A Victory For Freedom

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by David Floyd


I've got a better idea. How about you ask 100 people if murder is wrong. Then ask another 100 people if, say, stealing is wrong. Then ask another 100 people if it's wrong to kidnap someone and chain them in a basement.

And what do you suggest we do if they disagree with you?

[David Floyd]

And what do you suggest we do if they disagree with you?

The point of the exercise is to show that the vast majority of people either believe that some absolutes exist, or that the Holocaust was perfectly moral and legitimate. Imran, for example, believe the Holocaust was perfectly moral and legitimate, because not everyone agreed it was wrong, but I'd wager that is a minority opinion.

And no, I'm not trying to determine morals based on majority vote. Again, the point is to show you that most people believe in absolutes.

[Kuciwalker]

Floyd - my point is that our only way to base morals IS by majority vote.

Unless you have a better idea...

[David Floyd]

Floyd - my point is that our only way to base morals IS by majority vote.

Unless you have a better idea...

I have lot's of better ideas, all of which revolve around you granting me that the majority can be wrong.

[Kuciwalker]

I accept and agree that there is an objective morality.

However, there is no objective means of determining what it is. Everyone has a subjective opinion.

Actually, I just thought of a reason why it might not even be objective:

An inherent property of it is that it cannot be proven to others. Therefore, it is by definition subjective.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by David Floyd


I've got a better idea. How about you ask 100 people if murder is wrong. Then ask another 100 people if, say, stealing is wrong. Then ask another 100 people if it's wrong to kidnap someone and chain them in a basement.

But, if even one person says they are not wrong, then it obviously isn't an absolute moral is it?

ACK!

[Kuciwalker]

off-topic, but Tuberski, it seems that you ALWAYS put the " ACK!" in your post... why not in your sig?

[Tuberski]

For the same reason "Jon Miller" and "have a nice day are not sigs"

I don't, however know what that reason is, you'll have to ask Jon Miller or panag.



ACK!

[Kuciwalker]

good point

though panag raises other questions

[Berzerker]

Sava -

I answered this before... you ignored it. I only illustrated the state's rights issue to point out the two-faced arguing I see all too often.

Your "answer" was the "establishment" clause, but you didn't explain how this guy's plaque infringed upon your freedom. It seems to me the true test of whether or not religion has been established is if the act infringes upon the freedom of non-adherents. As for your accusation of hypocrisy, that too is invalid. The fact David and I support federalism (the 10th Amendment) doesn't mean we believe states can do away with people's rights. If you said the states should be allowed to legalise medical marijuana, would that mean you also believe the states should be allowed to do whatever they want wrt everything else?

skywalker -

Because the rule itself isn't inherently religious. There are secular reasons for its existance. For example, if a majority, or even just a significant number, of people have church on Sundays, it would cause severe problems if they got in trouble for going to church instead of work. Thus, the law is making things convenient for a lot of people, yet not promoting religion.

Huh? Blue laws are a holdover from the past when Bible thumpers thought it inappropriate to drink booze on Sundays - the Lord's day. Since they couldn't ban drinking on Sundays, they banned buying booze on Sundays.

Plus sunday is a weekend

Which makes blue laws even more repugnant.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So murder being wrong is not self-evident, in your opinion?

That's right. I, personally, don't think it is morally wrong if I murdered Hitler in 1941. Though Hitler, and the Nazis, might consider that immoral behavior .

So if 50% + 1 votes to eradicate, say, the right to life of 50% - 1, this is morally defensible?

To the majority, yes.

Imran, for example, believe the Holocaust was perfectly moral and legitimate, because not everyone agreed it was wrong, but I'd wager that is a minority opinion.

Now, now... twisting arguments will get you nowhere. I never said that I, personally, believed the Holocause was moral and legitimate, but that the people that were in charge of it did.

Again, the point is to show you that most people believe in absolutes.

Most people believe in absolutes? If it was absolute wouldn't ALL people believe in them?

Furthermore, that's a relativist argument. An absolutist wouldn't say that since most people believe in this, it MUST be true!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Sava -

Your "answer" was the "establishment" clause, but you didn't explain how this guy's plaque infringed upon your freedom.

As I've said before, it doesn't have to infringe upon his freedom, it just has to be unconstitutional.

[Berzerker]

Sava -

I'm not fond of dry laws, but in that case, I believe local governments have the right to set their own policies in regards to substance sale and production. I simply don't see how such laws are an attack on "individual rights". Is it so terrible to wait one day to buy a beer, or to drive to the next town or country? Geez... get a grip.

Well there you have it, you complain that a plaque is violating your freedom and then you say the states have the "right" to violate our freedom.

[Kuciwalker]

How did we start talking about this anyway?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Either Floyd or Sava brought it up.