View Poll Results: which laws?

Voters
38. You may not vote on this poll
  • abortion laws

    7 18.42%
  • animal cruelty laws

    1 2.63%
  • both

    7 18.42%
  • neither

    4 10.53%
  • all laws

    17 44.74%
  • no laws

    2 5.26%
Page 4 of 23 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 224

Thread: legislating morality

  1. #31
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,777

    Re: legislating morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleocon View Post
    Was the Holocaust objectively immoral? Yes or no?
    Nope. There's no such thing as objective immorality any more than there's any such thing as objective morality. However, a majority of people agree that it was a bad thing and make laws based on that.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  2. #32
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,373

    Re: legislating morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Nope. There's no such thing as objective immorality any more than there's any such thing as objective morality. However, a majority of people agree that it was a bad thing and make laws based on that.
    Of course there is objective morality, it's just not absolute. Objective morality is the moral position arrived at through the inclusion of the greatest number of perspectives.

  3. #33
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,777

    Re: legislating morality

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Of course there is objective morality, it's just not absolute. Objective morality is the moral position arrived at through the inclusion of the greatest number of perspectives.
    No, objective doesn't take into account people's personal emotional perspectives, it is something that is true regardless of feelings. Gravity is objectively true. Evolution is objectively true. Opinions are not objectively true, they are subjective.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  4. #34
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,373

    Re: legislating morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    No, objective doesn't take into account people's personal emotional perspectives, it is something that is true regardless of feelings. Gravity is objectively true. Evolution is objectively true. Opinions are not objectively true, they are subjective.
    Emotions aside (not necessarily present), objective morality is that which is arrived at by the greatest number of perspectives. Objectivity, regarding sociological issues, can only be decided as such. That does not make it absolute.

  5. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    06-30-16 @ 07:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,309
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: legislating morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    It's not so much that they have a "right" to kill each other. They have a right to survive, they have a right to pleasure, they have a right to food, they have a right to space, they have a right to movement, etc.

    Pretty much, in nature...any reason someone would kill another person is just fulfilling a right that someone naturally has.

    In the state of nature, humans have the natural right to persue anything they wish on their own. They can say whatever they want, believe whatever they want, do whatever they want, experience whatever htey want, eat whatever they want, etc to such a degree that they can do those things themselves.

    They have no NATURAL right to have their rights protected from violation, because that requires something from another person. They have no NATURAL right for their rights to not be infringed upon, as that requires something from another person.

    In the state of nature, ones natural rights are protected only to the degree that you can protect them yourselves...and that's it.

    It's only through a social contract, and thus agreement amongst multiple poeple, that the artificial concept of ones rights being protected comes into creation.

    A right entails absolutely ZERO obligation upon someone else. Indeed, if there is an obligation to another for you to exercise your right then it wouldn't be a right imho, or at least not a "natural right". A natural right is innate within ones self.

    That is one of the primary benefits of the social contract; the agreed upon protection of some of your rights through the agreed upon limitation of other of your own rights.

    A right to life doesn't mean simply that you have a right to live and no one can take it from you. It means you have a right to strive and take any action you need to in order to remain alive. If that means killing someone else to take their food so you don't starve, that's absolutely fine within the state of nature. It's only through a social contract that your "right to life" must be respected by others within that contract, in exchange for you being required to respect theirs as well.

    A right entails an obligation. You have a right to life, so I have an obligation not to kill you. You have a right to property, so I have an obligation not to steal from you. And so forth. If rights do not entail obligations, then they are pointless.

    As it was famously said, life within the state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. It is a war of all against all.
    But authentic rights cannot be in conflict, else they would not both be rights.

    You need to demonstrate this.

    How do you understand human nature?

    This does not exclude a natural right, since humans are by nature social creatures.

    Again, how do you understand human nature?

    This rests on the assumption that natural rights can authentically conflict.

    You need to demonstrate this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Nope. There's no such thing as objective immorality any more than there's any such thing as objective morality. However, a majority of people agree that it was a bad thing and make laws based on that.
    Is that objectively true?

  6. #36
    Light△Bender

    grip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ☚ ☛
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,224
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: legislating morality

    The easiest way to answer the question is that morals are more about personal conduct, whereas laws are more about social conduct. Though they can often overlap the law is more interested in equity and rights, than personal values and ethics.
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

  7. #37
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,865

    Re: legislating morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleocon View Post
    You know what I meant.

    You're starting with the premise that morality is a matter of subjective opinion. This is circular reasoning. And the immorality of the Holocaust can be proved:

    1. A thing is good insofar as it is in accordance with its nature (thus a good car is one which works properly, or a good pencil is one which writes well).

    2. Free human acts are matters of morality.

    3. Therefore an act which is against human nature is morally wrong.

    4. It is against man's social nature to intentionally kill others without sufficient cause (since if it were, there would be a contradiction, as if such were right, then by doing this right thing a man would deprive others of their ability to do it to him, which would violate the fundamental equality of humans).

    5. The holocaust was intentional killings committed without sufficient cause.

    Thus it is proved that the holocaust was immoral.

    That is not proof and alot of that is not fact.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  8. #38
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,865

    Re: legislating morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleocon View Post
    I did. It's against man's social nature, since if one human had the right to intentionally kill another, then the other would also have the right to intentionally kill him, yet this is a contradiction, since by exercising this "right" a person would deprive another of the same right.

    Claiming that sufficient cause exist is an affirmative claim. I cannot be expected to refute an argument that has not been made, so you must provide a Devil's Advocate argument for their being sufficient cause in order to make the point.
    Where are you getting this stuff from? It's not correct.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  9. #39
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,865

    Re: legislating morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleocon View Post
    But authentic rights cannot be in conflict, else they would not both be rights.

    You need to demonstrate this.

    How do you understand human nature?

    This does not exclude a natural right, since humans are by nature social creatures.

    Again, how do you understand human nature?

    This rests on the assumption that natural rights can authentically conflict.

    You need to demonstrate this.

    Is that objectively true?

    In nature, in biology, there are no rights at all. Including not for humans. Morality and rights are human constructs.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  10. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    06-30-16 @ 07:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,309
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: legislating morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    That is not proof and alot of that is not fact.
    Please provide evidence for this claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    Where are you getting this stuff from? It's not correct.
    Scholastic realism.

Page 4 of 23 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •