February 10, 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. If everything is subjective, how can you claim his morals to be detrimental to society? You are assuming your personal view of what is good and saying that his personal views are not valid. If all morals are subjective, why does it matter what his morals are based on? They're still just as valid as yours, aren't they? So in order for them to be less valid than yours, there must be absolute morals by which both of your sets of morals are measured. If morals are subjective, as you insist, then you are merely a bigot who believes in forcing his beliefs on others because you're arrogant enough to believe that they're better just because you say so. How is that any different than him saying his morals are true because his religion says so? "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 10, 200719 yr Yes, he morals are as valid as mine, it's my personal opinion as to why his morals are less justified than mine. Thats all, I'm not neccessarily saying mine are better, I;m saying the justification that lies on religion isn't good enough for me to blindly follow 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 10, 200719 yr Yes, he morals are as valid as mine, it's my personal opinion as to why his morals are less justified than mine. Thats all, I'm not neccessarily saying mine are better, I;m saying the justification that lies on religion isn't good enough for me to blindly follow them. Yet you've said that the government shouldn't base laws on religious morals, and should instead base laws on the degree of harm done. Why should the government make laws based on your morals instead of a religions? "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 10, 200719 yr There are many religions.Who's to say which is correct, accept them all. Let them practise it. Keep the state and religion seperate because not all of society are followers of a religion and shouldn't be subjected too abiding by rules based upon it. 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 10, 200719 yr There are many religions.Who's to say which is correct, accept them all. Let them practise it. Keep the state and religion seperate because not all of society are followers of a religion and shouldn't be subjected too abiding by rules based upon it. Not all of society adheres to your belief that the degree of harm is the measure of morality. Why should they be subjected to abiding by it? Why not let them practice their religious beliefs and make laws accordingly without forcing your personal opinion of morality on them? "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 10, 200719 yr Making laws based on harm and not religion is practical. It causes no upset between religions because they are all equal. Laws are in the states control, which is how they should be. Whats the purpose of laws? To protect society from harm. It's sensible that we therefore make our laws based upon the harm principle. 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 10, 200719 yr Making laws based on harm and not religion is practical. You assume practicallity is good. Why should we listen to your personal opinion? It causes no upset between religions because they are all equal. You assume peace and equality between religions are good. Why should we listen to your personal opinion? Laws are in the states control, which is how they should be. You assume laws should be in the state's control. Why should we listen to your personal opinion? Whats the purpose of laws? To protect society from harm. It's sensiblw that we therefore make our laws based upon the harm principle. You assume the purpose of laws is to protect society from harm. Why should we listen to your personal opinion? "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 10, 200719 yr Laws that aren't practical don't work. Fighting religions is not good in most cases. Laws should be in states control because our society is multi-cultural and one religion does not deserve the right to rule over all. Laws are there to protect society from harm. Thats their purpose unless you can tell me others? 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 10, 200719 yr Assuming subjective morals, as you do... Laws that aren't practical don't work. Why is whether or not something works a measure of something's goodness? After all, good is only subjective, so why should we accept your opinion that practicality is good? Fighting religions is not good in most cases. According to whom? You? Why does your personal opinion matter? Laws should be in states control because our society is multi-cultural and one religion does not deserve the right to rule over all. According to whom? You? Why does your personal opinion matter? If they believe it is good for one religion to rule over all, just as you believe it is good for one personal opinion (degree of harm) to rule over all, then what makes that less valid than your view? Laws are there to protect society from harm. Thats their purpose unless you can tell me others? If someone says laws ought to protect nature rather than society, is their view less valid than yours? "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 10, 200719 yr Making laws based on harm and not religion is practical. You assume practicallity is good. Why should we listen to your personal opinion? It causes no upset between religions because they are all equal. You assume peace and equality between religions are good. Why should we listen to your personal opinion? Laws are in the states control, which is how they should be. You assume laws should be in the state's control. Why should we listen to your personal opinion? Whats the purpose of laws? To protect society from harm. It's sensiblw that we therefore make our laws based upon the harm principle. You assume the purpose of laws is to protect society from harm. Why should we listen to your personal opinion? Forgive me butting in but practicality is good, peace and equality anywhere is good, laws should be in the states control (it's been tried and proven) and the purpose of laws is to create order and minimise harm. Overanalysing is useless in a debate such as this, unless it's about philosophy where in that case, forgive my forcing my opinions on you.
February 10, 200719 yr Assuming subjective morals, as you do... Laws that aren't practical don't work. Why is whether or not something works a measure of something's goodness? After all, good is only subjective, so why should we accept your opinion that practicality is good? Because it's obvious if laws are not practical - such as banning abortion people can die as an effect of it. Fighting religions is not good in most cases. According to whom? You? Why does your personal opinion matter? Fighting religions can lead to murder, something they beleive to be an absolute moral. Laws should be in states control because our society is multi-cultural and one religion does not deserve the right to rule over all. According to whom? You? Why does your personal opinion matter? If they believe it is good for one religion to rule over all, just as you believe it is good for one personal opinion (degree of harm) to rule over all, then what makes that less valid than your view? Because it's at the expense and freedom of the rest of society. Laws are there to protect society from harm. Thats their purpose unless you can tell me others? If someone says laws ought to protect nature rather than society, is their view less valid than yours? Laws do protect nature yes, but you can argue protecting nature is protecting society. Also can we address each point by only quoting one thing next cause it's hard to seperate quotes and respond to each. 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 10, 200719 yr 1. Because it's obvious if laws are not practical - such as banning abortion people can die as an effect of it. 2. Fighting religions can lead to murder, something they beleive to be an absolute moral. 3. Because it's at the expense and freedom of the rest of society. 4. Laws do protect nature yes, but you can argue protecting nature is protecting society. You believe all of those things above are good, correct? You believe morality is subjective, personal opinion, correct? So you believe that even though you are no more right than anyone else, your view of what is good should be forced on everyone else, correct? So you are no different than a religionist who believes he should force his beliefs about what is good on everyone else, correct? "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 10, 200719 yr No, their beleif doesn't allow as much freedom in society as mine. I'm not forcing my beleif on people because I am allowing them to carry out their beleifs - as long as they don't harm others. 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 10, 200719 yr Constitutional rights anyone? Your name is "bet you fail", and you're starting a business with your mom? I'm not even going to touch that.....
February 10, 200719 yr No, their beleif doesn't allow as much freedom in society as mine. I'm not forcing my beleif on people because I am allowing them to carry out their beleifs - as long as they don't harm others. Who says freedom is a good thing? You? Why should we all have to adhere to your opinion? Why can't you let me decide for myself whether or not freedom is a good thing? Why must you force your belief in the goodness of freedom on me? "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 10, 200719 yr Then don't be free when you live within my proposed society. Live how you live now and abide by the rules you do now. The principle doesn'tstop you from that. The principle allows life experiments. If your is not to be free you have the option to live that way. 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 10, 200719 yr Then don't be free when you live within my proposed society. Live how you live now and abide by the rules you do now. The principle doesn'tstop you from that. But why should the society base its laws on your belief in freedom, rather than on the beliefs of someone who believes in taking away freedoms? If morals are subjective, both views are equally valid. So why should the government base laws on yours? Are you just a bigot who believes in forcing your beliefs on others through the law? You've yet to address the point I've been pressing for an hour. What separates you, forcing on others through the law your subjective morals based on personal thoughts, any different from someone who wants to force their personal, subjective, religious morals on someone else through the law? Why should your opinion be given the power of the law, and not theirs? Aren't you discriminating against those who don't share your beliefs? What makes you any different than a religionist who does the same? "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 10, 200719 yr We already went over this, Astra. Yours are from a book. The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me!
February 10, 200719 yr I have already said, a religious person who uses their personal religion to force laws their religion preaches upon society is different. My beleifs allow any religion to practise whatever it wishes without discrimination. With religions in control they are happy at the expense of society. What whall we say, if we go off of utility what causes the greatest hapiness? All religions allowed to practice or one religion casting laws upon everyone else? All or one group? It may not be perfect for religions as they think 'Wait i wan't my laws passed down not this current system' but for the good of society this makes the most people happy. Private and public spheres, freedom to practise religion, freedom to live anyway they wish unless it harms others. Why would this not be a utopian society? You can live with less freedom if you wish it's your choise. You can live abiding my the morals of your church as long as they don't harm others. What is wrong with this principle? It's even more like heaven than a conformist religious state. Everyone co-exists in peace in theory. 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 10, 200719 yr Having a kid is a choice. Not a rule. I have a feeling that if this law passes, there is going to be a LOT of lawsuits flying around. 122 Combat : 99 Hits : 99 Attack : 99 Strength97/99 Defence : 99 Fletching : 99 Woodcutting
February 10, 200719 yr We already went over this, Astra. Yours are from a book. I addressed that already. If morals are subjective, i.e. all moral systems are equally valid, then why does it matter where they come from? You're not becoming a moral absolutist on me now, are you Tigra? If you're still a moral relativist, how can you logically dismiss someone else's morals as invalid because you don't like where they came from? If they don't like where you morals came from, does that make your beliefs invalid? I have already said, a religious person who uses their personal religion to force laws their religion preaches upon society is different. My beleifs allow any religion to practise whatever it wishes without discrimination. With religions in control they are happy at the expense of society. What whall we say, if we go off of utility what causes the greatest hapiness? All religions allowed to practice or one religion casting laws upon everyone else? All or one group? It may not be perfect for religions as they think 'Wait i wan't my laws passed down not this current system' but for the good of society this makes the most people happy. Private and public spheres, freedom to practise religion, freedom to live anyway they wish unless it harms others. Why would this not me a utopian society? You can live with less freedom if you wish it's your choise. You can live abising my the morals of your church as long as they don't harm others. What is wrong with this principle? It's even more like heaven than a conformist religious state. Everyone co-exists in peace in theory. A religion is a belief system, correct? Your belief in the goodness of freedom of religion, utility, the greatest happiness, non-discrimination, and not harming others are part of your belief system, correct? On a practical level, what makes your belief system any more fit to govern than theirs does? It still forces a belief system on others, and discriminates against those who don't hold your belief system. The only difference between what you want to do and what they want to do is names. They call their beliefs "religion," and you don't. In all other ways, it is the same thing - somebody wants to legislate his personal belief system to the exclusion of all others. "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 10, 200719 yr Why would you disagree with this proposed state? 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 10, 200719 yr Why would you disagree with this proposed state? This has nothing to do with your proposed state. You've forgotten how this whole discussion even started. Everything requires justification and 'because my religion says so' isn't justfication and neither is 'because the manority of people say so' when we are talking about no-harming actions. If morality is subjective, as you say it is, why are those not valid justifications for laws, but your personal, subjective beliefs are? Why should your personal system of morality be legislated to the exclusion of all others, but theirs should not be? "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 10, 200719 yr Honestly, I don't know why you don't get it. Why are you even fighting me? Somewhere deep down, your common sense screams "Stop, you're embarassing yourself!" and you ignore it. The morals in the Bible are bigotry. The ones we're talking about, of course. Homosexuality and the like. Murder, of course, is an absolute. It's just wrong and we all know it. We do not need the Bible or anyone else to tell us this. How many people here were taught in school that murder is wrong? Noone? Yea, that's because it goes without saying. Noone ever had to teach me that. Now, how many people were taught in school that homosexuality hurts everyone in society? Just the religious ones, then? Yea, thought so. Probably because your whole religion is full of hate-mongering bigots. NORMAL parents/teachers don't teach their children to hate homosexuals or think they're "weird". Normal parents/teachers don't teach their children that homosexuals are responsible for all the world's problems. It's kinda' cute how you beat around the bush at the real issue here. The real issue isn't "Is morality subjective", because honestly, who cares? That's not the subject. The subject is do homosexuals hurt society? The answer is no, and you believe the answer is yes. You're just not saying it because you know what the consequences are. You can only say it amongst your fellow cultists and get away with it. Isn't it odd that all the religious people here sing the same tune about homosexuals, while the rest of us say "Uhh, they don't hurt anyone...Leave them alone..."? No, it isn't odd at all. It's how you people do things. Continue doing it, then. We all see through your little disguise of "understanding". You "understand" that if we don't agree with you, we're all going to Hell. Nice. The popularity of any given religion today depends on the victories of the wars they fought in the past. - Me!
February 10, 200719 yr Having religion in laws, even religious values in laws is rediculous. That will result in what the world was before freedom of religion. I'd rather keep the first ammendment than anything else.
Create an account or sign in to comment