Moral Judgments

Hello Holmes, Well a soccer game is a sport conducted in the presence of adult supervision. Having a cookie before dinner is not even comparable to a adult "romantically" kissing a child of age seven. I respect your openmindedness and realize you often play devils advocate. But... Holmes, children must be protected from sexual predation. We as 'adults' must assure them that measure of protection. They are vunerable to trauma of both mind and body. A adult is on a completely different playing field both mentally and physically. There is a taboo here. One that is indisputable IMO.

Hi Holmes,
Well the point I thought you were making was that if one has no basis to say homosexuality is morally WRONG, then one can not say on the same basis that pedophillia (sex with children) is WRONG. The difference between the two is that two consenting adults may have sex. But a child of 7 and an adult having sex is morally wrong on the basis that the child is not mature enough mentally or physically to engage in that activity. There is a difference between pedophilla and homosexuality. Consent , Physical and mental differences. If you advocate or believe there is no difference then more power to you, fine but you still have to defend why a adult with superior intellect and physical make up can Morally be supported in engaging in sex with a seven year old. What culture to you know of that practices having sex with children of age 7?

Hi Holmes, I do not see there is any argument at all, Tal is comparing apples and oranges.IMO. morality entails one make a stance on right or wrong. If there is no such thing as a objective morality (which I personally do not believe there is.) Then it is simply based on what the particular society deems is right or wrong. A position must be taken to even make a proposition based on morality. Once one does state a premise such as: "Homosexuality is no more morally wrong than pedophillia." Then Tal is basing this permise on the fact that there is no such thing as morality and therefore no such thing as right or wrong. I know this is not his position, I believe he is simply using a extreme /inflamable subject to make his point. But it is empty IMO because he is arguing on the bases that objective morality does not exist therefore anything goes. And we all know logically that makes sense, but realistically is idiotic. Just my opinion. Go ahead and rip me apart now.