Yes, I have studied some pieces of historical philosophy. It is as subjective as any other cultural affect. The whole concept of Natural Laws is part of the structuralist era long past. We are in a post-structuralist era now. Advances in science and philosophy have proven pretty convincingly that the assumptions of the structuralist are false. There is no innate morality. Each person has their own perspective, a positionality if you will. 

As to the token Hitler comment, the point is not whether you or I think what he did was wrong. We may both agree that it was a terrible atrocity or a clever means to grab power. It matters not. The fact that we can agree about that and still disagree on a number of other acts as they pertain to morality, proves that there is no absolute. It is not something we were born with, but instead a collection of ideas we have learned through past experiences. There were millions of people in American and Germany that felt it was morally right to kill Jews. They were considered innately evil creatures. See how that kind of logic causes problems? You may define moral killing in one way, while I do in another. I, a pragmatist see killing as perfectly moral as long as it benefits my society. That includes everything from insects to humans. There is no difference in what you kill. Killing is killing. It either has a positive effect or a negative one. As an opposing example, is the spider any more or less evil than Hitler? This is a species that eats it mother, rapes its mate for procreation and feeds the father to the mother after. I assume you feel spiders are neither evil nor good because they don't have a soul or higher consciousness. To me, given how inept the human consciousness is, I would say we are on the same level as them. But, since they kill to benefit the society, there is nothing immoral about it. I would feel the same if humans did the same, although eating each other causes health problems we have not yet overcome. 

Drug cartels and HFH are again up for interpretation based on my positionality. There is no Natural Law inspiring my perception of the two systems.

If God provided the source for morality, why then are there so many cultures that had no contact with the Christian culture, who had very different morality structures? This ranged from cannibals, who the Christians called barbarians and burned to death, to the Japanese who called Christians barbarians and boiled them to death. If God were the source, it would be in every culture. I find it hard to deny this logic.

There are no laws that say homosexuality requires this extra protection. It is fine to bring it up in a forum like this, as pacov has said, but don't expect a warm welcome by younger generations. We have a different perspective about sex. Just as your parents and grandparents had different perspectives from yours. 

The dark side of homosexuality? They live in a space age society. I am pretty sure Doctor Lokin can cure up any AIDS I get. But of course, disease is just a cloak that your homophobia wears to seem more intelligent. There is just as much danger in having heterosexual relations. Oh, and as far as I know, you get STD's from promiscuity, not anal sex. I also don't think that anal cancer is a huge risk either, but hey, might be worth it.

I would ask for your definition of morality before I can answer that question...

If by morality, you mean purity/goodness then yes, God is the source.  But if you mean right/wrong, then no, God is not the source, Humans are.  Free will gave morality over to humans.  Humans determine their own fate, and with it, their morality.  Modern "morality" has become quite twisted indeed... but your analogy to animals is not valid.  Humans are the only creature on this planet with a high consciousness and with it the ability to connect with the Creator.  Animals do not, and only operate on survival. 

This premise of perspective right/wrong is also flawed.  This world is filled with duality, decisions that have 2 distinct outcomes.  And morality is one of them.  One can reason away any action, but the consequences will determine the morality of that decision.  Using that Hitler argument, Hitler was obviously flawed in his morality, and brought much suffering to his people, and the world.  Even from his perspective, I don't see how that was a good thing.  He even committed suicide!  The results speak for themselves in this case.

As far as Christians are concerned... that is a religion, not a relationship with God.  One can find God without needing to be exposed to Christianity. 

And I just had to do this....

So is it an absolute fact that there are no absolutes? 

As far as we can comprehend, yes. I can't think of one thing that is absolute besides the idea that nothing is absolute. Not really a solid line of logic to refute the claim. It may confuse a drug addict for a few hours though. 

Even your assumption that humans are the only creatures capable of a connection is based on a leap into the absurd. God is an assumption based on faith. There is no evidence of it. So how do you know that animals do not have the same connection? It may simply be a lack of understanding of animals preventing you from seeing it. Not that anything about spirituality can be seen or recorded in a physical sense. So it is rather haughty of a human to say animals and other mammals even are not connected to God. It is much more likely that you simply have no way of knowing. How exactly do humans have free will and not a deer? Deer choose several things throughout the day. Primates are capable of emotions and language. Hell, even crows have developed an intelligence par with humans. And as far as consciousness goes, from a wider perspective, we are no different than the other animals on the planet. Other higher beings probably don't make a distinction between us, other than that we are able to use tools. We are very small and stupid. Big fish, little pond.  Try not to forget that.

Purity and Goodness are simply religious words for morality. Morality, as it applies to this discussion is the difference between what is good and what is evil. Moral choices could be thought of as right and wrong. Learned experience is where the human brain derives what is good and what is evil. You may read it in a really long book, your parents may teach it to you, or you may learn it from personal experience, but at no time do you instinctively know that something is good or bad. You may guess, but even that is an approximation from previous experiences. The thing I don't like is when people convince themselves that what they think is inherent in all people simply because they know it is right. That is bad logic. 

Insert joke about the absolutes of death and taxes here.

But wow guys, it's ok to believe in God and separate the metaphysical teachings we learn from religion from the physical world.

I think this is Sean's main reason for his post.

And I agree in a sense ... Ethical Monotheism should be about 'revealed truths from God' not some natural order that is so obviously inherent within the natural world.

If it was naturally inherent then everyone would believe it.

Instead we have prophets that reveal truths to us, and from there we can learn the will of God and spread those truths to others (evangelism).

It is simply patronizing and illogical to assume that people not following the revealed truths are doing so simply because they refuse to abide by the natural way of things.

In fact it is the natural way of things, the antediluvian way, that those very 'revealed truths' are fighting against, at least in part.

Tasunke gets off his soapbox

Well, I haven't had too much of a chance to comment... the joys of hectic work.   Anyway, do I personally have any issue for myself re: playing a game with torture, out of wedlock sex, and (in an upcoming patch) same sex relationships (eg sex)?  No.  I don't.  And you'll note the clear context.  For me.  Seeing any of these things, etc, isn't going to change my world view, in any way, shape, or form. Things like this were in dragon age and mass effect already (and I'm sure some other games). 

If you ask me if I'm ok with a 12 year old participating in deliberate torture in a game, well, in that case, I'm pretty uncomfortable.  I'm not really a fan of kids perhaps developing a belief that things like that are ok.  But then you also have to examine other games, like first person shooters (eg where your goal is to kill lots of things or people).    Anyway, my simple take is that the government shouldn't have to regulate things like this.  Eg, a kid under 16 isn't likely to have any money of their own unless supplied by a parent.  The parent should take the time to evaluate if their money should be spent to get their kid the latest call of duty or a subscription to a game like star wars.  I also think that the rating systems should be adjusted to something more appropriate to help parents discern what might be ok and what is downright bad.  But ignoring that comment, parents are the responsible party - not the government. 

So, if a media outlet like the one lula linked to says "HEY PARENTS - TAKE A LOOK!" - then parents should take a look.  I certainly don't think there is anything wrong with bringing concerns to peoples attention and then letting them decide how to handle that information. 

Am I going to lobby to have things like the above banned from games?  No.  We are all aware that things like torture and out of wedlock sex and homosexual sex exist.  I don't need to deny its existence.  Parents should be held accountable for the upbringing of their kids... and if a parent decides their children should not be playing a certain game, etc, then they should keep that from happening.  Any other angle requires the government to ban such things under law or to make things like torture and out of wedlock sex and homosexual sex impossible.  As the latter isn't possible, the former is the only option.  And I do not support that.  And that leaves things in parents hands. 

Pacov, 

Thanks for posting the original article and allowing the discussion to develop such as it has. 

For me, the game with its enabling participation in violence and sexual vice is good for no one..not for the single person, not for the married person and certainly not for children of any age. 

So gaming seems to be trending this way? I wonder, what's next on the slippery slope..kids torturing kids, pedophilia, beastiality, orgies, and so forth and so on?  

We are on the same page as far as games, children and parent responsibility. I'm glad that it takes a subscription to get the Star Wars:TOR game. I hope that will continue once SWTOR gets the upcoming slouching towards Gomorrah "patch", as you call it.

Awareness that torture, promiscuity, and homosexuality exist is not the point. Rather, the point is that by these games people are acting them out. Pedophilia and beastiality exist too. Should these be banned? Where do we draw the line as far as the common good of society is concerned? Or do we? 

Yes, but if you draw that comment out to its logical conclusion, then you are pretty much saying that any game that has violence, etc, is not a good thing.  We have a disagreement if that is your stance.  I'm sure we could get into the nitty gritty of it, but I'm curious if that's your overall belief. 

Well, some games are trending to allowing elements like sex and homsexuality.  I've never played one where such things were a real focus, though.  Mostly they are random side elements.  A guy in your group makes a comment that sounds like he's hitting on you.  You decide how to react.  That sort of thing.  I honestly don't envision any of the other things you mention happening, though.  I'd certainly hope not, anyway.

Games of this sort have the occasional week or so of free play for folks to try out the game and see if they like it.  Eventually, most MMOs (games like star wars the old republic and warcraft) adopt some sort of free to play model.  This means that anyone can play the game to a certain level or what have you.  Star wars, at any rate, is likely quite some time away from implementing something like that.  When games like this go free to play, then the content is available for anyone with an internet connection that chooses to download the game.  Typically, you can do this sort of thing without even a credit card.

Well... can act them out or choose not to.  Just like real life.  Take yourself, for example.  Let's say you decided to give the star wars game a try for whatever reason.  At the beginning of the game, you decide if you want to (more or less) be a good guy or be a bad guy.  You choose to be one of the good guys (or gals).  Anyway,  while your are protecting villages from being wiped out by the bad guys, one of your in game companions (this is the computer, not another human) makes a pass at you and happens to be of the same sex.  Now, right after the pass is made, you can decide how to respond.  You can flirt back, you can ignore them, or you can tell them you aren't interested.  You have a choice to make.  And based on that decision, other things will happen.  Now for you, the solution might be as simple as to tell them you aren't interested.  That would likely be the extent of anything homosexual in your game play experience - eg - quite literally, that would probably be the only thing along those lines that you experienced. 

One of the things that is more common in good role play games, etc, is the ability to make moral and ethical decisions.  And these decisions often have an impact and elicit an emotional response (provided its well written).  You could make a decision that would result in your closest companion dying.  You could choose to have a monogamous relationship with a character and then completely destroy that relationship by cheating on that character with another. 

While I don't expect things like what you mentioned to ever be acceptable in a video game, I could easily agree that I'd certainly rather they NOT be in any video game.

But where is the line of bestiality drawn when there are thousands of humanoid species?

non sentient?

Define sentient.

Something capable of higher level and independent thought (developed cortex and not a part of a hive mind complex)

Some of the changes for 1.2 patch are looking good. The graphics are better. The color to chest thing is interesting. Sometimes you don't get get good results but fortunately you can modify each individual piece of armor to go along with the color scheme or not. Love the new PvP arena, makes for some dramatic play to the end. The class balance changes will be huge.

Is there a list somewhere covering all the changes?

I can't believe people play PVP with this kind of game. The game mechanics really start to split at the seems when you player against other humans.