Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gilda
Asked and answered.
|
I must have missed where, would you mind pointing it out?
Quote:
|
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.
|
I honestly don't understand how someone else's moral code, in the absence of absolutes, can help influence yours (outside of coersion). If I say action X is right and you say action X is wrong (both based on internal moral systems), how could that change? What proof could you give that either position is more right than the other in the absence of an absolute?
And also, with there being no absolutes, isn't it extremely selfish, arrogant, presumptuous, and hypocritical to want to influence others to your moral code? Because there is no proof that it is they who are wrong and you are right-for all we know it is you who should be following their moral code (you in a general sense, not specifically you). That philosophy seems like it would lead toward totalitarianism and conflict (as groups of like-minded individuals come into conflict over which should be the dominant moral code).
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[/QUOTE]