February 9, 200719 yr Why is what you beleive to be right absolute? Everyone who disagrees with what you propose to be right does what? 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 is what you beleive to be right absolute? Everyone who disagrees with what you propose to be right does what? Because it is. That's the thing about absolute morality, it just is. My beliefs come from my religion if that's what you're wondering. I don't propose to do anything with people for disagreeing with me. If you think it's okay to kill someone, that's fine. If you kill someone, there will be legal consequences.
February 9, 200719 yr 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? 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 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? I don't flaunt the fact that I have a biological problem with addiction. It is also impossible to outlaw that. Same situation. Which leads into the discussion as well if the temptation is wrong, or giving into the temptation is wrong. I don't believe that everything about someone can be controlled so there are some "wrongs" I don't believe can be legislated against. In those cases, I refer to my point that the government should not endorse "wrong."
February 9, 200719 yr 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? 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 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? Correct. Except I don't believe it's discrimination.
February 9, 200719 yr Would you consider other religions to be wrong, and therefore not have the givernment recognise them and only 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 Would you consider other religions to be wrong, and therefore not have the givernment recognise them and only yours? Yes to the former, no to the latter.
February 9, 200719 yr You said the Government wouldn't endorse things you would consider to be wrong. 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 said the Government wouldn't endorse things you would consider to be wrong. The government can allow any religion to practice as long as they aren't endorsing it. There is a difference between permitting a religion to practice, and endorsing it. EDIT: You're also doing a play on words with "wrong." I believe other religions to be incorrect. I guess I should also insert that I believe in the freedom to practice religion. I'll even go as far to say that if in someone's religion it says homosexuality is okay, they can marry homosexuals through the church. But not through the government.
February 9, 200719 yr 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. 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 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. It's not more forcing someone to follow rules than it is forcing them to pay taxes to support things they don't agree with, forcing them not to murder if they think it's okay, forcing them to abide by business regulations that they disagree with, etc. And since when you disagree with forcing people to follow your beliefs instead of their own?
February 9, 200719 yr 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. 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 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 believe murdering babies is better for society so your question is nonsensical.
February 9, 200719 yr 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? 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 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? Your logic doesn't make sense. Should we legalize all forms of murder since they happen anyway? Murder is murder. Period. Outlawing abortion leads to people killing themselves to murder, legalizing it means that much more people are willing and able to kill babies. Either way, babies are being killed. One way reduces it and doesn't allow the government to endorse it. 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? Non.
February 9, 200719 yr 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? 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 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? Whose definition of progress do we use? Yours? Why is yours any better than mine, or any better than Locke's religions, if all morals are subjective? Your final question is irrelevant. Assuming absolute morals, you cannot force those morals on someone else. They exist whether we acknoledge them or not. If I say, "I am 6 feet tall." I am not forcing a belief on you; I am merely stating a fact. You can choose not to believe it, but it doesn't change my height. If you deny it, you are denying truth. If there are absolute morals, and the government makes laws based on those, it is not "forcing beliefs" on anyone. It is merely saying, "This is the way morality works. You can disbelieve it. You don't have to obey if you don't want to, but there will be consequences." It doesn't matter whether a person agrees with the absolute morals or not; they are a statement of fact, and nothing will change that. Now, if morals are subjective, as you claim, then it is possible to force morals on others. If no morality is inherently more true than another, then the strongest force - whether it be a government, majority opinion, or an individual - forces its view on others. Locke is not the one advocating forcing morals on others. He believes in making laws based on morals that exist regardless of what we think. You are the one who wants to force morality on people. You believe in subjective morals, yet believe that government should be based on the morals you choose to believe in. "In so far as I am Man I am the chief of creatures. In so far as I am a man I am the chief of sinners." - G.K. Chesterton
February 9, 200719 yr So could you say Locke's morals would take some sort of postive freedom to an extent? 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 So could you say Locke's morals would take some sort of postive freedom to an extent? Excuse me? Sorry, but I'm not sure what you're asking. "In so far as I am Man I am the chief of creatures. In so far as I am a man I am the chief of sinners." - G.K. Chesterton
February 9, 200719 yr As in forcing us to follow such morals for our own good. Like forcing people to do their work for their own good. 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 As in forcing us to follow such morals for our own good. Like forcing people to do their work for their own good. No, he doesn't believe in forcing people to do anything. He believes the government should make laws based upon absolute right and wrong. People are free to disagree with those absolute morals, but they are in the wrong. No one is being forced to follow such morals. They are free to disagree, break the law, and face the consequences. Of course it would be better for them if they followed the absolute morals and the laws based upon them, but it's their choice. "In so far as I am Man I am the chief of creatures. In so far as I am a man I am the chief of sinners." - G.K. Chesterton
February 9, 200719 yr 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. 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 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. Alright then, sure. I guess Locke's view would assume some extent of positive freedom. I'll let him answer more fully when he returns. I can't give you a complete answer about his system since I'm not him. However, this has little to do with the points I made about your views. You dodged my initial question of, "Whose definition of progress do we use? Yours? Why is yours any better than mine, or any better than Locke's religions, if all morals are subjective?" "In so far as I am Man I am the chief of creatures. In so far as I am a man I am the chief of sinners." - G.K. Chesterton
February 9, 200719 yr 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. 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