Mercedesrules (I swear one day I'm going to register a username of BMWrules and debate motor vehicles with you!
),
I must respectfully disagree most profoundly with your views on morality. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that morality in one's choice of action is totally dependent on the individual actor's view of what is (or is not) moral.
I doubt if you can prove otherwise. Aren't individual humans moral agents?
In that case, we can't have a society at all - because without concensus on the basis of social morality, anything goes, and anarchy is the result, morally if not politically.
Well, I am an anarchist but I advocate a private system of laws that create legal rights based on mutual promises. I would promise not to interfere with your life, liberty and property and you would promise me the same.
It also destroys any concept of a criminal justice system, because no action can be described as "right" or "wrong" except in the eye of the actor, and therefore can't be punished societally.
There is no need to scream that acts are "right" or "wrong". The breaking of a promise would create the legal right to restitution from the promise-breaker to the victim.
You're well within what I'd call the "Fletcher camp" of situation ethics: the context determines the morality of the action. This is rejected by almost everybody today, but was wildly popular in the 1960's.
What would the "Fletcher camp" say about homosexuality?
I, on the other hand, believe that there is, at the root of all human ethics, a "natural law" that can be rationally discovered, developed and codified, which governs our actions (or, rather, should govern our actions), and is the basis for law and order, and exists irrespective of situations, circumstances and contextual issues. Over and above this, there are also many different moral codes founded on religion, philosophy, etc., which are more or less successful, more or less universal, and more or less practical, depending on many factors for their success. However, the "natural law" morality does feed and inform the other, more "sectarian" codes - for example, every single major religion in the world incorporates the "Golden Rule" ("Do unto others what you would have them do unto you"), in differing expressions, but all expressing the same truth. Being a person of faith, I would say that this is because God has revealed His truth in many ways, and this fundamental truth has been identified by all major religions. Other, less religious persons would argue that this is, in fact, a "natural law" moral principle that can be worked out independently of any religion, and has therefore been a fundamental guiding principle that religions have "built in" to their "revelation". Argue it whichever way you like - it still makes moral sense, doesn't it?
Ahh, the C.S. Lewis camp.
What if someone wants to be tied up and whipped? I see morals as a sort of "don't do" list that we each compile and carry around with us to check before we act. Some acts are on almost everyone's list and some are not. The previously-discussed random child-killing is on most lists; killing Iraqi civilians is on about half and homosexuality is on some other percentage. It is still obvious to me that the lists will always differ.
I also must respectfully disagree with you that a person doing something "bad", or immoral, thinks that his/her actions are, in fact, moral and/or good. This is obviously not the case. A rapist may carry out his crimes for his own enjoyment, but don't try to tell me that he thinks he's morally right in acting as he does - he obviously recognizes that his actions are immoral and criminal, or he would not seek to conceal them and escape their consequences.
Some people might know that others have a different morality list. They know that there are laws and law-enforcers. For instance, I know that some people
don't think that taxes are theft.
You said earlier:
People always do what they think they should do.
I respectfully submit that this is clearly, obviously false. A child doesn't think it "ought to" raid the fridge and eat up all the desserts - it knows Mommy and/or Daddy will be mad at it if it does so: yet it eats them anyway. A dog will steal a steak and eat it, expecting punishment if and when discovered. The actors in these situations both know that their actions are wrong, and that they'll be punished for it: but the dog is acting out of canine instinct, whereas the child is choosing to do something it knows to be wrong, having been informed clearly about this, and understanding it. A rapist doesn't think he
should commit rape: he rather does so because he
wants to commit rape. Big difference.
I am a little hesitant to include children (and pets) in a discussion of moral agency since they aren't equipped with the tools to make fully-informed decisions. May we stick to adults?
I don't consider guesses concerning the rapist's unknowable thoughts relevant or meaningful. If someone acts, they have chosen to do so. IOW, they weighed the options and risks and acted anyway. They thought it was the correct action to take. The act is not on their "don't do" list.
There are also moral considerations that go far beyond the individual actors in a situation. For example, you said:
In the case of this thread, homosexual acts are consensual and harm no one but persons who consented to the risks, if any.
I must disagree. The consequences can be enormous, and far more widespread than just the two persons involved. Medically speaking, anal sex is far more risky from the point of view of infection, disease, etc. than normal (i.e. "vaginal") sex. The skin layers on the inside of the anus are paper-thin compared to the muscles and multiple layers of skin inside the vagina, which is built to take the rough-and-tumble of sex - the anus isn't. This is why it's so much easier for venereal diseases, AIDS, etc. to infect someone anally rather than vaginally - and this isn't conjecture, it's medical fact, clearly established. So, by choosing to participate in anal sex (which is the dominant homosexual act, according to most of the authorities I've read), the participants are also choosing to expose themselves to this much, much higher risk of infection. Furthermore, given the highly promiscuous sexual lifestyle of most homosexuals (and again, this is not a matter of conjecture, but established fact, illustrated by many surveys and authorities), the risk of passing on that infection to others is greatly increased. This, in turn, imposes life-shortening consequences on many people, which affects their families, costs society a great deal of money, etc. It also imposes a greater strain on society, in terms of the premature loss of a productive member, etc. (The same societal consequences are visible in Africa, where heterosexual transmission of AIDS has caused the depopulation of some areas, and the wholesale loss of members of the most productive and important strata of society - for example, Zambia is now training two teachers for every teaching post in the country, expecting to lose one of them to AIDS in due course, which is an enormous economic burden on the country.)
Each act of sex has risks. Therefore, pointing out that gays that catch AIDS might have sex later with someone else is irrelevant. The new couple will consent to the risks also.
Since I don't believe that humans owe anything to "society", reduced production is not a concern. The increased "cost" to society is due to socialistic welfare programs, not disease.
