This is what happens when you accept immorality as a "lifestyle" choice

[stu]

Quote from kidPWRtrader:

Would you also be the last person to say if something is religious, it is moral? Would you say some things that are religious are not moral; and some things that are moral not religious? --> Yes

If there was(is) a G(g)od and he went on public record enumerating his/her/its principles of morality, then we could accurately conclude that to listen to G(g)od is to be moral. This is just not the case. G(g)od has many spokespeople, each of whom have different interpretations of his/her/its will.

Here are simple (but probably impractical) rules for "moral rightness":

1) Define what is "good", keeping in mind that being "good: will then be synonymous with "moral"
2) Assess an act based on obedience to the chosen definition

I'm largely utilitarian in my definition of "good". So, if posed with an issue that creates a moral dilemma, I might ask, "What will do the most amount of good for the most amount of life (notice I don't necessary say human life) in the long term?"

I'm in the that's-useful-but-not-entirely-true camp. This means that I think many before me and here today have excellent ideas that deserve recognition, contemplation, and inorporation (into my own life). For instance, I think Albert Schwitzer has a good understanding of morality and ethics. Yet, I don't entirely agree with everything he thought. And that's true with just about every idea and every person I've read about.

There are common values that most of us (except for the most psychologically ill among us) could agree to. The "golden rule" is a good example for this. Stealing and killing is bad, is another. But, the ultimate "good" is just too vague of a concept for most people and thus is likely to get an infinite amount of answers.

I would suggest you can't reasonably conclude that should a god go on public record, listening to its principles of morality must be a moral act. Quite honestly, there is at least one God I am aware of and I'm sure you are too which is on public record, and quite frankly, its moral standards are deplorable.

With respect, my question to you is much more straightforward than your answer suggests.
Is it moral (more moral) to do something right for the sake of it being morally right.
Is it moral (less moral) to do something because you have been told it is right via a god for instance, even though it very well may not be morally right.

Without needing to enter into semantics of morality, my argument is the former must always be more moral.

 

[Tsing Tao]

I bypass the morality argument altogether. If people want to be gay, let them. If they want to engage in sexual acts with animals or vegetables or whatever, fine. Have them stay the fuck out of my life and do whatever it is they do behind their own private closed doors. There are freaks out there that do all sorts of things we're not aware of. As long as there's no influence in my life, or more importantly, my child's life, I could give a shit.

 

[pspr]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

I bypass the morality argument altogether. If people want to be gay, let them. If they want to engage in sexual acts with animals or vegetables or whatever, fine. Have them stay the fuck out of my life and do whatever it is they do behind their own private closed doors. There are freaks out there that do all sorts of things we're not aware of. As long as there's no influence in my life, or more importantly, my child's life, I could give a shit.

That's the problem. They can't keep it behind closed doors. They have been let out of the closet and want to force the rest of us to acknowledge their behavior and approve of it including putting it on public display.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from pspr:

That's the problem. They can't keep it behind closed doors. They have been let out of the closet and want to force the rest of us to acknowledge their behavior and approve of it including putting it on public display.

Well, there lies where it should stop. Public indecency should certainly be applied to that situation. Public display, public funding, etc. all that needs to cease.

 

[kidPWRtrader]

Quote from stu:

I would suggest you can't reasonably conclude that should a god go on public record, listening to its principles of morality must be a moral act. Quite honestly, there is at least one God I am aware of and I'm sure you are too which is on public record, and quite frankly, its moral standards are deplorable.

With respect, my question to you is much more straightforward than your answer suggests.
Is it moral (more moral) to do something right for the sake of it being morally right.
Is it moral (less moral) to do something because you have been told it is right via a god for instance, even though it very well may not be morally right.

Without needing to enter into semantics of morality, my argument is the former must always be more moral.

Let's assume a perfect morality. A perfect God's (redundant terms) values would be congruent with that morality.

Man's picture of God will on average always be less than perfectly accurate. So if we are using the loose, baggy, intellectually unrigorousness, and often illogical depictments of God most often available, then of course doing something moral is better than following God's will (especially when that will is not perfectly interpreted).

God is either perfect or not. There is no other option. If we assume perfection, then his will is perfect. If we assume imperfection, then his will is imperfect.

In the case of an imperfect God (strange juxtaposition because God as a concept is perfect, but interpretations of it are imperfect), doing something which is moral is superior to listening to God.

I am trying not to go round and around, but I think there are some issues that are important that need to be addressed before I just respond with a simple yes or no.

 

[stu]

Ok, well, now you've addressed some "issues" , are you able to respond directly to my question.

 

[denner]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

I bypass the morality argument altogether. If people want to be gay, let them. If they want to engage in sexual acts with animals or vegetables or whatever, fine. Have them stay the fuck out of my life and do whatever it is they do behind their own private closed doors. There are freaks out there that do all sorts of things we're not aware of. As long as there's no influence in my life, or more importantly, my child's life, I could give a shit.

That perfectly sums up my feelings on the subject. Unfortunately, we're all supposed to bow down and pay homage to this bullshit.

Just imagine how batshit crazy the liberal loonies would go if there were a "straight" pride parade.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from denner:

That perfectly sums up my feelings on the subject. Unfortunately, we're all supposed to bow down and pay homage to this bullshit.

Just imagine how batshit crazy the liberal loonies would go if there were a "straight" pride parade.

Yep. They tolerate any view they agree with, and slander any they don't.