Poll . Please give answers to these Behaviors

[YouCanCallMeDave]

Hello. Im in the middle of doing a Treatise for Homework and have a few questions .   Id like to list some Lifestyles or behaviors  which are legal to engage in,  and was wondering if you as an Atheist believe they are  permissible to engage in both for Yourself , and Others   (and why)   :

1.   Upskirting if you lived in Massachusettes  .  Upskirting is using a remote camera/video  to view up a Womans skirt  while in public without her permission., and it is now legal to do there .

2.   Having ONE (only) sexual encounter  with a married person who consents to it whether you are married or not .... and Nobody ever finds out about it   .

3.    Cussing in public so long as there are no children around , yet the majority of people can hear it.  The cussing doesn't last for long and Nobody objects to it .

4.    Telling a very dirty joke to a good Friend which involves a minority group of People  that serves to defame them somewhat . This is done in a public setting , yet without anyone from this People Group around.


Please rate each, and explain briefly WHY it is permissible or not permissible to do.  Elaborate as much as you care to.   Thank you.

[Plu]

1) I'd consider that to be pretty poor behaviour and I wouldn't want to be friends with anyone doing something like that.

2) I'd be opposed to the "nobody finds out" part as this suggests it happens against the wishes of the partner of the married person, and that would add it to my poor behaviour list. As long as the partner also knows about it, I see no problems with having sex with a consenting adult, I just wouldn't want to facilitate in a breach of trust like that.

3) I have no real problems with cussing, although I do very much prefer people who know how to control their emotions. So I'd be more opposed to public display of anger and hatred than any specific release of it.

4) I feel that anything can be made into a joke. It's a personal preference. I wouldn't appreciate people who try to use jokes to defame, though.


I guess you can sum all of them up with "the behaviour is not the problem here, it's the emotions that motivate them."

[camouflage]

I totally agree with Plu. I couldn't have put it better myself.

[Solitary]

Ditto! Solitary

[YouCanCallMeDave]

Thanks. I hope to get more people taking the Poll...as I need many more Inputs on this.  Thanks.

[Moralnihilist]

1. Personally Id like to pound this type of pervert into the ground. Soooo I guess you could put me down as against.

2. Id know. And to me that matters.

3. Fuck, I do it when kids ARE around.

4. Depends on the friend and joke. If, for instance, the friend is an extermination camp survivor a Jewish joke might be in poor taste.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

I've done 3 out of 4. I'm not saying which except that I don't and have never owned a remote camera.  Am I proud of the rest? No, but it's over and done with.  Cussing is only words, perfectly harmless,  but often incites problems so should be used in moderation.
If a married woman wants sex who am I to say no? Climbing out windows with pants around your knees is not a hell of a lot of fun especially with the irate significant other holding a shotgun.  :-$
I don't care to defame others although like most people I have done it and usually reflect on it later with a degree of regret.

[YouCanCallMeDave]

Thanks...I hope I get a few more responses....but for now this is good info for me to work with.     I noticed many of you showed a disdain toward some or all of these behaviors, so,  I need to find out  what moral foundation you based your answers on /  was it based primarily on the way you were brought up /   what you believe is now acceptable (or not) in our culture /   and if there was any objectivity associated with the answers you gave ?

Again, please elaborate if you wish.   Thanks again.  Dave

[Plu]

The short short short version of my moral foundation is "Don't bother people with things they don't want to be bothered with, and don't be bothered by what other people do."

That seriously cuts down on the number of edge cases to the point where you can deal with the leftover situations on a case-by-case basis; the above rule can get you through most of life without issue as far as I've noticed.

[Sal1981]

I pretty much lean towards what answers Plu gave and will pretty much use those as  a benchmark for your further questions:

Thanks...I hope I get a few more responses....but for now this is good info for me to work with.     I noticed many of you showed a disdain toward some or all of these behaviors, so,  I need to find out  what moral foundation you based your answers on /  was it based primarily on the way you were brought up /   what you believe is now acceptable (or not) in our culture /   and if there was any objectivity associated with the answers you gave ?

Again, please elaborate if you wish.   Thanks again.  Dave

My "moral foundation" is mostly based on The Golden Rule, don't shit on others as you don't want to be shitted on yourself. This was not how I was brought up, but something I learned from interacting with others, mostly my siblings I reckon - to cut things rather short, I had a shitty upbringing with "charismatic" Christian parents (take it for what it's worth) that I won't go into here. A lot of it comes from culture, yes, but most of it, I reckon, is based on my own reasoning ability, such that I can see the utility of not being a prick and instead being an ordered and well-mannered citizen; however, don't mistake me for being a suppressed prick or the like, because I would act this way, I'm confident in writing, regardless of the restrictions, or lack thereof, laid upon me. There is no "objectivity" other than my own  reasoning ability. If you mean purpose (objective) then it was merely out of interest and forum entertainment.

In short, I want to act in good standing not because it is required of me, but because I can see that acting in good standing is more beneficial for everyone included than just self-serving purpose.

[Aupmanyav]

Dave, I am an atheist but also a hindu. Here are my answers:

1. Upskirting: !@#$%^&*()_+, Insane. Infringing on her freedom, voyeurism. Sack the judge.

2. Having ONE (only) sexual encounter  with a married person who consents to it whether you are married or not .. and Nobody ever finds out about it: Even if nobody finds it, it will change the your psychology and that of the the other person. We have hundreds of cases every year in India when jealous partners kill their spouses.

3. Cussing in public so long as there are no children around, yet the majority of people can hear it. The cussing doesn't last for long and Nobody objects to it: And what does cussing achieve? No body objects to it because nobody wants to engage with a foolish person.

4. Telling a very dirty joke to a good Friend which involves a minority group of People that serves to defame them somewhat. This is done in a public setting, yet without anyone from this People Group around: That is outright mean. Talking behind the back.

Hinduism would not approve of all these four actions.

[YouCanCallMeDave]

The short short short version of my moral foundation is "Don't bother people with things they don't want to be bothered with, and don't be bothered by what other people do."

That seriously cuts down on the number of edge cases to the point where you can deal with the leftover situations on a case-by-case basis; the above rule can get you through most of life without issue as far as I've noticed.

The Rule you listed here is an interesting one ;   I understand the second half of the statement, but  could use some more elaboration on the first half of it please .    Maybe you can give a couple of examples.?  

Regarding the second half though....are you of the opinion that we should not be bothered with what a large Group of people do in society even though it may (or will) affect the Nation you live in ?   It would seem that the second half of your statement has elements of apathy associated with it .  What do you think about a Society whereby we are 'our Brothers Keeper'   instead of being permissive regarding whatever widespread Lifestyle is adopted that proves dangerous to Individual and a Nation at large ?    Thanks.

[Plu]

Maybe you can give a couple of examples.?

They're all completely obvious, really. Don't talk to people that don't want to talk with you, don't go around selling stuff to people who say they aren't interested, don't make people do things they don't want to do. It really comes down to asking yourself "I'm about to interact with another person. Are my interactions in the best interest of that person? Will he enjoy that interaction?". If the answer is "no", then 99/100 times, it means you're about to be a dick to that person and should probably just not interact with them.

are you of the opinion that we should not be bothered with what a large Group of people do in society even though it may (or will) affect the Nation you live in ?

If everyone follows this One Rule, then we should not be bothered by what they do, because it should not be able to adversely affect the nation. The problem is nobody follows this One Rule, and that's when all the shit starts happening.

It would seem that the second half of your statement has elements of apathy associated with it .

The second part works in tandem by with the first part; being bothered by something should really only happen when somebody else initiates an action that bothers you. But the first part says not to iniate actions that bother other people, so then you can freely not be bothered by what other people do. Either their action is completely non-problematic towards you, or their action breaks the moral rule.

(For example; people bothered by homosexuals aren't following the second part of the rule. Homosexuality doesn't affect them. Preachers on the other hand aren't following the first part of the rule; they're bothering other people. Therefor one can be bothered by preachers for breaking the first part and bothered by homophobes for breaking the second; but one cannot be bothered by people who respect both parts of the rule.)

What do you think about a Society whereby we are 'our Brothers Keeper' instead of being permissive regarding whatever widespread Lifestyle is adopted that proves dangerous to Individual and a Nation at large ?

When widespread lifestyle is a danger to the individual, that is the individuals choice. When the lifestyle is a danger to the nation, that lifestyle almost certainly breaks this one rule. In either case; forcing our beliefs on other people (you word is very cute by the way) isn't something I would get behind.

[camouflage]

Thanks...I hope I get a few more responses....but for now this is good info for me to work with.     I noticed many of you showed a disdain toward some or all of these behaviors, so,  I need to find out  what moral foundation you based your answers on /  was it based primarily on the way you were brought up /   what you believe is now acceptable (or not) in our culture /   and if there was any objectivity associated with the answers you gave ?

Again, please elaborate if you wish.   Thanks again.  Dave

First of all.. I had problem only with number 1 and 2.

And the basis would be the experiences I have had since my childhood. You see things and you learn. You see someone getting beaten up for sleeping with someone else's wife and you abstain from doing it yourself. You see everyone cussing and people just laugh about it. So even you join in. This is when you don't think about the things happening around you and just follow the crowd.

But at some point you start thinking about everything and you realise that I have my own versions of right and wrong which are different than the socially acceptable definitions of these words. This makes you think that one can sleep with someone else's wife if she and her husband are okay with it and its probably a good idea not to curse if you don't like it yourself. One of the best things to do in these cases is to put yourself in the victims position and see the situation from his point of view. Think like he would think after the act. That will at least allow you to take a conscious decision and if you still choose to go through with it, you will know what you are getting into. I mean to say even if someone decides to do something which is wrong (even according to him), he will have an escape plan.

So when it comes to these decisions, I follow the crowd if its too petty and I consciously decide on case to case basis when its something important. And when I am doing something wrong, my escape plan is ready.

Basically I think its a blend of socially acceptable (popular?) behavior and objective thinking.