell" is morally wrong, in my opinion, but it would be hard to prove abuse.  

[LivingLife]

They think they have the moral high ground but in reality, it is set by the society they live in. A black guy I sometimes work with, is xian and he has 2 wives in separate towns. He has no issue at all with it. Polygamy in their culture is accepted. I do not understand the details of 1st wife and all the shedangles but he lives with his first wife and the other one he visits.

 

And of course the bible suggests bonking your sister in law if she is childless and your brother dies. Try that in the USA or even here amongst white folk and plead the bible.

[amateur]

Specific morality and laws are applicable only to each society they apply to.

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

so as long as a particular society allows it they have every right not matter what? if Christians in a society could make fun of gays and thank God for dead soliders this is okay as long as that society said it was? thats their objective societal rules? if a society is accumulated of subjective beings how did they come up with a objective society moral that is accepted or not accepted to everyone? there is no universal society that governs the little society?

 

 

A newcomer who just stepped into a new society from another how do they go about finding the moral rules in a book or is a there a digital database for them to read and get caught up or do they ask around like hey man whats the morals in this society? do they use what they learned from another society and apply it to this new one? if they conflict they could be breaking morals in that society without realizing it. Now finding legitimate laws within a society is different from finding whats morally acceptable in a society but how does one find out? they can use their human heart of inherent ability to discern what they are but if its their first day in society x how long will it take them to learn these moral codes? who set the standard in that society what is objectivly justified in the first place? is it begging the question if society dictates what is right or wrong if what is right or wrong is what society dictates?

[amateur]

In America, the Westboro Baptist Church is cruel to gays and pickets funerals of gay soldiers, and that is legally ok.  It's morally accepted in Westboro Baptist Church, and is generally not morally accepted by the public.  No universal society governs either the Westernbor BC AND the general pubic opinion.

 

Discovering the morality of any society for a newcomer is like anything a newcomer does.  You do what you think is right, and when you do something inadvertently wrong, you are either told outright or through body language or stage whispering that you have screwed up.  As a young protestant teenager, I took communion in a catholic church once, the first time I was ever in a catholic church, then found out it was wrong for me to have done it.  I learned.  Even in something as small as marrying into a family, you quickly learn what the unspoken rules are, what you can or cannot joke about, and other ways to fit in.  Generally, the way you learn is by trial and error, and by getting embarrassed at the huge faux pas you made.  

 

I don't think that "all of America" (or any other huge group of people) has one universal moral law.  What's morally ok in downtown Manhattan may be severely frowned on in rural Arkansas.  What's ok in Westboro BC is generally not ok for most people in general.

 

When morality tends to be more universally recognized -- for instance, walking up to a random person at your work and killing them -- it turns into law.  The law exists to protect individuals and their property, not to punish a protestant from taking catholic communion.

[Bhim]

every society is different with morality so if my society says x and another society says Y who is correct? neither right? because every society is entitled to their morality that fits them. This means there is not universal standard correct? or is reducing harm the universal standard for mortality if this is the case and Christians around the world are causing harm should they be put in prisons to reduce harm as to follow this new universal standard?

 

I believe in God, but not in Jesus.  Thus I think I have a basis for objective morality that you could happily accept.  Furthermore I do believe that Christians, evangelical Christians in particular, cause harm by proselytizing and robbing people from other religions of their very cultures.  The doctrine of eternal conscious torment in hell is abominable, and is most certainly harmful by any standard of morality but for the Christian one.

 

Your hypothetical proposition of putting people of your own religion in prison is extreme, and you of course chose this example to create a false choice between absolute Christian freedom and restrictions on what you are allowed to do.  I would, however, fully support countries who wish to deport foreign missionaries who attempt to convert others to Christianity.

[midniterider]

every society is different with morality so if my society says x and another society says Y who is correct? neither right? because every society is entitled to their morality that fits them. This means there is not universal standard correct? or is reducing harm the universal standard for mortality if this is the case and Christians around the world are causing harm should they be put in prisons to reduce harm as to follow this new universal standard?

 

Depends on the harm they are causing whether they should be put in prisons or not. If I'm allowed free speech, Christians are allowed free speech. If they attempt to control my behavior or thoughts via legislation solely because the bible says their god don't like something, then they should be silenced by voting against them. If Christians picket military funerals then they should accidently on purpose get their asses kicked so they are afraid to exhibit that type of asshole behavior in the future. Should we allow Christians to instill fear of Satan or fear of God and fear of hell into their children? Good question. Society will never be perfect and never be able to solve every problem. We can be activists about some things and other things we just have to deal with.

[RipVanWinkle]

1AcceptingAtheist: Your being way too simplistic. What someone should be put in jail for needs to be

spelled out clearly in advance. It's called civilization. bill

[ExCBooster]

so as long as a particular society allows it they have every right not matter what? if Christians in a society could make fun of gays and thank God for dead soliders this is okay as long as that society said it was? thats their objective societal rules? if a society is accumulated of subjective beings how did they come up with a objective society moral that is accepted or not accepted to everyone? there is no universal society that governs the little society?

 

 

A newcomer who just stepped into a new society from another how do they go about finding the moral rules in a book or is a there a digital database for them to read and get caught up or do they ask around like hey man whats the morals in this society? do they use what they learned from another society and apply it to this new one? if they conflict they could be breaking morals in that society without realizing it. Now finding legitimate laws within a society is different from finding whats morally acceptable in a society but how does one find out? they can use their human heart of inherent ability to discern what they are but if its their first day in society x how long will it take them to learn these moral codes? who set the standard in that society what is objectivly justified in the first place? is it begging the question if society dictates what is right or wrong if what is right or wrong is what society dictates?

Actually, some very interesting patterns come up, even between cultures. Compassion and reciprocity, for example, are found everywhere. Even in other animals. Social creatures, like spotted hyenas, social wasps, naked mole rats, and dolphins, also show these kinds of cooperative behaviour. That's why we get along like we do with dogs, after all. In a very literal way, humanity evolved to be compassionate and altruistic. As for the details, yes. You can get a guide to fill you in on the specifics. You can find them in the library, under etiquette, or in some travel guides. It's also a good idea to read up on other cultures' philosophies and values (Ren, or virtuousness, in Confucianism).

 

Famous stories or historical trials, such as accounts of the 47 Ronin can really shed light on how a society resolves conflicts when core values come into tension with each other. In this case, loyalty vs the rule of law. The specifics might be confusing to us, coming from a different culture, but the moral conflict here - whether to reward selfless dedication and loyalty, or to punish extralegal violence - is compelling, because it's abut values we all share.

[creative]

every society is different with morality so if my society says x and another society says Y who is correct? neither right?

Wrong

 

 This means there is not universal standard correct?

Wrong

 

or is reducing harm the universal standard for mortality if this is the case and Christians around the world are causing harm should they be put in prisons to reduce harm as to follow this new universal standard?

Again wrong, thats not the case.