You're going to have a discussion with Zero? That should be fun to watch. Good luck!

As long as we don't go back to the Law of Moses where we stone people, I'll be happy living by your moral code ideas.

So according to your moral guidelines, how do you feel about children and punishment for wrong-doing?

@dlmcniel - Do you really think we have such different guild lines? Morality is not a matter of yours vs mine. There is basic right vs wrong, it is the same for all. Disregarding extreme and very rare circumstances, were you try to make excuses for what you inherently know is normally wrong. Do you defend murder, deceit, theft?

Spanking a child is not a moral issue it all. Its about rules and if that sort of punishment is beneficial in teaching the rules. If it benefits the child in the long run, than it's fair and effective. If it does not work, its unfair an more importantly ineffective.

The difficult aspect of morality is that it really varies based on which society you're currently in. In the Roman societies of Ancient it was normal (and sometimes customary) to have orgies, and/or gay sex (many emperors--notably Caligula-- were known for these).

Morality is mostly perceptive based; and enforced by the majority in societies. Or at least those with the most power at the time.

@Schristian - The individual rules change, but the basis stays the same. Even that Roman society made a big deal of sexual fidelity. As strange as that might sound coinciding all they did.

@trunthepaige - Considering*

Well, some of them did promote fidelity. But that fidelity ended at the Emperor. Remember that many of them were polygamous, while professing to their people to be monogamous.

The basis of what governs morality in a society does remain the same... to a degree. Some societies base their moral decisions off of religious framework, while others simply base it off of a majority concensus with no religious indication.

For some it's about religion, for others it's about "natural right and wrong". It's a very weird concept, actually. Kind of like how pro-Lifers support the Death Penalty.

Love it!

@trunthepaige - I just wanted your thoughts.  I think that as we race toward the future, we become in general less concerned with children.  I myself was spanked as a child, but my cousins who live next door are very rarely, if ever spanked.  Those kids are spoiled rotten brats who always get their way.  

@dlmcniel - My mind is not made up on spanking. I have seen that it works.  I have also  seen where it did not work. Is it the spanking or the certainty of punishment that works? I think it has more to do with consistency of the punishment, than what the punishment was. If every time you lie, every time you defy, you instantly are punished for it. I think that has more to do with it working, than the fact that the punishment was a spanking.

But I have seem the same thing you have.

I am at this point a bit confused, are you arguing in favor of subjective morality?  At the end you list all sorts of thing we need to use to understand morality and explain how we all interpret these things differently.  You say that the laws of God should be followed and then say that some acts carried out this way have led to "great tragedy."  You say reason and logic are too variant to be a basis, but that the mind is most important to understanding morality. I guess I am just not really sure what you are saying, specifically.

Keeping religion out of the equation, morality is something I believe in inherent in all of us. But, so it free will. Those who act immorally choose to do so. Morals, at a basic sense, come down to what is right and wrong. Sometimes that line is blurred as what I might consider right, others around me may not. On one hand, morality seems to be a clear cut concept, while on another, it's not so clear. Interesting choice of discussions though. I look forward to following this.

@Rain_of_Mystic_Sorrow - Its possible that I was not clear. I hope not but it would not be the first time. My position is that morality is inherent, that if you use nothing else other than a gut feeling. You will still have some sense of morality. But if you want a complete and reliable sense of morality. You will need to used every tool that we as humans have. Religious, logical reasoning, history , gut feelings, we need to give them all respect and leave none of them out of our decisions.

@trunthepaige - It seems that you are saying that the desire to be moral is inherent, but the ability to be moral comes from the list of things you have: reason, logic, old laws, history, religion etc.  From my understanding of the word, inherent morality would not need outside influences, and would be a very basic set of rules that apply across sociological backgrounds.  Inherent morality would have to be objective, simple and open ended, with more specific morals coming from history, laws, culture and religion being not inherent but learned and developed and passed down. 

@Rain_of_Mystic_Sorrow - You got it exactly, and thank you for actually critiquing the subject I wrote on. As opposed to some others who were not confident enough to come here and communicate with me directly.

You will find more meat for disagreement when Zerowing21 and myself go over each other statements, in direct reply.

ryc:  well, yes.  sometimes.  they hate YOU, because you're not afraid of them.  haha.  and... i bet they secretly LOVE you, though.  you know.

@trunthepaige - spanking a child or forcing them to eat a food they dislike can be a moral act if you're depriving them of basic liberties (inherent things)-- depending on your point of view about what freedoms we possess at birth.

Same is true of spanking an adult or forcing them to eat or not eat something (or waterboarding them)-- as long as were not talking about some freaky subcultural activities.

RYC: Exactly! While I do get what he's trying to do with the title and questions... he executes his intentions poorly. I mean, didn't you just CRINGE reading that title? My god... I actually felt pain in my chest reading it. Literally.

And you know I'd be remiss if I didn't lovingly point out the irony of your last sentence. If anything, just to tease you

@runaheadofme - I love spanking adults. Maybe not so much as kids though. Freud! TAKE ME NOW!

@runaheadofme - Making certain someone is breathing is a very good thing. But even that act can be taken to freakish and painful extremes. Extremes are of course not what I'm talking about.

@Schristian - I was just waiting for the punch line ;) 

RYC: Thankyouthankyouthankyou for doing that. I hate when people post something; I go to their site and RYC; and then they just hit reply on their site. So rude!

Haha, yeah. Especially when you left out the L in literacy.

Really though, in spite of the writing, you really aren't a bad person. I might not agree with everything you have to say; but you're not the complete cunt I had you pegged to be. As a fellow Extreme Opinion Professer, I have to admit I sometimes rub people the wrong way (OHMIGOSH F'REALZ?!).

But definitely! I hope he reads that part you wrote about refusing to read the entry based on the title. Juvenile! That's another way to describe it. I still say my original title was awesome.

@runaheadofme - I hope I succeeded in providing the best paedophilic punchline ever. Kinky.

@trunthepaige - What would you say the goal of morality is.  You talk about how the old rules faced a lot of trial and error, but the old laws are based on various objectives that may be irrelevant today.  Trial and error alone doesn't neccisarily lead to reasonable rules or relevant objectives.  If a man sacrafices his favorite thing left to him by throwing it into a river before he hunts, then he may be consider this "sacrafice" to be a moral thing that pleases something beyond himself and the hunt.  He has hunted successfully enough that he is still alive, so surely it is his moral sacrafice pleasing the river that makes him hunt successfully.  Most of us don't need to hunt though, and our modern common sense makes us question whether such an act even has need of being considered moral or not.  What makes the ancient celtic custom of sacraficing to rivers less crazy than the trial and error rules that please "God".  Why are animal sacrafices in the bibal not part of our morality anymore.  What gave Paul the right to just say they don't apply anymore.  Aren't the sacrafices older than the "New Testament".  Why are they not better through more trial and error?

Forgive the mispellings,  This is what I get for trying to type when I first wake up after being out till 4AM.