Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ciawhobat)
    haha well firstly we're not anywhere near "every employer" being against it, so let's leave that wild hypothetical situation aside for a while.
    So it doesnt make a difference if a man abuses his wife, so long as every man doesnt abuse every wife? If you can't apply a principle to every identical situation, how can you apply it to one? Unless you can say why if, in a situation of every employer (or a vast majority, making it next to impossible for some people to find jobs) being of that mindset, it would be ok, it isnt ok for one person to do it. let alone legalise it for everyone to have the possibility.
    Whether a person gets a job should be decided upon the person's ability to do the job, end of. nothing less, nothing more.

    (Original post by ciawhobat)
    The notion of "tolerance" vs. "intolerance", and related dichotomies, I find quite absurd. It's nothing but a political buzz-word that a lot of kids like to use these days, and it simply refers to "tolerating" (i.e. insisting upon) an arbitrary set of values that are currently fashionable (homosexuality, heavily mixed-race communities, non-recognition of national identity, etc.).

    Inevitably, this requires intolerance (i.e. persecution of) the converse ideas and people who believe in them.

    Nothing changes really, and there's no moral high-ground to be taken here.
    Quite the opposite actually. Unless you're going to take the stubborn view that you do, which leaves open a lot of unanswered moral questions, it is very possible to take a moral highground.
    Persecution is a necessity for protection of people, murderers must be persecuted, unless someone can think of something better to do with them, which they havent so far. Persecution of those who are intollerant is also protection of people within the society.

    You seem to (as far as i can understand) believe that racial, gender, religious and all sorts of equality are simply trends and fashion that can be undone as quickly as they were brought about with little moral consequence. If that is so then our whole society is based on fallacies. We admire people like Martin Luther King for what they have done for modern society, when you would argue it's all meaningless 'fashion', am i correct?

    Of course people do bad things, and have done so throughout history. we as humans can be a seriously messed up, but modern society is by far the most just and the most full of opportunity, freedom and tollerance. It is also the society with the least amount of corruption, injustice and pain for the whole of society.

    There are a lot of things you say which are quite right, but the fundamental basis of your opinions are heavily morally flawed in my opinion. You can disagree as you will, but i see flaws that you can't answer. You only insist your opinions, rather than explaining any kind of 'why'.

    You have a very obscure view of the world, as i see it. Its almost defeatest. I believe that we can make society better, even if not perfect, and things like equality are steps in that direction, things like religious doctrine are steps backwards. We should try to maximise the happiness and the opportunity in society for everyone.
    Whereas you seem to think we were just as well off in the middle ages as we are now and that moral, right, justice, goodness are all terms which are meaningless.
    If thats the case then there's no point discussing this further. we've reached a fundamental impassé on this which will never be resolved unless one of us has a very big opinion shift at a fundamental level.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theBOON)
    Yeah first and foremost beginning with the reason why the Church doesn't like to interact with homosexuals in anyway. If you were unaware those paedophilia cases were the result of homosexual lust. And one last thing. How is it equality to persuade the Church to employ homosexuals. It's favouring homosexuality over religion. Whatever you agree with, there is still a discrimination over one's religion and therefore a discrimination of one's opinion on a subject. Equality bull$$$$ much? Seems the militant feminist agenda once again but given homosexuals are a very small minority compared with half of the world the effect is much, much more devastating.

    The only bad thing about this whole situation is the tax bit but that's something excepted of people who are so blinded by ignorance (it's not an offence, seriously people a bit more general knowledge won't hurt) induce hate.....
    First and foremost, homosexual lust is different to paedophillic lust. Paedophilia is the sexual attraction to prepubescent children whilst homosexuality is the attraction to males that heterosexual females feel.

    And no, it's not favouring homosexuality over religion. We're not giving them a quota to fill. We're telling the *******s that if they want to crap up our country with their bull, then they're going to follow our laws and values whilst their doing it, or they can get the hell out. Society and the government are moving on (unless the conservatives win the general election), and it's time the church took heed or ****** off, because if they don't pay attention, they're not wanted. Your god book tells you to obey the laws of the land. If you can't, then leave like the israelites and infest somewhere like Ireland some more.

    And I probably know more right now than you will ever manage to hold inside your foggy little mind, so keep your insults to yourself.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    I see his point.
    No its just the way his vestments hang
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gesar)
    First and foremost, homosexual lust is different to paedophillic lust. Paedophilia is the sexual attraction to prepubescent children whilst homosexuality is the attraction to males that heterosexual females feel.

    And no, it's not favouring homosexuality over religion. We're not giving them a quota to fill. We're telling the *******s that if they want to crap up our country with their bull, then they're going to follow our laws and values whilst their doing it, or they can get the hell out. Society and the government are moving on (unless the conservatives win the general election), and it's time the church took heed or ****** off, because if they don't pay attention, they're not wanted. Your god book tells you to obey the laws of the land. If you can't, then leave like the israelites and infest somewhere like Ireland some more.

    And I probably know more right now than you will ever manage to hold inside your foggy little mind, so keep your insults to yourself.
    You're an incredibly rude and angry little man it seems. Maybe religion would be good for you.
    Also, paedophilic, heterosexual and homosexual lust are all the same thing.
    It's merely a lottery which you're born with and if it's the first then prepare for a sad, isolated life of torment.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Also it's interesting how we're all so het up about the pope not wanting to employ gays, when Muslim countries stone gay people to death.

    Political Correctness! Love it :hat2:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Srxjer)
    My morality definitely isn't from scripture, that's for sure.

    I think it's a combination of instinct and our ability to use our intelligence to develop ideas which in turn benefit our society. Because, evolutionally speaking; without this ability, our species would have become extinct in a few short generations. We knew that working together produces the best results.

    Religious scripture allows people to condone certain atrocities from their ingrained morality; homophobia, sexism, racism etc.

    My morality is purer than any theist's. I don't need the fear of hell to spur me on, or the promise of eternal life. I ask for no reward.
    What is society? Is it just made up of individuals like you and me? If you include yourself in society, then any "benefit to society" is beneficial to you; it is self-interest, benefiting others by collateral. In terms of evolution, good and evil don't come into it. "Society" as I understand it, and probably (though I'm making an assumption, admittedly) how you do too, didn't come to be until the last 1000 years - and I think I'm being generous here. And working together demonstrably doesn't "produce the best results". The Soviet state would still exist if this was true.

    I cannot think of a modern atheist who will tell me that there is absolute morality. If there was, there'd need to be a source, and it couldn't be God. Purely subjective morality is all there is, they say. Imposing this morality on anyone, be they religious or stupid or a combination of the both, seems to (generalising, but very few threads in here by people saying they don't believe in religion are defending the Pope) be how their morality works. I cannot see how this can be viewed as anything other than hypocritical and repugnant.

    Even Dawking, as poor as putting arguments as he is, admits that he doesn't know what is right and wrong because morality is subjective. How can we decide, then, how to govern? Surely if we use morality, then the morality of 51% of the people will override the morality of the 49%. If it was the morality of 51% of the people says that it's alright to kill the other 49%, what happens? Its an interesting question, which I've posed at the very bottom of this post.

    I'm not really interested in where a theist's morality comes from at this point. Just curious where an atheist gets morality from.

    I apologise, btw, that my points seem directed at you, since I'm quoting you; they're really directed at everybody. And re-reading this, I see how this makes me seem like a theist. I apologise. I'm not willing to say what I am because people often respond better to neutrality and courtesy, and attacks and insults of the person making points seem more common than actual arguments here, from what I've seen. I'm not accusing you or anything, just that I'd like my points answered rather than my character attacked.

    (Original post by Conor Tickner)
    Not fundamentally like blackmail.
    There are so many kinds that I can't fully answer that realistically. Coercion can, in some cases, start to become a form of blackmail, which i believe is wrong. Such examples of this are threats. but offering someone some toast and saying 'oh, go on.' when they refuse is coercion. im pretty sure we'll all agree that isnt wrong.
    So now there's "right", "wrong", and "fundamentally wrong"? Sorry, things are either right or wrong, to each person. What you see as punishment for wrongs is how you measure how wrong something is. And no, coercion doesn't come into that example at all. If the toast offerer held a gun to the other person's head and said "eat", there's coercion. The other person can say no and keep saying no and ignore forever. And the offerer can keep offering forever. How you think coercion is involved here at all escapes me. I believe the definition of coercion is quite clear, but if you want, I can give you a definition and you tell me if you think it is right or wrong. This is copy pasted from some online dictionary, but thats really irrelevant. Anyway:

    Coercion: use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.

    Is this right? Or wrong?

    And here is a question for anyone who wants to answer:

    Should our government use morality when deciding law? If yes, what morality? If no, how do we decide what laws should exist?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gesar)
    First and foremost, homosexual lust is different to paedophillic lust. Paedophilia is the sexual attraction to prepubescent children whilst homosexuality is the attraction to males that heterosexual females feel.

    And no, it's not favouring homosexuality over religion. We're not giving them a quota to fill. We're telling the *******s that if they want to crap up our country with their bull, then they're going to follow our laws and values whilst their doing it, or they can get the hell out. Society and the government are moving on (unless the conservatives win the general election), and it's time the church took heed or ****** off, because if they don't pay attention, they're not wanted. Your god book tells you to obey the laws of the land. If you can't, then leave like the israelites and infest somewhere like Ireland some more.

    And I probably know more right now than you will ever manage to hold inside your foggy little mind, so keep your insults to yourself.
    Quite a brainier there (no pun intended), if you are that bright, it should have occurred to you that not the whole country and neither the whole government holds your same opinions. It's quite outstanding how the church has still got so much power in England given that it's almost 90% atheist?! Apart from what the media and this forum might portray there are still quite a huge bunch of theists in England and there are far more theists than homosexuals. Favouring the minority over the majority is stupid.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by folde)
    You're an incredibly rude and angry little man it seems. Maybe religion would be good for you.
    Also, paedophilic, heterosexual and homosexual lust are all the same thing.
    It's merely a lottery which you're born with and if it's the first then prepare for a sad, isolated life of torment.
    Just quickly before I have to leave: Yes I am angry at religion; I see no good in the world because of it. Yes I am angry at him; I see absolutely no reason not to be. He perpetuates ignorance and intolerance and I want to see him and his organisation removed from the pedestal it's been placed upon.

    And I agree with your last point, it was what I was trying to say, really. My main point of homosexuality does not imply paedophilia obscured that, I think.

    (Original post by folde)
    Also it's interesting how we're all so het up about the pope not wanting to employ gays, when Muslim countries stone gay people to death.

    Political Correctness! Love it :hat2:
    Give me a muslim to be angry at and I will be. However, as our prime minister said, he has great respect for the Pope. I see this as wrong, when the pope spews such vitriol. The difference is that our government is supposed to respect the pope, not Ahmadinijad (awful spelling, don't have time to look it up).
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by folde)
    Also, paedophilic, heterosexual and homosexual lust are all the same thing.
    It's merely a lottery which you're born with and if it's the first then prepare for a sad, isolated life of torment.
    It's not that bad in the catholic church is it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hy~)
    So now there's "right", "wrong", and "fundamentally wrong"? Sorry, things are either right or wrong, to each person. What you see as punishment for wrongs is how you measure how wrong something is. And no, coercion doesn't come into that example at all. If the toast offerer held a gun to the other person's head and said "eat", there's coercion. The other person can say no and keep saying no and ignore forever. And the offerer can keep offering forever. How you think coercion is involved here at all escapes me. I believe the definition of coercion is quite clear, but if you want, I can give you a definition and you tell me if you think it is right or wrong. This is copy pasted from some online dictionary, but thats really irrelevant. Anyway:

    Coercion: use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.

    Is this right? Or wrong?
    I stand corrected on the definition of coercion, as i understood it (wrongly) it meant to attempt to convince someone to do something, the worst cases being 'gun to head' situations. Thats what i based my response on.

    I'll come to it in a sec, but first, there is a very big difference between wrong and fundamentally wrong.
    A man gets angry and shoots someone random. this is wrong, but the part of it that is wrong, isnt the getting angry, or the killing, or the randomness of the person. there's nothing fundamentally wrong with it, its just an immoral action.
    For something to be fundamentally wrong, in my opinion and how i was taught it in ethics classes, was for the action to be intrinsically wrong or unjustifiable in any situation without the presence of a 'fundamental good' clashing with it. You're over simplifying ethical issues. Very few things are simply 'right' or 'wrong' its very sujective to the person and the situation. it may even end up being the view that 'if you do it rarely, maybe once every 50 or so opportunities then its right, but doing it more is wrong.'

    As for coercion, I feel that even the definition you gave is still too vague to answer properly. one can still coerce someone to do something by threatening to take away their chocolate bar, as much as you can by threatening to torture them and their family. you can't categorise that action as either always wrong or always right. In most cases it's wrong, but there are circumstances which justfy it to some extent.

    bottom line is: coercion is not fundamentally wrong. (hopefully you'll understand that now that i've explained).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Srxjer)
    We're 98.6% genetically identical to a chimp.
    True, but unfortunately, it doesn't work like that! I'm not talking about genes, I'm talking about behaviour - a very different thing! Chimps are not 98.6% close to developing computers, nor are they 98.6% close to flying planes.



    (Original post by Srxjer)
    We do, that's what prisons are for.
    you've missed the point - I said society doesn't get rid of people who are no use, not that it doesn't get rid of people who are a danger to it. An internet hacker could be very useful for a nation, but they get rid of them on moral grounds, not a basic instinct to survive.

    (Original post by Srxjer)
    I can see your point. However, it's not damaging to our society. We're not programmed with a lust for creating children. We're programmed with a lust for the act of sex itself. Plus, women still have lust even after the menopause.
    Again, I never said anything about damaging our society, just about being of use. And yes we are programmed with a lust for creating children!!! The only reason we have a lust for sex is so that we can create offspring, that's how the enjoyment in sex came about! Oh and women have lust after the menopause because they are still programmed to create children, but the body deletes its ability to have them so that it doesn't damage itself.


    (Original post by Srxjer)
    He's very welcome to express his opinions, that's the very beauty of free speech. But, his views can be rebutted, as they have been.
    Ok fair enough. More on topic, I still think employers have the right to choose who is best for the job, and shouldn't have to worry about offending the people they reject! For instance, in a job of manual labour where heavy lifting is required, an employer can choose the person most fit for the job, it's not the government who should step in to say "no, choose someone who is less well suited because they feel left out ". Sad times but that's tough.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by little_penguin)
    The only criteria they need judge on is 'how suitable is applicant x for the job position'. If a company, in this case the Church - an organisation designed to uphold and spread its code of beliefs, believes homosexuality is wrong then they shouldn't have to employ gay people as it could be damaging to the company. If they were to discriminate on other grounds that weren't integral to their beliefs, ie. not hiring ginger people when they have no reason to, then that would be wrong.

    For HSBC, a company with the sole intention of creating money in a capitalist society, to not hire gays is wrong as being gay doesn't affect your economical beliefs. However, for them to not hire a Communist is perfectly justified IMO as it could result in a lot of people's money being lost and global economic upset.
    No one's demanding that gay priests be allowed its just minor positions like cleaners etc.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hy~)
    What is society? Is it just made up of individuals like you and me? If you include yourself in society, then any "benefit to society" is beneficial to you; it is self-interest, benefiting others by collateral.
    Yes, I believe you're right. I think it's deeply ingrained; ultimately, for the survival of our species.

    I like to think of the old Greek proverb: "A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit."

    I think a fitting example here is the work of scientists: I agree there must be some underlying self interest, otherwise, would we have any motivation at all? But I think the notion of benefiting your society for the better appeals to scientists strongly.

    In terms of evolution, good and evil don't come into it. "Society" as I understand it, and probably (though I'm making an assumption, admittedly) how you do too, didn't come to be until the last 1000 years - and I think I'm being generous here.
    I think societies have been around since the dawn of man, but they were probably very small - and they increased in size over time, as structures were built. I think that's how our species survived. I think the very reason we acquire friendships is to build a trustworthy 'group'.

    And working together demonstrably doesn't "produce the best results". The Soviet state would still exist if this was true.
    True. But I guess some ideologies prevail and some diminish.

    I cannot think of a modern atheist who will tell me that there is absolute morality. If there was, there'd need to be a source, and it couldn't be God. Purely subjective morality is all there is, they say. Imposing this morality on anyone, be they religious or stupid or a combination of the both, seems to (generalising, but very few threads in here by people saying they don't believe in religion are defending the Pope) be how their morality works. I cannot see how this can be viewed as anything other than hypocritical and repugnant.
    I'm guessing that the morals in which have shown - through observation of the past - to have benefit us, are kept, and the failed morals are discarded. (Obviously, the obvious morals such as murder etc were kept, a long time ago.) Don't forget that homosexuality was considered to be a mental disorder up until 1973. The Civil Rights Act wasn't signed until 1964. To me, it's a process of elimination. (These took much to long, though, imho.)

    Even Dawking, as poor as putting arguments as he is, admits that he doesn't know what is right and wrong because morality is subjective. How can we decide, then, how to govern? Surely if we use morality, then the morality of 51% of the people will override the morality of the 49%. If it was the morality of 51% of the people says that it's alright to kill the other 49%, what happens? Its an interesting question, which I've posed at the very bottom of this post.
    It is, very interesting. It's a question which I don't think I'm qualified to answer fully. If you're clever enough, deceit can win you a presidency. That's the flaw with the majority vote. But, in saying that, I can't think of a fairer system, but we know only too well from the past, that, the majority can be dead wrong.

    I apologise, btw, that my points seem directed at you, since I'm quoting you; they're really directed at everybody. And re-reading this, I see how this makes me seem like a theist. I apologise. I'm not willing to say what I am because people often respond better to neutrality and courtesy, and attacks and insults of the person making points seem more common than actual arguments here, from what I've seen. I'm not accusing you or anything, just that I'd like my points answered rather than my character attacked.
    No problem.

    I agree, I've seen a few people resort to ad hominem gestures.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conor Tickner)
    I'll come to it in a sec, but first, there is a very big difference between wrong and fundamentally wrong.
    A man gets angry and shoots someone random. this is wrong, but the part of it that is wrong, isnt the getting angry, or the killing, or the randomness of the person. there's nothing fundamentally wrong with it, its just an immoral action.
    For something to be fundamentally wrong, in my opinion and how i was taught it in ethics classes, was for the action to be intrinsically wrong or unjustifiable in any situation without the presence of a 'fundamental good' clashing with it. You're over simplifying ethical issues. Very few things are simply 'right' or 'wrong' its very sujective to the person and the situation. it may even end up being the view that 'if you do it rarely, maybe once every 50 or so opportunities then its right, but doing it more is wrong.'
    I added the caveat "to each person" specifically to allow for the fact the morality is subjective.

    Defining "fundamentally wrong" in terms of "fundamentally good" is circular.

    If "fundamentally good" is something that clashes with something that's "fundamentally wrong", then you yea, you can see how it's circular.

    If I've misunderstood, then please define "fundamentally good". I honestly can't see how you can do it without saying that there is some kind of absolute morality, but you've already said that morality is subjective so you'd be contradicting yourself.

    (Original post by Conor Tickner)
    As for coercion, I feel that even the definition you gave is still too vague to answer properly. one can still coerce someone to do something by threatening to take away their chocolate bar, as much as you can by threatening to torture them and their family. you can't categorise that action as either always wrong or always right. In most cases it's wrong, but there are circumstances which justfy it to some extent.
    I know something can't be categorised as always right or wrong; I asked you for your opinion of whether coercion is right or wrong. I thought dealt with the whole "spectrum of wrong" thing in the last post. I agree that some wrongs are worse than others; thats why I believe some punishments should be worse than others. It doesn't change the fact that I believe them to be wrong; they're still wrong, no matter how wrong they are, is what I'm trying to get it (all subjective to me, of course).

    So yes or no, is coercion wrong?

    I can see where the justification thing is leading; you'd say it's not wrong for a starving person with no money to steal food from a shop. But these extreme cases require justification, and who is going to have this power? How can this power of justifying some crimes ('cause let's face it, in the example the starving man is stealing, he's committing a crime) be exercised without morality (which is subjective, as you say) coming into it? I submit to you that it can't, and so who- or what-ever gets the power to justify crimes is really is imposing their morality on others.

    Can't you (or anyone) see that this, this "Rights" bill of Harman's, is imposing her morality, or the morality of her government, or the morality of 51% of the people, or the morality of 80% of the people, or the morality of 99.9% of the people (it's irrelevant how many, really, unless it was 100%, in which case there'd be no need for this bill) on anybody who disagrees?

    Do you think that this is right? (asking what you think, not whether there is an absolute answer)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Komakino)
    No one's demanding that gay priests be allowed its just minor positions like cleaners etc.
    I know but any position in any job relating to the RC Church should be allowed to be chosen by them. Cleaners still have access to church buildings though and these are the property of the RC church. If they employed a gay cleaner who had an anti-Catholic agenda and in some way damaged or even destroyed the building then that would cost the Church money and/or undermine their authority. HSBC probably wouldn't let communists clean Canary Wharf for the same reason.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spacecam)
    God-willing the Church will prevail.
    The church has no army as far as I'm aware.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Srxjer)
    I think a fitting example here is the work of scientists: I agree there must be some underlying self interest, otherwise, would be have any motivation at all? But I think the notion of benefiting your society for the better appeals to scientists strongly.
    I'm not sure I agree with this. I think, generally (and I really hate generalising, but it's a necessary evil I suppose), scientists will find the results wanted by whoever funds them. I don't want to bring the whole global warming thing up as a big point, but it definitely seems like an example of scientists fitting results around what their benefactors want. Scientists who look for new drugs to cure cancer; well, arguments can be made, I suppose. But can we be sure that they aren't doing it just to go down in history as a great scientist? Or that they want to help others because they themselves feel good about it? I'm not sure if (if either of those were the case) scientists are motivated by morality at all, rather than self-interest.

    (Original post by Srxjer)
    I'm guessing that the morals in which have shown - through observation of the past - to have benefit us, are kept, and the failed morals are discarded. (Obviously, the obvious morals such as murder etc were kept, a long time ago.) Don't forget that homosexuality was considered to be a mental disorder up until 1973. The Civil Rights Act wasn't signed until 1964. To me, it's a process of elimination. (These took much to long, though, imho.)
    If this is a Godwin, I apologise. But consider for a moment, we'd lost the second world war, and Germany and its allies had won. They'd doubtless say that culling the disabled, the jews, the gypsies is right; otherwise how else could they justify it. Surely, then, morality - the way you have put it - is simply subject to whoever writes the history books. Or whoever wins the wars.

    I'm pretty convinced that an atheist cannot know what is absolutely right and what isn't. So how can they justify forcing their views on others? At least with theists, they believe - rightly or wrongly, heheh - that there is absolute morality, complete right and complete wrong, and what they say or do is right. Of course, this is highly dangerous, as it allows justification of some things which are so twisted that it's hard to see how they (the ''some things'') can be viewed as right. But, then, I believe Harman's equality bill is dangerous, too; just in a different way. It seems the only common thing between these two types of behaviour is that they try to impose morality on others. I can't see how this isn't tyrannical by its very nature. But I'm musing and probably getting way off topic.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hy~)
    I added the caveat "to each person" specifically to allow for the fact the morality is subjective.

    Defining "fundamentally wrong" in terms of "fundamentally good" is circular.

    If "fundamentally good" is something that clashes with something that's "fundamentally wrong", then you yea, you can see how it's circular.

    If I've misunderstood, then please define "fundamentally good". I honestly can't see how you can do it without saying that there is some kind of absolute morality, but you've already said that morality is subjective so you'd be contradicting yourself.

    I know something can't be categorised as always right or wrong; I asked you for your opinion of whether coercion is right or wrong. I thought dealt with the whole "spectrum of wrong" thing in the last post. I agree that some wrongs are worse than others; thats why I believe some punishments should be worse than others. It doesn't change the fact that I believe them to be wrong; they're still wrong, no matter how wrong they are, is what I'm trying to get it (all subjective to me, of course).

    So yes or no, is coercion wrong?

    I can see where the justification thing is leading; you'd say it's not wrong for a starving person with no money to steal food from a shop. But these extreme cases require justification, and who is going to have this power? How can this power of justifying some crimes ('cause let's face it, in the example the starving man is stealing, he's committing a crime) be exercised without morality (which is subjective, as you say) coming into it? I submit to you that it can't, and so who- or what-ever gets the power to justify crimes is really is imposing their morality on others.

    Can't you (or anyone) see that this, this "Rights" bill of Harman's, is imposing her morality, or the morality of her government, or the morality of 51% of the people, or the morality of 80% of the people, or the morality of 99.9% of the people (it's irrelevant how many, really, unless it was 100%, in which case there'd be no need for this bill) on anybody who disagrees?

    Do you think that this is right? (asking what you think, not whether there is an absolute answer)
    Fundamentally wrong has no definition that i can think of that does not include fundamentally good, but fundamentally good is an act or an intrinsic part of an act which is able to be universalised for all humanity, which even the most varied of all non-corrupted minds will recognise as good in every exclusive situation.

    by 'exclusive situation', i mean a singular situation with no paradoxes or conflictions making things stupidly complex.
    I am arguing that there are some absolute moralities. morality on the whole is relative but not every part of it is. in my opinion, at least.

    Your point is why we have democracy. Societies work in a way that there must be rules or there will be anarchy and chaos. Normally people come to a society that they either agree with the rules for or they can live with, but the rules must be suited to as many people as possible. not everyone thinks the speed limit should be 70, but its not an unreasonable rule to impose on everyone because it protects people from harm.
    The society that we live in tries, as best it can, to protect people and provide the most happiness and the most opportunity for everyone.
    There are some cases where the rules go too far and become silly, i'll admit, but thats what you get living in our society. you're free to leave if you so wish.
    Discrimination, in its worst form, harms people severely and causes racial abuse and plenty of other wrongs. I don't think anybody honestly argues with that point. I also don't think many people would argue that the line between what is acceptable discrimination and what isn't, isn't clear, if there at all.
    but i dont think that discrimination actually benefits anybody significantly. it is maybe satisfying to conform to our personal opinions of others at best. so why not remove it completely? or try to at least
    Equality is a way to remove discrimination as much as possible, getting rid of personal opinions in situations where it shouldnt matter and telling people to judge people based on what is relevent, not get distracted by other attributes. we live in a mixed society and people should learn to accept differences, which is hard for some people to do, but they are the ones with the problem, not the people who are different.
    Christian morality can be argued to be anti-gay to some extent, and any Catholic who believes in that should be allowed to also believe that being gay is a sin and they'll go to hell for it, but by accepting that perhaps these people might disagree with you and want to believe their own thing, they can still be tollerant.

    It works both ways, either equality (which not everyone agrees with) is imposed on everyone, or inequality is allowed for everyone (anything inbetween is unfeasable to decide how it should work fairly) which allows catholics to impose their beliefs, shunning, attacking, persecuting and overall causing the suffering of those who they believe are sinful. Equality is not an attack on people's opinions or beliefs, its a protection for minorities' well being. the new minority who don't want equality are not having their well being compromised by it. gays, blacks, women, muslims etc. all may well be having their well being compromised by inequality. which is the greater good?

    Personally, i think the equality bill is right and good and justified.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why does the government feel the need to regulate the Church's affairs? The Church is already full of homosexual men and women, ergo the government is wasting their time trying to engineer pointless laws. I really don't trust this government AT ALL
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Am I the only one who thinks this bill was deliberately meant to stoke tension :lolwut:
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.