What's the deal with sex?

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » What's the deal with sex?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

tMeeker
 
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 10:56 am
I have been perplexed over this very delicate issue for some time now, and as such I have now found myself torn in two as to what the solution should thus be. This culture we live in, this society we are immersed in, everything has become saturated in sexuality and immorality. It is now highly improbable that one can even watch a descent movie without encountering yet another sexual scene which was clearly placed within the context of the movie for what purpose I have yet to understand.

I have grown vexed and disgusted with the immorality in terms of sex, now infatuated within this world. People now claim that you are of a lower status if you are simply a virgin, how did it come to this? Why are we treating each other like mere vessels to simply dispose of for our instant gratification? What is wrong with this world? Is there not more to life than sex?

Why do we preach peace, justice, love, but time and time again we leave out values? One might argue that we each have different morals than someone else, and that sex outside marriage to someone may be accepted whereas to someone else it is viewed as confliction with what is right. But what is right? In reality, one must chose as to pursue what we deem as true and pure, or to follow down a endless fixation drenched in sexuality and agony.

It is one thing for a man or woman to struggle with sexuality, however it is a entirely different standpoint for one to submit to their desires freely and flaunt their immorality with pride in front of others. I feel that I am soon to reach the point where I reject sex, simply to prove there's more to life than what our bodies desire. I have grown exhausted and tired over this culture, why do we seek out sex in anyway shape or form?

Sex is now an act done freely among humans, even for those who have only been out on a few dates. It's normal for people to have an active sexual lifestyle, it's normal for people to look at pornography, it's normal for people to gratify themselves. Well I say forget sexuality. It's fine if you struggle with it, I've never met a guy in my life who didn't struggle with lust. However when you allow yourself to become a willing slave to sexuality, bragging about the immorality you immerse yourself in, then you present a problem.

The way and direction our culture is now going in, in fifty years, sex may very well be a form of greeting. And although that may seem like an impossible reality, remember, at one time society thought it was the biggest thing since the creation of the world when the Beatles sang "I wanna hold your hand", and now look at the music today. What's next?

Any thoughts from my fellow philosophers?
 
Dexter78
 
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 12:55 pm
@tMeeker,
Sex is a big deal for obvious biological reasons, it's needed to keep the species from becomming extinct. It is one of the most powerful of human instincts. In addition, we are the only species who can have sex for reasons other than procreation, it is very pleasureable, and it is why we seek it out in so many ways, shapes and forms, as you put it. There is no mystery from this point. Infactuation with sex is nothing new, it can be found in virtually every culture since the dawn of civilization. What is curious to me is why sex is viewed by some as something that is evil. You seem to have the view that sex or thinking about sex is inherently negative, it is not. Sexual desire is not something that is learned, it is part of your biology. This idea that virgins are "pure" automatially implies that once you have sex you're somehow currupted or contaminated. What an unfortunate view this is.

Contrary to what you may think, most people know there is more to life than sex, but they do not pretend that sex is also not a part of life. Most people do not bounce from person to person having sex whenever the desire strikes them. There are options between sleeping with everyone and sleeping with no one, and this is where most of us are. Of course, there are people who are sexually irresponsible, just as there are people who eat too much, yet I do not hear anyone proclaiming the act of eating itself as some kind of evil act the way sex is cast in this light by the self-righteous religious. Rejecting sex outright to me has an element of cowadice, since it indicates a person is unable to balance this aspect of their nature with everything else in their life. You can't change the fact that you have instincts, but you can control how you act on them.

Sex, like almost everything else, is not a black and white, right or wrong thing, and any attempt to categorize it as such will severely distort a person's view of it. From your post I can't quite tell if it is sex itself, or the perception of sex that confuses you.
 
tMeeker
 
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 01:58 pm
@Dexter78,
Dexter78, you have every right and inherent reason to call me anything which you chose in this life, but don't ever call me a coward. Let me explain the difference between sex and immorality to you. Yes, I agree with you, sex is absolutely vital to the future progression of our species. However sex is designed to be within the confines of a marriage between a man and a woman, it is a very very serious and pure union between two people. On the contrary, when one delves to seek sexual gratification in a manner which thus defiles his body, or even defiling someone else's body, then a conflicting problem arises.

You see the problem which has surfaced is not the fact that sex is evil, because when this act takes place in the right manner and in the right mindset, then sex is an entirely different concept. The problem which remains unchecked is that people do not respect their bodies or the act of sex itself. If people did hold a certain construct of respect for their bodies, we wouldn't have the amount of teen pregnancies which we thus do. We wouldn't have men bragging about the strip clubs they attended the night before. Once again, don't get me wrong, everyone struggles with sex....that is a normal and "not new" issue, however when one blatantly flaunts his sexual immorality....then an entirely new issue is surfaced.

I think we have the immoral problems which thus do in our society not because we simply have sex with any person who is willing to sleep with us, but simply because we fail to view sex in the right manner which it was designed for. Sex is a serious act, and a serious union between two people. You hear all these people today preaching about how we as humans deserve pleasure and how it is ok for us to gratify ourselves. But if we deserve pleasure.......then don't we also deserve respect for our bodies?
 
Dexter78
 
Reply Mon 26 Feb, 2007 03:34 pm
@tMeeker,
I would never call anyone I don't know a coward. I was simply stating that I find the act of rejecting sex to have an element of cowardice. All of us have done something that others or ourselves may believe to have an element of cowardice, but it does not mean that we find the person to be a coward.

Quote:
However sex is designed to be within the confines of a marriage between a man and a woman, it is a very very serious and pure union between two people.


You are making many unproven assumptions here. Humans have been having sex long before the concept of marriage existed, if this were not the case, none of us would be here. You seem to have already made up your mind of what sex is and when it can occur, which makes discussion irrelevant unless you are willing to consider other explanations of sex. The question to consider then, is if the above explanation of sex is correct. I know many good, moral peopel who are in relationships, have sex, and no one gets hurt, defiled, abused, etc. Sometimes they end up getting married, other times they will have several such relationships before find someone they feel they want to marry, and others remain together without getting married at all. In each case, they balanced their natural human desires with the ability to understand the consequences of their actions. Assuming you did not already arrive at your conclusion on what sex is and when it is valid and were searching for such answers, how would you objectivley evaluate the behavior of such people? Premarital sex is not always a result of people not respecting their bodies or blindly satisfying their desires.

Quote:
think we have the immoral problems which thus do in our society not because we simply have sex with any person who is willing to sleep with us, but simply because we fail to view sex in the right manner which it was designed for.


Again, you automatically assume there is an absolute right and wrong time for sex. It is true that people act irresponsibly when it comes to sex, as people do with many things, and this results in teen pregnancies, STD outbreaks etc. However, it is not a result of some inherent immorality of premarital sex, but instead is systemic of human nature to not always consider consequences. In other words, just as people can have premarital sex and behave immorally, people can also be moral, respect themselves, and have premarital sex. Immoral sexual behavior certainly occurs, but what constitutes such behavior is not always so clear cut, nor are the causes always easy to define.
 
tMeeker
 
Reply Tue 27 Feb, 2007 10:36 am
@Dexter78,
You know your way around philosophy and you have very centered perceptions on what the revolving world around you is designed for, I give you that. You have a balanced head on your shoulders, but if I should press to ask in the question, permit me then.......for the purpose of proposing the idea uncommonly presented and irrevocably at hand......to ask the undeniable question: What is morality? Granted your response will ultimately be, that morality is the terms which each man sets for himself to conduct himself within society. But where does one draw the line? Where does one brace the hinges around moral choices to ensure no one suffers the consequences of their actions?

Consider this, a pedifile, thinks that defiling children is ok. And if you go by the standards you have thus presented to me, as long as the child himself is willing to enter into a sexual act with an older person.....then it's ok. Although this may seem appallingly disgusting and horrifing to you, (and it certainly does to me), this is how you presented your view. If the child is willing to have sexual relations with an older person, is it ok? In your terms, as long as no one get hurt, and everyone is willing, it's certainly ok to pursue the gratification of our desires. So where do we draw the line? In my beliefs, marriage was constructed at the very origins of the world and time, now, obviously we both differ on how we percieve the world around us.

So if we don't set up some moral system of guidance and rules, let's face it, chaos and abominations of disgusting immoral practices will follow. Sex is of course ultimately needed for the survival of our species, but when we allow sex to overtake us.......then we suffer consequences on a scale which most will never fully understand, until one dies. Then, agony is presented with a whole new meaning.
 
Dexter78
 
Reply Tue 27 Feb, 2007 12:15 pm
@tMeeker,
Quote:
What is morality?


Ahh, yes, that old question. I'm certain I don't have to say that one could go on for many pages about this subject, but I'll try to keep it concise and get back to the thread topic. Morality, to me, is a word used to describe behavior that contributes to the net benefit of the species as a whole, promoting stability and ensuring survival of the species. It results from, I believe, the centers of the brain associated with empathy, our ability to experience for ourselves the emotions, positive or negative, of others, and from the regions associated with logic and reason. As one grows older, so does their sense of morality evolve, and part of this is protecting our children. Here is where the example of the pedophile comes into play.

I can't think of a single study, nor have I ever met anyone, who says that a child who is the victim of a pedophile does not suffer significant harm, both immediately and later in life. A child is both intellectually and emotionally less developed than an adult and often can not see the consequences of their actions, such as willingly submitting to a pedophile. Adults must protect their children from such people even if, for some reason, it is against the will of the child, or else the child will be severely harmed. Consequently, pedophilia is immoral as it causes great harm and no benefit that I can think of.

Now for the issue of consenting adults having sex, here again you have people who can understand the potential consequences of their actions, it is not inherently immoral. Again, people can be sexually irresponsible, just as married people can be. Consider a married couple that is very poor, yet continues to have children, subjecting them to poverty, likely malnutrition, bad schools, likely violence, etc. And that's just in the US. In other countries, many such children starve to death. The key is responsibility, for which marriage is not a prerequisite. Sometimes, drawing lines for immoral sexual behavior is easy, such as with pedophilia. Other times, it is not and the situation must be viewed in its entirety.
 
tMeeker
 
Reply Tue 27 Feb, 2007 03:03 pm
@Dexter78,
Well stated, however I can now fully see that this debate has drawn to its conclusion for the time being. You perceive morality in a different viewpoint which I thus do, and therefore, we have both hold alternating opinions. Due to the beautifully constructed design of this universe....life goes on. I view morality from the system designed by a "Higher Power", and due to this turn of events, we see things in different lights. In the culmination of our presentations, I must say, you seem like a pretty level-headed person. However I must caution you in the morality of your future choices, far too often have so many people suffered consequences for choices they made with good intentions, and far too often have those people reaped an unfruitful harvest.
 
Dexter78
 
Reply Wed 28 Feb, 2007 08:14 am
@tMeeker,
Quote:
far too often have so many people suffered consequences for choices they made with good intentions, and far too often have those people reaped an unfruitful harvest.


Very true. I have my own quick suggestion as well. Welcome opportunities to challenge your beliefs to their foundation, either from others or from your own questions and thought experiments. Throughout history, the most dangerous concept has been absolutism.
 
madscientist phil
 
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2007 01:13 pm
@tMeeker,
interesting thoughts tMeeker. heard it a few times before. may i ask you what religion you are part of? christianity? I believe the same things Smile - no sex before marriage, seeing it as something against morality. But yet it was created - if this word can be used - for reproduction and it needs to be pleasurable and instinct for species to reproduce. Humans? Similar, only they know moral codes. and have a higher purpose than reproduce and die. Very Happy

But has the world before been a better place, less infested with sex? that is the question - as time goes on, the older generations complains and says that "the world used to be better". but look at war, look at what has been before. and before. slaves. and even before. all the plagues and so on.
And now? we have stress, we have poverty, hunger and so on...

ok back to sex - yes it seems it is like that. it is within us, it is the nurture that makes us so - environment. the world is a dynamic place. it will always evolve. but why is this - who knows... it just evolved so. some ags ago, apparently it was like forbidden to see the ankle or something. now? sex is commonplace.
and in 50 years? well who knows.
man gets shaped into what he sees around him.
if it will progress then the next generation may be even worse at this than now.
but who to blame? individuals or everyone? and to what extent should we be held accountable if it is nurture that makes us so? Here's some hard philosophy Wink
 
Fido
 
Reply Fri 21 Sep, 2007 04:32 pm
@tMeeker,
Sex is an essential in life, and we are no different from any animal in this except that we moralize. People early on realized what a danger uncontroled sexuality could be, and for this reason alone marriage and sex were surrounded by taboo. Every marriage ceremony contains a curse.

We are very much in bred. At every point when a new community was formed out of an older community, inbreeding presented a serious problem. Governments, perhaps, grew out of the incest taboo. In any event, where people were the most democratic they were proudest of their lineage, and you can notice this in the insult in the story of Oedipus, of doing as even cattle do not do. Human beings do not behave as animals, and sometimes even mutilate their bodies to prove they are not natural, but human.

The genetic health of the community was at stake, and even while there are many mythic examples of distant marriages turning out badly, since all strangers were perceived as animals, still, people must often have found it necessary for survival to blend genetically with strangers. Now, we have sexually transmitted diseases, but that does not stop those who engage in entertainment sex. But morality, as always, concerns itself with the health of the community. And so, while adventure sex, and entertainment sex should be a concern, morality should face the root of the problem rather than the result.

Children, and people of all ages are terribly lonely. The loneliness of people long deprived of their families, divorced from the reality they work for, suffering worries, and frustrations in a dieing society, is palpable. Think of the trust required for intimacy. Think of what it must take to be intimate, and then have that intimacy ripped away like bloody bandage over an raw wound. Does no one believe that this need for closeness is natural? I hate to think of how unsatisfying is life for my children. We ask so much of them, and give them so little of what they need. If we actually held our children and stroked them as much as they need it, some one would call the law. I am not talking perverted anything. I am just saying that children are the most naturally affectionate people in the world, and we have to tell them to put it in their pocket and get their work done. We work harder, and longer, to provide for our lives and families than any primitive person would have. Is this progress, or regress? They may have worked while the sun shone, but then they could rest. This capitalism thing is making slaves of us all, and while we slave the telivision people are selling all sorts of poison to our children like sex and junk food.

It is no wonder it drives the pius Muslims crazy. If you turn on the telivision your life is invaded with all kinds of garbage. And we forget that we have children to give them a good life, and are content if we just give them a life. They are absolutly right to look for meaningful relationships even if sexuality is involved. But for God's sake, just think of the dangers they face because they need LOVE so badly, and we cannot give it to them. They rush into adulthood so they can have what adults enjoy the most: Sex. But if they have children at a young age, they are deprived of both their own childhoods, and the love of other adults. A single mother is the saddest sight in the whole lonely world, and what can any one do to help, and who will help who can help? I mean, it is only organized communities like churches that can embrace and support such people, and do you think they want the unwed threatening their marriages, setting a bad example for their children?

We thrust adulthood onto children. We are forever teaching perfectly loving children to be asssholes, and cut throats, and telling them to grow up. We forget that the relationship with ones parents is the key to the treasure room of all relationships. How will we ever learn to express our love for ourselves, and for our children? Perhaps it will always be true that the slave will hate his life, and hate his children, because all people need good to share goodness. This country is living a night mare. It is a terrible thing to witness, and worse to be a part of.
 
Aristoddler
 
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2007 08:02 am
@tMeeker,
It feels good and we're desensitized by the media and it's influences on our lives, in an attempt to emulate success we have grabbed a hold of the one thing that is easiest to attain that we see in the movies.
 
Fido
 
Reply Sat 22 Sep, 2007 10:05 am
@Aristoddler,
Aristoddler wrote:
It feels good and we're desensitized by the media and it's influences on our lives, in an attempt to emulate success we have grabbed a hold of the one thing that is easiest to attain that we see in the movies.


Not to deny that the right girl is always a sign of success and status; the fact is that economic exploitation always leads to sexual exploitation.

The question I have is, is this situation sustainable? Law, and economics have put such a great strain on communities and families that it makes parents seem both cruel and foolish. Where is the trust that should bind families together? I think it takes a great deal of trust to drop your drawers around a stanger, but then to engage is sex takes much more. How is it that people who are yet children dare to trust strangers when they will not trust their own families, or their churches, or their schools, or their state on the subject of sex?

I think the only way to account for it is that treating children as individuals, which is forced upon families, when what in the past was normal was for children to be wards of their families and communities, and so deriving their identity exclusively from their families and neighbors, as one of that group, -has left children seeking love, support, happiness, and understanding in the arms of strangers.

For primitives, the knowledge that they were one of a community with an obligation to bring their group honor, and that the community would stand up for them, was an essential part of their being. We cannot protect our children from strangers, and we cannot protect them from the law, and we cannot protect them from televisions using sex to make their sell. If we cannot protect our own, they feel vulnerable, and at the same time, because they are vulnerable, and we cannot protect them -for having no real authority, we must use the extent of our influence to teach them to fear others, distrust others, and be generally hateful. It is no wonder that children, needing love, reject this message out of a natural hopefulness that sometimes leads to their total destruction.
 
madscientist phil
 
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 12:51 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
If we cannot protect our own, they feel vulnerable, and at the same time, because they are vulnerable, and we cannot protect them -for having no real authority, we must use the extent of our influence to teach them to fear others, distrust others, and be generally hateful. It is no wonder that children, needing love, reject this message out of a natural hopefulness that sometimes leads to their total destruction.

interesting thoughts Fido. not too easy to understand why it is like that. But stil some things are unclear. so basically you're sayin that its media that influences children.
but why children "reject love out of a natural hopefulness"? waht exactly you meant - what reasons are for them rejecting it? that they think they dont need it? or that they are taught they dont need it?
and yes its sad its this way... has it only been an issue for the past decades or since beginning of humanity?
 
Fido
 
Reply Thu 11 Oct, 2007 06:12 am
@madscientist phil,
madscientist wrote:
interesting thoughts Fido. not too easy to understand why it is like that. But stil some things are unclear. so basically you're sayin that its media that influences children.
but why children "reject love out of a natural hopefulness"? waht exactly you meant - what reasons are for them rejecting it? that they think they dont need it? or that they are taught they dont need it?
and yes its sad its this way... has it only been an issue for the past decades or since beginning of humanity?


Children do not reject love, but seek love in spite of the admonitions of parents and state and religions. Why are young people so needy? I would suggest that we often give children substitutes for love, that are not fit substitutes. I would suggest that we fear to love, personally, and socially, to be thought weird, or perverted, for being clingy. I think the main reason is that we must, from the beginning of life, put children on their guard, because we cannot protect them either from criminals or state. We beat and berate our children because the state, or their neighbors will do far worse if the children do not show great care. We should understand that children in primitive societies did not act out, or become deliquents. In fact, no one could control children in savage (american Indian) society. The children were controlled by an enemy who lived outside the community that was no better than a vicious animal, and by the good will and encouragement of those who lived within. Children were reminded that we, the human beings, behave after a certain fashion. As one native said critically to a white man: We beat our horses, but not our children.

Law works to allow people who are, in fact, enemies to live as neighbors. Law breaks down the power of all communities to support and discipline their own. Law makes even children the equal of adult as individuals. In this sense it adds to their lives in every way a burden of anxiety. Children are unprotected and abused. Children are feared and unloved. Children are sold to, and bought for, not to demonstrate love, which is not felt, but to fulfill an obligation which is recognized. Should it surprise anyone that so many want their own relationships, or that they look to love as the solution to every personal problem? Where is the love? Parents should love their children enough to deny them what they think they want to give them what they truly need, what all humans need: Love. Care, concern, support, sharing, sacrifice, defense, affection, encouragement, love.

I don't have my dogs for any reason, and they are the best dogs I can imagine. They are good for nothing and don't do a dam thing. Yet they seem to crave my companionship, and understand what I am going to do before I think I am going to do it. If I had them as a status symbol the way some people have dogs, or children, I am certain I would be disappointed, if not by them, then by all the people who do not care. People have got to stop having children for their reasons, and begin having children for children, not to care how they act, or what they become, but only to give them the love and the life one has in healthy excess. People who have children to be loved will find hate. People with so much love of life that they need to share often find they need no children of their own. But if one has children, give them what they need only, love, affection, patience, and good council. Then you will find that children reaise themselves given this room and food, and the sunshine of love.
 
perplexity
 
Reply Thu 11 Oct, 2007 06:32 am
@tMeeker,
:confused:

A large proportion of children arrive unreasonably, with no decision to conceive from one or both the parents, nor so strange because of it.

In early life the World revolves around the child. Then as time goes on the inadequate Parent becomes the inadequate Human Being. A parent who sucks from a child to seek satisfaction does the same with everybody else. It is about the person, not the parent.

---
 
Fido
 
Reply Thu 11 Oct, 2007 09:01 am
@perplexity,
perplexity wrote:
:confused:

A large proportion of children arrive unreasonably, with no decision to conceive from one or both the parents, nor so strange because of it.

In early life the World revolves around the child. Then as time goes on the inadequate Parent becomes the inadequate Human Being. A parent who sucks from a child to seek satisfaction does the same with everybody else. It is about the person, not the parent.

---

I agree, I think.

I much prefer the way of the savage. They looked at children fromthe moment of birth as a future friend and support. That is why they were so accepting of strange behavior, and even homosexuality. They knew that person was some one's family, and that was enough. They had the world neatly divided into two sorts of people: Those outside of the community, and those inside. Those inside could do no wrong. -We judge our children too much by outside standards, the standards of outsiders, and should not be surprised when they judge themselves by outside standards like fashion.

In fact we should say to children: There it is. This is your life, do what you want, be who you are, and I will not judge you even if the outside world does. I look at my two kids, both so opposite it is hard to imagine them so like me in most regards. And I judge them, and should not. Both are intelligent, but one has add, is artistic, and so disconnected that at times I fear she is a future psycho killer. The other is large, like myself, beautiful, smart, and a little over weight. She didn't have to break a sweat to get through high school with just under an A average. But I worry about these reflecting on me, when I should worry about my reflecting on them. Who am I to judge? That is not my job as a parent, but is only to facilitate their growth, and freedom from myself and from childhood. If I judge myself, I find I am guilty.
 
madscientist phil
 
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2007 08:04 am
@Fido,
so what you are saying Fido is that we shouldnt judge our children... and that they need love. which is not given to them.
But didnt really get the stuff about the 2 divisions outside and inside community - so should children be divided or not?

and is love all they need? what other care should be given according to you?
and should parents be hard on their children or not - i.e. should they try to make them according to their qualities and make them obey everything or give them more freedom? is there any definite answer to this?
I know how annoying it is when parents want their children to be according to how they think they should be because that's what they had - but the society changes and the children may not have the exact same characteristics interests etc. So what is your point of view on this? To what extent should parents go into the affairs of their kids?
 
Fido
 
Reply Mon 15 Oct, 2007 12:16 pm
@madscientist phil,
madscientist wrote:
so what you are saying Fido is that we shouldnt judge our children... and that they need love. which is not given to them.
But didnt really get the stuff about the 2 divisions outside and inside community - so should children be divided or not?

and is love all they need? what other care should be given according to you?
and should parents be hard on their children or not - i.e. should they try to make them according to their qualities and make them obey everything or give them more freedom? is there any definite answer to this?
I know how annoying it is when parents want their children to be according to how they think they should be because that's what they had - but the society changes and the children may not have the exact same characteristics interests etc. So what is your point of view on this? To what extent should parents go into the affairs of their kids?



I don't even know about loving them, just that we should love ourselves. We should love our families and love our communities and what is more should get a hold of our communities and not let them be run from out side. Honor should be more important than love, and love should be everything. Children should be disciplined but with no more than words. The law gives them rights but they should be made to understand they have no right to love, respect, or assistence from their community if they act dishonorably. Period. Chidren should be fed, and watched, watered, and read. They don't really need the tv. The tv sells misery if I don't get it. Who needs it? Everytime they switch off the news they turn on the blues. They forget how good they got it, and then forget that they got it. All they have to learn in life is how to hang on to it.
 
madscientist phil
 
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2007 09:34 am
@Fido,
Fido;5084 wrote:
Honor should be more important than love, and love should be everything.

should it? depends what one means by "honor". is it more important than love if these 2 counter-argue each other? should we only love someone simply because it gives us honor? on the other hand, should we refuse to love someone - e.g. due to racial or social reasons, etc if it costs us a loss of honor? dont think so... i think honor comes with love. But honor from one person differs from that of another one or from that of God or some other being we may or may not believe in.
What is honor in the first place? and is it absolute?
 
Fido
 
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 06:29 pm
@madscientist phil,
madscientist wrote:
should it? depends what one means by "honor". is it more important than love if these 2 counter-argue each other? should we only love someone simply because it gives us honor? on the other hand, should we refuse to love someone - e.g. due to racial or social reasons, etc if it costs us a loss of honor? dont think so... i think honor comes with love. But honor from one person differs from that of another one or from that of God or some other being we may or may not believe in.
What is honor in the first place? and is it absolute?


Honor and ethics have a lot of area in common. They are not absolute, but tend toward the absolute. There will always be a human factor. Yes, love is about honor too, self honor, honor of the other, honor and offer, sorry I had to do that; but you get my drift, because one pledges their honor more than their love, that should be their first priority. It is not about two people, but two families, and while it, meaning marriage, is formal, it is also a blessing and a curse. So, again, it is not just about two people, but two families, and in addition, bringing children into society with honor. Honor used to be essential. I believe it still is, but money has become as substitute for honor, and as long as honor can be purchased honor will be demeaned.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » What's the deal with sex?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 04/22/2024 at 05:10:21