February 12, 200719 yr 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. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
February 12, 200719 yr Author 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. You can't justify something if there is no absolute good. That's the point you keep missing. Justification bases itself on an absolute good of some sort, you are contradicting yourself by trying to justify your belief.
February 12, 200719 yr 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. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
February 12, 200719 yr Author 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. Yes it does mean that, because if morality is subjective, neither of them are right. Therefore, and I said this before, you must admit that under subjective morality the best way to create laws is to have a vote on it, because what you think is right has no more weight than everyone else, and if we use any standard to justify legislation on, we are discriminating against people who don't think that standard is right. So once again, under your subjective morality, you would have to acknowledge that the best way to create laws would be to have people vote on them and use whatever outcomes results, that way everyone's beliefs have equal weight.
February 12, 200719 yr Which brings me back to subjective consensus morality. People vote, but what they vote doesn't mean it can't change in the future. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
February 12, 200719 yr Author Which brings me back to subjective consensus morality. People vote, but what they vote doesn't mean it can't change in the future. Which means that if people vote to ban gay marriage, they are no more forcing their views of morality on people than you do when you support different laws.
February 12, 200719 yr 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. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
February 12, 200719 yr Author 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. I don't care about Mill's harm theory. As soon as progress is made, you move back again. However each mans vote should not be for his own personal gain or prejudice but for what is best for society in his view. Contradictory. That sentence contradicts itself. What's best for society could be what is best for his own personal gain. You cannot decide what's best for society in any way. If someone thinks personal individual gain is best for society, then it has as much weight as your "harm principle." You keep trying to pass off subjective statements as absolutes that you don't believe in. Quit.
February 12, 200719 yr 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. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
February 12, 200719 yr Author 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. That is still a subjective belief. Let me put it to you this way, since you're having trouble understanding your own beliefs. Because all beliefs concerning the best and worst way to maintain a society are subjective (in your belief system), you would support the principle behind a ban on gay marriage if society voted for it. You might disagree with the actual decision, because your subjective beliefs on what's best for society are different, but because you believe all opinions have the same weight, you would agree with the principle of allowing for a vote to decide the issue, no matter what it is. If you disagree with that principle, you disagree with your own subjective beliefs.
February 12, 200719 yr 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. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
February 12, 200719 yr Author 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. That still involves your harm principle. If society deems it bad for society then it should be outlawed. Which they did in 11 states in 2004. So you agree with the principle of outlawing homosexual marriage, but not the actual resolution.
February 12, 200719 yr 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. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
February 12, 200719 yr 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. See, this is where you lose me. By requiring society to only use harm for society as a measuring stick while voting, doesnt that make harm an absolute? If that is the case, then you do agree with absolutes and you would have to acknowledge that someone else's beliefs, based on absolutes, is totally valid. If it is not the case and each person can have their own interpretation of harm, then it totally invalidates the principle, because what I think is harm, you may not. So if I don't think it is harm and your opinion hold no more weight than mine, how can you tell me I am wrong. If society, through a voting process, defines what is harm, then you have a measuring stick that is constantly changing. If I murder someone and was convicted and sentanced based on society's ruling that murder is harm and next year society makes the ruling that murder is not harm, will I then be freed? If you were to say that murder is ALWAYS harm, then you are defining an absolute. If then, there is an absolute, you can not invalidate other's beliefs that are based on absolutes.
February 12, 200719 yr 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. 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.
February 12, 200719 yr 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. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
February 12, 200719 yr 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. 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. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
February 12, 200719 yr 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. So murder is an absolute then...i see, go on my young absolutist...tell me how you really feel...
February 12, 200719 yr 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. 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?
February 12, 200719 yr I didn'tsay murder was an absolute, i said a murderer wouldn't understand freedom because they took it away from someone. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
February 12, 200719 yr 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. 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? With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
February 12, 200719 yr I didn'tsay murder was an absolute, i said a murderer wouldn't understand freedom because they took it away from someone. So, if someone is in the society already and they commit murder, which many times is a crime of passion (aka not planned), then they would be removed from society. Still the same thing...you are saying it is an absolute
February 12, 200719 yr 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. 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? Hmmm, ok. I passed gas three times this morning, so today when we go to vote on what is right and what is wrong, I am going to vote yes for the first three items and no for everything else.
February 12, 200719 yr 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. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
February 12, 200719 yr Hmmm, ok. I passed gas three times this morning, so today when we go to vote on what is right and what is wrong, I am going to vote yes for the first three items and no for everything else. Wouldn't count because they have not voted for what they beleive is best for society. Even if what they voted on is what they beleived yet they hadn't voted that way for the correct reason. With so many trees in the city you could see the spring coming each day until a night of warm wind would bring it suddenly in one morning. Sometimes the heavy cold rains would beat it back so that it would seem that it would never come and that you were losing a season out of your life. But you knew that there would always be the spring as you knew the river would flow again after it was frozen. When the cold rains kept on and killed the spring, it was as though a young person had died for no reason. In those days though the spring always came finally but it was frightening that it had nearly failed.
Create an account or sign in to comment