People want to interfere with other people's personal lives, so they come up with bullshit excuses like protect the sanctity of marriage. That's how these laws came about.
People don't invent laws
just so they can interfere with your life. That is the inevitable
consequence of some shitty laws, but not the purpose. Nobody passes anti-gay marriage laws just so they can interfere with their lives, they pass it because they think gay marriage is wrong and think it will infect society with their loose morals. But that's a slippery slope argument.
The consequence is that it is government interfering with personal lives, which is counterintuitive to the personal liberties of free citizens in a free society. The purpose is to stop gay marriage, for the reasons I listed above.
Yes, science wants to explain everything, but not at the cost of sacrificing integrity and truth. You will find that scientists really have no problem saying "I don't know". Good luck getting that sentence out of a creationist.
If you mean to say that most creationists act as if they're know-it-all's, then I would agree.
Which is the same as referring to absolute terms to define what is not yet defined. It's like falling back to axioms (or idioms) to define a bigger picture.
Yes, that is what I mean also. I appreciate you explaining it better than I.
Like I said, not every moral question can be answered, and you should accept that.
I do accept it. I stated that it appears absolute morals exist, but it is impossible to identify them. That's the crux of it. My only contention is whether or not people would accept that such a paradox exists.
Moral absolutes work in a similar way. Just because the consensus tells us something is a moral absolute doesn't make it so. However, it is a very big indicator for it to be so.
True, but then it stands to reason that there is a reason for it. For nothing in the known universe happens without a cause to create the effect.
Um, he didn't feel morally righteous when he committed those acts. And just because people know right from wrong doesn't mean they will always do right.
He did think it was right. The problem is, he equated it to drowning rats infected with bubonic plague. In his mind it served a greater good.
Now, you're talking about cultural values
The same principle applies, I'm just using it as a frame of reference.
I've found that you have trouble understanding the concept of moral neutrality because you are still taking the creationist approach to morality. And please don't be offended.
If I'm not offended it's because I don't know what that means.
And there is nothing wrong with being a terrorist. And it's not right either. It's morally neutral. Now, what one decides to act as a terrorist is another question.
But if all things are relative, something as innocuous to you and me, like a women showing her skin in public, is a mortal sin deserving of serious punishment. Again, relative morals amount to opinions. So to say something is morally neutral may only be your moral outlook, not everyone.
Many Middle Eastern people view them as heroes not because they kill innocent people but because of what they claim to defend against. You might not like to hear this, but we're not the most popular country in the world. Just by siding with Israel alone puts us way up there on their to-do list. This combines with the fact that we have entire armies occupying just about every part of the Middle East.
Correct, so who is right?
So, when you're saying one's hero is another's villain, you're comparing apples to oranges.
Blowing people up for good reasons as opposed to bad reasons is not comparing apples to oranges. That's describing, to the letter, what moral relativity is.
They seem relative to you because you're refusing to see the acts from different perspectives. The beheaded people are innocent in our eyes because we value freedom and individuality. They regard those people as guilty and worthy of death because they don't value freedom and the fact that those people were christian alone warranted beheading.
Yeah, I get that. That's what I said. I am giving a realworld scenario of moral relativity in action.
quote:
We know that some absolutes exist, because to deny an absolute is to also affirm it simultaneously. But does it apply to morals?
I'm sorry, how does the first sentence make sense?
Absolutes of anything are hard to put our fingers on. Universal constants are absolutes and they can stand on their own merit.
I am stating that we know some things are absolute, but you seem to understand that so there is no point in belaboring that point.
Just because the bible says pi = 3 doesn't mean consensus is wrong, just like just because some sociopath says murder is right doesn't mean the consensus is wrong.
True, or inversely, just because the consensus says something is wrong, doesn't necessarily make it so.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal
™ Version 4.2
