Astralinre

Once again, you are loosing sight of the original argument: Assuming moral relativism, which you do, why should laws be based upon your personal, subjective moral system of non-harmfullness, rather than somebody else's personal, subjective moral system? The focus is not just specific issues, but a theory of morality. All I have done is point out that your views on specific issues are inconsistent with your theory of morality. You've yet to address those charges. So once more I ask, if all systems of morality are equal, why should we legislate yours instead of another?

Once again, you are forcing your view of what is morally acceptable on someone else who may not hold that same view. What if someone believes the harming someone without his consent is morally right? As a moral relativist, who are you to deny him that? So you are a moral absolutist after all. You should have said so earlier. Now comes the problem - how do we know which system of morality is the absolute one? How do we know which morals are absolute and which aren't? When have I said I hate gay people? When will you stop putting words in my mouth? When will you stop making personal insults and emotional appeals instead of dealing with my logic? Once more, all you're doing is making personal attacks, emotional appeals, and putting words into my mouth. You accuse me of spreading hate, yet your posts are filled with hatred of Christians and insults toward me. Show me where I have made one hateful comment tonight.

It's fine to use an example, but an example does no good in a philosophical discussion if it ignores the scope of that discussion. We are discussing moral systems, and you continue to ignore that discussion and use the example of homosexuality within one moral system, which I have questioned, and neither you nor Satenza have defended fully. Show me your refutation of my logic. Show me where you have done anything but make emotional appeals and personal insults. When have I spread hate? When have I said anything about hating homosexuals? Stop putting words in my mouth, and stop making personal attacks.

You are excluding those who believe harm is a good thing, or who disagree with your definition of what is harmful. Why is forcing one belief on people any different than forcing ten beliefs on people? Why should everyone conform to your standard of non-harmfulness? Everyone can practice what they believe, even if they believe in harming others - wouldn't that allow the individual more freedom? You can reason with them that harming others is wrong, but why should you be able to stop them from doing so? It excludes anyone who disagrees with your personal, subjective belief of what is harmful, and that harm is a bad thing. How can you speak of the lesser of two evils if evil is merely subjective, personal opinion? Then neither can you. You believe in not allowing people to harm others. If someone believes in harming others, you are stopping him from doing something just because you believe something that he doesn't.

That is only the subject if you believe that the degree of harm something causes is the only measure of morality. Of course, if you believe morality is subjective, as Satenza does, and as I thought you did, then it is absurd and arrogant to claim that laws should be based on degrees of harm, when there are other systems of morality out there that are equally valid. As for the rest of your post, all you have done is refused to argue with my logic, made emotional appeals, and make hateful insults against me and anyone who shares my religion. As I said on the other thread,

This has nothing to do with your proposed state. You've forgotten how this whole discussion even started. If morality is subjective, as you say it is, why are those not valid justifications for laws, but your personal, subjective beliefs are? Why should your personal system of morality be legislated to the exclusion of all others, but theirs should not be?

Why in the world can you not stop talking about homosexuality when we are talking about systems of morality? Why in the world can you not back up your statements with logic instead making insults and emotional appeals? Why in the world can you not deal with my logic instead of insulting me and my beliefs? Why in the world should I continue this discussion with you unless you are willing to deal with my logic instead of attacking me?

I addressed that already. If morals are subjective, i.e. all moral systems are equally valid, then why does it matter where they come from? You're not becoming a moral absolutist on me now, are you Tigra? If you're still a moral relativist, how can you logically dismiss someone else's morals as invalid because you don't like where they came from? If they don't like where you morals came from, does that make your beliefs invalid? A religion is a belief system, correct? Your belief in the goodness of freedom of religion, utility, the greatest happiness, non-discrimination, and not harming others are part of your belief system, correct? On a practical level, what makes your belief system any more fit to govern than theirs does? It still forces a belief system on others, and discriminates against those who don't hold your belief system. The only difference between what you want to do and what they want to do is names. They call their beliefs "religion," and you don't. In all other ways, it is the same thing - somebody wants to legislate his personal belief system to the exclusion of all others.

And if morals are subjective, why are those bad things? Because you say so? Why should we listen to you? Already told you why. Because you say we should listen to you? Apart from that, I don't recall you saying any other reason. Since I missed it, would you please repeat it in terms that are more clear?

But why should the society base its laws on your belief in freedom, rather than on the beliefs of someone who believes in taking away freedoms? If morals are subjective, both views are equally valid. So why should the government base laws on yours? Are you just a bigot who believes in forcing your beliefs on others through the law? You've yet to address the point I've been pressing for an hour. What separates you, forcing on others through the law your subjective morals based on personal thoughts, any different from someone who wants to force their personal, subjective, religious morals on someone else through the law? Why should your opinion be given the power of the law, and not theirs? Aren't you discriminating against those who don't share your beliefs? What makes you any different than a religionist who does the same?

Who says freedom is a good thing? You? Why should we all have to adhere to your opinion? Why can't you let me decide for myself whether or not freedom is a good thing? Why must you force your belief in the goodness of freedom on me?

Would you write your reasons for disagreeing with such a system? I never said I disagreed with it. In fact, I agree with it to some extent. I'd just like to see your reasons for agreeing with it. After all, if it is absolute, it ought to make logical sense, shouldn't it? If we want to know truly whether or not it is a valid system of absolute morality, let's look at it on its own merits.

You believe all of those things above are good, correct? You believe morality is subjective, personal opinion, correct? So you believe that even though you are no more right than anyone else, your view of what is good should be forced on everyone else, correct? So you are no different than a religionist who believes he should force his beliefs about what is good on everyone else, correct?

Yes there is, you're taking this to a way too theoretical level. Killing somebody is an absolute evil, because nobody WANTS to be killed. There is not a single person in the world who wants to be murdered, other than probably a few hundred mentally unstable people. Then yes, the 6 billion other people are right. Morals come from what every rational person in the world thinks is wrong. Stealing is an absolute evil. Why? Stealing is prohibited in every single country because every single country contains humans. Humans don't like having their items stolen. No human wants to be stolen from. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is not an absolute evil, not even an evil. Why? Some people are born gay, and they can't do anything about it. Homosexuality is not prohibited in most societies, and some countries offer them the option of legal marriage (South Africa, Canada, The Netherlands to name a few) Why isn't being gay prohibited, like murdering or stealing? Why do some governments even endorse it? It is not a direct threat to anything in society. They work. They eat. They produce. They can adopt children. They are not a source of evil, like a robber or a murderer. Why is it so hard to understand? You are affirming that there is at least one absolute moral, which takes the discussion to a whole nother level. Satenza is saying that there are no absolute morals, yet is trying to justify imposing his morality on others. You are affirming at least one absolute moral, and the belief that if nobody in the world wants a certain thing to happen to them, that is a moral evil. You are proposing a principle of absolute morality based on what people want. Satenza is doing no such thing, therefore the two discussions are entirely different. In your system, murder and theft are absolutely wrong, while there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. In Satenza's system, there is no absolute wrong, yet he wants to impose his view of what is wrong on everybody else. If we are going to assume absolute morals, the discussion shifts to discovering which system is really true. If you'd like to discuss the merits of your system of morality and why it is absolute, I'd be glad to do so with you. Since you're proposing the system, would you mind writing out your reasons for believing that "what every rational person in the world thinks is wrong" is the absolute system of morality?

Assuming subjective morals, as you do... Why is whether or not something works a measure of something's goodness? After all, good is only subjective, so why should we accept your opinion that practicality is good? According to whom? You? Why does your personal opinion matter? According to whom? You? Why does your personal opinion matter? If they believe it is good for one religion to rule over all, just as you believe it is good for one personal opinion (degree of harm) to rule over all, then what makes that less valid than your view? If someone says laws ought to protect nature rather than society, is their view less valid than yours?

And if morals are subjective, why are those bad things? Because you say so? Why should we listen to you?

You assume practicallity is good. Why should we listen to your personal opinion? You assume peace and equality between religions are good. Why should we listen to your personal opinion? You assume laws should be in the state's control. Why should we listen to your personal opinion? You assume the purpose of laws is to protect society from harm. Why should we listen to your personal opinion?

Not all of society adheres to your belief that the degree of harm is the measure of morality. Why should they be subjected to abiding by it? Why not let them practice their religious beliefs and make laws accordingly without forcing your personal opinion of morality on them?

Why must relevance to our current society be a justification for morals? Why do you insist on forcing your personal views of justification on others? If morals are subjective, their justifications are just as valid as yours regardless of what they're based on, or how old that base is.

Oops, I hit quote instead of edit. :oops:

First bold: Why do your views of valid justification matter if morals are subjective? Second bold: So why should we make laws based on your personal thoughts rather than theirs? Edit: Once again, assuming subjective morality, as Satenza does, and as I am doing for the sake of discussion, why does it matter where their morals come from? You think that whether or not something is "up-to-date" is a valid justification for morals. Other people believe that it isn't. If morals are subjective, why does your opinion matter more than theirs?

Yet you've said that the government shouldn't base laws on religious morals, and should instead base laws on the degree of harm done. Why should the government make laws based on your morals instead of a religions?

The one who causes less evil. No such thing. If all morals are subjective, as Satenza assumes, and as I am assuming for the sake of talking with him, then there is no absolute evil. So whose definition of evil do we use? Why are non-discrimination and progress good things? Because you believe so? If morals are subjective, why should we take your view of good over XplsvBam's religion's view of good? You say non-discrimination and progress are good. He says obeying God's word is good. If morals are subjective, what makes your view better than his?

If everything is subjective, how can you claim his morals to be detrimental to society? You are assuming your personal view of what is good and saying that his personal views are not valid. If all morals are subjective, why does it matter what his morals are based on? They're still just as valid as yours, aren't they? So in order for them to be less valid than yours, there must be absolute morals by which both of your sets of morals are measured. If morals are subjective, as you insist, then you are merely a bigot who believes in forcing his beliefs on others because you're arrogant enough to believe that they're better just because you say so. How is that any different than him saying his morals are true because his religion says so?

Alright then, sure. I guess Locke's view would assume some extent of positive freedom. I'll let him answer more fully when he returns. I can't give you a complete answer about his system since I'm not him. However, this has little to do with the points I made about your views. You dodged my initial question of, "Whose definition of progress do we use? Yours? Why is yours any better than mine, or any better than Locke's religions, if all morals are subjective?"