Explain to me why the following things are wrong
- Thread starter Norsefire
- Start date
He'd be violating the social contract, become a pariah, and probably end up getting executed.
Therefore they violate their own principle of freedom, right?
I agree that he would and should. However, that does mean that freedom is an illusion.
And therefore, I have just discredited liberalism!
Because from a legal standpoint (and you brought this on yourself by saying "legally") society has determined that those things ARE illegal and you WILL be arrested (if found) and prosecuted for it.
That's why!
However that defeats the concept of freedom and thus, liberalism. You aren't free, society can decide your fate.
Now who ever said we were free? Certainly not me. There's no such thing as total freedom, I don't care if it's the land of the free, you're never truly free.
And again, that defeats liberalism, the belief that you can do anything you want whenever you want.
Murder, rape, torture, kidnapping and genocide are all wrong because they ignore the [enc]intrinsic value[/enc] of each human being. They involve treating other human beings as things (effectively as property) rather than as people. They all disregard the wishes of the other in order to achieve selfish ends.
Theft is less black and white. It's not hard to imagine some circumstances where theft would not be wrong.
Theft is less black and white. It's not hard to imagine some circumstances where theft would not be wrong.
What is someone thought ingoring the "instrinsic value" of each human being was the right thing to do?
Murder is wrongful killing, by definition. Not all kinds of killing are murder.
There are many mistakes here.
1. Laws don't come before morality - they come after it. Community values determine criminal law, not vice versa.
2. A society's standards of morality are not based primarily on religion, but on inter-group dynamics that date back to the foundation of the species.
3. There are many logical moral systems other than religious ones. For example, read many of the enlightenment philosophers, who have actually handed down to us many ideas of western law and morality.
4. The idea that people don't know what is right and wrong unless some religious figure tells them is nonsense.
Then that person would be a sociopath.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Who is 'we'? I don't arrest people for their opinions, nor do I encourage it. In fact I would join the protest.
In a totalitarian state however..... 'we' do arrest people for their opinions. At least in every totalitarian state so far.
I think the value of religion in regards to morality is objectivity. Religion presents an objective universe, and thus "God" decides what is right and wrong. Without objectivity, "right" and "wrong" are decided by human beings, and the problem is, one can most definitely consider all of the things I have listed right and nobody can stop them.
That doesn't answer my question
We do. We arrest people who think it is OK to murder and rape people.
And where did you EVER get this thoughtless idea that anyone is free? I'm assuming you mean "free to do anything they want to." I must say that that's pretty low-brow thinking for ANYONE over the age of 6 years.
I disagree. Theft is always wrong. It's easy to imagine circumstances in which it is understandable, but that still doesn't make it right.
I'm not going to argue semantics. Regardless, somebody is dying, and nobody is being punished. Again, we see an exception to a so-called "universal" rule.
Which is exactly what I said.
"Furthermore, those laws are based on a given society's standards of morality ..."
Morality has existed for as long as religion has. Back before religion, there wasn't much that separated us from the animals.
All of those "enlightenment philosophers" had a religious upbringing, and lived in a society dominated and defined by religious principles and values, as did the generations before them. If they have accomplished anything, it's due to their core values and beliefs stemming from religion.
History begs to differ. We can argue until we're blue in the face about this one, or we can simply refer to ample historical examples. Without religion, there are too many conflicting ideas on morality for a sustainable society to exist.
You are free to think otherwise.
Kadark
I never had that idea. I'm speaking from your typical liberal point of view, and proving that it's incorrect and stupid.And where did you EVER get this thoughtless idea that anyone is free? I'm assuming you mean "free to do anything they want to." I must say that that's pretty low-brow thinking for ANYONE over the age of 6 years.
I agree, however if a mother must steal to feed her children, I can't say I would blame her.