Replies

I oppose any sexual act that would 1) cause me harm, 2) cause others harm (since I have that annoying human trait known as "empathy"), 3) is performed upon me against my will, or 4) is performed upon someone else against their will (again, that "empathy" thing...)

I completely agree. And I too, have the annoying trait called empathy, it costs me a lot of money and sometimes gets me in trouble. Furthermore, I observe that many atheists, though they deny a divine source of morals, do in fact have good morals -- better than a lot supposedly religious types.

However, empathy is a mere emotion, a personal preference, that is NOT SHARED by large numbers of human beings. If it were universal the world would be a much different, better place. Since this personal preference is not universal, how do we deal with those who lack it? We, hopefully the majority of mankind, impose our preferences by force on the unempathic. We prefer not to commit or suffer murder,rape, robbery, etc, so, we use our power to prevent or sanction such activities. Fine so far. But it's still only preference and power... what RIGHT do we have, absent a transcendent moral authority?

a lot of societial functionality reasons that would take too long to explain).

I believe that until a certain age it is impossible to fully give informed consent to sex. I also believe that until a certain age sex can lead to developmental disorders and in some cases physical harm (whether intended or not). Those would satisfy 2 and 4.

Again, I completely agree. But, once again, in the absence of God, that's just a personal preference (not harming children) that you and I happen to share -- and others, unfortunately, do not.

Feel free to explain them. I'm listening. However, first answer the root question: WHY should society be functional? Or exist at all? To preserve the human race? But why should humanity be preserved? Give me reasons OTHER than your personal preference, or the personal preferences of a 51% voting majority.

I tend to go overboard when discussing this and I still always manage to forget important details. I'll try to avoid being too verbose.

Humans typically share a common set of desires. Those common desires include, but are not necessarily limited to, continued posession of property, life, well-being and the life and well-being of loved ones. Why those desires exist can be debated, but humans tend to show those desires more often than not (feel free to disagree with any assertion here, I'll try to back up anything you don't buy right away). Given that most people want to continue living, it's logical to assume that they wouldn't want someone to kill them. Given their desire to maintain and keep their property it is logical to assume that they would not want someone to take their property. Given a group of humans with mutual desires -- continued living and property posession -- they could potentially form an agreement whereby no one will kill or steal from another. To make the agreement have merit, punishments for violating the agreement are determined in andvance and should an individual violate the agreement the rest of the group can see that the punishment is carried out.

That, IMO, is the absolute foundation for organized socieities: implied agreements based upon mutual desire. Yes, should someone not care about their own life, they could freely violate the agreement and thus face the consequences from their society. That much has been happening for thousands of years. Should the majoirty decide that a minority no longer has a "right" to life and property it can be removed, thus mob rule.