Statesboro, GA, USA
Morality is all about what happens to YOU when you transgress, not what happens to the victims of your transgressions.
If it's all about what happens to me rather than my victim, then why is it a moral transgression at all? Seems you're interpreting morality through the lens of philosophical egoism. But you've mistaken the windows for the foundation of the house.
If morality was meant to protect society, we would have no need of laws.
Oh you've got me ... I admit, it would a moral outrage, a monstrous irresponsibility, and a crying shame NOT to have laws. Naked pragmatism can never in reality be so cleanly resected from its moral moorings, as you've allegedly done in your arguments.
Actually it's our inablity to be moral, that leads to the necessity of law, giving the law an inverse relationship (but a relationship nonetheless) to the moral question.
Befitting, Stephen? Befitting for whom? And who gets to make that determination?
Ultimately God does. But it's certainly noteworthy that every moral system (and every major religion) has viewed mere casual sex as unwise and immoral (even if not embracing in totality the ideal of Christian monogamy). It is still a majority which has recognized that sex is more than a thrill ride to be taken at whim, as something potentially dangerous in proportion to being rapturous. Fine things come with unique and uncommon requirements of responsibility, by form and nature.
By the by, while it's only marginally relevant, I think you make much too light a thing of friendship. I believe friendship, at its best, can be every bit as profound and intimate as the most binding love affair. And every bit as rewarding.
It's not irrelevant. But you have misread me if you think that. I only said that bowling was proper to the most casual of friendships, or even aquaintences. Arguing from the least, not the ideal, to make a point ... namely that bowling and sex differ far more than just technically.
Otherwise, I begrudge no one valuing friendship as a high and rewarding relationship. I don't think a true friend (with no romantic inclinations or commitment) would have sex with a friend ... but even if if it happened and the friendship flourished, it would be in spite of the sex, which is adverse to friendship and goodwill where no romantic commitment is present.
Even Rod's "Maggie Mae" lyrics contained that much insight.
I'm not arguing a hierarchy of marriage over friendship. I'm arguing that some things are suited for one, and some are suited for the other, due to their differing nature. Experience and sages alike have confirmed it over and over, in spite of our tendency to want to follow our baser impulses. Let me speak, at least, to the egoist in you, that it is short term self interest rather than the longer view.
Intimacy isn't about sex. Never has been.
I didn't say that intimacy was necessarily about sex, but that sex was about intimacy.
And C'mon, the life of Jesus doesn't prove your point, but mine. He was abstinent precisely because he never married. That didn't rule out intimacy for him, only the romantic kind and the sexual expression of it. (of course he didn't reject those things as generally unlawful or wrong, only as particularly incongruent with what he came to accomplish for the Father, and for us).
you can't use morality to justify telling someone else what to do.
Why not? Is it wrong to do so? Are you telling me what to do?
If your only objection to sex is a moral one, you've already lost the argument.
Who said I objected to sex? Maybe you're arguing with someone else?
Agreement relies on arguing not what's morally right, but instead arguing what's pragmatically best.
Firstly, perfect agreement is not something I always expect, or even think is necessary in the now.
Secondly, since when did people agree on what's pragmatically best?
Thirdly, your usual method is to dissect pragmatic reality from moral truth. But like pulling apart a miniature flower with boxing gloves, there's little left to admire when you're done. Morality and Pragmatism, if not one and the same (which oddly enough is sometimes your argument too) are at least of the same blood-line, and won't be made strangers without consequences.
Of course women are objects.
So are men. And children and puppies and kittens, too.
It's very hard to hug a concept.
I've got to think you're joking. Because I'm thinking to myself: implicit in the title is the question whether women are treated as mere objects, whether women are MORE than objects, or treated so. It's ontologically obvious that they are not LESS than objects.