mpg
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2005
- Messages
- 7,795
- Reaction score
- 1,784
- Location
- Milford, CT
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
So you acknowledge that sometimes the law loses?The initial post I gave was of a couple married in a church and so that is why i speak of religious rules here. It was an example based on a religious decision. Certainly there could be an atheistic position as well.
I am. There's individual interpretation of morality, but no individual morality. When I feel that rape is wrong, I feel that it's wrong for everyone, not just me.Are you trying to argue there is no individual morality?
Many people are voting "other", and I'm getting the feeling that they have similar views. I've seen people talk about is an an individual thing. I didn't make that one of the options because it didn't occur to me that people would feel that way. Morality, by definition, is something that applies to everybody, at least within a family, community or culture. If you say that it's wrong for you to rape, but it may or may not be wrong for others, you haven't expressed an opinion about the morality of rape. If you want to express an opinion about the morality of rape, you have to say that it's wrong for everyone or OK for everyone.Yeah, I didn't word that very well. Our morality is shaped by outside forces, but it isn't determined by some inherent natural law or the will of god or anything like that.
Immoral to you. Morals are subjective.
Morality, by definition, is something that applies to everybody, at least within a family, community or culture. If you say that it's wrong for you to rape, but it may or may not be wrong for others, you haven't expressed an opinion about the morality of rape. If you want to express an opinion about the morality of rape, you have to say that it's wrong for everyone or OK for everyone.
For example some people believe homosexuality to be immoral, others believe it is moral.
Each of those people believes that morality or immorality to apply to everyone, but it is not universally moral or immoral. .
There's a subforum for abortion debate.
Then what would you call personal beliefs of civility (right and wrong, if you prefer) if not morality?I am. There's individual interpretation of morality, but no individual morality. When I feel that rape is wrong, I feel that it's wrong for everyone, not just me.
Edit: If someone feels that rape is wrong for them but has no opinion about it being right/wrong for others, that isn't an opinion about morality.
I don't mean to be rude, but everyone knows that each person has their own opinions about what is and isn't moral. It goes without saying, but it doesn't address the OP or the poll.That's not really what I mean when I say that morality is subjective. I agree that morals apply to everyone (or should anyway, some people have inconsistent views on that sort of thing). i.e. if I believe it is moral to act a certain way and immoral to act a different way, then I likely believe that is true for everyone. What I mean by morality is subjective is that whether a particular act is moral or immoral depends on who you're asking the question of.
For example some people believe homosexuality to be immoral, others believe it is moral. Each of those people believes that morality or immorality to apply to everyone, but it is not universally moral or immoral.
Like I already said, each individual has their own interpretation of morality. It's kinda like the Constitution, there are many interpretations but only one Constitution.Then what would you call personal beliefs of civility (right and wrong, if you prefer) if not morality?
Then you are claiming some form of objective morality that applies to everyone, everywhere?Like I already said, each individual has their own interpretation of morality. It's kinda like the Constitution, there are many interpretations but only one Constitution.
Me personally? Yes, I believe in natural law, but that's just my opinion. Some people believe in God and his/her laws. Those would also apply to everybody everywhere. If you believe morality is the laws of a particular society, then they apply to everyone within that society. If you believe that it only applies to the individual, that doesn't fit the definition of morality. What if you feel that rape is immoral and a rapist feels that it's moral? Would you say that the rapist is behaving morally simply because he's obeying his own morals?Then you are claiming some form of objective morality that applies to everyone, everywhere?
For ME to say someone was behaving morally, they would have to obey MY morals, not theirs - and vice versa.Me personally? Yes, I believe in natural law, but that's just my opinion. Some people believe in God and his/her laws. Those would also apply to everybody everywhere. If you believe morality is the laws of a particular society, then they apply to everyone within that society. If you believe that it only applies to the individual, that doesn't fit the definition of morality. What if you feel that rape is immoral and a rapist feels that it's moral? Would you say that the rapist is behaving morally simply because he's obeying his own morals?
That's murder, not kill.
Thou shalt not kill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sent from my Nokia Lumia 920 using Board Express
EXODUS 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.Thou shalt not kill.
- King James Bible "Authorized Version", Pure Cambridge Edition
In the circumstance of one being a pedophile... no, though I would imagine it very possible depending of this individual's conception of morality,
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/159640-morality-22.html#post1061771904For ME to say someone was behaving morally, they would have to obey MY morals, not theirs - and vice versa.
I have no doubt I have done things in my life that others found immoral even though I didn't. When I was very young pre-marital sex was immoral. Many religious people still believe it's immoral but the majority of the population doesn't think that, anymore, and my friends never thought that. So, was my pre-marital sex immoral? I didn't think so or I wouldn't have done it.
You asked the question about personal morals. If you didn't want an answer then why did you ask?!?
Morality is a social construct and not something imagined by an individual.
From my experience it is both and the two are very relative. Do you not have moral dictum that exists regardless of societal influence? Or do you see the individual as irrelevant on this subject?
I'm sure in your mind someone can commit legal theft. Again, I disagree with you. To me that's like saying it's legal murder.
It is not a matter of losing. Law was never in a position to have to make a decision. If one or the other would have taken action to dissolve the marriage Law would have. This was an example of two people deciding for whatever reason to stand pat and hold their hands. I did though in a different post make this point. Someone had said if a poor person steals food or stays inside a building that is off limits to survive and is arrested no one really wants to see this person punished. A judge may well decide to show leniency and not punish this person. He may back off the strict letter of the law in favor of his personal feelings. In a case such as this it gives the appearance that Law lost. It is really not the case. It is a personal decision maybe wrongly given by a judge. So there may well be some exceptions but they are few and far between. ThanksSo you acknowledge that sometimes the law loses?
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?