I have an issue with this on both the positive and negative argument:

- I don't approve of serial killers walking freely down the street. Serial killers are a subset of everyone, so I do not approve of everyone walking freely down the street. Therefore, I should not walk freely down the street.
- I should have the choice to marry whomever I want, regardless of gender. I approve of having everyone have the choice to marry whomever they want, regardless of gender.

Nice try guys but categorical imperative only works for moral questions.
Being the president is not a question of morality.
Being the president and launching nukes on everyone is. What if every president decided to launch all their nukes?

Having children is not a question of morality.
Having 10 children is a question of morality. What if everyone had 10 children? What if everyone aborted all of their children?

Walking on the street is not a moral question.
Being a serial killer is. What if everyone were a serial killer? What if all serial killers were allowed to walk freely on the streets?

This is pretty much the only reasonable response, and I was hoping you would come to this conclusion

I don't think homosexuality, putting ones penis up another's backside, is a question of morality.

Nor is gay marriage, putting a ring on another's finger.

I do.

I should be allowed to enter into a contract with a rock if I so desire; marriage is a contract. People should be allowed to make contracts with whomever they choose. I'd say this extends as far as voluntary slavery.

Jack, how is it a question of morality? Care to explain? Unless what you mean is about consent, which any common sense person knows consent should always be required for most intimate human interactions.

It's a question of morality in much the same way anything else is. "Placing a knife inside someone's heart" is nothing more than inserting an object into a body part of another human being, just like "placing a penis inside someone's ass", yet no one will question whether or not murder is a moral issue. Once you can identify this basic commonality, that any conscious action is a moral or immoral act, you can then assess the moral merits and demerits of inserting a knife or penis into a particular body part, or whatever action you choose to examine at the time in the light of morality.

There are many, many acts we take for granted as immoral or moral because of our common usage of such acts in day-to-day life. When we start examining less common acts, like murder or sodomy, we should discard the general assumptions we make that allow us to get through our daily lives without carefully scrutinizing each action we make, and assume a more critical stance as is appropriate here in the Serious Discussion forum.

Whether you classify sodomy as moral or immoral is certainly based upon the merits and demerits I mentioned prior, which come from analyzing the act itself within the scope of morality, but "Is sticking your penis in someone's ass moral?" is certainly a question of morality.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 29 2011, 6:50 pm by Vrael.

Murdering someone deprives them on life. Consensual sex doesn't deprive anyone of anything. It's not a question of morality.

It absolutely is. Explain yourself to me how it is not a question of morality. What aspect of the conscious decision to have anal sex with someone separates this action from among all actions, in that somehow the application of moral standards and some form of analysis of that application cannot be made.

I'm not saying sodomy is moral or immoral, merely that the act, like all others, is encompassed by the scope of morality and should be treated as such. I'm saying that with sufficient understanding and information, a determination can be made with respect to sodomy of the morality or immorality of the act. How is this not true? Clearly you're saying sodomy is not immoral, so if this is just a misunderstanding of my meaning then simply say so as well.

Well obviously every possible action ever can be decided to be moral or not. I mean duh. Why would anyone dispute that?

I don't see how anyone can class any consensual sexual act as immoral.

Ask him. I thought it important to clarify in order to facilitate the actual analysis of the act with respect to morality, rather than watch the thread pander around another 10 pages of arguing semantics as these threads often do.

Something is immoral if it hurts [noun] unjustifiably.

You would?

What I meant is I think is so obviously "not immoral" that there is nothing to question on. There's no shades of grey, it's quite black and white, thus, "no question of morality".

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Dec 29 2011, 9:53 pm by Lanthanide.

From wikipedia.
Sodomy clearly fits within the realm of morality. As long as there is one person in the world who thinks it is a bad thing or good thing, rather than a neutral thing, it is an aspect of morality.

In which case absolutely everything is a moral question. I think evolution is bad, therefore it's immoral.

Evolution is not an intention, decision, or action. In fact, for something to be moral or immoral it requires a human; a rock can not be immoral as it cannot have intentions, make decisions, or do an action. Now, the intention, decision, or action of kicking a rock may be immoral to some people.

Right, but you haven't actually produced any reason for why homosexual sex is immoral. You've just stated that it is.

This is the part where you meet the criteria of this statement. Identify that there is some hurting, who (or what*) is being hurt, and why it is unjustifiable, and you have a case for immorality.

*I guess you could argue that one's ideals can be hurt. Not sure if that falls under morality/ethics.

On a side note, I was considering this classification. People say that morals can't be subjective. That breaking a moral has to be an objective injustice. But the thing is that we are putting an objective classification on a subjective experience (i.e. being a human being). Being hurt is an easy one, we all have almost identical recognition of displeasure. The part that creates the problem is the "unjustifiably" part. The subjection comes from this. Why is one action justifiable? I need to think moar.

About harm, here's a little conundrum.
Some like S&M. There are those who enjoy pain and those who enjoy inflicting pain. Of course inflicting pain is wrong in all non-consenting cases but what if they are with someone who enjoys pain and thus there is a consent of the act between such?

Difference between pain and displeasure. I never said pain.

Fix your english.

So you acknowledge that homosexual sex is an issue of morality? Congratulations, I've never seen anyone besides myself change their opinion on something on SEN.

The primary reason I consider homosexual sex to be immoral is that God says in the Bible that it is wrong.

Tikels, you also need to define "harm". Am I harming someone if I steal their money? They're not directly being harmed. What about putting someone in prison? Are we not causing them both mental and physical harm and/or displeasure? Does that mean that it is immoral to imprison people?