stevil
Godless and without morals
In many ways it comes down to the law. As a member of society, we all have a vested interest in the law, we need to know it and not break it otherwise we ourselves face legal jeopardy but we also expect the law to be there for the mutual benefit of society. If law is focused on tangible things that impact the safety and stability of society rather than frivolous morality stuff and if the people within society want to be in a safe and stable society, then you have alignment. Helping to enforce law will be for the benefit of each person and then we all have a vested interest in law enforcement rather than leaving it upto the police.If you allow someone to abuse a child and you are not acting in the best interest of the child.
More than unruly, but behaviour that is downright dangerous.You allow unruly people in society and is disrupts the society. So from the individual situation to the government we have an obligation to act.
We don't necessarily have an obligation to act but perhaps a vested interest.
Not really making things worse. I certainly don't advocate for vigilante justice, nor for ill equipped people trying to be the hero.Many of these situations don't need judgements just actions as they are obvious and not acting is actually contributing to making things worse.
In USA at the moment they have people saying that the Democrats stole the election.
Society is being destabilised, either by the Democrats if they stole the election or by the Republicans if they are spreading the big lie. Either way, what action are the people of USA to take? Are they to take up arms against the Democrats, or are they to take up arms against the Republicans?
Someone is seeking to destabilise society, but who is it?
If the people take up arms, then it will most likely to be those armed people who would be destabilising society. The people taking action.
Presumably they would be doing it because they believe they are in the right, they believe they are obligated.
Yes, absolutely, I'm not an anarchist.First by you stepping in you can now understand why governments have to sometimes step in to situations to protect people and keep the order.
If you take morality out of the picture then it is a non issue.Second smacking children are a contentious issue and divides society. I can see both sides.
Government don't need to interfere in people's family affairs, but at least we are seeing that items shouldn't necessarily come down to a vote, where the majority gain dominance on the minorities.
Therefore you need a foundational document which limits the power of government to interfere in people's lives and decisions.I guess the government decided that for the small number of kids who are smacked where adults go too far that was enough to stop everyone. Though I agree this is government overstepping the mark. Its the PC culture society is becoming where it seems governments are making silly rules that lack common sense.
The death of a fertilised egg or a fetus isn't a harm to society.Fair enough. So obviously you don't want to see the kid harmed. So what difference does that make for an unborn kid who you say is being killed by abortion. Isn't death a greater harm?
We don't get the parents or the friends of the fertilised egg fighting back to protect the egg or to seek out vengeance. Society goes on as if nothing happened.
If a woman murders her kid, then her partner, the grandparents, cousins, uncles and aunties, care givers, teachers, friends etc will get upset and some will seek vengeance if government doesn't deal with the situation.In both situations the women is exercising her right to determine what should happen to the kid they are responsible for.
"not right" isn't the phrase I would use, but I would step in anyway.So stepping in to save a kid from being bashed and harmed you obviously see something is not right in that situation even if that’s based on the kids wellbeing and safety.
Again, it's not about being "not right" it is about having a safe and stable society. I would also hope that if myself, my wife or my kids are under physical attack that someone in society will step in to help out.So you see other situations where a kid or someone is being bashed and harmed and you think this is also not right for the victim.
If I see two gang members fighting, I'm not going to help out.At what point do you think the people doing the bashing should be stopped. Or do you keep coming to the rescue.
If people have weapons, I'm not going to help out.
My own safety comes first.
If it is just two youngish kids and they aren't really doing much actual harm to each other, I might not step in.
This is all academic though, I've not been in that kind of situation. It is all interesting to say what I think I would do, but until the situation arises I guess you don't actually know what you would actually do.
Or just make a law to outlaw violence as it makes society dangerous rather than because it is wrong.Isn't coming to the rescue all the time a bit late? What if the bashing causes a kid brain damage? So therefore it makes sense to draw the line and say that people who bash kids should be stopped in the first place. Therefore we have to intervene for people’s safety and make a distinction that bashing kids is wrong.
We can debate in the parlamentary chamber and in the courts if something is harmful and dangerous, but it is hard to debate if it is "wrong"
It would be upto the courts, opposing lawyers would need to argue a case for and against.So therefore a line is drawn. But who determines what is unsafe, unstable and hinders thriving.
It would be interesting to hear the case on why abortion, same sex marriage, gay sex, divorce, prostitution etc are dangerous for society.
That argument would be quite different from an argument as to why these things might be classified as immoral, or "wrong".
What do statistics show about married people in an abusive and violent household?Statistics show that stable marriages make families and society safe and stable and help children thrive.
We aren't looking for the perfect society. Just one where the government only intervenes where they have to, in order to keep society safe and stable. Two people getting divorced does not make society unsafe or unstable. Although I do grant that it may have a large impact on the children.
I have no problems with government or community organisations providing subsidised marriage counselling for those who want it.But as a society we promote the opposite through easy divorce laws. Should we promote policies and guidelines that help marriages stay together.
I don't think government should be asking "is this moral?" or "Is this immoral?"Isn’t that making a moral judgement either way? Or should we just stay out of marriages altogether.
I think government should be asking, "Is this causing issues in society?" and if so, "What can be done to mitigate the risk of those issues so that society is better off?"
It might be in providing marriage counselling, in providing financial support, in providing assistance to help people find jobs, homes etc.
We don't need a perfect society.Who determined that it wasn't dangerous and destablilizing for society. Stats show where there is prostitution there is also other problems even when its legal.
No, I don't think a moral judgement is needed.In many societies killing is accepted such as abortion, and euthanasia, execution, in war etc. so a moral judgement has to be made in each of these cases.
Does govt need to interfere to stop abortion? - No
Does govt need to interfere to stop euthanasia? - No
Does govt need to kill people in executions? - No
Does govt need to send people to war? - ???
Could be up for debate. I'd be interested to hear the arguments on both sides.But what about in all those less obvious situations like smacking/abusing kids, easy or hard divorce laws, stay at home motherhood or be pushed into work, marriage laws etc. where it depends on how a society rules on these things as to whether they cause unsafe and destabilizing situations.
It is human life. But I have no moral obligation and I don't consider govt or society as having a moral obligation here.The only reason we would have moral obligation is if the fetus was human life because then abortion would be murder of an innocent life.
I disagree with this. Sorry.This is a good point for morality in that human life is regarded as precious and should be protected.
I don't agree with the USA constitution.Not every situation is related to safety and stability. In the US constitution human life is upheld as an important value because it was recognised that it came with certain rights.
Morality is quite a problem because there is no way to resolve the disputes, no way to discover moral truths.This is a good question. First I am not saying that we should have a theocracy. I am saying that a society that requires governance cannot help but involve morality in some of their governance as morality is interwoven throughout everything we do. Governments have to step in otherwise we will end up having all sorts of groups claiming the moral high ground.
Therefore we need a better basis to put constraints on the power of government.[/QUOTE]
Upvote
0