Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gilda
I'd appreciate it if you'd actually read what I wrote and not take it upon yourself to tell me what my view is. You certainly did a poor job of it here.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gilda
Actually, my argument does accomodate everyone's viewpoint. Let every person determine their own moral code, base on their own moral, religious, and philosophical beliefs, and live their lives according to that moral code without coercion from some outside entity. I absolutely believe that every individual on this earth should be permitted the freedom to do that without interference. You, me, Iranian Muslims, Indians and Pakistanis. I would vehemently defend any individual's right to believe anything they like, to express that belief, and live their lives based on that belief. I extend this to the two boys who were executed. They should have been permitted to establish their own moral code, and live based on that code.
|
That is what you wrote. Bolded sections mine. You believe that people should be able to follow their personal moral code, and not be interfered in doing so. Where does that leave the pedophile or serial killer with their internal moral codes?
Quote:
|
Exactly. Two different sets of laws regarding the same behavior. That would indicate either that one of these sets of laws is not in line with morality, or that the activities are morally neutral.
|
You didn't answer my question.
Quote:
|
I don't believe that there is an ultimate arbiter of morality. This includes laws.
|
If morality is a set of behaviors dictating what is right and wrong to do, and there is no abolute way to determine if one morality is right or wrong (no ultimate arbiter), then where lies the value of arguing over if an act is moral or not?