Home   Forum   Help Media Centre Search Calendar Shop Gallery Login Register   *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 19, 2017, 18:01:25

Login with username, password and session length
Recent
[Yesterday at 22:23:02]

[July 07, 2017, 13:48:54]

[July 07, 2017, 13:43:55]

[July 07, 2017, 13:30:03]

[July 07, 2017, 13:24:22]
Twitter
Permissions

Last 10 Shouts:
July 30, 2017, 18:36:43
DEFINITIVE NEW NAME CITIZENS!!!!
THE IMPERIAL KINGDOM OF THE FREE LOVELY LOVELAND!!! SHORTENED AS LOVELYLAND!!!
July 20, 2017, 18:51:10
(Freelove just didn't feel right.)
July 20, 2017, 18:50:37
(yeah new name...)
July 20, 2017, 18:50:18
HEIL LOVELAND!
July 20, 2017, 18:49:56
AS OF THE DENONYM IT SHALL BE LOVEDICS( NO BAD PUNS).
July 20, 2017, 18:48:59
THE CITIZEN WITH THE FUNNIEST/EPICEST/WTF-EST/POPULAREST( EXCUSE MY SO RUBBISH EXPRESSIONS) SHALL BE ELECTED GREAT COUNT, ALL BY LOVELIANS/FREELANDICS!!
July 20, 2017, 18:47:04
I THEREBY SUGGEST THE COUNT AND DE FACTO RULER OF LOVELY/FREELAND SHALL BE CHOSEN BY LOVELIANS/FREELANDICS !
July 20, 2017, 18:44:58
OUR CONSTITUTION! MOTIVATED BY OUR GOODWILLED AND FRIENDLY VALUES SHALL ALWAYS PROTECTS POPULAR POWER!!
July 20, 2017, 18:43:32
WITH ABSOLUTELY NO GOVERNMENTAL INFLUENCE ON IT!
July 20, 2017, 18:42:46
OUR EMPIRE IS TRULY MONARCHIC YET DEMOCRATIC AND FREE! OUR COUNT SHALL BE ELECTED BY POPULAR POLLS!
Members
Total Members: 563
Latest: Allonsy182
Stats
Total Posts: 244580
Total Topics: 5053
Online Today: 16
Online Ever: 137
(July 20, 2014, 20:19:05)
Users Online
Users: 0
Guests: 14
Total: 14
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: Organ Donation and Necrophilia  (Read 3840 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
steka
Earth goddess
National Treasure
*****

Karma: 69
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 1447


Earth goddess


View Profile
« on: March 02, 2011, 05:34:22 »

Now that I've got your attention ...

The reason that I'm linking organ donation with necrophilia is that they both relate to a philosophical question that I've been pondering of late: what rights does a person have, if any, once they are dead?

To address the subject of organ donation first:

I was watching the 'Justice' programme on the BBC, and the man doing the lecture posed the standard moral dilemma of a runaway train. There were 3 scenarios:
  • In the first, you are standing at a switch, and are in a position to flip the switch. If you do nothing, the train will continue down the track and kill 5 people trapped on that track. If you flip the switch, the train will go down a branch and kill 1 person, sparing the 5 on the other branch. The vast majority of people agreed that flipping the switch was morally permissible, if not obligatory.
  • In the second, there is only one track - no branches to divert the train down. Further down the track, there are 5 people trapped. If you do nothing, they will all be killed. However, if you were to throw a large weight in front of the train, it would be stopped before it reached the 5 people. The only large weight to hand is a fat man standing beside the track. If you push him on to the track, you will save the lives of the other five people. You cannot jump in front of the train to sacrifice your own life, as you are not fat enough to stop the train in time. Most people thought that it was morally wrong to push the fat man onto the track, but there were a fair few who disagreed.
  • In the third, you are a surgeon working in a hospital. You have 5 patients who all happen to be of the same blood type, and who each needs a different organ to live. If you do not give these patients a transplant, they will all be dead within the month. There are no organs available from those on the donor register. A healthy patient, who happens to be of the same blood type as the 5 ill patients, enters the hospital for a routine check-up. If you were to kill this healthy patient, you could save the lives of the 5 ill patients. I don't think that anybody thought that it was morally right to kill the healthy patient so as to transplant their organs.

When the last scenario was discussed, sombody suggested an alternative solution to killing the healthy patient: wait for 1 of the ill patients to die, and then transplant their organs. The vast majority of people thought that this was a good solution. But, in agreeing that it was a good solution, these people made one of 2 assumptions: either that the person who died first would consent to having their organs transplanted, or that their consent or lack thereof was irrelevant. Suppose that the person who was expected to die first was asked for their consent, and point-blank refused. Would it nevertheless be morally acceptable to transplant their organs? After all, once they are dead, what rights do they have? And, if they do have certain rights, should these rights (whatever they may be) not take second place to the rights of the living?

And now to necrophilia. Is it morally acceptable to have sex with a corpse? What is the difference between having sex with a corpse (let's assume an adult human corpse for now - we can talk about bestial and peadophilic necrophilia later) and, say, a blow-up sex doll, or a sex toy? Surely the same moral principles apply - they are all inanimate objects, so can neither feel pain nor pleasure, and are incapable both of giving and of withholding consent. Would there be a moral difference if the corpse concerned had left a signed note before death stating something along the lines of "I, X, do hereby give consent for Y to have sex with my cold, unresponsive corpse once I am dead."

What about a person in a coma? I think that most people would agree that having sex with someone in a coma (unless they wrote a similar note saying  "I, X, do hereby give consent for Y to have sex with my unresponsive body should I ever fall into a coma.") is rape. But then what of someone in a coma, with no hope of recovery? If someone else were to have sex with them whilst they were in a coma, and then 15 minutes later (unlike the person in the coma, the person having sex with the person in the coma has amazing powers of recovery, if yer know wot I mean Wink rape ) the person in the coma died, and the same person were to have sex with them again. So the first time would be rape, but the second time wouldn't? I have a hard time reasoning why this would be so.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2011, 07:00:54 by steka » Logged
Mr Cog
Insane Dictator
janitorial staff
National Treasure
*****

Karma: 44
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 16809



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: March 02, 2011, 06:05:42 »

I don't believe it is a good idea to kill one healthy person to save 5 people in need of a transplant, even from a utilitarian viewpoint. First of all, the people in need of transplants will face a life on imunosuppressants and so will never be fully healthy, and they will still probably have a shorter expected lifespan than a healthy person. And secondly, there is still the risk of the transplant being unsuccessful, either the surgery will fail, or the organ will be rejected.
Logged

Your friendly neighbourhood lunatic
easy tiger
special needs
janitorial staff
National Treasure
*****

Karma: 1162
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 13217


uloveitwheniflexlikethat


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: March 02, 2011, 10:57:16 »

wow
what an awesome post.
Logged

I don't care if I fall as long as someone else picks up my gun and keeps on shooting.
Anubis
janitorial staff
National Treasure
*****

Karma: 195
Offline Offline

Posts: 13311


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: March 02, 2011, 11:47:11 »

lols
Logged
Matt
National Treasure
*****

Karma: 9
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2207


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 02, 2011, 15:42:51 »

So, I know Steka is baiting and waiting so here goes.

What "right" does anyone have to raise the issue of "moral" or "ethic" without first of all defining or determining where the concept of "moral" or "ethic" is coming from and who will determine what is "moral" or "ethical" for whom?  For you to say this or that is moral or immoral is in itself immoral, if you are not working within an agreeble or common standard or are assuming no one else has a say.

Your presentation could have considered other "complications".  According to what ever standard you want to impose for the 5 vs. 1, throw into the mix some aspect of racism and/or "intellectual" or "economic" or social complications.  So that now the 1 is considered indispensible to society or the advancement of science etc. etc. and assume the 5 are just ordinary blokes.  (whatever that may mean) 
One might argue then from this "complication" that we are in fact making the same moral decisions every day, but the "death" we are delivering is a slow death rather than sudden, simply by the way we discriminated in life and with the living.

Next question: Does the "you" at the switch have a conscience?  Why would he or she?  Is there a "law" to whom they would have to answer if they did nothing? And if no law, then what consequences would "they" suffer.

As to sex and a moral consideration. It has already been "cut in stone" has it not that sex outside of marriage is "immoral" whether with the (Really) living, or appartenty "dead".   glare
Logged

Why is there something instead of nothing?
Matt
National Treasure
*****

Karma: 9
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2207


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 02, 2011, 16:03:32 »

Addendum for Steka.
The individual down the track, the scientist that could advance society.  He is an abortionist and if allowed to go on living will abort 6 criminals and 75 Einsteins.  The "ordinary blokes" will go on to live ordinary lives but at some point be at the "switch" that saves hundreds each. 
Logged

Why is there something instead of nothing?
Revolutionary1
janitorial staff
National Treasure
*****

Karma: 0
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2029



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: March 03, 2011, 14:23:20 »

I'd find a way to save them all. Like Captain Kirk I don't believe in the no-win scenario.
Logged

Sorted, respect due.
Matt
National Treasure
*****

Karma: 9
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2207


View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: March 03, 2011, 14:50:52 »

Of course I also have to question the set up of the scenario.  IF the person at the switch is close enough to see the 5 persons or the 1 person, then they will be too close to effectively use a switch.  The train would probably jump the tracks causing most on board to be killed, or if a freight train, then the toxic cargo will be spilled into the environment and the pollution will kill multitudes, including the person at the switch.  Therefore it is best to do nothing... except pray!!!

And if you moved in certain circles, the same touching story is adapted so that it is a bridge master who must lower a bridge for an approaching train, and at the last moment discovers that his very young son, has climbed into the works,or the gears etc. and the father has to decide between sacrificing his son's life to save the trainload of passengers.  And of course loving the passengers more than his son, he valiantly gives of his only begotten son so that those in the train who would trust in the father's commitment might have "life".   
Logged

Why is there something instead of nothing?
steka
Earth goddess
National Treasure
*****

Karma: 69
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 1447


Earth goddess


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: March 04, 2011, 06:57:21 »

To those of you who have been asking "What if the person on the branch/beside the track ... ": usually, when those scenarios are laid out, it is stated that one should, for the sake of the hypothetical discussion, ignore the possibility that said person is Beethoven or your best friend, and assume that they are just an ordinary stranger. I simply forgot to state this, my bad. blush That's another interesting question though - does the life of one's close friend/relative or someone whose contribution to humanity is considerable (the examples usually used are Einstein and Beethoven) have any greater a value than the life of a stranger? To what extent can one put the life of one's friend/relative above the live of others? 1 friend's life > 1 stranger's life? 1 friend's life > 5 stranger's lives? 1 friend's life > 1,000 stranger's lives? And if we're talking about an Einstein rather than a close friend, would that person's life have any less value once their contribution to humanity had been made, and they had decided to retire?

Now, to the suggestion that flipping the switch would cause the train to come off its tracks: why would this necessarily be so? I don't know how close to the oncoming train one would have to be to see it, but I know that one can see about 7 miles to the horizon on a clear day at sea level. So surely one should see the train when it is a good few miles, and therefore a couple of minutes away - just enough time to safely flip the switch, no?

As for reply #7 - in the scenario laid out, it would not matter whether the passengers of the train trusted in the father of the sacrificed child (whatever it would mean to 'trust' in a man who to most, if not all of the passengers on board would be a complete stranger) - their lives would be saved by the sacrifice regardless. So what's with inserting the unnecessary clause that the passengers must trust in the father's commitment to have their lives saved by the sacrifice?

Anyway, you lot do realise that I only talked about the scenarios involving a runaway train to lead up to the scenario involving ill patients and organ donation so that I could ask what rights the dead have, and why they have any rights at - if, indeed they do. But I suppose that, what with this being Lovely and all, I ought to have expected this thread to go somewhat off-topic. Still, the train scenarios are good ones to discuss - most people reason that they think that it's OK to flip the switch, but not to push the fatman or kill the healthy organ donor-to-be because the latter 2 actions involve direct intervention, whereas the former action involves flipping a switch. They reason that the primary purpose of flipping the switch is to divert the train, and thus the death of the person standing on the branch is incidental, whereas the deaths of the fat man and the healthy organ donor result directly from your actions. I would disagree on the grounds that I think that flipping a switch involves just as much intervention as pushing a fat man, and I have already stated my thoughts on the organ donor scenario.

Like others have said, due to the nature of organ donation there would be no guarantee that the ill patients would live as a result of a transplant, so it would be wrong to kill the healthy patient when his/her death would not guarantee the survival of the ill patients. However, should one of the ill patients die sooner than the others, I don't see why their organs shouldn't be transplanted, even if the transplants would only slightly increase the chances of the survival of the other patients. The only objection I could see to transplanting the organs of the patient who died first would be if said patient refused to consent to donating their organs - which brought me to the question of what rights, if any, the dead have, and whether or not these rights ought to take precedence over the rights of the living.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2011, 07:08:39 by steka » Logged
Matt
National Treasure
*****

Karma: 9
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2207


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 04, 2011, 07:16:45 »

Steka: What are you doing on line at this hour? Shouldn't you be at work?

Of course I mentioned the silly story about the bridge operator and giving his son to save hundreds, because that is the version we hear in churches. 

The far more important question that I raised is the one concerning your use of the terms "moral" or "right" and "wrong" and "rights" of either the living or the dead.  By what authority are you or anyone else going to determine what is morally acceptable or considered right or wrong, and by what authority are you going to impose that standard on others? 

I think the modern answer is, "If it feels good, do it".  Or.  "It doesn't matter if it doesn't hurt anybody", and for the purpose of these arguments I suppose it is but a small adjustment to say "It doesn't matter so long as it only hurts fewer numbers than an alternative action or non action.


In the end, what you are really asking is this:  "If you had ultimate control of circumstances and events, what woud YOU do at this point, having allowed the situation to come to this in the first place?" 
Logged

Why is there something instead of nothing?
steka
Earth goddess
National Treasure
*****

Karma: 69
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 1447


Earth goddess


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: March 04, 2011, 07:21:15 »

Per reply #5: I don't quite understand what you mean by "The 'ordinary blokes' will go on to live ordinary lives but at some point be at the "switch" that saves hundreds each." If we are basing our morality on utility, then it does not matter under what circumstances the lives are saved - if the 'ordinary blokes' will save more lives over the course of their lives than the arbortionist, then the 'ordinary blokes' will have made a greater contribution to humanity. But, when you are in the position to flip the switch, if the people down the track are strangers, how could you know whether they are 'ordinary blokes' or arbortionists? If they are not all strangers, then the question of friend/relative vs stranger comes into play more so than the question of arbortionist vs ordinary bloke. If none of them are strangers, the question is still begged as to how you would know that the ordinary blokes would go on to save 100 lives each, or that the arbortionist would go on to abort 75 Einsteins and 6 criminals.
Logged
steka
Earth goddess
National Treasure
*****

Karma: 69
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 1447


Earth goddess


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: March 04, 2011, 07:33:50 »

Dammit Matt, I was just catching up, and then you go and make another post. I was getting to the question of "What/who decides what is morally acceptable and what is not?" Just the first post I made today was already entering TL;DR territory, so I thought I'd better split my replies up into 3 or 4 separate posts - 1 of which would have addressed that question of what defines what is moral. As to work: I am on the evenin'g shift today, so I don't have to leave for an hour or 2 yet.

Your 'silly story' about the bridge operator sacrificing his son to save the hundreds of train passengers still begs the question as to why the train passengers would need to trust in the bridge operator to be saved. You put in that unneccessary clause, so you's got some 'splainin to do!

How exactly has the person at the switch or at the side of the tracks or working as a surgeon "allowed the situation to come to this in the first place?" And how do they have ultimate control over the situation? From what I could see, the scenarios limited the person involved's control to taking 1 of 2 options. That is where their control began, and that is where it ended.

My definition of what is morally acceptable would be like you said, "It doesn't matter if it doesn't hurt anybody." If you cannot completely avoid causing a certain amount of suffering to others, the option which involves causing the least amount of suffering would be the 'lesser of 2 evils'. That's why I think that indulging in necrophilia can't be considered to be immoral on the grounds that it hurts the corpse - cos they're a corpse, so by definition they can no more suffer than a slab of meat which only a vegetarian would have any qualms about eating - and even those qualms would be based on the fact that the animal must have felt a certain amount of pain when it was slaughtered, not because the vegetarian believes that the slab of meat in question can in and of itself feel pain. The only semi-convincing argument against necrophilia which I have heard is that, were the relatives and friends of the deceased to find out that the corpse of their dearly beloved was being used to gratify a necrophile, they would be subjected to a certain amount of suffering. Perhaps this can be discussed later. For now, I have posts to catch up on, and only 1 hour before I have to leave for work.

I think I know where you are leading with your question of "Who/what decides what is morally acceptable." The conventional answer amongst Christians is that God is the ultimate authority on morality, right? So if God were to announce that, as of Monday week, to murder as many people as possible is morally obligatory, and to feed the hungry and the skint is morally forbidden, then that would become so, right?
« Last Edit: March 04, 2011, 07:36:15 by steka » Logged
Matt
National Treasure
*****

Karma: 9
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2207


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: March 04, 2011, 07:50:56 »

Steka:  My additional questions and comments are not intended to answer anything, only to draw out more considerations. 
And in this particular case to emphasise that because we have not defined who establishes right and wrong, and if there is no absolute then it doesn't really matter.  You are at liberty at the switch to do "What you think is right in your own eyes", and no one will be able to comend or condemn you for either or no action. 
Likewise with the question about necrophilia.  Without an absolute.. who cares what the relatives might think or feel? 
So unless you define the moral standard of the group or individual of whom you are asking the question, you cannot hope to get an "answer".
And if there is no absolute, then getting an answer has no value or significance. 

(and you are quite right, the bridge, train and trust stuff is "ridiculous" but it doesn't stop a "preacher" from using it and stretching it beyond limits, if it can make a point, or a lasting impression.  I suppose we could say it wasn't a matter so much that the "trusting" "saved them" but rather they were "saved" because the bridge master was "trustworthy" and in giving of his son, proved that their "trust" in his integrity and commitment to the passengers was justified.  And then at this point we call for a response.  (While we play a suitable rendition of "Just as I am".)     
Logged

Why is there something instead of nothing?
Matt
National Treasure
*****

Karma: 9
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2207


View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 04, 2011, 08:02:32 »

Quote
I think I know where you are leading with your question of "Who/what decides what is morally acceptable." The conventional answer amongst Christians is that God is the ultimate authority on morality, right? So if God were to announce that, as of Monday week, to murder as many people as possible is morally obligatory, and to feed the hungry and the skint is morally forbidden, then that would become so, right?

Not so much to lead to the answer that God is the Absolute, but to question how anyone has any authority at all to impose a 'standard' unless there is some sense of what is right and wrong, and then to ask, but how did you come to that consensus.  Without the "law" we have no "transgression".  And who has authority to establish the "law"?  In a democracy your opinion should carry no more (or less) weight than mine.. and if I am free to do what is right in my own eyes, and you are free to do what is right in your own eyes, then the sky is the limit is it not, for determing what I can do. (Probably the only proviso being... "IF I can get away with it.)
Logged

Why is there something instead of nothing?
steka
Earth goddess
National Treasure
*****

Karma: 69
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 1447


Earth goddess


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: March 04, 2011, 08:22:17 »

Now, to the part of reply #4 which I have been looking forward to responding to:

Quote
As to sex and a moral consideration. It has already been "cut in stone" has it not that sex outside of marriage is "immoral" whether with the (Really) living, or appartenty "dead".
Ha! Now you's gonna get it! laughing

Firstly, what if the corpse were one's deceased husband/wife? I suppose that "Till death do us part" and "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage" come into play. But then you are considereing the corpse to be another person - how is this so? I would consider a corpse to be an inanimate object - therefore, if you consider having sex with a corpse to be adultery, you would likewise consider having sex with a blow-up sex doll to be adultery - for you cannot legally marry a blow-up sex doll! So therefore, would masturbation not also be immoral - after all one cannot marry one's hand!

And as to your assertion that "It has already been 'cut in stone' has it not that sex outside of marriage is 'immoral'," actually, from what I've read of the Bible, sex is perfectly acceptable within the context of concubinage. Note the examples below:

  • Deuteronomy 25:5
  • Genesis 26:34, Genesis 28:9 and Genesis 36:2-3
  • Judges 8:29-30
  • Exodus 2:21 and Numbers 12:1 - these should be read in conjunction with Numbers 10:29 so as to avoid confusing Zipporah for Moses' Cushite wife - after all, if Zipporah's father was a Midianite, how could she be a Cushite? I'll grant you that Moses may have been divorced from Zipporah when he married his Cushite wife. Now, what was the Christian view of divorce again? Matthew 19:3-9, was it?
  • 1 Samuel 18:27, 1 Samuel 25:4243 and 2 Samuel 3:35
  • 1 Samuel 1:15
  • In the New Testament, 1 Timothy 3:2 implies that it is fine for a Christian man to practise polygyny, so long as he does not aspire to be a deacon or a bishop.

Now, admittedly these examples extend the definition of concubinage beyond "Living with a man as if he were your husband despite not being married to him" to "Being a second wife." But if polygyny is hunky dory as long as it's legitimised through marriage, why don't Christians practise it today? After all, God doesn't just regulate polygyny - He condones it! Why else would Jehovah bestow many wives as a blessing unto David in Samuel 12:7-8? Anyway, I also have a few examples of concubinage in the Bible as per the former definition:

  • 2 Chronicles 11:21
  • 2 Samuel 3:7
  • Genesis 25:5-6
  • Genesis 30:3-12
  • 2 Samuel 5:13 (that David was quite a lad! Wink clap )
  • Genesis 16:1-4

Sex outside of marriage? Immoral, you say? Not according to the Bible!
« Last Edit: March 31, 2011, 03:21:20 by steka » Logged
Matt
National Treasure
*****

Karma: 9
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2207


View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 on: March 04, 2011, 09:17:34 »

Now, you completely disregarded the careful wording of my point.  "Cut in stone", means as given in the Decalogue, or 10 commandments which according to KJV is stated simply as"Thou shalt not commit adultery."  Exodus 20:14

And I suppose I should ask you as a good sudent of the Qu'ran when is a corpse a corpse, or how long after the heart stops beating is the "soul" still present? (Therefore when does 'death' do the parting?)

But if as you argue the corpse is an inanimate object then perhaps you have already answered the question. Is it a moral question at all? It may have to do with mental health and psychological considerations but who said it was a moral issue?  The use of sex toys and masturbation is likewise an issue that as far as I know is not addressed in Biblical records and as a moral issue would have to be approached from a completely different perspective,  ie. as it relates to "self"ishness or inconsideration for others etc.  It may possibly come under the subject when Paul writes about "defrauding" one another, (1Cor.7:5), and then it could well be a commendation rather than a condemnation. 

Haven't I pointed out before that as far as I can discern, God had the idea that a sexual union really constituted the marriage? (They became "one flesh".) I don't know of any biblical decription of what constited a "wedding" apart from "and he went in unto her" or "and he 'knew her'".  Adultery amounts to being guilty of a double polygamous union, so that the guilty couple are still maried to their original and living spouse.

The "sin" then is very closely tied into the next commandment of "stealing", and the later one dealing with "coveteousness".  Divorce as practiced under the Mosaic Law" recognized the breaking of the "marriage" contract and legitimatisd the  remarrieage and "legalized" it in the same way concubinnage was allowed, because it was no longer considered to be "stealing" or coveteousness, but assured the ongoing support of those thus united.

   
Logged

Why is there something instead of nothing?
steka
Earth goddess
National Treasure
*****

Karma: 69
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 1447


Earth goddess


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: March 31, 2011, 04:38:09 »

Quote
Now, you completely disregarded the careful wording of my point. ... "Thou shalt not commit adultery."  Exodus 20:14
Now, now, Matt. If you are defining only adultery as immoral, why was your initial statemant "It has already been 'cut in stone' has it not that sex outside of marriage is 'immoral'"? Due to the wording of your initial statemant, I was under the impression that you were defining any sex occuring outside of marriage as automatically being adultery. Now, you attempt to get around this by saying that within the context of the culture of the Old Testament, if a man were to have sex with an unmarried woman then that act of sex would in and of itself constitute the creation of a marriage. Therefore, adultery only occurs when a married woman has sex with a man other than her husband.

Before I move on to my main point on this matter, a quick aside: do you believe this to be the case today? In the eyes of the Lord, does sex between a man and an unmarried woman constitute the creation of a marriage? Does your God believe in an age of consent, or would your God consider an adult male (say in his 30s) having sex with a 4-year-old female to be the presumably unsinful equivalent of the adult male marrying the 4-year-old girl? I say "presumably unsinful" because I do not recall encountering any Biblical law commanding the men of Israel to marry only postpubescent girls. If, however, there was such a law (or cultural norm which was ingrained to the point of virtually being a law), what would be the Biblical remedy to a man having sex with an underage girl? Would he be liable to pay the girl's father the 50 shekels demanded of a rapist in Deuteronomy 22:28-29, and then have to marry her once she has reached puberty? (I assume that, if there was an age at which Old Testament girls became eligible to marry, that it was when they reached puberty). What would be the girl's status in the meantime - married or unmarried? If, in the meantime, another adult man were to have sex with her, to whom would she then be 'pledged'? Or would she be pledged to no-one, as she would be dealt with in a similar manner to any other Old Testament adultress?

Speaking of Deuteronomy 22:28-29, I'd like to look at those verses in conjunction with Deuteronomy 22:23-27, as I think this passage somewhat discredits your theory that the act of a man having sex with an unmarried woman was in and of itself the marriage 'ceremony'. If this is the case, then why does the betrothed virgin who is raped in a town face the same fate as an adultress? I'm not arguing the raped/cajoled point - let's assume for the sake of the argument that she was indeed merely cajoled - I'm arguing that, if the act of sex were to be considered to constitute the making of a marriage, then why would the betrothed virgin not then be considered to just have married a different man than the one to which she was betrothed? If your theory is correct, then surely the virgin who allowed herself to be cajoled into sex did not commit adultery - she just changed her mind at the last minute about who she wished to marry. Or is there also a Biblical law against changing one's mind? And what about the betrothed virgin who is raped in the country - again, why is her status different from that of the unbetrothed virgin who is raped? What I suppose I don't understand is how the status of 'betrothed' fits in with your theory.

Now, to my main point on the matter of adultery. If your theory that man + unmarried woman + sex = marriage is correct, then why are there many women in the Bible who are specifically described as being concubines? If the act of the man having sex with an unmarried woman automatically created a marriage, then what exactly created these concubines? Why were they not called 'wives' from the moment they first had sex? There seems to be a definite Biblical distinction between the status of a wife and the status of a concubine - what justified this distinction?

Now, in my next post, I shall return to the topic of this thread. Do you (Matt) think that it might be worth starting a new thread on what constitutes the creation of a marriage, or should we just allow this to be an off-topic tangent - which there are plenty of in Lovely?
« Last Edit: March 31, 2011, 04:58:56 by steka » Logged
steka
Earth goddess
National Treasure
*****

Karma: 69
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 1447


Earth goddess


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: March 31, 2011, 04:40:06 »

Quote
And I suppose I should ask you as a good sudent of the Qu'ran when is a corpse a corpse, or how long after the heart stops beating is the "soul" still present?
Well, according to Islam (or at least whoever wrote http://www.islamicacademy.org/html/Books/GLIS/adg.htm pretending to be a Muslim), if a corpse is comforted or tormented after death, the soul which once inhabited that corpse will feel it. So I suppose that Muslims would believe that the process of death doesn't completely finish until after the corpse, including the bones, has completely rotted away. Or, if the soul which once inhabited the corpse will continue to feel the comfort and torment meted out unto said corpse even once the corpse has been broken right down into the very atoms (or even sub-atomic particles, if the atoms go on to be involved in nuclear fission/fusion - and that's not even considering the 'energy' once contained in the corpse) which constituted it, then I suppose that in Islam, one can never really be said to be 'dead'. However, according to medical evidence, there is a point at which one can be said to be dead - the problem is defining that exact point http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death#Diagnosis.

Quote
But if as you argue the corpse is an inanimate object then perhaps you have already answered the question. Is it a moral question at all?
That's exactly the point I was trying to make! I was trying to get others to think through exactly why a necrophile gratifying themselves by indulging their urges is morally wrong, because I don't see why it is. But in the UK, having sex with a corpse is currently illegal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necrophilia#United_Kingdom), so there must be enough people in the UK who think that having sex with a human corpse is immoral to justify the legislature making and keeping such an act illegal. I cannot see the justification for this, and I thought that perhaps someone else could enlighten me as to the other side's reasoning.
Logged
steka
Earth goddess
National Treasure
*****

Karma: 69
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 1447


Earth goddess


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: March 31, 2011, 04:52:44 »

Now, to address replies #12 and 13:

To me, morality is largely a case or reciprocity. For example, somebody may think "I don't like the idea of having my stuff thieved. If I don't want to have my stuff stolen, then presumably there are other people out there who do not want their stuff stolen." Then perhaps that person has a chat with other people in their tribe and determines that nobody wants to have their stuff stolen - only those so impoverished that they have nothing that others would want to steal don't wholly agree with the statement "I don't want other people to take my stuff without my permission," and even those people are apathetic about the issue. Thus the tribe comes to the consensus that nobody wants their stuff to be stolen, and so a tribe-wide pact is formed: I won't thieve your stuff if you don't thieve mine. To ensure fairness, those who break the pact are punished in some way - perhaps, to remain in the tribe, thieves must return any stolen items and pay a fine - so, in a way, some of the theives' money is 'stolen' by the tribe as a whole to show the thieves what it's like to have one's stuff stolen.

In other words, if you don't want something done to you, under normal circumstances it would be immoral of you to do that to others without their explicit and uncoerced consent.

Quote
In a democracy your opinion should carry no more (or less) weight than mine.
True. But in a democracy, my opinion + the opinion of 51% of the rest of the population would have more weight than yours.

As to the train scenario: surely those who had absolutely no faith/trust in the bridge master whatsoever would not have gotten on the train in the first place, and thus their lives would not have needed saving.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2011, 04:55:27 by steka » Logged
Matt
National Treasure
*****

Karma: 9
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2207


View Profile WWW
« Reply #19 on: March 31, 2011, 06:28:16 »

Quote
Now, you completely disregarded the careful wording of my point. ... "Thou shalt not commit adultery."  Exodus 20:14
Now, now, Matt. If you are defining only adultery as immoral, why was your initial statemant "It has already been 'cut in stone' has it not that sex outside of marriage is 'immoral'"?


I will keep this one brief.  I cannot speak specifically about the Jewish "law" apart from what you have already uncovered in Deuteronomy.  And I don't know of anyone other than myself who reads into the laws "the mind of God" and that I did by use of the Scripture already quoted, "ie. "they become one flesh". or "he went in unto her" etc. So, the Law said "adultery" (implying the betrothal/marriage contract.) The other laws pertained to premarital sex forced or consensual.  BUT I SAID, "From God's perspective".  As in our society today "Religion" and "civil law" may prescribe mores acceptable to the "community standard".  That does NOT mean they are according to God's standard.  Hence Jesus teaching that said, "You have heard it said...But I say unto you..."  Or "Moses gave the law... about divorce, because of the hardness of men's heart, but  God."  (See Matthew 19:3-9)

Again while God may have considered the sexual union a becoming one flesh, the "law", as you point out, had other consequences for "fornication" and rape.
The whole issue of age of consent may amount to an mind exercise only, simply because such a "crime" of sex with a child would have been "unimangiable".  The closest thing I can think of that could apply would be the laws concernig "giving a child to Molech".


I will suggest that the idea of marriage to an underage girl, would be "unimaginable", simply because "marriage" in the mind of God's people and God's economy was to the end of having a "family".  Therefore a prepubescent bride would be pointless.

I am going to do a separate entry that is a quote from one of my resource books about "concubines".








Logged

Why is there something instead of nothing?
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.9 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
TinyPortal v0.9.8 © Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.287 seconds with 29 queries.