Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
Good point, i want to impose my morality, which consists of "Don't tell me what i can and can't do when what i do has no relevance to your existence" as opposed to the other side's morality, which apparently is "If i don't do it or think it is okay than no one should do it or think it is okay, regardless of whether it is damaging to anybody or not".
|
but i think we'd both agree that everyone thinks of his own position like this. certainly there must be something that you consider harmful to one another that another person wouldn't bat an eye at.
for example, no one would condone murder. yet, millions of people have no problem with abortion and still millions more consider it nothing short of homicide. those who sincerely believe that abortion is murder are no more enforcing their moral code on a pro-life person than a pro-life person is on someone who may condone homicide. our own moral convictions always allow the maximum degree of human liberty (in our mind's most honest conviction)... but others who disagree with my code will forever be forcing their own agenda upon me.
we're never going to satisfy everyone. the best we can do is find a moral code that best promotes liberty, integrity, justice and compassion to one another. the debate will rage on, but we must recognize that everyone possesses a moral code and that such codes are the cornerstone of civilization. we are no closer to any of our ideals if we don't realize the relationship our own moral codes have with another person's.