Satenza

I don't really want to go too much into the law system. But the defences of murder would still stand. For example if a woman killed their husband in the heat of the moment because he had constantly been provoking her and this final argument was 'the straw that broke the camels back' then she would obviously have a defence against the fact she murdered someone and would be charged with voluntary manslaughter based on the English law system (if the Jury was in favour of this) and therefore - not guilty of murder. Murder is not an absolute it's taking away someone freedom and therefore said not to know what freedom is.

See, with this again, you are explaining a system of absolutes. "For the correct reasons" What is correct? who defines correct? If then, you define correct and require that people vote, only for the correct reasons, you are defining how people should vote. If that is the case, why bother holding a vote, just implement the law...Ahh, but that would define an absolute for society then wouldnt it, since they had no say in the decision. The problem there, would then be that society's absolute would be based off of your subjective morals. That's not utopia, that is authoritarian. Correct reasons being what is what they beleive to be best for society. What if they don't want to vote for the "correct reasons"? What if they decide that they will vote, based only on how much gas they had that morning? Example?

I didn'tsay murder was an absolute, i said a murderer wouldn't understand freedom because they took it away from someone.

See, with this again, you are explaining a system of absolutes. "For the correct reasons" What is correct? who defines correct? If then, you define correct and require that people vote, only for the correct reasons, you are defining how people should vote. If that is the case, why bother holding a vote, just implement the law...Ahh, but that would define an absolute for society then wouldnt it, since they had no say in the decision. The problem there, would then be that society's absolute would be based off of your subjective morals. That's not utopia, that is authoritarian. Correct reasons being what is what they beleive to be best for society.

It goes on subjective consensus morality. However for the state to exist anyway there would need to be some sort of social contract where everyone who enters the state would agree that they want freedom. What constitutes as harm is for society to decide when voting, taking into consideration the public and private spheres and so forth. On the murder example murder wouldn't be allowed because it is taking another persons life - and removing their freedom and therefore the murderer would be said to not understand freedom and would not be able to participate in the society because of this.

Yes, i have been giving you only my opinion based on the harm principle. What the majority decides goes as long as they decide on it for the correct reasons and not for what I explained before.

I think he means we can discover them but not prove they are absolute. Which does not mean absolutes do not exist (in his opinion).

I don't disagree with that. If society has deemed homosexual marriage harmful to society then it would continue to be banned. However that doesn't mean that a vote can't come around again and change that law to allow homosexual marriage.

No it's not if a man opposes a tax rise because he will be taxed a lot more then he is voting in his own personal interests and to selfishly gain. If the same man votes for that tax rise because it would help society's poor people then he is not voting for his own personal gain but to help other people. If he truley beleives that helping poor people is a bad thing then by voting against the tax rise would be wrong of him to do. Edit: let me clear that up - If the man beleives his self gain is best for society then yes he should vote for that if not then he shouldn't. If he doesn't beleive it to be best for society yet still does it out of his own selfish greed then he is voting incorrectly.

His whole point of the harm principle is too not harm the individuals interests and so one persons opinion out of 50 million others is just as important. If that one person is of the opinion to ban gay marriage then his opinion is of course as valid as the next mans. However each mans vote should not be for his own personal gain or prejudice but for what is best for society in his view.

Beggers - take them to houses with promises of gold. Tell them to wait there while you go to a bank. Log out, log in with a different account and watch what they do. Or, promise them gold. Take them to a house, take them upstairs, then run downstairs, close the doors behind you and keep running. This will fustrate them and is funny. Then repeat it on the same begger. I have done this 3-4 times on the same person one after the other.

Which brings me back to subjective consensus morality. People vote, but what they vote doesn't mean it can't change in the future.

What I can't see which may be my fault is why I can't see what i beleive to be best for society then justify it to those standards. Why can't I do that? I understand my standards are subjective. I disagree with you because your morals don't stand up against my system of what i beleive is best. Once again I'm not saying it is undoubtbly best i am saying i beleive it to be best. I also said this is much more like subjective concensus morality. Just because i don't beleive in absolute morality does not mean i can't hold morals for the simple reason they may be incorrect.

I can't see how I have not addressed it, I have said your opinion has as much weight as mine. I have just said that my opinion is that harm is bad for society whether that is true or not I have attempted to justify the reasons why i beleive this is so, and why i beleive yours are less relevant.

Yes, you need to watch the first before the second. The first really develops the the characters and the second is more of a ending.

Casablanca!

Have you ever seen the french film Jean De Flourette, as that sounds exactly like what you just described. Maybe Pagnol got some insperation from that :-k

The reason atheists feel the need too explain to fundementalists why we beleive they are wrong is because all athesits probably share the same thought that doubt is the orgin of wisdom (and non-fundementalists too). As we doubt, we uncover the truth, we understand why we beleive in certain things. We develop ways such as justified true beleif too classify knowledge. We then apply it to fundementalist beleifs such as the world being created in seven days and that it's only 6000 years old. We realize that it's stupid and inconsistent with our rules that we apply to the universe. We see fundementalists as people who are clueless and wading through life turning other people clueless. We also see this as detremental to society, we class fundementalists as insane and ignorant. They don't look as to why their beleifs are wrong they simply say God did it. We see that is no justification for anything seeing as they are basing their knowledge on nothing except their own beleif. Which isn't justified or true. We see that why we beleive things is more important than what we beleive they see what they beleive conquers why they beleive. It comes down to that really, and until the universe is explained people will always rely on a book to tell them the answers to life. Even when the universe could be explained non-fundementalists will still doubt and say "Well God made that happen" and continue with their beleif. Which may or may not happen, no one can be sure.

People who beleive in absolute morals usually take them from their religion like the Bible and so on. I also don't agree in gay people adopting. I don't agree with forcing homosexuality down peoples throats i merley think the Government should say very little about their personal opinions on such subjects and treat everyone the same. Gay adoption brings another non-consenting person into the relationship and so shouldn't happen.

Of course I can't prove it, but that doesn't matter. If morality is subjective anyway, why do you care what I base it on? It matters a lot. You base your morals on something which could be subjective and claim your morals and only your morals to be absolute. Theres no justified true beleif, it's just an assumption from you that the Bible is fact, doesn't hold the writers own subjective opinion and doesn't account for any mistakes after writing about an event years after it actually happened. It holds the same weight as my beleifs but at least I can say they may not be right, change could happen and my morals can change over time. I really can't see how you expect the human race to develop and advance if you force down your absolute morals upon us and expect us to conform to a society thats 2000 years old, when what you base your morals on isn't even factually true. I thought you might like this quote I agree with ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anything other than protection from harm is taking state interferance too far - in my opinion. My one moral idea - restricting people from harm. Unlike your absolute morals based on the Bible - which can be interpreteted in different ways. Which have tonnes of codes to follow, which have contradicting morals to follow - I'm sure a paradigm shift does not occur for every contradiction and at the end of the day are subjective. Whether you beleive it is or not they are subjective to the person in charge and so giving that person so much control can change society into a dictatorship. Wheras the harm principle is based upon subjective consensus morality where the majoirty can decide, but they can be influenced to change what they decide.

"Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock." - Harry Lime (Orson Welles), The Third Man

I'll have to give that a watch then, I really enjoyed All About Eve. Same I'll try and watch that sometime too.

Worst Vin Diesel Best Orson Welles

I agree with you over informing people is not neccessary but saying it's unatural is not neccessary either for a government.

Apparently no-one is 100% hetrosexual so i can't see the negative affect of normalizing homosexuality to the point of people being able to talk about their natural feelings and at the end figure out lots of people have them and they are probably hetrosexual. If they are not, then they are allowed to live in a society which would hopefully be more free from prejudice. The only thing affected is the peoples ability to discuss such things more openly.