Morality in modern society

Ancalagon

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
16,558
This is not a news post, although a news article is linked, so I'm going to offer my comments in the first post as the article is linked.

Church sorry for saying that sex is just for married heterosexuals

The archbishops of Canterbury and York have apologised over a statement issued by Church of England bishops last week which declared that only married heterosexuals should have sex.

Justin Welby and John Sentamu said they took responsibility for releasing the statement which “jeopardised trust”. They added: “We are very sorry and recognise the division and hurt this has caused.”
Years ago, religions of various kinds were the source of morality. In a lot of cases, morality was enforced by law. I think adultery was a crime, although I don't think having sex before marriage ever was. Having sex before marriage could have severe consequences for you.

But things changed, we got a lot more relaxed, a lot more "tolerant". Morality in society, except in religious countries like Saudi Arabia, has almost no links to any religion. Sure, morality says don't murder and don't steal, but these concepts are enshrined in law too.

We have relatively little remaining of morality. You can pretty much do what you like now. Nothing is forbidden because we don't want to be mean and "intolerant".

But the reverse of this is that you are now not allowed to have a moral position. If you are a representative of a Church, and think that people should wait until marriage to have sex, that is now offensive.

Let's make this clear - that has been the moral principle of the church for pretty much its entire existence. Now, even having that opinion is offensive. So what should a priest do if a young person comes for them for guidance?

"My son, the church's position on pre-marital sex is pretty clear - have as many gang bangs as you can and maybe during one of your orgies you will meet the one God has ordained for you."

Like what the hell?

And to be clear, I'm not religious. I am however concerned by the moral decay in society when even having a moral stance is offensive. Yes, I know that even back in the day, everyone was sleeping around anyway. But the way I see it, you need something to aspire to. You need something that tells you what is right or wrong. There needs to be a standard by which we say some behaviour is better than others and not all behaviours are equal, even when they aren't illegal.

I do think that sleeping around is not good for people, men and women included. I think it leaves people broken and unhappy, unable to form long term partnerships. Everyone just sleeps around, nobody commits, nobody wants to get married, and importantly, nobody is really happy with this arrangement but nobody wants to be the first to say, "You know, casual sex is maybe not such a good idea."

You can suggest to a man that he not sleep around and get away with it, but if you suggest to a woman that she not sleep around you are slut shaming and being regressive.
 

Bobbin

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
6,980
This is why I tend to advocate for individualism. Due to globalism it has become impossible to consolidate morality so I can't defend any other ideal without becoming a hypocrite.

So I say people can do or believe whatever the F they want to the extent that their actions have no uninvited consequences or effects on others. That includes, however, not ignorantly risking newborn children for society to look after.

Fair enough?
 

Ancalagon

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
16,558
this is the point, the moment you have a person or group of people trying to determine morals, you will have a problem
I think we might find this path leads to some big problems. We are only starting to see what they could be now.
 

saturnz

Honorary Master
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
13,599
This is why I tend to advocate for individualism. Due to globalism it has become impossible to consolidate morality so I can't defend any other ideal without becoming a hypocrite.

So I say people can do or believe whatever the F they want to the extent that their actions have no uninvited consequences or effects on others. That includes, however, not ignorantly risking newborn children for society to look after.

Fair enough?

and how will you manage psychopaths in such scenario?

but yes, out of all the secular models, I do lean most to the anarchist ideology, but it also has shortcomings
 

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
23,227
this is the point, the moment you have a person or group of people trying to determine morals, you will have a problem
Who else is going to determine them? Please don't say gods, because they don't exist.
 

Scary_Turtle

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2015
Messages
1,412
I'm pretty much in the other ballpark

Why is having sex before marriage with someone you love bad?
Why should there be in consequence for having sex before marriage?
Why should I be punished with eternal damnation for having sex before marriage?
Why should the Church or anyone have a say in who I sleep with?

Imagine not being able to live your life the way you wanted because you were bald, being bald meant you cant get married in church, you were so sick of putting on fake hair to fit in that you had to come out and you only liked sleeping with other bald people. All because an immoral book has shunned bald people for the last 2000 years.

Society starts to adapt and allows bald people into society, realizing how immoral they have been for the last 2000 years but then two "people" from the Church decide to bring back their barbaric thinking and immoral rubbish.

Would you be pissed as a bald person because I would be. All this because you were born a certain way.

How is this moral decay its finally accepting what is right/moral.
 

Nerfherder

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 21, 2008
Messages
25,022
This is not a news post, although a news article is linked, so I'm going to offer my comments in the first post as the article is linked.

Church sorry for saying that sex is just for married heterosexuals



Years ago, religions of various kinds were the source of morality. In a lot of cases, morality was enforced by law. I think adultery was a crime, although I don't think having sex before marriage ever was. Having sex before marriage could have severe consequences for you.

But things changed, we got a lot more relaxed, a lot more "tolerant". Morality in society, except in religious countries like Saudi Arabia, has almost no links to any religion. Sure, morality says don't murder and don't steal, but these concepts are enshrined in law too.

We have relatively little remaining of morality. You can pretty much do what you like now. Nothing is forbidden because we don't want to be mean and "intolerant".

But the reverse of this is that you are now not allowed to have a moral position. If you are a representative of a Church, and think that people should wait until marriage to have sex, that is now offensive.

Let's make this clear - that has been the moral principle of the church for pretty much its entire existence. Now, even having that opinion is offensive. So what should a priest do if a young person comes for them for guidance?

"My son, the church's position on pre-marital sex is pretty clear - have as many gang bangs as you can and maybe during one of your orgies you will meet the one God has ordained for you."

Like what the hell?

And to be clear, I'm not religious. I am however concerned by the moral decay in society when even having a moral stance is offensive. Yes, I know that even back in the day, everyone was sleeping around anyway. But the way I see it, you need something to aspire to. You need something that tells you what is right or wrong. There needs to be a standard by which we say some behaviour is better than others and not all behaviours are equal, even when they aren't illegal.

I do think that sleeping around is not good for people, men and women included. I think it leaves people broken and unhappy, unable to form long term partnerships. Everyone just sleeps around, nobody commits, nobody wants to get married, and importantly, nobody is really happy with this arrangement but nobody wants to be the first to say, "You know, casual sex is maybe not such a good idea."

You can suggest to a man that he not sleep around and get away with it, but if you suggest to a woman that she not sleep around you are slut shaming and being regressive.
I think you are incorrect in a few assumptions about church, morality and marriage.

The concept of marriage was only introduced to the christian church 1000 years after the death of Christ.

Different religions have different approaches to the same thing... some of which include child and forced marriage.

I strongly disagree with the idea that things were somehow more moral before.

I do think that sleeping around is not good for people, men and women included. I think it leaves people broken and unhappy, unable to form long term partnerships. Everyone just sleeps around, nobody commits, nobody wants to get married, and importantly, nobody is really happy with this arrangement but nobody wants to be the first to say, "You know, casual sex is maybe not such a good idea."
True - its a cultural change that needs to happen. In a secular world a new way of understanding these things needs to be established.
 

saturnz

Honorary Master
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
13,599
I'm pretty much in the other ballpark

Why is having sex before marriage with someone you love bad?
Why should there be in consequence for having sex before marriage?
Why should I be punished with eternal damnation for having sex before marriage?
Why should the Church or anyone have a say in who I sleep with?

Imagine not being able to live your life the way you wanted because you were bald, being bald meant you cant get married in church, you were so sick of putting on fake hair to fit in that you had to come out and you only liked sleeping with other bald people. All because an immoral book has shunned bald people for the last 2000 years.

Society starts to adapt and allows bald people into society, realizing how immoral they have been for the last 2000 years but then two "people" from the Church decide to bring back their barbaric thinking and immoral rubbish.

Would you be pissed as a bald person because I would be. All this because you were born a certain way.

How is this moral decay its finally accepting what is right/moral.
to me those are uninteresting issues, what about pieces of paper that we must use as "money"

in your view, is theft or extortion immoral?
 

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
23,227
to me those are uninteresting issues, what about pieces of paper that we must use as "money"

in your view, is theft or extortion immoral?
For crying in a bucket, must you try and turn every thread into your ridiculous economic theft theory!
 
Top