Not that there's anything wrong with that!

outlaw pretty much said it for me, but just to say this...

1 percent of the current world population is 60 million people. That could represent an entire culture, an entire relgion, an entire race. That's an awful lot of people to suggest that just because the other 5,940,000,000 of us think something is wrong, it is.

Secondly, I'm sure there were times on this planet when 99 percent of people thought slavery was acceptable or that the world was flat. Did that make them right just because the majority agreed?

I think we could ALL be classified as moral relativists as some point in time. Morality is most often a personal, individual choice, not something that can be dictated. That automatically makes it relative.

 

He could have just gone to a sex farm.

 

Please be patient.....I had trouble with the Stranger as well.

Moral relativism basically is that the society sets the moral compass's north arrow and thus a moral relativist conforms to this direction. Close?

From your second paragraph, it sounds like relativists only pretend to have morals to escape the consequences, under my weak understanding. It also sounds like they let other people determine the morality of a soceity and would then meet the bare minimum of fifteen pieces of flair to appease morality setters of society. It would also be impossible to have an immoral society under this view because the society determines right and wrong, under my very weak understanding.

I would say a soceity's average moral character affects the development of a person's morals, but a person's morals are his own. A moral person would resist an immoral society, but I believe there are certain universal rights (as in right and wrong) that determine the morallity of a person and a society.

Moral relativism does explain a lot about spring breakers in Cancun though.

PS. I don't mean to offend...just to get more information because I believe I'm missing something to it.

 

Good post, tbagain. I think the last sentence is as good a statement as any in this thread. I just can't believe I read a tbagain post that says killing animals is wrong.

 

What could these dogs do to prevent being raped after already submitting to allowing their master to put panties on them.

It's like bad weather. As long as rape's inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it.

You see. These dogs must have fought back, otherwise they'd be alive today.

 

I think there are different levels to this. I am not a moral relativist in that I do believe that there is a truth and that there is a right and wrong. Having said that, I don’t think any of us can see perfectly what right and wrong are. In fact I think that we see them very imperfectly, and that that flawed perception is central to our human condition. I believe that not only can we not unerringly see right and wrong, we can’t even unfailingly do what we believe is right and not do what we believe is wrong. These are what I see as fairly fundamental Christian beliefs, which is where I’m coming from.

Therefore, it is not for us to judge anyone, because we are in no moral position to judge others, period. It is our responsibility to discern, however, and if you’re interested in my personal opinion, I’m pretty confident that men were not meant to copulate with dogs. But it is certainly not for me to judge that man’s soul.

Sexual addictions are fairly well known afflictions and it is conceivable that this guy is a good citizen in other areas of his life, while having this one bizarre compulsion. As abhorrent as this particular affliction may seem, the principle still holds, “judge not lest ye be judged” IMHO.

From a legal standpoint, what he did is against the law, and the guy obviously poses a threat to dogs at the very least, so he should be removed from society and encouraged to get help, (jail, therapy, parole provisions, etc). Since there seems to be a statistically demonstrable increased likelihood that people who commit sex crimes will recommit, I’d also be in favour of a long parole period with fairly strict supervision.

So, are this man’s actions morally wrong? From an individual standpoint, the individual must discern what they believe the truth is. From a legal standpoint, moral judgement isn’t an issue. We make laws we hope are just, but we know that not all of them are. We apply the laws as best we can, but there should never be any moral condemnation involved in that application, I believe. Simply put, we are not fit to judge another person.

You can add Christianity to that list of theories/beliefs that consider it wrong to judge our fellow men.

Be careful when you say that “everybody knows” an act is wrong. Most Christians and most first world countries consider capital punishment a clear and obvious immoral act, even without considering that innocent people are clearly among those being killed. Obvious, right? Some Texans may disagree. Moral law may be black and white, but we can’t see black and white, only shades of grey, and we all too often simply get it wrong.

And as for your last line, I think that humans who become so arrogant that they feel they can judge other humans have been responsible for many if not most of the atrocities throughout world history, and leads us to the death of our civilisation, IMHO.

 

after reading that, I need to puke. People like this exist???

 

DAMN good post, Grizzled. Thank you.

 

Good critique rezdawg.

Thanks Batman.

 

Grizzled,
I may be mistaken, but I assumed rezdawg was commenting on the original story.

 

Ah! My mistake. Sorry rezdawg, it must be getting late. Time for bed.

 

I'm glad I'm a moral conservative. It's easier to draw lines. In fact this morning, I drew one about a mile and a half away from this topic.

On a second note, the Seinfeld title for this thread is perfect.

 

RUN LASSIE RUN!

 

Each person's reaction equates to how much they like dogs or animals. Generally, the more a person like dogs, the more repulsed he/she gets by this.

But from a balanced perspective, just how "wrong" is this action? We treat our animals as slaves and food. Just because we hold an emotional attachment with cats, dogs, and other household pets doesn't make any difference to the fact that the majority of us eats meat. They were all domesticated to be docile and trusting to humans. They are our property. And while some people equate it to cruelty on how that man killed those dogs, testemonies of beef and pork slaughterhouses behind closed doors hold even more gruesome details.

So as our property, some overzealous owners dress them in clothes and other demeaning attire even though they have adequate fur to keep them warm. Putting them in lingere or other undergarment is probably not as demeaning to them as it is to put on a T-shirt. A T-Shirt would probably be more cumbersome...

Bestiality is a social taboo. Something you hear whisperings of in cow country or as some random fetish. And who knows in what numbers it is practiced, and what reasons why people do it. But it still happens. The lines blur on sexual activity because the social guidelines of what is "sick" and what isn't aren't as established as some people think. Of course a rational minded person says, animals are pretty much a damn solid line, but what about inanimate objects or having more than one partner at a time? (I think I'll leave it at that because I'm beginning to gross even myself out. )

The point of all this is that while we can judge this man as a maniac, a person who is above all that can say that the most of us eats meat which at one point were living animals and were subjugated to undescribable amounts of "cruelty" before their deaths, and that this situation is excacerbated because it occured on an animal that we consider a loyal household pet instead of outdoors livestock.

Personally, I think he should rot in jail for a little while and be thrown in a mental ward for being a sexual deviant and a cold blooded murderer. But that would make me a hypocrite instead of trying to be a rational guy.

 

Grizzled excellent post.

 

I say throw the sicko in a regular prison, not a mental one. He'll get his punishment he needs there, no doubt. Despite the fact they're all criminals in there, there's an honor code in prison. Like if you do bad things with a child, you get messed up big time. I'd bet that it won't be too much different in this case. Everyone likes dogs.