Is Fornication Immoral?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

There's no argument with the conclusion that our human moral intuitions are fundamentally based on love for self and other humans. Self preservation and our ability to empathize can/does help us form a moral compass. But when we look at the morality of the human species collectively we find that there are some variances and the fact that variances exist, serve to make morality arbitrary in the eyes of many. The fact that a thread like this exists shows how variant people are in their views of what is and what isn't moral.

Yes, many people might think that morality is arbitrary because they see a lot of confusion and different opinions about it. But I think that's because 2000 years of false morality taught by Christianity has strongly confused people on this issues. Indeed, we can see the confusion in action in the "Moral Argument for God" which argues that morality really would be arbitrary if there were no God to "set the rules." The fact that such an insane argument could be entertained for more than thirty seconds shows how Christianity has corrupted the minds of believers. They don't have a clue about what real morality entails.

The foundation of morality is simple fairness, justice. Fairness is objective which is why it is represented by a pair of scales. There is nothing "arbitrary" about it - that's why Lady Justice wears a blindfold:



The Golden Rule tells us how to discern morality by putting ourselves in the place of the other. It is the "Logic of Love."

In many cultures act s like Mohamad Ali not fighting in the Vietnam War or a virgin refusing to allow herself to be sacrificed to appease some deity have been viewed as immoral acts. Additionally, if we go with the idea of their being an objective morality, where is the objective line between self love/preservation and love/empathy for one's fellow man? Is it immoral to kill someone who is a threat to one's family or one's property? There are countless variables that exist that serve to complicate the issue and make objectivity less likely as finding a hard and fast rule for all scenarios seems impossible.

Your example of "a virgin refusing to allow herself to be sacrificed to appease some deity" shows how religion hijacked morality and why everyone is so confused about it.

The fact that there are gray areas in our ability to discern some moral facts does not necessarily imply that those moral facts are not objective. The particulate example you raise (where do you draw the line?) is not unique to morality. It is called the Sorities (Little-by-little) Paradox discussed by Plato. Consider a heap of grain. What defines the "heap"? You can always take away one grain from a heap and still have a heap, but if you repeat that many times you'll have no heap. But there is no point at which the heap changed from a heap to a non-heap by the removal of a single grain.

When I say that morality is objective it doesn't mean that the answers are easy. Think of Quantum Physics. It is objective, but we cannot actually solve Shrodinger's equation for anything but the hydrogen atom! The equations are too difficult for more complex atoms and molecules so we must use approximations. Does that imply that Quantum Mechanics is not objective? Of course not. Complexity has nothing to do with objectivity. Another example: What is the quadrillionth digit of pi? It certainly has an objective value. The fact that we can't calculate it does not mean it is not objective.

Maybe it shouldn't be, but who's to say ultimately? Morality is a subject that like it or not has so many tangents due to our social contructs that makes it perhaps overcomplicated.

Who's to say that 1 + 2 = 3? Objective facts do not depend on "who" says so.

And again - complexity does not imply a lac of objectivity.

Great questions!

[David M]

Hello Richard

I will not have a protracted discussion about this thread; I have already said my bit. However, I will be a little obtuse and disagree with your following comment.

Who's to say that 1 + 2 = 3? Objective facts do not depend on "who" says so.

This is a man-made construct. How do you know God works by the same mathematics which man uses? Did God create the math for man or did man have to learn it? Everything has to be defined like the + and - symbols. I could say; "1 or 2 is 3" and that is true, but I have to give my definitions of what is 1 and what is 2 and what is 3 for my statement to be true. Mathematics at its simplest level is arithmetic and we are simply adding and subtracting ,multiplying and dividing. Man has developed mathematics and higher mathematics to explain the sciences. The ability of mathematics to explain everything is not perfect. Mathematics is a form of modelling, which is used to explain the physical sciences and models have changed over the years as science has discovered more.

Mathematics, in any form, is a type of language and where did language come from? Of course you say "it evolved" and yet you have not explained to me (as I have asked elsewhere) how so many languages came into existence without a common root. The explanation is that God gave man language as part of man's creation. Adam and Eve did not have to learn language before they could communicate. Language was already built in and only when man and woman gave birth to the next generation did language have to be learned as part of the growing and learning process. We then come to the Tower of Babel (as it is called) and then God confused the languages by giving people new languages, just like the Disciples were given the Holy Spirit and they could suddenly communicate in different languages. Science is unable to explain this.

It is interesting that the same astrology and the astronomical names and the names of pagan gods etc. travelled with the people into the different cultures that were established as the people were driven into separate groups, because of the different languages forced upon them. The one common factor is; they all came out of Babylon. This shows us that something unusual happened, which again, science cannot answer and yet we have the answer in the Bible.

Should I base my understanding on something that gives me the answer, or should I base my understanding on something that cannot give me the answer I need?

As useful as science has been in finding out the way things work and given us technology, it has not changed mankind for the better. Morals have not improved and are just as bad in some cases as they were pre the Great Flood. Some will have benefited from science, but it is the majority that counts and man, who is now is seemingly in control of his destiny and evolution, has done nothing to improve on that which was designed from the beginning. All man is doing is putting a surgical plaster on injuries caused to himself.

Morals are built into God's instructions, given to man. Man did not learn and exercise acceptable morals to God pre the Flood. If according to your theory, morals should be innate in man and the the Golden Rule was not exercised, the morals that man displayed were not acceptable to God. After the law was given at Sinai, those like King David, for all his faults, could say; "the law of God is perfect". Consider the 10 commandments; what is not perfect in the 10 commandments or the keeping of them? We know that the last commandment of the ten can, at first reading, sound sexist, but given that can easily be seen to apply to both sexes, there really is no problem. So what is wrong with the 10 commandments, which apply to both men and women, if everyone kept to them? Society would be far better off if everyone kept the 10 commandments.

All the best

David