Satenza

Of course there not working, I constantly hear jokes about disabled, ethnic minorities, homosexual people and every other person different from the majority of people. Can we even make them work though? I don't beleive it's hatred i beleive it's insecurity about those people who feel a need to look down upon others. Creating a social stigma or continuing the social stigma that homosexual people are unatural will continue the amount of social rejection they get (by some people not all). I can't see why it's dangerous to young people as long as they can rely on people around them and have support on confusion. Most people come to realize what they are anyway themselves later on. So i don't really feel it's particulaly dangerous. Can you explain why it's dangerous?

You have to look at human nature, and take some sort of realist stance. A Government preaching how unatural Homosexuality may be (in your opinion) does have an affect on the way their treated within society. A government who treats everyone the same, no matter what minority or majoirty they are as long as they don't harm anyone would hopefully allow them to be treated the same over time. Leaving the government stigma of them being unatural behind.

No, it doesn't make them subjective. Just because people refuse to acknowledge them does not make it subjective. You're right, I can't "prove" morality, nor will I try to. That doesn't even make sense. But that doesn't mean they can't be absolute. It's not you can't prove morality which i know you can't it's that you can't prove the Bible is compltley factual which you base your absolute morality on. Suppose Matthew saw something Jesus said, disagreed with it and wrote it to mirror his own opinion or simply got it wrong. I really can't see how you can place so much faith on a reccolection of an event which happened years before and base your absolute morality on something that could be subjective. If it's not the purpose to protect it's citizens then what is it? As i said, just because i beleive in subjective morality does not mean i can't agree or disagree with certain principles. I can estimate the relevance each system has in reality and go off of that can't i?

I can't prove it to you because you will refuse to believe it. My belief in absolutism does not contradict itself. Basing your state on absolutes which are based on a falliable Bible consequences in the morals that make your state falliable and subjective. I 'refuse' to beleive it because you can't prove to me absolute morals from the Bible exists. Either there isn't a paradigm shift for every contradiction in the Bible (or plain stupid orders) or the writers could have used their own objective opinion to write about what they want others to beleive. If you're saying that your morals require faith to beleive in then they are subjective. Are you saying that morals from the Bible are innate ideas and everyone knows and agree's with them? Well i don't beleive in some of the morals it teaches and neither to millions of others. If they where absolute wouldn't everyone have the same opinion of what is right and wrong? My ability to question your morals means they are subjective. The state was created for protection of it's citizens. We entered a social contract to be protected - therefore preventing harm has nothing to do with morals, but to protect the individual. Also subjective consensus morality is a better term for the morality the harm principle could be defined under.

If they did that in the first place for all religions people wouldn't enterprate them differently and kill in the name of their religion.

Your objection is nothing more than a disbelief in the Bible. I can't prove it to you one way or the other, nor will I attempt to try. If you want to have a serious discussion about Christian apologetics, I'd be happy to do so. Give me a PM. If you can't prove to me one way or the other the Bible's word is infalliable then your morals based on it are not infalliable which is what I have been saying. Putting you into the same boat as me, and making your arguments based on contradiction. You're beleifs are based on absolute morals from the Bible, the only restraint the harm principle puts onto people is their ability to harm. We don't live in a state of nature and the states purpose is to protect the individual so this rule should be an automatic assumption of what each state does. Basing laws off the Bible takes things too far, it's protecting us from harm then going futher too forcing people to abide by the rules in the book not what the state is actually there to do. Does banning homosexual marriage protect the individual? No it holds prejudice against the individual. As I already said the protection of the individual is and should be the only purpose of the state. Allowing harm isn't protecting the individual and so therefore it's not allowed. Thats the reason the social contract exists because as I am sure you are familliar life without the state would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" according to Hobbes. I am not asking you too give me reasons as to why this has the same weight as your state. I'm asking why you beleive yours would be better?

Not to mention, in that documentary The Root Of All Evil? he told Dawkins to get off his land after the two discussed evolution and he thought Dawkins was calling his followers animals. Which is of course what we are.

If you notice, Jesus is speaking about past beliefs in Jewish faith and shifting to a new outlook. If you want to know in depth on why, give me a PM. Can we find these paradigm shifts for all contradictions within the Bible though? Depite this being a recollection some time after the event occured how can you be so sure that this was even said and isn't just the objective point of view of the writer? You seem to think that because I beleive all morals can be questioned I can't assume i know whats best for society because i can't see a solid and definitive idea of right and wrong. If i beleive that the most important thing for society is protecting it's citizens from harm, then I can say 'You can't murder' and still not contradict myself because murdering would go against the principle of harm. I don't need an absolute right and wrong to know whats right and wrong. I disagree, this principle allows everyone to co-exist peacefully. Religions are all about judging, and sinning, and forgiveness, and negativity rather than the advancement of humans and individuality not for the sake of individuality but for advancing ourselves and thinking outside a set in stone section of rules. There anti-humanitarian if anything we're always under something and we can't be the supreme being even if we advance to perfection - so why bother?

So the Bible has no contradictions? Can you show an example of a paradigm shift within the Bible?

Thats still subjective you are assuming there is a paradigm shift. You're still going against the Bible which is your basis for absolute morals and deciding yourself they no longer apply. Your absolute morals come from the Bible. You're going against what the Bible literally says and claiming a paradigm shift. Thats subjective to you, as more fundementalists don't beleive a paradigm shift has occured. I also said i contradicted myself.

Until you quit contradicting your own beliefs, how can anyone take you seriously in a logical debate? What about your contradictions? You beleive that the absolute morals come from a book which states an life for a life,.eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth yet at the same time says turn your cheek to evil? So which would be correct in your absolute morals? A life for a life or turning the cheek to killing? My contradiction is based on the fact i beleive my system to be better than yours. Yet apparently i can't do that with subjective morals because theres nothing to measure nwhich is better. I can see whats better for this earth, the main rule is protecting others from harm. Your 'absolute morals' don't even protect us from harm. Your views are far from infalliable and Mills living is a hell of a lot more straight forward than people deciding what the Bible meant, and basing their supposed absolute morals on someone interpretation. You may say "taken out of context!" but your absolute morals are right and wrong nothing else. If it says in the Bible too turn the other cheek - thats what you do because it's infalliable to you. However it then says a life for a life. Who would decide which moral to take more seriously. Both are direct quotes and you must decide between one of the other. Therefore theres always someone deciding what morals to follow and what morals not to follow - making them subjective to that persons beleif.

Can we drop whats morally subjective and consentrate on which state is better for society. A religious conformist state, or Mills state based on the Harm Principle? And anyway, sleep now so awhile till i respond.

I beleive in justified true beleif but Gettier even shows that is isn't always 100% correct. You did present that it was fact Reb which is what i meant.

It's not just as justified. There is degree's of justification and in no way would i consider a justification of 'because the bible says so' to be anywhere near as justified as Mills harm principle. I have the right to deny them the ability to pass laws based upon their religion. The state i support would allow them to make any choice they wish. At the end of the day it's about freedom, in Mills state aslong as you didnt harm anyone in the public sphere you are negativley free. Christian boundaries on things like abortion have no place because society is not christian. We choose with rational thought in Mills state as religious, sicence ect can influence our decisions. Abortion again, in the christian state the womans not free. In Mills state she can make a rational decision based off the advise given to her. Why would a christian conforminst state be anywhere near as good as this?

You can't present opinion as fact, everything even self evident truths can be questioned.

Just drop subjective morality, I have already told you why I don't need to discuss it. Yes i am a bigot for saying harm is wrong in the public sphere, i can live with that. Now why do you beleive a religious conformist society to be better?

I have justified why the state i wish to follow has more use than yours. I care not about this subjective moral system. As i written on Marx's grave stone "ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâthe philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point is to change itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢. Everything can be questioned which is why i dont beleive in absolutes, that has little relevance to what I am saying. Marx means theres no need to worry about moral subjectives on a practical level. This is a practical theory, it was written to the masses to inspire change and it did to an extent. Western world democracy is based upon this. You're questioning it because people cant harm other non consenting people. Give me a break, tell me why a religious system is better than this?

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? You have to be kidding me? Tough luck for those who wish to harm people without their consent. The states main purpose is to protect the individual, and laws take away their right to harm an unconsenting person. Really if thats all you find wrong with this state that a person cant harm another person without their consent you are clutching at straws. Just admit you would have to be crazy to not want to live in such a beautiful society.

Harm is allowed between two or more consenting adults in the private sphere. As long as the aim isn't to kill each other as suicide is not allowed and seen as an abuse of freedom and you not knowing what freedom is. Take an example of sado machists - they are allowed to do whatever they wish to each other as long as they consent.

This state excludes no-one except people who harm. I'm not forcing my beleif onto others, they can behave anyway they wish to as long as they don't harm people. I'll use an example of how Mill shows the harm principle in action. There is a man about to cross a bridge, you know there is a possibility the bridge could collapse. You can warn them, reason with them but not stop them crossing the bridge. If we take a look at religion, if someone wishes to have an abortion - a religious person who does not agree with it can reason with them, warn them but not stop them. Why should everyone conform to your standards? This is freedom at it's best. Religions can practise, can advise and can reason but they can't stop us from doing certain things. The only reason i stop you from harming is for your protection. Religions are making us conform to their rules, they won't argue they wont debate we arn't free. They'd right out refuse the woman to abortion and she and her baby may die as a result of that. This state does not control you, it sets a limit. You can't harm others. This is a utopia. It doesn't exclude anyone like you said. Religions are a lot more exclusive, can we see this from the lesser of two evils of that is the way you see it. This allows people the ability to make choices. Religious based societys tell us what decision to make. YET here you can still make a religous decision - you can still ask others to think of the consequences. BUT YOU CANT MAKE ANYONE DO ANYTHING THEY DONT WANT TO DO BECAUSE YOU BELEIVE IN SOMETHING AND THEY DONT. Now why would you not want to live in such a place?

Why would you disagree with this proposed state?

I'm Shipping Up To Boston - Dropkick Murphys(AKA tune from The Departed)

I have already said, a religious person who uses their personal religion to force laws their religion preaches upon society is different. My beleifs allow any religion to practise whatever it wishes without discrimination. With religions in control they are happy at the expense of society. What whall we say, if we go off of utility what causes the greatest hapiness? All religions allowed to practice or one religion casting laws upon everyone else? All or one group? It may not be perfect for religions as they think 'Wait i wan't my laws passed down not this current system' but for the good of society this makes the most people happy. Private and public spheres, freedom to practise religion, freedom to live anyway they wish unless it harms others. Why would this not be a utopian society? You can live with less freedom if you wish it's your choise. You can live abiding my the morals of your church as long as they don't harm others. What is wrong with this principle? It's even more like heaven than a conformist religious state. Everyone co-exists in peace in theory.

Then don't be free when you live within my proposed society. Live how you live now and abide by the rules you do now. The principle doesn'tstop you from that. The principle allows life experiments. If your is not to be free you have the option to live that way.

No, their beleif doesn't allow as much freedom in society as mine. I'm not forcing my beleif on people because I am allowing them to carry out their beleifs - as long as they don't harm others.