Locke

You believe in a subjective right or wrong, "justification" is meaningless. Asking for justification is a contradiction of your own belief system.

I'm not the one who believes in a subjective right and wrong so the question doesn't apply to my belief system. YOU are the one who believes in a subjective right and wrong.

Why not?

Why can't it justify wrong? Wrong is subjective so anything can be wrong, and anything can justify wrong, if it's not absolute. You keep contradicting yourself.

Depends on the definition of "best." You're the one suggesting there is no good or bad, not me. According to you, slavery isn't absolutely bad, it's only bad to those who believe it is.

It is a question of which is more valid, because if one is not truly more valid than the other, they both deserve equal weight. All you are doing is saying your definition of wrong is justifiable, but someone else's is not justifiable. That can't be so if "wrong" doesn't actually exist.

Then you assume that majority tyranny is bad, which is subjective. No matter how you continue to spin it, you can't justify one belief over another. Period. If you can't justify your belief over another, then the only way to decide which belief to go with is by what the majority agrees on.

Then let's put it in context. If someone outlaws homosexuality because it is their belief it is wrong, and their belief stems from it being offensive to them, their belief is no more or less valid than yours. You cannot judge one person's belief in what defines right and wrong to be less correct than yours, because neither are correct. Therefore, everything should be subjected to a majority opinion because nothing can be defined as "more right" or "more practical" because that assumes an absolute of some sort.

I don't think I've ever debated with anyone who talks in circles as much as you. You don't believe in an absolute good or bad. You don't assume in an absolute right or wrong. Therefore, any belief or opinion on morality is just as valid as yours and any attempt to legislate it is just as valid as yours.

You're missing the entire point. Does "wrong" exist, or is it subjective?

So is there an absolute good and bad, or is there not? Quit being evasive.

Wrong is subjective so offense can never be "actually wrong." You keep making justification for your belief in "wrong," but saying another belief in "wrong" is wrong, while at the same time declaring there is no absolute "wrong." Which is it? Right. Meaning your belief that harm is wrong is purely subjective. You can't defend or justify it over anyone else's belief in what wrong is no matter what their belief might be, because you don't believe wrong is absolute.

Wait. So we are now assuming that an absolute good does exist? I thought we agreed to assume that an absolute good and an absolute bad does not exist?

You did say wrong, actually. Read how I quoted you above. People don't believe it's wrong because it offends them. You have no basis for that statement. In fact, I would argue that most people who think it's wrong are offended by it because they think it's wrong. Not vice versa. You failed to answer my question. Why do you think things are wrong?

How is harm usually a bad thing? Are you trying to suggest an absolute "bad" exists? I thought "good" and "bad' is subjective.

Why do you believe things to be wrong? If "wrong" doesn't absolutely exist, and is subjective, why does anyone need any type of justification for their belief about "wrong?" Isn't any justification merely subjective and, therefore, pointless?

I think you misunderstood my statement. Is that absolutely true? Doesn't that assume something absolutely negative about harm? How can you make such an absolute statement like that if absolutes don't exist?

Is that absolutely true? Doesn't that assume something absolutely negative about harm? How can you make such an absolute statement like that if absolutes don't exist?

I don't think anyone would ban homosexuality because it's offensive, it's because they think it's wrong. What's wrong with that?

So how is the majority's belief that homosexual marriages should be banned any different than your support of any law? Both beliefs come from a fundamental subjective belief which is neither right nor wrong, so one can't be considered any more discriminatory in an absolute sense than another.

So you would agree that by passing any law, any form of legislation, you are forcing your views on someone else. Correct? You are making the basic assumption that your definition of a good progression is correct, which means anything that supports that is good. However, not every can universally agree on what "good progression is" and you are therefore forcing your beliefs on someone by supporting any law. Right?

So then what is your position? If there is no true morality, if there is no absolute way to judge happiness, if harm can't even be considered an absolute bad, what is your basis of your argument? You are giving any opinion as much authority and weight as your own, therefore accepting only a majority vote as the solution. If I believed that killing is good, it has as much weight as your opinion, and we can't in any way show that one belief is better for society than another, because better is subjective. Is your position on morality and the government than that all forms of legislated morality should just be left to see what the majority prefers?

Fair enough. In one way or another, everyone is trying to progress society in the direction of what they believe is good. On what basis then can we say one type of moral legislation is wrong, and one type is right?

The harm principle still assumes harm should be avoided, which assumes a negative quality to harm, which assumes some form of absolute idea. Yet you don't believe in absolutes.

No. you said "progress" assuming "progress" is good. Why can't regression be good? Why should I ask if it will progress society and assume progression is better than regression? EDIT: Just to be clear, you said "best for society's progress," assuming society's progress is inherently good and we should do what is best for it.