• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,047
15,653
72
Bondi
✟369,741.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You do see that the above merely begs the question?
It answers a question. Which is: 'Do we decide as to whether certain acts are good or bad?'

Begging the question would be: 'Are decisions we make about whether acts are good or bad objective decisions?' Obviously not, because we are individually making those calls.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,047
15,653
72
Bondi
✟369,741.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
So evolution has a mind that can determine things?
If you are going to ask trite questions about common English terms that we use to describe an evolutionary process that everyone understands quite cleary then it gives the appearance that you're not interested in what is being said. Rather how it is being said.
 
Upvote 0

o_mlly

“Behold, I make all things new.”
May 20, 2021
3,136
574
Private
✟125,992.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
If it's a matter of opinion. ...

Value is relative to the person who is doing the valuing. ...

If harm is caused then it's generally wrong (with obvious exceptions). ...

It's not compulsory to do so. ...

Generally speaking, what's good is what works. ...
And if you have nothing to add, then thanks for your input.
So, you claim that establishing a secular morality is impossible. Thanks for your non-input.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,845
1,699
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟318,471.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I've done that. We can agree that something is wrong if it causes harm. Where's the mystery in that?

Do you want to try approaching this from the other direction? Can you agree that something cannot possibly be wrong if it causes no harm at all? Something tells me that you'll quibble about that but let's hear it anyway.
The mystery is and its hard to agree on what is classed as harm. You seem to think that your current view of harm is the ultimate measure. We only have to go back in time even recently to see that people thought what is regarded as harm now was seen as perfectly ok. That included issues that causes harm in the sense it made some people suffer,

That in itself is a red flag not to trust secular relativity when it comes to what is regarded as harm or not, moral or not.

You earlier said that a person having to use pronouns doesn't cause them or society any harm. But isn't that your measure, your opinion from your relative position. You can't then dismiss someone from another relative position who honestly believes it causes harm.

First its being dissmissive of relative beliefs which should not be the case if morals are relative. BUt second and more important you cannot possibly be in a position to declare its not harm when your coming from a completly different relative position that you have not experienced the other persons perspective.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,047
15,653
72
Bondi
✟369,741.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The mystery is and its hard to agree on what is classed as harm. You seem to think that your current view of harm is the ultimate measure. We only have to go back in time even recently to see that people thought what is regarded as harm now was seen as perfectly ok.
Well, lucky we're not going back in time to ask people back then what they thought. We're in the here and now. So we can decide in the here and now. And by the way, you are still confusing harm with the justification of harm.

And you should investigate the details of ECT as well. Then ask if it causes harm. And then ask yourself if it's justified. Forget the other examples...just do that one. We can use it as a test for what I've proposed.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,845
1,699
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟318,471.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Well, lucky we're not going back in time to ask people back then what they thought. We're in the here and now. So we can decide in the here and now.
The point was that if we can go back in time to find that people believed they were not doing harm when they were then the same can apply now under relative morality. People once thought they were truely doing the right thing and it was widely accepted just like you may believe something today as being the right thing to do. There is no independent measure to really know.
And by the way, you are still confusing harm with the justification of harm.
Harm is harm, sometimes its said to be justifiied. But even the justification of harm is relative under relative morality.
And you should investigate the details of ECT as well. Then ask if it causes harm. And then ask yourself if it's justified. Forget the other examples...just do that one. We can use it as a test for what I've proposed.
We know that ECT was unjustified in the past. At one point it was seen as the cure for all sorts of ailments including curing being gay. It was also barbaric in that often no anesthetics was used and it convulsed and distorted patients in pain.

Though its said to have some short term benefits such as for deep depression it doesn't last and theres harmful side effects like memory loss and foggy brain.

Like other medical treatments theres vested interests and its hard to get straight forward and unbiased information. It may be beneificial to a very small number of people but as so often happens it becomes a cure all and gets abused and ends up harming more people than it helps.

 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,047
15,653
72
Bondi
✟369,741.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The point was that if we can go back in time to find that people believed they were not doing harm...
No, everyone who has caused harm intentionally knows they are causing harm. Whether they think it's justified is the debatable point.
Harm is harm, sometimes its said to be justifiied. But even the justification of harm is relative under relative morality.
Yes, harm is harm. Good. Stick with that. And now ask yourself who decides if it is justified or not. Let me know what your answer is.
We know that ECT was unjustified in the past. At one point it was seen as the cure for all sorts of ailments including curing being gay. It was also barbaric in that often no anesthetics was used and it convulsed and distorted patients in pain.
And it was unjustified because...it was causing harm for very little benefit? Is that what you're saying?
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,845
1,699
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟318,471.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No, everyone who has caused harm intentionally knows they are causing harm. Whether they think it's justified is the debatable point.
I disagree. The simple fact that we don't know everything means we are potentially doing harm and we don't know it. There are many examples of how we thought something was good for us and it turned out it wasn't with new discoveries. There was no apparent observable harm at the time until later.

But even the way we justify harm is subjective. We have many situations where there are two different positions on whether the harm is justified. The simple fact that you say " Whether they think it's justified is the debatable point" points to there being two points of view and no way to work this out based purely on science.
Yes, harm is harm. Good. Stick with that. And now ask yourself who decides if it is justified or not. Let me know what your answer is.
Hum who decides. That would depend on who is in that position according to relative morality. Or who protests the most. If you mean its left up to individuals or a group of individuals opinion or belief then this is not a moral truth independent of people or cultures. There needs to be more to safely say we are closer to the truth.

We already see that many policies and laws are based on the moral ideology of whoever is in power. The fact that the opposition has a completely different position on these policies points to fact that there are two competing truths and only one can be right.
And it was unjustified because...it was causing harm for very little benefit? Is that what you're saying?
No I am saying that if we look back we can see that people believed certain things that were later shown to be barbaric as being good. Partly due to lack of knowledge. Though I would say that intuitively we knew it was not good to see people twisted in pain. That is why I think intuition is important. Though back then intuition was seen as unreal and unscientific which was and is part of the problem to moral truth.

People thought the suffering was worth it as they thought it could cure a greater sickness and restore a person back to a degree of normality. But it was also experimental so doctors felt it justified in the name of progress. But in reality they were ignorant due to lack of knowledge. So though acting in good faith believing they were doing good they were also acting ignorantly and therefore causing harm without realising it.

So there were many factors at play to justify the horrible things done in hindsight. The point is it shows we can be doing the same nowadays but don't realize it being led atray by strong underlying beliefs which cause us to feel justified in doing so. Even an over stated belief in science itself which inevitably proves wrong.

The point is when left to humans, and society we often get it wrong because we are supceptible to ignorance, self deception, self interest and other influences some we don't even realise.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,047
15,653
72
Bondi
✟369,741.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I disagree. The simple fact that we don't know everything means we are potentially doing harm and we don't know it. There are many examples of how we thought something was good for us and it turned out it wasn't with new discoveries. There was no apparent observable harm at the time until later.
If we don't know that harm has been done then we have nothing to discuss.
But even the way we justify harm is subjective.
Yes. but once we agree that it has been caused we can debate the justification. Again, I am going to ask you that if harm has not been caused, is it a moral matter? I'm still waiting on an answer.
Hum who decides.
Who else but us?
The point is when left to humans, and society we often get it wrong because we are supceptible to ignorance, self deception, self interest and other influences some we don't even realise.
So we leave it to non-humans? I guess you mean it's decided by some sort of divine fiat. Then 'who decides' what that is?
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,845
1,699
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟318,471.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
If we don't know that harm has been done then we have nothing to discuss.
Of course we do. It means we have to be doubly sure about whether we are causing harm. Its a red flag for us to be vigelant and to check things, our motives, biases, knowledge ect. To find that knowledge by investigating things and not take it for granted that what we think is harm or not is likely to be wrong.
Yes. but once we agree that it has been caused we can debate the justification. Again, I am going to ask you that if harm has not been caused, is it a moral matter? I'm still waiting on an answer.
I answered this question in the other thread where you mentioned me. If all parties can agree that no harm has been caused then maybe there is a case that no wrong has been done.

The issue I see is that there is little agreement about whether harm is caused or not. AS we have seen in the other thread there is much disagreement about what is harm. You say using pronouns causes no harm and many others disagree and say it does cause harm. SEcular morality says that kids don't need a father and SS couples can be a substitute without any harm. Others disagree and say it does cause harm as kids need both parents.

Secular society says a man can become a women in the name of doing no harm and others disagree and say this does cause harm to people especially kids. Secular society says easy divorce is good as it upholds womens rights. Others say its caused harm is undermining the family. SEcular society says freedom of sex is a right but others say it causes harm to relationships and objectifying women.

I could go on. There are plenty of examples where secular society and moral subjectivists will claim certain behaviours are perfectly fine but we can show that they are not and cause harm. So it seems to me that the definition of harm is what is the problem. If we can't agree on what is harm or not then how can we work out what ios moral.
Who else but us?
So we leave it to non-humans? I guess you mean it's decided by some sort of divine fiat. Then 'who decides' what that is?
Well no not really. Not left to us as in just us, just our feelings and preferences which stop with us. That is not a good way to determine something that needs a truth determination. As I just showed many people disagree on what is harm and therefore what is moral. Often because of their self percieved beliefs and feelings rather than anything independent of themselves.

We need to check our feelings and beliefs against something more objective like the science, rationality, or our experiences or our intuition of the situation. That includes our religious beliefs which have served as a hallmark of what is moral or not. When it comes to Western nations that has been the Christian God.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,047
15,653
72
Bondi
✟369,741.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Of course we do. It means we have to be doubly sure about whether we are causing harm.
Good idea. Check to see if harm has been done. I wish I'd suggested that earlier. Oh, I did...
I answered this question in the other thread where you mentioned me. If all parties can agree that no harm has been caused then maybe there is a case that no wrong has been done.
So I guess you mean that we need to determine harm to see if 'there is a case that no wrong has been done.' Good idea. Again, I wish I'd suggested that. Hey, didn't I do that?
The issue I see is that there is little agreement about whether harm is caused or not.
That can be the case. Generally not. But I wish I'd pointed that out earlier. Oh, hang on. I did.
Secular society says a man can become a women in the name of doing no harm and others disagree and say this does cause harm to people especially kids. Secular society says easy divorce is good as it upholds womens rights. Others say its caused harm is undermining the family. SEcular society says freedom of sex is a right but others say it causes harm to relationships and objectifying women.
If you think harm has been done then you present your case. It will be judged on its merits. But at least you are starting off with the claim that harm has been done. Which someone suggested earlier. Yeah...It was me.

I could go on. There are plenty of examples where secular society and moral subjectivists will claim certain behaviours are perfectly fine but we can show that they are not and cause harm. So it seems to me that the definition of harm is what is the problem. If we can't agree on what is harm or not then how can we work out what ios moral.
Yet again, you present you case and it will be judged on its merits. But at least you are starting off with the claim that harm has been done. See above for the rider.
Well no not really. Not left to us as in just us, just our feelings and preferences which stop with us. That is not a good way to determine something that needs a truth determination. As I just showed many people disagree on what is harm and therefore what is moral. Often because of their self percieved beliefs and feelings rather than anything independent of themselves.
So you present your case, etc etc etc.
We need to check our feelings and beliefs against something more objective like the science, rationality, or our experiences or our intuition of the situation. That includes our religious beliefs which have served as a hallmark of what is moral or not. When it comes to Western nations that has been the Christian God.
Go ask Him then. And tell me what His arguments are. They will be judged etc etc etc.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,845
1,699
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟318,471.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Good idea. Check to see if harm has been done. I wish I'd suggested that earlier. Oh, I did...
That goes without saying. But that wasn't my point. You said "If we don't know that harm has been done then we have nothing to discuss". I am saying we should not assume that no harm is being done and that when we think no harm is being done there usually is harm being done by our past track record. So we do have much to discuss when we think there is no harm such as discussing our biases, hidden agendas, beliefs that cause us to think no harm is being done when there is.
That can be the case. Generally not. But I wish I'd pointed that out earlier. Oh, hang on. I did.
I disagree apart from obvious examples like rape or child abuse there is much people disagree on. Just look at social media and how everyone is disagreeing about everything from wrong words to holding certain beliefs like they are hatred to what is a man and women as far as rights are concerned. UNder identity politics there are as many disagreements about what is good or bad as there are identities.
If you think harm has been done then you present your case. It will be judged on its merits. But at least you are starting off with the claim that harm has been done. Which someone suggested earlier. Yeah...It was me.
For every harm that some claim to be wrong others will as a matter of logic believe there is no harm. So unless the current beliefs that there is no harm caused by current policy and norms are all 100% correct then its likely that society as a whole believs in ideas that cause harm but deny that harm because of belief rather than facts.

For example the belief that there is no difference between male and female, mother and father. That a child can thrive the same without a father or mother. This is proven wrong by the science showing kids do worse without a mother or father. Each parent offers certain psychological and developmental benefits that cannot be given by their absense.

Kids Don’t Need Two Parents. They Need a Mom and Dad.

Kids Need a Mom and a Dad – That’s What the Research Shows
Yet again, you present you case and it will be judged on its merits. But at least you are starting off with the claim that harm has been done. See above for the rider.
But if we can show that some of the current ideas promoted in society that claim no harm and in fact are good for people that it logically follows that those who supported those ideas believed that no harm was being done. In other words we would not only show that harm is actually being done with these so called 'harmless ideas' being promted by also show that people can often believe in ideas that cause harm thinking they don't cause harm.

I will use an example we have discussed being pronouns. You are others think there is nothing harmful about pronouns being used or even pushed in society to be compulsory. Yet I presented a list of harms in post #2,382 that can be caused by using pronouns.
So you present your case, etc etc etc.
The case that people can be influenced by their beliefs and over rider the facts, truth and reality is not up for debate. Its a fact proven throughout our history. Look at how religious belief caused harm ISIS for example, the burning of witches and a modern day example of refusal of blood transfusions.

But the same can happen as a result of ideological beliefs. It happened in science where such as with EST and labotomies, forced Covid restrictions, Climate change, Trans ideology which has influenced policy only to be proven an ideological belief that lack scientific evidence. The idea that a man can become a biological women. These are beliefs not science and yet are or were the basis for policy regarding what was morally right or wrong associated with harm.
Go ask Him then. And tell me what His arguments are. They will be judged etc etc etc.
Its not a case of asking God but of the beliefs we humans have used an d applied in practical situations. Beliefs like the traditional family, being made in Gods image, being made male and female, sex being sacred, individuals arther than identity being the most important. The idea of religious belief itself being an important marker as to a better life. These are all evidenced by how we have lived over the centuries.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,047
15,653
72
Bondi
✟369,741.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
That goes without saying. But that wasn't my point. You said "If we don't know that harm has been done then we have nothing to discuss". I am saying we should not assume that no harm is being done and that when we think no harm is being done there usually is harm being done by our past track record. So we do have much to discuss when we think there is no harm such as discussing our biases, hidden agendas, beliefs that cause us to think no harm is being done when there is.
OK. Then we'll forget any consideration of whether harm has been done. But hang on...you said that if no harm has been done (or if we are unaware of any harm being done) then there's nothing to discuss re morality.

Now read that last sentence again, please. To make sure that you do, I'll repeat it. You said that if no harm has been done (or if we are unaware of any harm being done) then there's nothing to discuss re morality.

Now this isn't any sleight of hand, but if we want to talk about moral acts then it must be on the basis of harm being caused. Because if there is no harm, there's no connection with morality. Even if there is no universal agreement on there being harm.

No harm, or no knowledge of it? Nothing to discuss.
If we do have something to discuss then somebody is claiming harm.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,845
1,699
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟318,471.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
OK. Then we'll forget any consideration of whether harm has been done. But hang on...you said that if no harm has been done (or if we are unaware of any harm being done) then there's nothing to discuss re morality.

Now read that last sentence again, please. To make sure that you do, I'll repeat it. You said that if no harm has been done (or if we are unaware of any harm being done) then there's nothing to discuss re morality.

Now this isn't any sleight of hand, but if we want to talk about moral acts then it must be on the basis of harm being caused. Because if there is no harm, there's no connection with morality. Even if there is no universal agreement on there being harm.

No harm, or no knowledge of it? Nothing to discuss.
If we do have something to discuss then somebody is claiming harm.
Ok so we have two different discussions. One is when harm is clearly identified and whether its justified harm.

The other is to determine whether any harm is happening in the first place even if people claim no knowledge of it. So we can still have something to discuss when someone claims no harm is being done or no knowldge of it to determine if thats the case because they could be mistaken, deluded or be trying to fool us.

But I notice you pick and choose what to reply to while avoiding replying to the more difficult questions which are examples of what I am talking about.

You claimed using pronouns causes no harm. Thats an example of someone claiming no harm when there may be harm. So people do claim no harm when there is harm like its a moral truth without any scientific evidence. So we cannot establ;ish whether something is moral or not when people deny harm done to begin with.

People claim a moral truth that marriage between a man and women is not the best setup for kids and family and society. Thats another truth claim that policy and moral norms are based on. Yet when we dig a bit we find the opposite that the evidence shows that the best setup is traditional as has been said all along.

This clearly shows that under a subjective/relative moral system falsehoods can become moral laws and norms based on belief and ideology and not the science, reality or truth of the matter. People can be fooled into believing no harm is done when harm is being done in the name of moral truth.

The single greatest cause of harm for children, strong families and society is the undermining of the traditional family. Thats a denial of the harm being done by not acknowledging and upholding traditional beliefs about the family.

In fact secular belief will have it that the traditional family is harmful. This seems to be a common thread where secularism claims what use to be good now as harmful and what seems destructive good and not harmful in the name of progression and individual freedoms. Seems to me that this is hypocritical. People protest they want the evidence and truth but when it doesn't suit their ideological beliefs they do protest themselves.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,047
15,653
72
Bondi
✟369,741.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Ok so we have two different discussions. One is when harm is clearly identified and whether its justified harm.

The other is to determine whether any harm is happening in the first place even if people claim no knowledge of it. So we can still have something to discuss when someone claims no harm is being done or no knowldge of it to determine if thats the case because they could be mistaken, deluded or be trying to fool us.

But I notice you pick and choose what to reply to while avoiding replying to the more difficult questions which are examples of what I am talking about.
It's a waste of time arguing about examples unless one can agree on what basis there can even be a discussion. And I think that you have agreed that we need to determine if harm has been done. Even, as we have seen, if particular people are unaware of it. That's what I call progress.

And in any case, this thread is not about any one particular moral problem or another. It's how to establish a secular morality. Not 'is there a problem with pronouns' or 'should children have heterosexual parents'. So don't expect me to get too far into a debate about individual matters. Take your questions to another thread if you want to discuss them. I don't mind using examples to investigate how the concept works. But other than that...
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,845
1,699
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟318,471.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It's a waste of time arguing about examples unless one can agree on what basis there can even be a discussion. And I think that you have agreed that we need to determine if harm has been done. Even, as we have seen, if particular people are unaware of it. That's what I call progress.

And in any case, this thread is not about any one particular moral problem or another. It's how to establish a secular morality. Not 'is there a problem with pronouns' or 'should children have heterosexual parents'. So don't expect me to get too far into a debate about individual matters. Take your questions to another thread if you want to discuss them. I don't mind using examples to investigate how the concept works. But other than that...
The problem is our discussion started with what is harm. You said "if we want to talk about moral acts then it must be on the basis of harm being caused. Because if there is no harm, there's no connection with morality".

That logically leads to specific examples because to establish if harm is done we cannot work that out unless we talk about specific examples to show that its not just simply declaring something is causing harm but working out whether that declaration is correct.

If you want to use harm as the basis then it logically follows that we need to establish whether harm is being caused in each situation. Just saying harm is the basis for morality isn't enough because as we can see from my examples harm is subjective and even harm can be justified as good or denied altogether.

Science won't help because the science is there and still those in positions of power or influence deny the science in favour of their ideological beliefs on the matter. So your arguement that 'harm' is the basis for morality breaks down.
 
Upvote 0

Bradskii

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Aug 19, 2018
23,047
15,653
72
Bondi
✟369,741.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
If you want to use harm as the basis then it logically follows that we need to establish whether harm is being caused in each situation.
That's right. That's all I wanted you to agree to. Specific examples illustrating how that should be done, or the difficulty in getting agreement on it I will leave to threads that deal with those specific examples. But simply by suggesting that it's difficult in determining it already accepts the premise that we should be trying to determine it in the first place. Because, as we have agreed, if no-one thinks harm has been done, there's nothing to discuss.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,845
1,699
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟318,471.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That's right. That's all I wanted you to agree to. Specific examples illustrating how that should be done, or the difficulty in getting agreement on it I will leave to threads that deal with those specific examples. But simply by suggesting that it's difficult in determining it already accepts the premise that we should be trying to determine it in the first place. Because, as we have agreed, if no-one thinks harm has been done, there's nothing to discuss.
Fair enough. But that makes the thread pretty short and doesn't really address morality because it will only apply to those who agree on what is harm and whether its justified and that may not apply to many situations therefore leaving out a large part of determining morality.
 
Upvote 0

Larniavc

"Encourage him to keep talking. He's hilarious."
Jul 14, 2015
14,618
8,938
52
✟382,170.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Fair enough. But that makes the thread pretty short and doesn't really address morality because it will only apply to those who agree on what is harm and whether its justified and that may not apply to many situations therefore leaving out a large part of determining morality. Even if people agree on harm that doesn't necessarily mean that its moral.
Exactly that. You’ll note that these ‘morality’ threads are typically started by people demanding an objective moral framework without which people are psychopaths.

Morality is subjective. You don’t get to dictate what other people see as ethical behaviour but you do get to try to shape the ethical framework of the culture one lives in.

As far as I can see it is only Christians on this website attempting to label one as ‘the Right’ one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bradskii
Upvote 0