Reproductive Ethics

[xav0989]

I understand your position, but let me just bring something up. From reading a few of the pages in the website you mentioned, and from conversing with some Jewish friends, I didn't find anything stating that you should not have intercourse with someone before marriage. But this is particular to the Jewish religion, culture and tradition. They do, however, pause many restrictions onto who you may marry and they also prevent you from having intercourse with other women once you are married. Christians, however, have the new testament, a collection of books that is not recognized by Jewish people and that brings new insight onto the way the texts should be interpreted.

[1.supermind]

As indicated before human beings are endowed with superior intelligence, not to live more proficient animalistic life, but to understand their situation in relation to the world in which they are living, what is the purpose of existence, and how to meet that purpose. Otherwise we are no better then animals, which are struggling very hard for survival, concerned only with four principles: eating, sleeping, mating and defending.

A human being is meant for inquiry about the Absolute Truth. A healthy life is a prerequisite for fulfilling this purpose, and moral codes are expected to be guidelines for healthy, peaceful and prosperous life for all human beings and broader. If people are conducted by immoral behaviour, their progress in the above-mentioned manner is checked.

Now, someone may notice that for understanding the meaning of morality one has to consider the purpose or goal of life. There has to be some foundation as mdailey mentioned. However he is assuming that foundation must be based on a system of belief, which does not need to be the only case. Foundation can also be based on the desired goal one aspires to achieve.

But there comes one problem with this reasoning, which I will try to briefly explain. In a simple WordWeb dictionary I find this definition of ethic (which is applied to the definition of moral principle): "The principles of right and wrong that are accepted by an individual or a social group". Now, we all know that there are many individuals and different social groups in the world, and each of them may imbibe their own ethical principles, which may differ from others'. A professional thief or a gang of thieves will consider their stealing to be right, or moral, justified on a basis of maintaining themselves, their families or communities. They will never take into account that one day they will surely be caught by the higher security body, which looks upon their activities as immoral, and reap the undesired consequences or punishment. Thus in this relative world what is morality for one person is immorality for another, and any of such manufactured moral behaviour of an individual or a social group may not result in the attainment of the desired goal.

Therefore to ask about public opinion, which is affected by external conditions (sentiments, mass media, ignorance, etc.), about ethics, be it reproductive or any other, is unwise and is a way of cheating oneself and everybody else.

Therefore our primary concern should be to find out what is the actual or absolute morality, which functions according to the standard principle. For that we have to approach and learn from a perfect scientist or a superior authority. And this is the subject which I will leave for another session, if necessary.

[fractalfeline]

@ 1.supermind

True about animals having little shame or ethical complications about mating, killing, defending, etc. But then again, among the more social animals, such as apes and lions, you see a certain amount of well, social activity regarding sex, eating, etc. Things like one male per pride for lions and systematic killing of cubs conceived by other males, or the alpha wolf in the pack getting to eat first. So essentially, as animals get more intelligent and social, these "basic" things become more complicated. Is there something about social groupings and adding codes of behavior of ever increasing complexity? Is it preferable to be a solo animal with basic needs and habits, or a social animal that benefits from "pack protection" but at the cost of complex social codes?

Have you read Dune btw? A lot of what you say about humanity mirrors Bene Gesserit philosophy...

Oddly enough, I was thinking about this a few weeks ago upon pondering Genesis. But that's a whole other can of worms.

I wouldn't mind participating in your project. Links or it don't exist

Therefore to ask about public opinion, which is affected by external conditions (sentiments, mass media, ignorance, etc.), about ethics, be it reproductive or any other, is unwise and is a way of cheating oneself and everybody else.

Touche.

@ phazzedout
Yes! Guys need to warble and build me a nest! But I might settle for a good round of DOTA or Civs. Open cheek, insert tongue.

@ xav0989
Ah, two types of sex, pleasure/fun and reproductive. Interesting view. I dunno about the pleasure/fun sex being non-emotional... but I see what you mean. Do you believe reproductive sex has greater meaning and thus greater emotion attached to it?

Fun trivia about men/woman and these "hardwired habits." Did you know... (yes I know, rat studies, how relevant are they to humans, etc.) that rats exhibit different mating and parenting behaviors based on how much estrogen or testosterone they were exposed to in utero? "Good father" rats (that seek partnership and help raise rat pups) came from estrogen exposure in utero, whereas "Player" rats (that seek multiple sex partners and do not raise the rat pups) came from testosterone exposure in utero. "Playmate" rats (females that are more attractive to male rats) came from estrogen exposure and were generally more social but weaker, whereas "Survivor" rats (females that are stronger, more aggressive, but less attractive) came from testosterone exposure. Cool beans...

@ mdailey
Do you believe that humans lack a sense of morality? I mean, we can say that humans generally have an inner moral compass, but if I understand you correctly... you believe this moral compass is a direct result of God. If there's one thing we can prove, it is that some humans possess a moral compass, but its origin is not necessarily clear. And... it doesn't always point in the same direction

Also, much of the Old Testament does not apply to Gentiles. The laws of the Torah apply to the Covenant between God and His Chosen People, namely the descendants of Jacob, as per His promise to Abraham. ie the modern day Jews. You could argue that it's "spiritual descent," but I seem to remember explicit statements regarding the Covenant being a covenant of blood, not spirit. In fact, I seem to recall parts of the New Testament that describe how the Gentiles that wish to follow Jesus' teachings are not bound by the Covenant... I'd be hard pressed to dig that up for casual conversation though!

[1.supermind]

To fractalfeline:

My viewpoint is that it is not preferable to live like any animal, more or less intelligent (or social). More about this I will cover later. Up to now I've given you just a basic or rough idea - the real purpose of human life is not sense gratification, but self-realization. That only can make one everlastingly happy.

This philosophy is derived from Vedic knowledge, specifically from the Vedanta-sutra (1.1.1): athato brahma jijnasa ("Now is the time to inquire about the Absolute Truth"). What differentiates men from animal is the ability of human intelligence to enquire about the Absolute Truth, which animals can not do. This is a deep subject which I did not even touch in my previous posts.

Tomorrow I'm starting my journey to Haridvar, Rishikesh, Vrindavan and Kuruksetra in India, to visit those places of topmost spiritual significance, where the most wondrous events happened in the history.

I'll be back after two weeks, and then continue with this interesting discussion about reproductive ethics.

Thanks.