Satenza

You said the Government wouldn't endorse things you would consider to be wrong.

Would you consider other religions to be wrong, and therefore not have the givernment recognise them and only yours?

That doesn't change the fact if you beleive what the bible says there had to be incest to get us to where we are now. So what is it? Drop what the bible says about Adam and Eve? Or drop your views that it is morally wrong because the Bible says so?

So you'd take the same stance the American givernment is taking at the moment and dsicriminate against a minority you consider to be doing wrong?

2 nights a week at the gym, golf on saturday usually.

What about if you beleive homosexual activity to be wrong because your religion says so. Homosexual people can't be homosexual anymore? What are they supposed to do? Lie to others? be discriminated against? Get married and have children?

So one mans idea that racial minorities are not as superior as white people because he finds them ugly has the same amount of justification as me saying racial minorities are equal to us because we are all human beings and skin color is the only differance between us is as justified as the other mans idea on the reason that my justification can be questioned just as much as his?

Why is what you beleive to be right absolute? Everyone who disagrees with what you propose to be right does what?

Everything can be questioned by people, making everything subjective. Some things have more justification and relevance than others.

Then what would your suggested best way to rule be?

I'm not saying justification can't be questioned. I am saying degree's of justifcation is a lot more essential to beleiving something than just saying this is how we live, why do we live like that is the question.

You're arguing that a majority vote would be better, i have given you a situation where i want your opinion whether a majority vote would be the best way to decide.

One persons beleif of why something is wrong without justification which is essantially the situation you are putting to me isn't enough justification because there is no justification.

I'm asking for your opinion if it would be bestter for society to have a majority vote in that situation. Quit palming my questions to you back onto my beleif. I want to hear yours.

It's not enough justification to attach a whole system of law upon.

Historicaly thats not correct, in America the majority of people beleived black people to be second class members of society. If you continued along with a majority vote on this matter you may still be discriminating against other human beings for a pathetic reason that is the color of their skin. Would you agree that the majority vote would be best for mankind in that situation?

I'm not saying anything about wrong I am saying that they can't judge wrong on offense in this application because we need everyones input to find truth. In this application offense doesn't justify something being wrong because why should it? Pretty much everything would be wrong if it did it's common sense at the end really.

It's not a question of which is more valid it's a question of which is more practical and creates the best possible situation for everyone - not accepting offence as a justification for banning an action. This accepts more people so we can change society for the better. Yes it assumes progress is an absolute good, and freedom achives this. It's all subjective which i have stated before, and my opinion that this is better is just my opinion.

Every issue being decided by the majority is not only inpracticle but it is tyranny of the majority. The harm principle accepts minority groups and allows them to test their life experiments so that the norm of society can be changed for the better. I'm not saying it's an infallible principle i'm saying it's a better way to rule than a lot of other systems in my opinion.

Subjective.

The harm peinciple assumes there is, however everything can be contested which is why I wouldn't fully agree in a total absolute good.

As i said, the harm principle was written as a practical application and not an idealogical one. Everything is subjective in life and all non self-evident statements can be contested. Whether or not the harm principle has a few flaws, every system does. You judge all those cases on their own merit such as gambling.

The harm principle and it's author Mill does assume freedom to be an absolute good. That i can't contend.

I said people beleive things to be wrong because they are offended by them. Offence is subjective and that doesn't mean what they beleive to be offence is actually wrong. What i beleive as wrong is an action that harms another, that assumes absolute neagtive to harm? Well i also agree that some harm may not be negative yet it should be banned on the grounds that if all harm is banned we would create utlility. Which is again subjective.

Is usually is, if we take freedom to be an absolute good (which the harm principle does) then harm infringes on one's personal freedom.