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.
That's because you're a hippy....lol, I'm kidding man.
I disagree with you, though.
My anarchism isn´t enforced by threat of punishment.Anarchism is (theoretically, as it doesn't actually work) essentially order enforced by threat of punishment.
And other forms of governemnt are not?I'm not sure what that statement is even trying to imply.
Anarchism is (theoretically, as it doesn't actually work) essentially order enforced by threat of punishment.
Logic alone? At least admit that you are using a combination of logic and observation.Neither of those laws are irrevocably rooted in morality. Logic alone justifies both admirably.
Neither of those laws are irrevocably rooted in morality. Logic alone justifies both admirably.
I find myself in agreement with you here, elman (a historical moment, don´t you agreeHow do you determine what laws are logical and what are moral? And why cannot they not be both?
From the "imposing morals on others" thread, it seems like the majority of people here oppose forcing others to conform to their moral beliefs. But this contradicts my personal experience with law. It seems to me that most people try to force others to do what they think is moral through the rule of law, at least to a point.
For those of you who feel that it's wrong to force others to conform to your morality outside of free will, how would you justify laws against things like gambling, prostitution, abortion, and pornography, which do not have a direct society-disabling effect on those who do not participate?
Or in other words, when do you have the right to remove someone's free will and replace it with force?
Trickster
How do you determine what laws are logical and what are moral? And why cannot they not be both?
From the "imposing morals on others" thread, it seems like the majority of people here oppose forcing others to conform to their moral beliefs. But this contradicts my personal experience with law. It seems to me that most people try to force others to do what they think is moral through the rule of law, at least to a point.
For those of you who feel that it's wrong to force others to conform to your morality outside of free will, how would you justify laws against things like gambling, prostitution, abortion, and pornography, which do not have a direct society-disabling effect on those who do not participate?
Or in other words, when do you have the right to remove someone's free will and replace it with force?
Trickster
well they arn't really "moral" laws, they are ethical laws that have a secular meaningFrom the "imposing morals on others" thread, it seems like the majority of people here oppose forcing others to conform to their moral beliefs. But this contradicts my personal experience with law. It seems to me that most people try to force others to do what they think is moral through the rule of law, at least to a point.
For those of you who feel that it's wrong to force others to conform to your morality outside of free will, how would you justify laws against things like gambling, prostitution, abortion, and pornography, which do not have a direct society-disabling effect on those who do not participate?
Or in other words, when do you have the right to remove someone's free will and replace it with force?
Trickster
Again, I was speaking only of so-called victimless crimes. Crimes that involve a specific victim are illegal for multiple independent reasons, most of them utilitarian.How about the law against murder? Are you for enforcing that moral law? Or the law against child moslestation? Do you think the parents of a child have a right to prevent the freedom of the criminal to molest their child?
Again, I was speaking only of so-called victimless crimes. Crimes that involve a specific victim are illegal for multiple independent reasons, most of them utilitarian.
For example, if there is no law in place to protect direct victims of crime (murder, theft, violence, abuse) then acts of retribution would occur and escalate. Like the Hatfields and McCoys, only on a grander scale. Justice for the victims of crime helps prevent that cycle of retribution.
Trickster
The examples I gave in the first post were all crimes of that sort, and I've provided a few responses to clarify what I meant where I used the term "victimless". I'd mistakenly thought that the original post was clearer than it was.How is one to know that when you talk about moral laws you are only talking about victimless crimes?
I dunno. It ain't my problem. I got better things to do with my life.
arggh... AIDS we luv ya!!!
There is a little problem, though: All persons who try to impose their various morals upon others are convinced that these morals are the "correct" ones. It´s where holy wars come from.As I said in the other thread, I have no problem with imposing morals on others so long as the morals that are being imposed are correct morals. Morality is absolute and is not relative and therefore it would not be a problem to impose correct morals on another person.
Then do you believe that the world should essentially be a dictatorship run by the Pope, with condoms and all non-Catholic religions made illegal?As I said in the other thread, I have no problem with imposing morals on others so long as the morals that are being imposed are correct morals. Morality is absolute and is not relative and therefore it would not be a problem to impose correct morals on another person.
Also, another question: Do you think that God wants people to be forced to make the right choices, or does God want people to be tempted and make the right choices anyway? Or perhaps God doesn't care as long as the right choices are made?As I said in the other thread, I have no problem with imposing morals on others so long as the morals that are being imposed are correct morals. Morality is absolute and is not relative and therefore it would not be a problem to impose correct morals on another person.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?