Boy Scouts Reaffirm 'Traditional Standards'

[sctmom 11]

Rapists and pedophiles are exerting their power over someone else. Rape is not about sex, it's about power. Two consenting adults is not about having power over another person.

 

 

[tjhammer 10]

Moral relativism is separate from interpreting morality (relativism is about justifying immorality in the name of morality... like when the French lied when the Germans came to their door looking for Jews, or when Scouts lie about their sexuality in order to remain in the BSA).

 

The Peoples Republic of China justifies their government's intolerance of different opinions and violation of human rights by hiding behind the theory of moral relativity. In fact, though, the rest of the world recognizes those rights of all human beings as absolute.

 

So there is such a thing as relative morality and absolute morality. Relative morality is cultural, sculpted by religious principle, laws and teachings. Absolute morality is more fundamental, and reserved for very few moral issues... those things we deem basic human rights.

 

I guess my previous statement that morality is relative was an oversimplification of my position.

 

[Rooster7 11]

sctmom,

 

I agree with your assertions concerning pedophilia and rape. In my mind, your statements ring true. However, your statements do not demonstrate how morality can be relative. You see, if morality is relative, then one can even argue that forcing oneself on another is acceptable. If there is no baseline to establish right or wrong, who is to judge? If it is intuitive, then why do some disagree? I presented these questions for tjhammer, but you've some how gotten into mix. I don't mind, but are you agreeing with him? Because moral relativism proclaims that there are no absolute rights or wrongs. Which is why I brought up pedophilia and rape. I wanted to see how he could justify his view juxtaposed with these obvious "wrongs".

 

[Rooster7 11]

tjhammer,

 

Absolute morality is more fundamental, and reserved for very few moral issues... those things we deem basic human rights.

 

Hmmm. Interesting, but how do you intellectually determine these matters? What are the criteria for an absolute "wrong"? Who made the rules? What is the baseline?

 

I'm not arguing against absolutes. In fact, I completely agree. It is your foundation for those absolutes that confuses me. You stake claim to absolutes, but your foundation seems to be the very same culture that defines "moral relativism".

 

[tjhammer 10]

What is absolute morality?

 

Hmmm... very interesting question, and one that has me thinking. I probably should sleep on the answer before posting, but I dont have the patience.

 

Absolute morality comes from within the individual, and I believe it is given by a higher power. It is innate and does not change. I believe it is at the core of right and wrong, and there is only one truth. I believe absolute morality is impossible without a belief in a higher power... perhaps, that is the only absolute morality, a belief in a higher power.

 

Possibly the "do unto others, as you would have them do unto you" rule comes closest to absolute morality among humans.

 

Some morals are almost universal while others are so relative as to not even resemble morals but rather choices. Lying in wait and murdering a member of your own clan? This is so universally shunned among humans that some are tempted to use this case to argue for absolute morality. Homosexuality? Very controversial: you won't get a consensus on this one, thus showing the sheer relativity of this question.

 

Almost all people hold some things to be absolute. However, it is desperation to take this simple fact and try to force it to show that all morality is always absolute, and that no morality is relative.

 

Rooster, Can you tell me an example of absolute morality?

[Rooster7 11]

Absolutes? The usual (murder, rape, pedophilia, etc.) plus what you term as relative "choices". I'm not suggesting that anyone guilty of a moral wrong be booted out of Scouting. If that were the case, the organization would have no members. However, I'm not going to pretend that certain behaviors are not perverse so that some others can feel good about themselves. So far, BSA seems to agree with me.

 

Could it be that morality is not relative? Perhaps...is it not possible...people (segments of society) given enough time (decades...sometimes centuries) will find ways to rationalize and justify their behavior to others. This permits them to do as they please without disapproval from others. In fact, ultimately, because we all want to be liked for who we are (i.e., self-esteem), these same folks will not relent until they get approval for their behavior. Sound familiar? It is all very human. We are fallible, yet we do not want to admit to fallibility. We'd rather seek acceptance.

 

Alcohol a problem? Nah...Legalize it.

Drugs a problem? Nah...Won't be long now.

Prostitution? Who does it hurt?

Gambling? Hey, look how much money we make for the state.

Homosexuality? Who says it's perverse...your God?

Pedophilia? If the child is consenting, why are you objecting?

 

Given enough time, I have no doubt that very few things (if any) will be called immoral. Obviously, if we want to be a free society, we cannot legislate everything in life. As free people, we should be able to make some choices. Yet, as a healthy society, we need to recognize vice and perversion when we see it. Calling it something else is not only dishonest; it will eventually lead to even uglier distortions. Are you aware that pedophiles have their own lobby? These people are actually given the time of the day on Capital Hill. You probably feel I'm being unreasonable comparing this group to homosexuals.

 

I think there are two groups out there arguing that homosexuality is normal. One, who honestly believes it to be so, but has no other agenda. The other group has a much larger agenda. They will not be happy until they live in a completely amoral society. They want their behavior to be accepted regardless of its nature. Personally, I believe both groups are wrong. The first group, IMHO, is simply misguided/misinformed. No offenseit's just an opinion (it is not said with venom). The second group has given themselves over to something much more sinister.

 

[Dedicated Dad 10]

Rooster, Can you tell me an example of absolute morality? The practice of incest, bestiality and perversion all are morally equivalent, care to challenge that?

 

 

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

"Does the bible mention slavery? Yes. Does it endorse it? No."

 

Rooster,

I know you to be a righteous man, how do you interpet the following?

 

Leviticus 25:44-46

 

"Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you buy them from the neighboring nations. Yoy may also buy them from amoung the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slaves you may own as chattels, and leave to your sons as your heriditary property, making them perpetual slaves.But you shall not lord it over any of the Isaelites, your kinsmen.

 

If not an endorsement, I would like to know what this is.(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[Rooster7 11]

OGE,

 

Sometimes a translation, from Hebrew to English, may be less than perfect. Rather then wasting a lot space on this board, I am providing this link. It says it better than I could.

 

http://downloads.members.tripod.com/medicolegal/feeasm1851.htm#p30-alif