Quote:
|
Originally Posted by alansmithee
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?
|
Asked and answered.
Quote:
|
You didn't answer my question.
|
You're right. I didn't.
Quote:
|
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?
|
It helps to inform our ability to form our own moral code, and to examine and modify that code as we analyze the premises upon which it is based. It helps us to identify and form communities of like-minded people for support and reinforcement. It gives us the opportunity to attempt to persuede others to adopt our values, or some aspect of our values, for the purpose of influencing our society to be the kind of society in which we would like to live.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
So then the US Supreme Court is recognized as the final legal arbiter of "legal" morality you don't recognize them? Or when they strike down a law you disagreed with to begin with i.e. States barring same sex marriage they are okay?
|
I disagree with your premise. The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter, in the United States, of laws in accordance with the Constitution. Not morality.
I believe, as I have already stated, that morality is a separate issue from legality. You don't. I understand that, I just happen to disagree with it.
I've stated my case and explained my beliefs. Repeating the same arguments serves no useful purpose here except to waste my time and energy, so I shall bow out of this debate at this point.
Gilda