Satenza

If that person experienced mental harm then I'm sure they could go to the police/docter too sort things out. That example is more if a symbolic example of what it stands for.

Discrimination is a type of harm like not giving a black person a job because there black. You're harming them through discrimination. Prejudice would be fine as long as you didn't use it to incite such harm.

Let me bold it so you understand this better. It really isn't hard. He was very specific to say every word, so apparently it mattered to him. I'm just making sure everyone knows what the facts are, so they are not mislead by anything that is false being put off as true. It was his point to say "every word" and that is incorrect. Why do you have such a problem with making sure people are giving true information instead of false information? Because all you are doing is trying to humilliate him by getting him to correct his statement, when it doesn't really matter. Why can't you just say "Well, not all the Bible was written by non-christians" and provide an example instead of constantly going on at the guy to change what he said. It's humilliating, and you are doing this purposfully. And no Mark it doesn't mean all the Bible was written by Christians.

I'd just like to point out, this isn't my beleif. I don't beleive someone who thinks black people arn't equal to white people because they don't like is at all good in any fashion. However i also beleive that my opinion has as much right as the next man. The state is essential because my beleif of this is represented by this state, my thoughts of whats good and bad do not come into such matter. This state is great because it allows a society which can accept truth without the prejudice we have seen other people suffer under. Even Jesus suffered it because of a system where people thought their opinion deserved weight over others. I am justifying you the state not my personal beleif in what discrimination or anything is, but would allow truth without prejudice. Lets start here as all we are doing is going around in circles. Firstly it assumes this: Harm is justified to be banned, offence is not, and that liberty will find truth. This also assumes society would respect such freedom and live within this state. Harm is defined as: to do or cause harm to injure or damage. Offence is defined as: a violation or breaking of a social rule. Liberty is defined as: freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control. The state I wish to live in is one which takes the individual to be sovereign for the sole purpose of finding truth, and adopts Mill's harm principle as a tool to help society judge what is harmful to society and what is not. If something does not harm society, it .can't be banned. An example of the harm principle: A man can throw his fist towards another man, and stop two inches from his face. This may cause offence, but not harm and so there is no reason to ban such action.

Except your belief allows this to be said simultaneously: 1. It is best if the individual is sovereign. 2. It is best if the individual is not sovereign. Those two sentences contradict each other. So does any beleif system. This society votes for what they beleive is best for society as a whole, not just of what they beleive to be best for them. So "I don't like" doesn't come into a reason. If the person was to say "It's best for society because i don't like" it's still basing the reason on whats best for them, and not neccessarily best for society.

His point was that christians didn't write the Bible, whether thats all of it or some of it, it's irrelevant to the point he was making.

Exactly! Your subjective belief system allows for contradictions. Contradictions are illogical. Your belief system allows for illogical happenings. So does every system today if we had a vote of this nature for it. If i don't beleive the democracy I live in to be the best form of government and I vote for change it is the same situation we see here. That does not change a defintion of a reason, it is a rational motive for a beleif or action. "I don't like" is not a rational motive for a beleif.

Yes it is. It simultaneously asserts both that "individual sovereignty is best for society" AND "individual sovereignty is not best for society." That goes against the law of non-contradiction, making it a contradiction. His statement is a contradiction, by voting that this way of rule is not what he wants he is still accepting that part-taking in society is the best way to get the outcome he wants. That isn't a reason, a reason requires justification. "I don't like" isn't justification for anything and his statement remains discrimination. He is supposed to vote because he beleives something to be best for society. Saying "I don't like" doesn't mean he is voting for whats best for society and by saying "I think it's best for society" he still lacks a reason as to why he thinks it's best for society.

Why does that matter? He is still right that not all of the Bible is written by Christians which was his point.

So you admit that your theory is able to contradicts itself? It's not contradicting, but that person is on some level agreeing with the system by part-taking in it. Instead of revolting or something. Not allowed since the reason of banning black people from public places is absent.

There can't be a system with the capability to do "best." That's contradictory of there not being an absolute good. It might be fundamental, at the time, but since there are no absolute goods, it can only be fundamental until the majority disagrees. But the principle of subjective consensus morality is the individual is sovereign, and so voting for something which takes away an individuals freedom you are challenging this. Yet you still are aknowledging by voting the fact the best way for society to move forward is through the individual being sovereign which is a contradiction for that person. It's like me not agreeing with democracy, so therfore i will vote against democracy. I am aknowledging that democracy is the best way for society to move forward as I am doing it myself. Individual being sovereign is subjective consensus morality and so, it's implied by this system of voting. Refer back to the democracy example above.The statement in itself is contradictory. Explain that please.

Christians interpret the Bible for themselves, I'm not talking about people interpreting or someone following every word of it as truth. Jimmy beleives in God, he reads the Bible he see's the story may not be true, but the principle of God commiting genocide in his name is true. Jimmy commits genocide in Gods name. It's not interpreting or following everything as fact. It's doing exactly as God did in the Bible.

If you don't believe in an absolute good, you can't go from is/ought no matter what. What's "best for society" is always subjective, and so what you "should' do is never set in stone. Exactly, and so to know whats best there needs to be a system which has the capability to do that. The individual being sovereign means that there right to individuality is fundemental. It goes against what they are voting for. If someone thinks dicrimination is best for society, they don't agree how society is ran and therefore by partaking in that society (by voting) they are accepting in some form that discrimination is bad. Discrimination is acting on a prejudice, therefore treating someone differently without reason.

Terrible. You just created one of the most basic fallacies in moral philosophy. You can't jump from an "is" statement to an "ought" statement like that unless there is an absolute good. Period. It can't be done. Since you don't believe in an absolute good, your views are inconsistent. This reflects the system of subjective consensus morality. Which is all about the individual being sovereign. So inflicting a ban on someone who isn't harming you is imposing on the individual who is needed. I don't understand your point that it assumes a specific state, individual is sovereign and so not voting for what they beleive in would not follow that. The individual is sovereign is subjecitve consensus morality. As you would not accept that voting for discrimination isn't allowed as you are voting for no reason which is against subjective consensus morality.

It doesn't matter whether they take it literally or not. A person can think "God flooded the entire world, killing women and children and elderly and allmost eliminating the human race, so therefore he must aknowledge that murder and genocide is fine, even if the story is not true the moral behind it is!". The Bible is far from a good moral handbook, because the object of worship is almighty and good. So therefore people would assume all his actions to be good and then having this God commit at least 4 acts of genocide, hundreds of places where God commands people to kill someone else or just irrationaly kills for the hell of it does not qualify as a good moral handbook. Just because the majority can interpret the Bible in a loving way, i can interpret Mein Kampf in a loving way. The fact people can use it to justify atrocities such as these as God does explicitly.

They knew the earth was round before 300 BC. Get your facts straight. And has been said time and time again, the Bible is valued for it's moral guidelines, not for the literal truth of the stories it tells. Not it's not. It's valued by people within it's religion. Most other people can clearly see the Bible as nothing other than a book which attempts to put across such morals and does so very badly. If it had done it in a decent way people wouldn't mistake these morals and be able to justify killing people.

Locke did not accept that by voting for discrimination you are still banning something for having no reason which is discrimination. As he thought the reason you are voting for discrimination was that it was better for society. Apparently me saying that 'voting against subjective consensus morality was in itself faulty as that person would still be accepting the best way of change to be non-discrimination ' was not allowed.

By justification i mean they have a reason that is not discrimatory (as defined by the majority) or just not having any reason. It's based on the individual being sovereign and the harm principle is an aid for society to help them make decisions.

Actually i said justification was required and would be accepted as long as it wasn't discriminatory. This system places a huge amount of trust that it's members understand the harm principle and that the individual is sovereign. I have stated this system is to good for humans before, and I will say it again. Society at the moment wouldn't fit within this system because i doubt they would understand the principles it relies on, or the power of freedom they have. My official stance would be All morality is subjective, and therefore, all views on morality have equal weight. For this reason, society as a whole should understand the individual is sovereign and therefore base their decisions on the principle that unless something is harming you, you have no reason to censor such behaviour. However if you still beleive it to be better for society as a whole then you may vote this way as a vote against what you truley beleive in does not respect the states own principle. All laws that are created need only the majority to vote them into place but require the voter not to vote based on his or her own discriminations. If something discriminatory is voted into law by the majority, it is no longer discriminatory and vice-versa.

And I have said before, i beleive banning gay marriarge to be discrimination. However if the majority of society is in favour of it then it is down to them not me. The state i propose would educate people on the harm principle and so on and therefore i would hope their vote to be based on that fact that they arn't harming anyone and respecting the principle of the state that the individual is sovereign.

It became discriminatory at the time they beleived it, not the time they changed it.

Yes they would, take for example a english law which forbids blasphemy, if the people where to decide that blasphemy was to be against the law one year. Then the next year they decided that was discrimination towards people who do not beleive in God they would get the law removed.

That would mean that discrimination almost never exists because it is almost always the majority discriminating against the minority. Your point gets more and more ridiculous the more you elaborate on it. Unlike what you think, discrimination is a real word with a real definition. That doesn't change just by you suggesting it. I beg to differ, discrimination has changed over the centuries and your beleif of homosexuals not allowed to be married may be classed as dicrimination by the majority in the future. The mere fact you can even contest this shows you are imposing your absolute morals onto it. Read the rest of the paragraph it was in then make judgement. Mill sums up the harm principle and the idea the individual is sovereign a lot better than anyone else I have read. Now to end this, what question do you now want me to answer?

Maybe because you beleive in absolutes that is correct, however if discrimination is subjective it doesn't mean the law would be blind to all discrimination. It means it would be blind to the majoritys idea of discrimination. Subjective consensus morality answers that. Also just because you live in a state which had such discrimination in voting doesn't mean this state would. As i already pointed out this is a far out expectation of society and the manner in which one person would decide whats best for society would be after they have been educated on Mills principles. Whether society wishes to change is down to them.

Yes under our standards it is, yet you assume people then where like us which they where not. By their standards it would not have been discrimination. As it changes with the majoritys thought of what is right and wrong. Can you prove they did this out of discrimination? Perhaps they had valid reasons for this banning. I understand the purpose of a thought experiment, i know when Descartes couldn't get past his problem of evil he made up an evil demon, yet this sounds absurd if i where to say something similar would it not? Definitions for words like this are as i have said realtive to what society beleives is good and bad.