GIRLS CHASE MONTHLY SUBSCRIPTION
• Unlimited access to GirlsChase.com
Is casual sex morally acceptable? Historically, people have viewed sex as a serious matter that should be restricted. And social conventions have typically told us to withhold sex and control our human lusts.
Most religions therefore consider promiscuity a sin; something immoral that was even punished by death in the Middle Ages. The sanctions for promiscuity have become way lighter since then, and in the modern day West, the sanctions have for the most part become only of a social matter: judging, exclusion, and shame.
Though I’ve covered it in some of my previous articles (like this one or this one), in a nutshell, female sexuality has been restricted in order to create order and avoid chaos. Remember, the majority of males out there compete over the provider role, and therefore are not very sexually attractive to women in comparison to the small minority of lovers – those men whom women find sexually attractive and who provide them sexual satisfaction.
Comments
What is "responsibility"?
Hi Alex,
If you want to make this more throughout, what is 'responsibility'? Because i seen enough to know every1 has variations of it.
i do believe it's all about sex and power. Firmly so. Day by day, i am convinced by this. It's about survival of your genes.
Zac
Zac
Hi Zac.
What i meant with responsibility in this article was to make sure you:
1. do your best to avoid causing any sort of harm to her or yourself (using condoms etc)
2. And if any harm occurs (STD's, unwanted pregnancies) that you deal with it (see a doctor, warn earlier sex partners of your STD's, help her go trough an abortion)
Hope this answered your question.
-Alek
Offensive
I apologise for being offensive. I get what you mean. Just that it's an annoying truth which boggles my brain after seeing this with everyone recently.
Is Casual Sex Okay?
I think its very different for men and women.
If you are a man its definitely OK and can only help you become a better man.
If you are a woman it's OK only in the sense that you really are not hurting anyone else and it is your choice, but you are definitely hurting yourself if you plan on being in a ltr. Life is about what one has to offer to others and a woman with a high partner count or one that is not very selective has a lower value in the eyes of a man, regardless if that man is a lover or not. Sure, if its casual sex a man will have no real problem what a woman's past really was like, as there is no caring involved, but once it crosses over to relationship territory, any sane man will think twice about a woman who carelessly gives her biggest asset away so easily. If a man will offer his care and attention to a woman so she can bear and raise his children, he will prefer a woman that basically has eyes only for him. The highest value woman is one that many want but only you can get, and a high value man is one that can get many but only wants you. Such is life.
RicePilaf
You are very right when saying it is different for men and women. Obviously, it is more risk in the picture when it comes down to casual sex for women. Social sanctions, slut shaming makes it difficult for women to live out their sex life.
so yes it is unfair, unfair that men of lower value, fearing female sexuality tries to control it with fear of social shaming. That is pretty low of them.
But we here at girlschase do not fear female sexuality, but instead embraces. It is beautiful, sexy and pure. Men who fear female sexuality are those who cannot control it - usually men who are not attractive in women's eyes.
However, as mentioned in many earlier posts, the average man is not good with women. Hence he will most likely fear female sexuality and try to use fear to control it. Usually most providers are the average male, which makes slut-shaming the norm.
I do agree with you that most providers, when looking for an LTR will be crept out by the idea of a promiscuous women. This is exactly why women LIE to them about their sexual practices. That is why women act all non-sexual toward men they see as providers. Because they do not want to trigger their madonna/whore complex.
This is where the who idea of "secret society" comes in, were women can in secret fuck the sexy lovers who are sexually liberated. They can "slut around as much as they want in secret with their lovers, while in public "act" like they play according to the rules to satisfie the big majority of sexually useless males.
This is also why it is key to be a lover, because lovers are men who usually have had sex with many women, who do not fear female sexuality but instead loves it. Because when you are a lover, women will open up to you as she will perceive you as a "secret society member" . this is when you get a lot of laid and genuine relationships that does not end up in her cheating on the badboy next door.
Why would a sane man have madonna whore complexe? I didn't get that. How can a man who fear female sexuality be "sane". How is "weaknes" sane?
And I also don't get how promiscuity has anything to do with how good a girl is at being a mother. It has absolutly nothing to do with it.
Yes unattractive males are obsessed with having a woman that only belongs to him. Sadly, such intentions are bad as women usually likes to make the provider think she is only theirs, but then later she cheats on him.
Biology is biology and there is nothing you can do about it :)
-Alek
Flawed argumentation
Alek,
i think you might not have thought some things through:
"Why would a sane man have madonna whore complexe? I didn't get that. How can a man who fear female sexuality be "sane". How is "weaknes" sane?"
You answered this yourself when you say biology is biology. RicePilaf gave you a very good answer why men prefer girls with lower partner count and Chase has an article somewhere where he cites a study, that shows that the higher the partner count of a woman is, the higher the likelihood that she will stray.
Now, which SANE man would want to invest his time and efforts into a woman where he can't be sure the offspring is his?
That would be a TOTAL VIOLATION of the Law of Least Effort.
You put much effort in, you get nothing out.
Even Chase himself said he prefers women with lower partner count over girls with a higher one for LTRs.
Don't get me wrong, i think a woman should have as much sex with whomever she wants, but she just can't expect a man to value her as LTR material when she sleeps around that much. Simple biology.
"For example, did you know that most HIV contractions take place within relationships? "
That might be due to the fact, that many HIV contractions take place among homosexual males, who practice anal sex while tending to have multiple partners - even if in relationships.
Or maybe the data that study has collected contains HIV contractions that occured in 3rd world countries like Africa, which again would put the whole thing in different light.
You're not citing a study, where and with whom has that study been conducted? Without context this point is useless.
Since I’m being summoned on a
Since I’m being summoned on a seemingly-hot button issue, I’ll weigh in.
Firstly, let’s not be too hasty in writing off a girl’s value due to sleeping around, at least so long as we want to approach this rationally and realistically, and not like a bunch of chicks “you go girl!”ing each other on Jezebel.
I read a lot of history, and one of the most intriguing things I notice is how frequently there are these charismatic women of questionable backgrounds – courtesan, prostitute, etc. – who end up seducing and entrancing multiple men of great power in their eras. When I was still only a few years into exploring female sexuality, this puzzled me; shouldn’t these women be OFF-PUTTING to these powerful men with unlimited choice with women, rather than alluring?
And then I noticed how much it happens even today. Men travel to Thailand or the Philippines, buy prostitutes, and fall in love. Nearly every prostitute in Thailand has multiple wealthy men in the West sending her money to not prostitute herself out anymore and instead wait for him. Which of course she tells him she will do, while proceeding to do the opposite and seduce more wealthy men.
Rupert Murdoch (worth $5 billion) married Wendi Deng, a woman with a history of seducing wealthy men, including, while married to Murdoch, seemingly Tony Blair, former prime minister of the U.K. and longtime friend of Murdoch’s. François-Henri Pinault (worth $15 billion) married Salma Hayek, allegedly after hiring her while she was escorting for scads of money at Cannes. Every high paid escort to the wealthy I’ve ever heard from has piles of marriage offers from clients of hers wishing to wed.
So what’s going on?
If it was one guy we could say, “This man may have been an emperor / billionaire, but I guess he was just clueless about women.” When it’s tons of them though, something else is happening.
It’s a bit much for me to get into in the comments (maybe I’ll do an article on it if I can get a little time to write), but basically, if a woman is savvy, sleeping around teaches her things that no amount of being a good girl ever can: charisma, charm, allure, mountains of social skill, and exactly and precisely what men want.
Every man will tell you on paper he wants nothing to do with women like this, just as women will tell you on paper they’d never in a million years date a man who’s studied seduction and slept with copious women. Such men are cads, disgusting, and utterly unlovable.
Yet, they fall harder for seducers than they do for anyone else…
Basically, women trade in fidelity points (and the risk of fidelity does go up per partner, to the tune of +7% each additional man she beds) in exchange for charisma points. Not always – I’m sure there are women whose infidelity risks are not as affected by more partners, just as there are women who don’t get much more charismatic as they up their partner tallies. But it’s quite common.
As for this discussion, I think it’s worth pointing out that you (Wardog) and Alek are coming from different places; you’re talking about selecting a partner for a long-term monogamous relationship, I assume (in which fidelity’s likely to play a large role), whereas Alek’s talking more about picking up and seducing, I assume (in which case, fidelity’s somewhat irrelevant, but being rambunctious and experimental in bed – something most “good girls” will tend not to be – is a little more important).
Also, to both of you, I’m not so certain men are biologically wired to prefer low count women – this seems to be more dependent on the investment expected of the man. In matriarchal societies like the Mosou, the men are perfectly okay with women sleeping with lots of men, presumably because they do not bear an ounce of cost in the raising of any young. The more responsibility a man feels expected to bear toward a woman and any young he has with her, the more he tends to expect fidelity out of her normally – this seems to be the driver of this, not biology per se so much as his own internal calculations about what his investment will be and a desire to stay away from risky investments if he’s investing a lot (this also explains the Alek-Wardog difference; Alek is investing little, so cares little about the risk of losing that investment, while Wardog is presumably theoretically investing much more if he likes a girl, with much more on the line to be lost).
Chase
Chase, if you could write up
Chase,
if you could write up an article about this, that would be fantastic.
Personally, I don't care about the partner count of a girl i'm just banging, so i totally understand Alek in this regard.
But most men who choose do be with a girl in a LTR do so, because they want a monogamous relationship and a higher partner count does you no good here, except of course, you do live in a matriarchal society.
(I wonder though, is the 7% increase in infedility also applicable for men?)
Regarding these billionaires falling for prostitutes and the likes, remember your ebook sales page where you talk about the regular guy trying to get girls with his Porsche?
These guys got all the Porsches they want and thus attract women that are after these things and among them, they might choose.
But i doubt that many of these men have developed the necessary skillset to really get all the kinds of women they want and thus lack abundance.
So if among these hookers and escortes they find one with character, i don't think it's that unlikely they fall hard for them.
Another thing might be investment, these guys have massive resources, maybe they don't really care if they spent a bit on a woman they like, even if she sleeps around and if you're with a woman that you kow sleeps around, you probably aren't all that monogamous either.
Also, you talk about hookers and escortes as women with "questionable" background, while at the same time saying this:
"Firstly, let’s not be too hasty in writing off a girl’s value due to sleeping around [...]"
So prostitutes are a bit of an extreme, but isn't "questionable" a judgement?
- wardog
Quick Thing.
Just a thing that popped into my mind:
"Another thing might be investment, these guys have massive resources, maybe they don't really care if they spent a bit on a woman they like, even if she sleeps around and if you're with a woman that you kow sleeps around, you probably aren't all that monogamous either."
Such women are incredibly bad at hiding their traces. Women who seek long term partners should never make it publicly known that they bang around. Lowkeyness is key for women.
Think about it, which girl will an average man looking for an ltr prefer:
1) A girl who has banged 10 guys, but who seems very direct and let everybody knows about her part. Everybody knows how many and who she has banged.
2) A girl who has banged 50 guys, but who never made her "datas" public. She lies about her past and is perceived as a madonna.
Who will he pick? This is just an example, but this seems to mirror real life very well to me.
Thought?
-Alek
Hookers
Alek,
i think i didn't properly understand your question, but i'll try.
Since Chase was speaking of men that fall for escortes and hookers, i think they know what's up with these women. Or what exactly did you mean ?
Chase
Chase,
You said 2 month ago that you stopped writing because you felt you've said it all. It seems like wardog has proven you wrong there and giving you some inspiration!
I am also looking forward to this article.
-Alek
Chase, I just want to say
Chase,
I just want to say it's a pleasure hearing you weigh in. Smart, sophisticated, calm, with a touch of wit, your demeanor comes off in your writing. You got me started in a strategic approach to game and I'll always consider you a life coach. Your articles of wisdom go well beyond just game.
Thanks man!
Craig
wardog
I think we are misunderstanding each other. I might have been unclear with my points.
It is true that most men seek "pure" women when looking for a ltr for all the reasons you have listed.
The issue however, and this is where we seem to disagree: you believe there are "pure" non-promiscuous women out there. Well maybe there are a few, but most women have a pretty rough past sex life before meeting "the man" of their life.
Now, what you did not take into the equation is how women lie about their sexual past. This is a well-known phenomenon. So my point is that there are almost no "pure" women out there. Even if a woman says she has only banged 3 guys before meeting you, you know deep inside that this is a lie. Women very often lie about how many they have banged. This is a result of their their anti-slut defense, which is caused by what we are currently discussing.
Women know that we men seek purity when looking for a long term partner. Therefore, with this knowledge women do what ever is in their power to make us perceive them as pure and clean and in order to do so they try to project a non-sexual image of themselves to men - hence they will be willing to lie abour their desires and their sexual past. Lying is not uncommon - women lie a LOT. It's in their nature.
Back to the idea of a "sane" man, and this is where we disagree. I believe a sane man will not be in a position to fall for her lies. In fact, the sane man will know how female sexuality works and see the truth behind her lies. There is nothing he can do about it, so he just accepts it and embraces the positive aspects of it - like i do.
Because if we look at it, living in a lie that might seem appealing to believe is worse than living in a "less appealing" truth, because sooner of later the truth will come out ("oh my wife banged the poolboy, the guy from work or the badboy next door"). This is due to the fact that although humans can be emotionally monogamous for a while, their sexual polyamori will sooner or later kick in (some sooner than others).
I have found it more beneficial to not play these games and live in a fake bubble. Instead i like to live in congruence with the truth, and please believe me, living in a genuine and open (not necessarily non-monogamous, but more of the sort were you have an open dialogue) with a girl is just amazing, it feels great and you will offer her something special, that no man has given her before.
Fun fact is, women have rarely cheated on me (happened once with my ex who was a total nutjob - drugs, daddy issues etc...) and women who has had a deeper relationship with me tend to not forget me because of the "unique" thing we had (unique for the, not me). Also you will explore her sexuality on much deeper level which can make the whole relationship much wilder. So to me, there is a lot of positive things here, which makes me think that living in such relationships is a rationale choice for an attractive man due to all the benefits - hence it is the "sane thing" to do. I can't see how looking for purity, which mostly is non-existant and usually based on a big lie is sane.
I think it was Salman Rushdie who once said "the only pure woman who exists, lives in your imagination".
I agree with him.
But if you disagree with that it is fine. I am very happy for your comments because you contribute in making the comment section interesting, not only for me but also for the other readers.
My points are based on my personal experience. I have had quite a few over the years (I started practicing the art of seduction at about the same time as Chase). But truth need to be told, that I have met guys who has been into this for as long as Chase and I who still disagree. The theoretical side of pick up and seduction has a lot of room for disagreement. But I think that's a good thing in the long run.
Thank you for your comments.
-Alek
Alek
...maybe i wasn't all that clear either.
I totally agree with you (and Rushdie) that there are almost no "pure" women, i also don't expect them to be and i do know that girls lie about their partner count because they fear being judged.
It's just for me to be able to trust a girl in a LTR, she shouldn't be too much on the wild side.
That's why we want to move fast and don't judge girls, even if we're looking for a LTR. It's the only way a girl will be honest with you.
wardog
That's not quite true.
That's not quite true. Despite the "double standard", several studies show that women prefer men with a low number of sexual partners and are around 30% MORE likely to lose respect for a guy after sleeping with him than males for a woman they had sex with. I'm not saying that a man that has casual sex is bad, but it's not something that is seen as being positive by women.
In any case, there's no way of knowing someone's number so you can't really be sure of your partner's value, if you were only to judge them based on sex, of course.
dilemma
Hi Alek,
I need your opinion about casual sex with sexually liberated women. I have slept with some women that had many sexual partners. One of them maybe even works as a prostitute. I was OK with that and only thing I have worried is to have safe sex.
And at one point I cought a non serious skin disease. Probably one of them transmitted it to me by skin to skin contact. I cured it of course, but I became scared as hell. I didn't call them again, and I started to avoid any girl that seems kind of girl that had many sexual partners.
I don't know should I avoid promiscuous women and elite prostitutes? I don't know what to think about it? Sex with that kind of girls can be excellent and fun but I am still scared about STD. Is there any extra protection? What should I do?
All the best,
Xander
Xander
Xander. Ask yourself this: do you think a prostitutes are dirtier than the average party girl?
Well actually they are not. I don't remember where i saw the research paper on it, but it turned out that pro's were more careful than non-pros (normal girls) as they were more exposed. Pro's uses condoms all the time and are very careful with STD's. However drunk party girls don't. I'd feel more safe banging a hooker than a party girl.
But keep in mind that I am now talking about pro's, not sex slaves (victims of human trafficking) or crack whores. Junky prostitutes are shady. Same with women from poor countries who might not have gotten the necessary medical attention.
The rule of thumb is to apply safe sex with any stranger. here are my tips for safe sex:
- Use condoms always - condoms that fits you. This is key. Try to find the ultimate condom for you.
- Use water based lubes (or silicone is you really like it). Never use vaselin, or oils as lube. They ruin the condom.
- Always piss after sex. It cleans up the system.
- Get STD tested each 3 month. (i do)
Most STD's are curable. Those you should watch out far are: hepatitis, HIV and Herpes. Everything else is curable with antibiotics.
Hope this helps.
-Alek
Women's outlook
As a guy who has recently participated in casual sex, I can tell you that the majority of the men looking on this site share your ideals, however i think that it is the women who they are having sex with that might need convincing. You spoke a lot about how sluttiness is a social construction, but violating this social construction has little or no repercussions for men, but there are a boatload of social repercussions that women fear when it comes to casual sex with strangers. The women are the ones who need to read this! But that is not likely to happen, so if you could, would you mind writing something about how to convince women to share these ideals? Using sexual frames or something? Without lying or bullshitting them into letting you hit.
Thanks,
Ryan
P.S Great article, well written and very decisive use of rhetoric persuasion.
Ryan
Hi Ryan. glad to hear you are sexually active. And yes most of us here share these ideals. And I could not agree more that it would have been better if women red it.
But have you considered using the material of this exact post as inspiration for a routine? For example discuss with a girl casual sex is morally ok for you, that it ain't dirty nor slutty. Women will love discussing this with you. It's low risk and very efficient. Never met a girl who has rejected me for saying "i think it is unfair women get labelled as sluts".
These posts are must reads for you:
This one will answer your question!
http://www.girlschase.com/content/being-sexually-liberated-guy
This one too, to a certain extent:
http://www.girlschase.com/content/how-have-discreet-sex-and-communicate-...
This is another concept that you might find useful:
http://www.girlschase.com/content/how-use-sexual-qualification-prime-wom...
Again, keep in mind that I will write a lot more about these topics in the future. This is my outer game: communicate that i am sexually open and non-judgemental while i communicate that I am a great lover.
I like to set a foundation before sharing my outer game in dept, because it is rather advanced. therefore I want to cover some foundations first.
Anyway if you are interested in how I pick up women, check out these 3 detailed lay report of mine (they are all blog articles, so in all of them I explain what I do and why I do it - they are like hybrids of Guides/reports):
3some report:
http://www.girlschase.com/content/threesome-how-step-step-get-two-girls
Crazy same night lay (contains dirty details)
http://www.girlschase.com/content/picking-girl-gay-bar-report
Hope this answered your question.
-Alek
you're casual and she's not?
One big sticking point for me is pushing forward over fear that she might be thinking I'm looking for more than casual sex. The games people play between the sexes ...I wonder frequently what's bs and what isn't. "Oh I;ve been seeing someone a few months and I know someday we'll get married." But she still wants to do it? I know that mindset is out there, but I have trouble believing it. Or maybe its just the girls I keep attracting which I don't get either. Off on a tangent. But casual sex is wrong isn't it if she is thinking it's not just casual - true? How do you avoid her thinking it's going to lead to more without it being offensive or a turn off?
Hi there. Believe it or not,
Hi there.
Believe it or not, I have the same fear. You cannot really control her emotions. However my advice to you is to cut a woman out (completly) if she shows too much interest that is non-sexual. When you sense she wants something more, cut contact with her.
The key for me here is to bang women as fast possible. The more I wait the more I risk ending up in the provider (boyfriend potential) cathegory. So having many dates is coutner intuitive here.
Also avoid doing anything that can be seen as romantic. It's meet => few drinks => fuck.
If you plan havign fuck buddies, make sure you only meet them to fuck, never do anything romantic. Also meet them maximum once every 10 days (I know chase says 7, but I personally prefer 10). and when you meet your fuckbuddy its only for a drink, a quick chat and fuck. No dinner, do movie watching, no sleeping over.
Hope this answered your questions
-Alek
you're casual and she's not? p2
Hi Alek
Thanks for your reply.
That does flesh things out quite a bit. I find I'm too much social circle game oriented and tend to drift too far into comfort - so perhaps I just need to push into day game and then I can make my intentions more clear without fear of being misunderstood.
I do a bit of sexual spiking but it isn't coming to me naturally and often enough yet. But in the event I'm in a similar situation again soon... I tried googling "red flags she wants more than just sex" but came up nada....so any ideas on that?" The last girl wasn't overly clear. She expressed interest in doing things with me but I don't know if was like, well I want to do these things but I also want to do you.
This is a follow to your statement "However my advice to you is to cut a woman out (completly) if she shows too much interest that is non-sexual. When you sense she wants something more, cut contact with her."
Paradox
Theres just one thing I dont quite understand regarding the idea that women are sexually attracted to a minority of men with ideal genes who get to spread them around the most. If these men, by definition, greatly outcompete all others in terms of relroduction, then wouldnt, over the cource of just several generations, the atteactive genes become much more common in the population to a degree, that the lovers would dominate the Frequency in the popopulation, yet why are the lovers so few?
Also, can the hardcore proponents of genetic determinism in dating explain the point of following dating advice because if only genes only determine a mans attractiveness to women then the whole seduction community is a silly waste of time in the sense that the guys who succeed obviously had the most competent genes already and therefore didnt really need advice in the first place whereas the the men who trully meed help are beyond any hope?
Socialization
Joyy,
i think that socialization plays a huge role in wether a man knows how to be good with women or not. In modern western society, feminism has gone a bit far beyond its objective to free women from oppression and created a mentality, where the gender roles are almost inverted. Women have to be seen as these strong, confident creatures that are put on pedestals and must be handled with uttermost respect and extreme care, while men aren't allowed to be men anymore, thus creating scads of unconfident "nice guys", who hide their dicks between their legs, leading to even attractive men with competent genes wondering why they can't get women and all the women wondering where all the real men went, leaving everyone unhappy.
Disappointed
I've got to say, I'm a bit disappointed that you imply that abortion is an acceptable solution to a pregnancy formed of consensual sex. You didn't even mention adoption.
I agree that casual sex is okay if you are responsible, but you seem to suggest that if you aren't careful and get a girl pregnant, then abortion is of no moral consequence. For someone such as yourself who seems quite in tune with moral philosophy, this is a patent oversight. Furthermore, it is irresponsible to present to the readers of GC that abortion is a perfectly acceptable solution to pregnancy - ignoring that it is the killing of a human being.
Patent (Pending) Murderer
Jam, have you ever masturbated? If you have, you're a patent murderer. Sperm are human and deserve moral justice! Might I also add that it is beyond irresponsible and morally reprehensible to boot to comment on this article and say that abortion is wrong, but not to EVEN ONCE MENTION the genocide that is MASTURBATION. Shame on you. Your omission of the agenda I'm passionate about this week is ruining my Mini Wheats!
And now for something completely different.
Howell
Making the distinction
You're equating a sperm to a foetus, which is completely fallacious. A foetus is a unique, living human being that will live a long and fulfilling life - hence it is wrong to kill it. A sperm, in contrast is just a cell with no more moral status than a skin cell. It is not wrong to kill a sperm cell because it won't go on to have a future life- so by killing it you aren't denying it anything.
To talk of the morality of killing, it is easy to just say that 'killing is wrong', but first we must ask *why* it is wrong. The reason is because killing denies someone their future life and freedom (which is of near-universal value). This is demonstrated by how mourners often say the likes of 'he had so much to live for' or how we generally find child death to be more tragic than the death of a pensioner.
A foetus has a future life and freedom, and since abortion denies it of this, it is morally unjustified.
A sperm doesn't have a future life and freedom (it ceases to exist at the moment of conception) hence it is not wrong to kill it.
I hope this clears things up :)
Do you know where feotus come
Do you know where feotus come from? Why is it fallacious to compare a sperm to a foetus, but not to compare a foetus to a human being? It's all part of the same process. What, should I consider you still a foetus then? Do you not see how you are drawing arbitrary lines in the sand for the sake of a political agenda that has infected your consciousness?
Killing isn't wrong because it denies a future. That seems logical, but it actually will lead you into all sorts of problems. Show me this future that it is robbing you of? Killing actually isn't wrong in and of itself. Morals are only valid if you choose to be that way of your own free will. The only valid reason for morality is "I like doing things that way." If you are compelled to follow a prescribed pattern of behavior, and a prescribed value system (for example, through the common rationalization you gave about killing or by holding the conviction that the future is real) you are simply following the scripts others have made for you. But you need to trust people! If we get rid of all the laws about killing or abortion, those things will actually go down! We have seen this with drugs and the removal of other prohibitions, for example in Portugal. If we can't fundamentally trust each other as our default, our only other option is to enslave each other.
Your talk about "future life" also makes no sense, unless you are defining it in a narrow way custom tailored FOR your argument (like "moral consideration of life only are to be extended to foetuses and bipeds, but everything else doesn't meet the necessary criteria of "personhood") -- which of course is putting the cart before the horse.
-Howell
Tl;dr: You're making arbitrary distinctions and could benefit greatly by looking more closely at the propositions you put forth and asking yourself what they really mean.
It's not arbitrary
The distinction isn't arbitrary, because a sperm doesn't have a future life (it ceases to exist at conception) but a foetus does (it will go on to live a long life). Moreover, a a sperm isn't a human being (it's a cell) whereas a foetus is a human being because it is an individual organism of human DNA.
I cannot say that I was once a sperm, but I can say that I was once a foetus. This demonstrates that the start of a human being at conception. This certainly isn't arbitrary.
Whilst I cannot 'show' you the future life (we cannot observe the future), we still know that it exists. I know (pretty much) that I will live for an extended period of time in the future, therefore I know that I have a future life.
Next, you appear to advocate that morality is subjective, and that personal approval is the only validation of a moral system. However, morality is objective because it is based on *reason*. And since reason is objective, so is morality. Killing is wrong because it's rationally inconsistent; you can only support the right to kill someone else if you are also willing to support someone else's right to kill you. Since it is irrational to support this, killing is irrational and therefore immoral (objectively).
Furthermore, are you seriously suggesting that if we lift the laws on killing, killing will decrease?!
Finally, you say that me talking of a future life makes no sense, but you don't substantiate that claim. You haven't actually evidenced the assertion that I'm not making sense.
Quick
It sounds like you're pretty certain about your convictions and just want to argue, so I don't want to waste my time getting into the nuances of your errors. Let's just choose a few obvious ones then:
1) If a sperm doesn't have a future life, neither does a foetus, and neither do you. The foetus ceases to exist at birth, and you cease to exist at death. It's your political agenda that's dictating where you draw the line. That's what I mean by 'cart before the horse'. But I'm sure you can find some way to rationalize this. It would be inconvenient to admit this to yourself, after all.
2) I can say that I was once a unicorn, but that doesn't make it true.
3) The issue with future isn't this notion of linear time you have, but more the unchanging self. This you you speak of that exists in space and time has no future. There really is only now. The future exists solely in the realm of ideas.
4) You think morality is based on reason? Turn to any page of any history book and you'll find that that's not the case.
5) Morality is only VALID when you are a free agent. Compulsory morality is not morality, as it's based in the fear of punishment.
6) If you want to regulate something, making rules about it is one of the least effective means of doing so.
7) Morality is not subjective. Morality is an abstract notion people use to justify actions as right and wrong. It has little to do with reason or rationality, except when idealized as such for the sake of sounding right when speaking with fools.
8) You conflate morality with law. Laws dealing with personal morals should be taken off the books, in my opinion. I live in the US, and we like to talk about how much we value freedom. Yet until the police stop enforcing moral dictates and sins, no sane person is going to have much respect for them, as they're essentially armed clergy. Also, removing laws about killing has nothing to do with what I said. But if the only reason you're not going around killing other people is because the state is going to punish you for doing so, it seems rather odd for you to be talking so much about morality to begin with. Maybe instead of morality you want to talk about fascism? I think you need not fear other people so much either. They probably won't kill you, even if there are no laws about it.
Howell
..
I don't 'just want to argue', I just want to put forward why it is wrong to disregard the life of a foetus, I wast searching for someone who disagrees.
1. The being that is classed as a foetus doesn't cease to exist at birth, it just develops into a baby. The continuity is provided by the fact that it is the same organism throughout. The same cannot be said of a sperm, because the new organism begins at the point of conception. Furthermore, I don't know what you're talking about when you talk of my 'political agenda'.
2. Of course it doesn't. But it is a truism that I was once a foetus. Yet I wasn't once a sperm. I cannot point at my father's sperm before my conception and truthfully say 'that's me'.
3. Firstly, general relativity entails eternalism (the philosophy of time that states that the future is just as real as the past and present). So the future actually exists, and isn't just a 'realm of ideas'.
But even if the future was just a realm of ideas, it does not follow that the future has no moral value. Everything we do is done in order to affect the future, and we class 'good' or 'bad' acts according to how they affect the future. To claim that only the present has relevance in decision-making ignores the blatant truth that literally every decision we make is in relation to future events.
4. Just because historical figures have erred in the past and thought morality to be based upon things other than reason, it doesn't follow that morality isn't based on reason. They could simply be mistaken. For example, scientists in the past have made scientific errors, but again it doesn't follow that science is erroneous.
5. Morality is simpy what we ought to do and not do. But adherence to 'what we ought to do' is a morally good act irrespective of whether it is motivated by fear. Of course it is preferable to act out of duty or empathy, but even moral acts done out of fear are moral by the nature of it being a moral act.
And a moral agent who is influenced by fear is still free to either overcome or submit to their fear of punishment.
6. With that logic, we shouldn't prohibit theft, since you say that this is 'one of the least effective means' of reducing theft.
7. As I have said before, morality is simply 'what we ought to do'. Now we have two options; either we ought to act rationally, or we ought to act irrationally. Clearly, the latter is false, so the former must be true. Therefore morality is based on rationality (reason). You can assert that morality is subjective and 'an abstract notion' until you are hoarse, but you cannot support these claims with rational argument.
8. Law is inextricably linked to morality. The very fact that killing, theft and slander are all illegal is because they are deemed immoral (that is, a bad act). The very act of making laws presupposes that there are ways in which we ought to act and ways in which we shouldn't (i.e morality).
I wasn't talking about myself when I said that removing laws against killing would increase murder rates, because I happen to know that killing is immoral irrespective of the law (shown by how I know that abortion is wrong). But some people are morally misguided, and hence the fear of punishment is the only thing stopping them from killing other people.
the problem is that it does
the problem is that it does not seem clear (at least to me) at what point in the embryonic development the product of conception get an ontological status that equals destroying it with killing a baby, is hard for people to feel empathy for a collection of cells with human DNA even if in the biological sense it is a "humang being" because it lacks the conciusness , emotion and even the shape of a "person" in the first days or weeks of pregnancy.
Leave a Comment