Satenza

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? Because it's obvious if laws are not practical - such as banning abortion people can die as an effect of it. According to whom? You? Why does your personal opinion matter? Fighting religions can lead to murder, something they beleive to be an absolute moral. According to whom? You? Why does your personal opinion matter? Because it's at the expense and freedom of the rest of society. Laws do protect nature yes, but you can argue protecting nature is protecting society. Also can we address each point by only quoting one thing next cause it's hard to seperate quotes and respond to each.

Laws that aren't practical don't work. Fighting religions is not good in most cases. Laws should be in states control because our society is multi-cultural and one religion does not deserve the right to rule over all. Laws are there to protect society from harm. Thats their purpose unless you can tell me others?

Making laws based on harm and not religion is practical. It causes no upset between religions because they are all equal. Laws are in the states control, which is how they should be. Whats the purpose of laws? To protect society from harm. It's sensible that we therefore make our laws based upon the harm principle.

There are many religions.Who's to say which is correct, accept them all. Let them practise it. Keep the state and religion seperate because not all of society are followers of a religion and shouldn't be subjected too abiding by rules based upon it.

There subjective but the relevance to our times is a lot less than mine. My opinion doesn't matter more than there's i take mine to be more valid than theres because it's based on society at present and not 2,000 years ago.

My view is in tune with reality, his is 2000 years old. I beleive mine to have better relevance as a practical method rather than an ideological one. If we are talking ideolgies i would probably be communist. However human nature makes that impossible in my opinions and my views based on Mill's harm principle is a good balance between individual and state. Again my views are subjective and therefore not absolute truth just my personal thoughts. Edit: AIDS isn't a gay disease. You're being ignorant to social pressures.

Yes, he morals are as valid as mine, it's my personal opinion as to why his morals are less justified than mine. Thats all, I'm not neccessarily saying mine are better, I;m saying the justification that lies on religion isn't good enough for me to blindly follow them.

His morals are based on his religion and not an ever changing society. His morals would probably be detremental to society like i already explained in my opinion of abortion, other religions and homosexuals.

Im debating why i don't agree with their justification not whether or not I am forcing my beleifs onto people which to an extent I am but for reasons that don't involve discrimination against members of society, and that want to help progress our society. Religion can even be said as a counter to progress. With religion God is always the supreme being, humans give up trying because they are always accepted for their sins and what have you. Whereas here we are the supreme animal and we should strive for greatness and improvment of humanity.

Yes, just like Locke and XplsvBam are. Except the degree of my justification is superior to theirs in my opinion.

Thats NOT freedom. Thats like saying I am free to murder - i am not free to murder, if i do murder i will be imprisoned. He is forcing people into such rules as not allowing abortion for the good of society and for the good of them personally which is postive freedom.

Yes, my justfication to do so though is that this allows religions to practise what they wish, the state has less interferance and allows us to be more free, it will lessen discrimination, hopefully improve society as a whole. In my opinion the degree of my justification is a lot higher than XplsvBam's.

As in forcing us to follow such morals for our own good. Like forcing people to do their work for their own good.

So an action can only be justified on the scale of being harmful or non-harmful? As to whether is should be banned then yes. If it's harmful to another member of society it's banned. If it's offensive to another member of society (EG Homosexuals are offensive to some people) thats not justfication to ban the action.

So could you say Locke's morals would take some sort of postive freedom to an extent?

I am not, why would they need to justify their morals? Everything requires justification and 'because my religion says so' isn't justfication and neither is 'because the manority of people say so' when we are talking about no-harming actions.

Whether or not they progress society for me anyway.

Because just because it's subjective doesn't mean i cant disagree with the fact people use religion to justify their ideas. Or in the case what the majority think which is again something i don't fully beleive gives enough justification.

Your justification as to why it was morally wrong is because most people beleive it is morally wrong. Most people beleived black people to be second class citizens, so by your justification they where morally right.

Why not? You can take the same principles your religion teaches only adapt them too fit with what you think is best for societys progression? Which makes everything a lot easier than basing every decision you make on your own religion. How would you feel if someone from a completley different religion forced their beleifs onto you?

The majority of people thought black people where second class citizens, they where morally right?

Outlawing abortion would lead to backstreet abortions killing both the child and the baby in some circumstances. Thats the reality of the situation, it was so bad before they changed the law and permitted abortion. So you would change that and disallow abortion even though the reality of the situation would result in more women dying of terrible infection amoung other things? You would tell everyone no matter what their beleif that they can't do certain things because your God tells you so, a God they have no faith in? A God which contends with their God? Wouldn't it be better to base whats right and wrong on other things rather than religion? What would you do if someone from a contending religion forced you too accept certain things because a God you didn't beleive in told you so?

What about subjects like abortion, you would outlaw this? Or would you accept that it's better to have it out in the open so no-one dies from attempting a self abortion or a backstreet one? Would you accept the reality of situations and decide whats best for society even though they went against your beleifs? I don't force people to follow my beleifs, if we took the harm principle into action anyone could practise any beleif as long as it harmed no-one or took place between consenting adults.

So it doesn;t actually say incest is wrong, and it has incest in the bible so we are created yet you're assuming that means it's saying it's sexually immoral?

What about the members of society who are as dedicated to their religion as you, and you force them to abide by rules set out by your own religion. This would just create tention throughout society would it not.