The impact of democracy on the nuclear family

[Immanuel Can]

A moral theory such as Islam does not have a "record". You are confusing it with a government.

Sharia isn't merely "a moral theory." In fact, it has no moral "theory" at all. It's a totalitarian system of governance, as well as a religious belief system. Islam makes no distinction between the two. It demands "submission" to the rule of Islam, not merely belief, and not moral rightness. And every Islamist, including you, knows full well that fact.

Here's Islam's record: bachi baza. Blowing up children. Using familes as "human shields." Revenge rapes. Treating women as worth less than half of a man. Female circumcision. Forced and child "marriages." Wife beating. October 7th. Polygamy.

These things are not hidden. We have the evidence. And you know we all do.

Now, why does an ideology that sponsors those things get to lecture the West about "family values"?

So, you make 35 claims in 5 sentences.

No. I just list the things in the news, every day, about Islam. Now, what gives Islam the right to teach the world about "family values"?

[godelian]

Now, what gives Islam the right to teach the world about "family values"?

Since you are not a Muslim, these teachings are not addressed to you. Any Hindu teachings are not addressed to you either. In fact, that is none of your business either.

[Immanuel Can]

Now, what gives Islam the right to teach the world about "family values"?

Since you are not a Muslim, these teachings are not addressed to you...

And since we are moral agents, you and I have responsibility for what we allow, tolerate or approve.

But these things, Muslims certainly attempt to "address to" other people. If Muslims were content only to lecture their own, you might suppose you could just exclude everybody else's perspective. But they don't. Like you, they want to tell other people about what the right way to govern male-female relations or the family is. And they even think they can impose it by force, even though that's not what you're doing here.

Now, answer the question, if you can: what makes Muslims fit to tell us about how to arrange the family? Where are their superior moral credentials? I have yet to see them.

[Gary Childress]

Logic doesn't prove premises. If you start with the premise that Islam is the right moral code, then you're pretty much skipping the whole enterprise of metaethics.

We already have a metatheory about deductive axiomatic systems. It is part of metamathematics.

It is considered "hard" and demanding. That is why it is respected.

Anything based on mere liberal-arts word salads cannot compete with that, because it is considered easy. Everybody and their little sister can do that. That is why nobody respects it.

All I'm saying is that your belief that it's OK to completely exempt males from paying support for children they create outside of marriage is not fair to the children or to the mothers. That seems undeniable. You seem to be stuck in this loop where you disregard what others say out of hand. That's irrational.

[godelian]

what makes Muslims fit to tell us about how to arrange the family?

If you don't like Islamic moral theory, use another moral theory. It is a free world.

[godelian]

All I'm saying is that your belief that it's OK to completely exempt males from paying support for children they create outside of marriage is not fair to the children or to the mothers. That seems undeniable.

If it were undeniable, then ChatGPT would not rigorously deny it from Islamic moral theory. There are obviously many more moral theories from which it can be rigorously denied. Bastard offspring or their mothers have historically never had any right to support. That is undeniable.

[Gary Childress]

All I'm saying is that your belief that it's OK to completely exempt males from paying support for children they create outside of marriage is not fair to the children or to the mothers. That seems undeniable.

If it were undeniable, then ChatGPT would not rigorously deny it from Islamic moral theory. There are obviously many more moral theories from which it can be rigorously denied. Bastard offspring or their mothers have historically never had any right to support. That is undeniable.

If a male and female cannot keep their genitals to themselves, why should the child and mother be penalized for it, but not the male?

[Gary Childress]

Here's your authority on morality ChatGPT regarding the matter. Does this help?

You said:
If a male gets a female pregnant outside of wedlock and the female refuses to abandon the child should the male be exempt from assisting the female in supporting the child?

ChatGPT said:
This is a complex ethical and legal question that touches on parental responsibility, reproductive rights, and fairness. Legally, in many countries, both biological parents are typically held financially responsible for supporting their child, regardless of marital status or the circumstances of conception. This is based on the principle that the child's well-being is paramount and both parents share responsibility for it.

Ethically, opinions differ. Some argue that if a man did not want to be a parent and made that clear, he should not be forced into financial responsibility. Others argue that once a child is brought into the world—intentionally or not—both biological parents have a duty to ensure the child is cared for.

Do you want to explore this from a legal, ethical, or philosophical standpoint? Each brings a different perspective.

https://chatgpt.com/share/682e12ea-8aa0 ... 2df24642f3

[Immanuel Can]

what makes Muslims fit to tell us about how to arrange the family?

If you don't like Islamic moral theory, use another moral theory. It is a free world.

If you are afraid to justify your moral theory, why are you lecturing people about "the nuclear family"?

[godelian]

Here's your authority on morality ChatGPT regarding the matter. Does this help?

You said:
If a male gets a female pregnant outside of wedlock and the female refuses to abandon the child should the male be exempt from assisting the female in supporting the child?

ChatGPT said:
This is a complex ethical and legal question that touches on parental responsibility, reproductive rights, and fairness. Legally, in many countries, both biological parents are typically held financially responsible for supporting their child, regardless of marital status or the circumstances of conception. This is based on the principle that the child's well-being is paramount and both parents share responsibility for it.

Ethically, opinions differ. Some argue that if a man did not want to be a parent and made that clear, he should not be forced into financial responsibility. Others argue that once a child is brought into the world—intentionally or not—both biological parents have a duty to ensure the child is cared for.

Do you want to explore this from a legal, ethical, or philosophical standpoint? Each brings a different perspective.

https://chatgpt.com/share/682e12ea-8aa0 ... 2df24642f3

This is not a moral theory. It is a survey of opinions. We already know that opinions vary. As I have already pointed out, I do not believe that whoring around should entitle a woman to any benefits whatsoever. If the man is not interested in her problem, then so be it. This has always been the traditional point of view. "Marry before you carry". This is also the most widespread opinion on the globe.

[godelian]

what makes Muslims fit to tell us about how to arrange the family?

If you don't like Islamic moral theory, use another moral theory. It is a free world.

If you are afraid to justify your moral theory, why are you lecturing people about "the nuclear family"?

It was my response to earlier lecturing: "(biological) parents must provide for their offspring". I have pointed out that most people on the planet believe that you cannot demand any benefits from anyone at all for whoring around. "Marry before you carry". If the man is not interested in the woman's bastard offspring, then so be it.

[godelian]

If a male and female cannot keep their genitals to themselves, why should the child and mother be penalized for it, but not the male?

The main idea is that nobody is going to do anything about it. Both adulterers get nothing.

Just think of it. A woman decides to whore around and ends up getting pregnant. Why would anyone else spend effort on trying to figure out who exactly impregnated her? Why would anyone else spend effort on trying to extract money from that man? As far as I am concerned, the whore is on her own. Let her figure it out!

Furthermore, the man may not even be interested. It's not because he blew her back out that he gives a flying fart about that woman. If it was just a one-night stand, he may not even remember!

So, if he doesn't want to deal with it, then it is simply her problem.

[LuckyR]

If a male and female cannot keep their genitals to themselves, why should the child and mother be penalized for it, but not the male?

The main idea is that nobody is going to do anything about it. Both adulterers get nothing.

Just think of it. A woman decides to whore around and ends up getting pregnant. Why would anyone else spend effort on trying to figure out who exactly impregnated her? Why would anyone else spend effort on trying to extract money from that man? As far as I am concerned, the whore is on her own. Let her figure it out!

Furthermore, the man may not even be interested. It's not because he blew her back out that he gives a flying fart about that woman. If it was just a one-night stand, he may not even remember!

So, if he doesn't want to deal with it, then it is simply her problem.

You're right, deadbeat dads don't care and don't want to support their children. You know who else doesn't want to? Just about every taxpayer. That's why in many places the government has an interest to figure out who the deadbeat is and provides a mechanism to force him to pay for his kid (so everyone else doesn't have to). I'm assuming you're not keen on paying for other dude's kids, right?

[godelian]

If a male and female cannot keep their genitals to themselves, why should the child and mother be penalized for it, but not the male?

The main idea is that nobody is going to do anything about it. Both adulterers get nothing.

Just think of it. A woman decides to whore around and ends up getting pregnant. Why would anyone else spend effort on trying to figure out who exactly impregnated her? Why would anyone else spend effort on trying to extract money from that man? As far as I am concerned, the whore is on her own. Let her figure it out!

Furthermore, the man may not even be interested. It's not because he blew her back out that he gives a flying fart about that woman. If it was just a one-night stand, he may not even remember!

So, if he doesn't want to deal with it, then it is simply her problem.

You're right, deadbeat dads don't care and don't want to support their children. You know who else doesn't want to? Just about every taxpayer. That's why in many places the government has an interest to figure out who the deadbeat is and provides a mechanism to force him to pay for his kid (so everyone else doesn't have to). I'm assuming you're not keen on paying for other dude's kids, right?

Single mothers getting money from the taxpayer is a western invention. It does not exist anywhere else. Here in SE Asia, I don't pay for any such other dude's kids.

Over here, single mothers can only get support from their own families, if even. In the end, her family may also reject responsibility for their daughter's choices. That is one of the many reasons why the family must be involved before the daughter has sex with any man. They have to approve of him. If they don't, she is on her own.

The very first requirement before claiming anything from anybody, is "to marry before you carry". The guy from the one-night stand is not a "deadbeat dad". He does not want to have anything to do with the woman's pregnancy. He had absolutely no intention to look after her or any child. He never told her that he would. If she still has sex with him, then the consequences are her problem alone. Sperm donors don't look after the pregnant woman either, for the very same reason: no intention to ever do so.

[Immanuel Can]

I have pointed out that most people on the planet believe that you cannot demand any benefits from anyone at all for whoring around.

Look at the OP. And then review your own posts. You were trying to tell us about how "the nuclear family" should be run. Look at the words you used above and there.

So I ask again: what gives Islamists any right to tell anybody what to do with "the nuclear family"? Their own behaviour in regard to their own women and children, and to a great many other men as well, is manifestly morally reprehensible and appalling. How would we ever look to the engineers of Oct. 7, or the Bataclan massacre, or 9-11, or Rotherham grooming gangs for moral clarity on anything, let alone "the nuclear family"? They've disgraced themselves, their religion and their people, in front of the entire world.