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. 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. 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. 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.
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?
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. 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.
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.)
I don't want to limit this to homosexuality, either. I can cite the example of a friend of mine, a computer executive who went to the Far East on business some years ago. While there, he had a one-night fling with a prostitute, who, unknown to him, was infected with AIDS. He came home and went about his life normally, including having sex with his wife, and told no-one of his actions. Tragically, he infected his wife with AIDS, and in due course, when she became pregnant with their third child, the child was infected in the womb. The whole story came out when tests during pregnancy disclosed the problem. I buried his wife and their child, and watched this man go insane with the guilt of knowing that his thoughtless, immoral actions had caused the death of his wife and child. He died a babbling maniac three years after they'd died.
Makes you think, doesn't it?
