(no subject)
In reading an article by James Toner titled Temperance and the Profession of Arms an interesting point was brought up. If everything is relative to the individual, there is no moral code. This inspired some though following that idea down the rabbit hole. Correct or not, it seemed to follow as my logic would dictate. Since logic is relative, then you can think what you like and follow it down a different rabbit hole to a whole different conclusion which I would be interested to hear. But thoughts turned to love life and death which will illustrate one news worthy hot button issue, one issue that most "liberals" (Relative use based on the Fox News definition) consider passed and most bible thumping southern hicks (using the Pre- established fox news liberal relative definition) consider alive and well, and one that I (relative to me) foresee in the not so distant future following current trends. So I will proceed in that order.
Of love. Love is tricky to define. A religious education teacher in high school claimed it was transcendental and unable to be adequately defined. I guess that was relative to him. So in search of a definition I considered some uses. I love pizza. I love that activity. I love my dog. I love that one girl/guy. I made love to that girl/guy. I promise to love in good times and bad, in sickness and health till death do us part. He loved the world and so gave his only son so that all may be saved. So there are a few uses. Some indicate love towards object, activity, person, love as an action, conditions of when to love and actions inspired by love. In those uses, love is indicated as an action. You love something. To say "I love" would appear to be a fragment sentence lacking an object for this love to have impact on. I haven't addressed the why and I will leave that alone for now in fear of getting long winded.
So on to recent events. The fight in the media is the argument of I demand the right to express my love through marriage to whomever I chose and no tasty fast food chicken sandwich company can tell me otherwise. In relative terms, the traditional use of love deserving expression through the contact of genitalia was between a man and a woman which would lead to babies being born. The norm was the intimate contact took place after both parties expressed love in all circumstances till they separated ways through death. There is no physical barrier to stop this act from taking place in a different order. So starting with traditional marriage as my decent in this rabbit hole full of incoherent thoughts I will proceed.
If love and marriage is relative. Than there is no moral law saying I must marry a woman nor saying I must be married to have intercourse with her. That means I can express my love purely physically. If there is no bond for requirement to express my love outside of the physical contact and if physical contact defines my love then I can love other people through sex. So then I can have sex with many woman and that would indicate I have lots of love and must spread it around for to hold love to ones self, would be selfish. But selfishness is relative and I must love myself if I am unable to give or receive love from another person.
But then who says I have to give my love to a member of the opposite sex? Why not of the same gender? love (sex=love by now) is purely physical expression of emotions towards another being and its feels good. Now I love someone of the same gender so much that I wish to express a lasting relation to them in marriage.
But since I can love many people, can I include more people in this marriage? Why not have multiple spouses? Remember, love is relative to me so my expression of love is to marry many people.
Well, I love my dog. I can also physically express that too (and may people have.) since love is relative to me. I should be able to marry my dog too.
According to others, I should be able to love regardless of age. Relative to them there is nothing wrong and if the individual relativism is what reigns supreme than it would be wrong to prevent them from loving regardless of how young they are. 18 really is an arbitrary age...
While societal norms would condemn the last couple of examples, they really are appalling, if relativism reigns supreme in morality, then it would be morally wrong to prevent that from occurring.
Of life. The argument here is when does life begin? Traditionally it begins at conception. But at a couple of cells it doesn't resemble a human. Then maybe when the heart starts beating, or maybe when it looks like a human? How about life begins when the body, with little help could survive outside of the womb? Maybe its when the baby leaves the womb by traditional means or is pulled out my C-section? But still the baby would die if left alone. Maybe when we can start talking? walking? self feeding? Working? Voting? if life is relative, then one could be considered alive when they are politically people.
how about of death. The argument has been that old people through the amount of medical attention they require, we can't support them. So when are they dead? When the heart stops? When they are no longer to feed themselves? When they are no longer able to talk? When the cost to keep them alive is greater than the replacement value? How about when you retire and unable to provide a service to society?
Dangerous thoughts but where all of the current arguments appear to be heading according to my relative logic.
Of love. Love is tricky to define. A religious education teacher in high school claimed it was transcendental and unable to be adequately defined. I guess that was relative to him. So in search of a definition I considered some uses. I love pizza. I love that activity. I love my dog. I love that one girl/guy. I made love to that girl/guy. I promise to love in good times and bad, in sickness and health till death do us part. He loved the world and so gave his only son so that all may be saved. So there are a few uses. Some indicate love towards object, activity, person, love as an action, conditions of when to love and actions inspired by love. In those uses, love is indicated as an action. You love something. To say "I love" would appear to be a fragment sentence lacking an object for this love to have impact on. I haven't addressed the why and I will leave that alone for now in fear of getting long winded.
So on to recent events. The fight in the media is the argument of I demand the right to express my love through marriage to whomever I chose and no tasty fast food chicken sandwich company can tell me otherwise. In relative terms, the traditional use of love deserving expression through the contact of genitalia was between a man and a woman which would lead to babies being born. The norm was the intimate contact took place after both parties expressed love in all circumstances till they separated ways through death. There is no physical barrier to stop this act from taking place in a different order. So starting with traditional marriage as my decent in this rabbit hole full of incoherent thoughts I will proceed.
If love and marriage is relative. Than there is no moral law saying I must marry a woman nor saying I must be married to have intercourse with her. That means I can express my love purely physically. If there is no bond for requirement to express my love outside of the physical contact and if physical contact defines my love then I can love other people through sex. So then I can have sex with many woman and that would indicate I have lots of love and must spread it around for to hold love to ones self, would be selfish. But selfishness is relative and I must love myself if I am unable to give or receive love from another person.
But then who says I have to give my love to a member of the opposite sex? Why not of the same gender? love (sex=love by now) is purely physical expression of emotions towards another being and its feels good. Now I love someone of the same gender so much that I wish to express a lasting relation to them in marriage.
But since I can love many people, can I include more people in this marriage? Why not have multiple spouses? Remember, love is relative to me so my expression of love is to marry many people.
Well, I love my dog. I can also physically express that too (and may people have.) since love is relative to me. I should be able to marry my dog too.
According to others, I should be able to love regardless of age. Relative to them there is nothing wrong and if the individual relativism is what reigns supreme than it would be wrong to prevent them from loving regardless of how young they are. 18 really is an arbitrary age...
While societal norms would condemn the last couple of examples, they really are appalling, if relativism reigns supreme in morality, then it would be morally wrong to prevent that from occurring.
Of life. The argument here is when does life begin? Traditionally it begins at conception. But at a couple of cells it doesn't resemble a human. Then maybe when the heart starts beating, or maybe when it looks like a human? How about life begins when the body, with little help could survive outside of the womb? Maybe its when the baby leaves the womb by traditional means or is pulled out my C-section? But still the baby would die if left alone. Maybe when we can start talking? walking? self feeding? Working? Voting? if life is relative, then one could be considered alive when they are politically people.
how about of death. The argument has been that old people through the amount of medical attention they require, we can't support them. So when are they dead? When the heart stops? When they are no longer to feed themselves? When they are no longer able to talk? When the cost to keep them alive is greater than the replacement value? How about when you retire and unable to provide a service to society?
Dangerous thoughts but where all of the current arguments appear to be heading according to my relative logic.