Locke Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Which is another critisism of the principle, which I accept. I do generally beleive harm to be bad, so outlawing the ability to harm others would lead to utility. 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 On issues that harm other people - yes. The bottom line of the harm principle is a justified tyranny of the majority. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 On issues that harm other people - yes. The bottom line of the harm principle is a justified tyranny of the majority. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Homosexual marriage doesn't harm anyone though. Which is the key to what should and should not be decided by the majority. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Homosexual marriage doesn't harm anyone though. Which is the key to what should and should not be decided by the majority. 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Can you tell me how it harms people? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Can you tell me how it harms people? I think you misunderstood my statement. [Harm] is the key to what should and should not be decided by the majority. 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Homosexual people don't harm anyone, harm usually is a bad thing. Banning harm would create an overall utility. Harm thats good would suffer although i can't think of a good harm. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Homosexual people don't harm anyone, harm usually is a bad thing. Banning harm would create an overall utility. Harm thats good would suffer although i can't think of a good harm. How is harm usually a bad thing? Are you trying to suggest an absolute "bad" exists? I thought "good" and "bad' is subjective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Is usually is, if we take freedom to be an absolute good (which the harm principle does) then harm infringes on one's personal 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Is usually is, if we take freedom to be an absolute good (which the harm principle does) then harm infringes on one's personal freedom. 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 The harm principle and it's author Mill does assume freedom to be an absolute good. That i can't contend. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 The harm principle and it's author Mill does assume freedom to be an absolute good. That i can't contend. So is there an absolute good and bad, or is there not? Quit being evasive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 The harm peinciple assumes there is, however everything can be contested which is why I wouldn't fully agree in a total absolute 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 The harm peinciple assumes there is, however everything can be contested which is why I wouldn't fully agree in a total absolute good. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 It's not a question of which is more valid it's a question of which is more practical and creates the best possible situation for everyone - not accepting offence as a justification for banning an action. This accepts more people so we can change society for the better. Yes it assumes progress is an absolute good, and freedom achives this. It's all subjective which i have stated before, and my opinion that this is better is just 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 It's not a question of which is more valid it's a question of which is more practical and creates the best possible situation for everyone - not accepting offence as a justification for banning an action. This accepts more people so we can change society for the better. Yes it assumes progress is an absolute good, and freedom achives this. It's all subjective which i have stated before, and my opinion that this is better is just my opinion. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viktorkrum77 Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 Our government SHOULD be against homosexuality. Why? Because it is morally wrong AND dangerous for society. It isn't dangerous. There's a plenty of countries who allow same-sex marriage and they don't have any problems with it. This is exactly what I was going to say. If it's wrong, than they should argue it to all the countries who allow it. While they're at it, they might as well trace it back to the Netherlands since they started it, and we'll see how far they get from there. They being people against gay marriage. On top of that, incest can cause many genetic defects. Me doing staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 I'm not saying anything about wrong I am saying that they can't judge wrong on offense in this application because we need everyones input to find truth. In this application offense doesn't justify something being wrong because why should it? Pretty much everything would be wrong if it did it's common sense at the end really. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 I'm not saying anything about wrong I am saying that they can't judge wrong on offense in this application because we need everyones input to find truth. In this application offense doesn't justify something being wrong because why should it? Pretty much everything would be wrong if it did it's common sense at the end really. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 It's not enough justification to attach a whole system of law upon. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 It's not enough justification to attach a whole system of law upon. Why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 One persons beleif of why something is wrong without justification which is essantially the situation you are putting to me isn't enough justification because there is no justification. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 One persons beleif of why something is wrong without justification which is essantially the situation you are putting to me isn't enough justification because there is no justification. You believe in a subjective right or wrong, "justification" is meaningless. Asking for justification is a contradiction of your own belief system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satenza Posted February 9, 2007 Share Posted February 9, 2007 I'm not saying justification can't be questioned. I am saying degree's of justifcation is a lot more essential to beleiving something than just saying this is how we live, why do we live like that is the question. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now