February 9, 200719 yr Author If you beleive progress of society to be regress then that is still progressing society to what you beleive to be better isn't it? Thats what i meant. 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?
February 9, 200719 yr We couldn't all agree of what morals we should hold, although there are a few general ones most of us accept. We as humans are moving forward we could argue as a race, we could also argue we are moving backward as a race which is a very fair assumption. It's a subjective question which would be different for a lot of people, you could justify whats best for society with many different ideaolgies some which work and some which fail due to human nature. Human nature is the most important aspect we need to consider before deciding whats best for society's progression. Ideaolgies like communism in it's rawest form is an ideology for Gods as human nature would prevent this system of working. 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 9, 200719 yr Author We couldn't all agree of what morals we should hold, although there are a few general ones most of us accept. We as humans are moving forward we could argue as a race, we could also argue we are moving backward as a race which is a very fair assumption. It's a subjective question which would be different for a lot of people, you could justify whats best for society with many different ideaolgies some which work and some which fail due to human nature. Human nature is the most important aspect we need to consider before deciding whats best for society's progression. Ideaolgies like communism in it's rawest form is an ideology for Gods as human nature would prevent this system of working. 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?
February 9, 200719 yr All laws force opinions onto people. Laws against murder force murderers not to murder even though they think they should. Theres no universally accepted law or moral everyone on earth can agree with. However if actions don't harm others then i don't see why anyone should be banned from doing such actions. Whats wrong with refusing gay people marriage is because they are forcing views on something which doesn't harm people. Offence isn't a justification for banning certain things. 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 9, 200719 yr Author All laws force opinions onto people. Laws against murder force murderers not to murder even though they think they should. Theres no universally accepted law or moral everyone on earth can agree with. However if actions don't harm others then i don't see why anyone should be banned from doing such actions. Whats wrong with refusing gay people marriage is because they are forcing views on something which doesn't harm people. Offence isn't a justification for banning certain things. 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?
February 9, 200719 yr Why do they think it's wrong? Doesn't something being wrong entail that action being offensive to them? 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 9, 200719 yr Author Why do they think it's wrong? Doesn't something being wrong entail that action being offensive to them? 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?
February 9, 200719 yr I never used the term wrong, i said offensive both of which are subjective. People beleive it to be wrong because they are offended by it, which isn't grounds for censorship. 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 9, 200719 yr Author I never used the term wrong, i said offensive both of which are subjective. People beleive it to be wrong because they are offended by it, which isn't grounds for censorship. 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?
February 9, 200719 yr 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. 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 9, 200719 yr Author 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. 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? 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. 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.
February 9, 200719 yr 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. 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 9, 200719 yr Author 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. You're missing the entire point. Does "wrong" exist, or is it subjective?
February 9, 200719 yr Subjective. 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 9, 200719 yr Author Subjective. 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.
February 9, 200719 yr 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. 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 9, 200719 yr Author 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. 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.
February 9, 200719 yr 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? 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 9, 200719 yr Author 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? 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.
February 9, 200719 yr 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. 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 9, 200719 yr Author 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. 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.
February 9, 200719 yr 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. 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 9, 200719 yr Author 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. I said a majority vote would be the only way to decide on laws IF you believe in a subjective right or wrong. I don't believe in a subjective right or wrong, I believe in an absolute right or wrong.
February 9, 200719 yr Then what would your suggested best way to rule be? 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 9, 200719 yr Author Then what would your suggested best way to rule be? It all revolves around a few absolute beliefs. Primarily, I believe that all people should have equal rights. I also believe in an absolute right and an absolute wrong, and I therefore think that anything related to the government should not endorse wrong. As long as rights are not be trampled, and wrong is not being endorsed, whatever works.
Create an account or sign in to comment