Quote:
Originally posted by The_Dude
different scenario. 2 people almost never has the exact same morals. it's all based on his/her interpretation of some event/text/whatever.
if laws are made from morals, whose interpretation do we take?
look @ islam right now. there are a lot of extremists that take "strict constructionist" interpretation of the quran. i have a lot of friends that take the book moderately (if that at all).
there is no way to prove if your morals are more correct that somebody else's.
|
Laws cannot enforce "morality" either. While you and I don't have the exact same morals, we do have some in common. If you think stealing is wrong and so do I, what difference does it make where we derived those morals from? Morals like the above example come in many flavors, many shades. That's usually where the conflict seems to come in. If I think downloading MP3s from the internet is stealing, and you don't, isn't that just an elaboration on the definition of stealing? It doesn't make our morals conflict- just different in definition. Many people look to religion for definition of their morals- not just christianity or western culture. The morals defined by many religions and across different cultures are strikingly similar in their broadest forms, in their basic essence. Where they seem to differ is in their definition more than their basic content. Are the definitions of one more correct than another? I don't know of a measure of correctness that could be used to determine that.