(August 11, 2016 at 5:22 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(August 11, 2016 at 5:18 pm)Losty Wrote: Wrong and wrong. People think things are wrong that harm no one all the time based on my usage of the word harm.

I think stealing should be illegal and I think the law should always be enforced even when it's not morally wrong.

Give me an example of such a thing that you think is wrong, yet doesn't harm anyone at all.

Why would you want the law to be enforced even when it's not morally wrong, then?

People think gay sex is immoral.

Because stealing is destructive to a society and does financial harm to the person being stolen from regardless of whether or not it was morally wrong for the perpetrator to do the stealing.

(August 11, 2016 at 5:29 pm)Losty Wrote:

(August 11, 2016 at 5:22 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: Give me an example of such a thing that you think is wrong, yet doesn't harm anyone at all.

Why would you want the law to be enforced even when it's not morally wrong, then?

People think gay sex is immoral.

Because stealing is destructive to a society and does financial harm to the person being stolen from regardless of whether or not it was morally wrong for the perpetrator to do the stealing.

I think some clarification is needed. When I said this

Quote:You can't possibly think anything morally wrong if it doesn't harm anyone in any way.

I was specifically talking about you, a person I consider to be intelligent, not about anyone at all. 


See, that second statement of yours is self-contradictory. You can't both consider it not to be morally wrong and at the same time give reasons for why you think it's morally wrong.

I didn't. I consider it to not be morally wrong and I still think it should be illegal because it causes harm to the victim and is destructive to society.

(August 11, 2016 at 5:39 pm)Losty Wrote: I didn't. I consider it to not be morally wrong and I still think it should be illegal because it causes harm to the victim and is destructive to society.

So you don't think causing harm to the victim and being destructive to society is morally wrong?

(August 11, 2016 at 5:40 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(August 11, 2016 at 5:39 pm)Losty Wrote: I didn't. I consider it to not be morally wrong and I still think it should be illegal because it causes harm to the victim and is destructive to society.

So you don't think causing harm to the victim and being destructive to society is morally wrong?

Not in every situation.


As for the other thing...I can't think of anything personally but I'll think on it some more just in case. I know a lot of intelligent people who think adultry and/or suicide are morally wrong and I don't believe either of those to cause tangible harm to others.

(August 11, 2016 at 5:44 pm)Losty Wrote:

(August 11, 2016 at 5:40 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: So you don't think causing harm to the victim and being destructive to society is morally wrong?

Not in every situation.


As for the other thing...I can't think of anything personally but I'll think on it some more just in case. I know a lot of intelligent people who think adultry and/or suicide are morally wrong and I don't believe either of those to cause tangible harm to others.

Describe such a situation for me.

I'd prefer it if you came up with examples of your own, as concerns our second topic.

It doesn't concern any topic for me.

I am telling you that in my personal opinion laws should only ever be about protecting people from harm and enforcing responsibilities and should never be about enforcing morality. Period. I have grown exhausted of your weird interrogation. If you have some point to make just make it. No need to wait for the bazinga moment really

(August 11, 2016 at 4:30 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(August 11, 2016 at 4:26 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: There's a silly argument I I've ever seen one. Apartheid was the law in South Africa ... Jim Crow was the law in America. By your "reasoning", those are both moral.

They're not moral by my standards, they're moral by that society's however. 

I trust you understand now the sense in which I use that adjective at the moment.

Your problem is that morality is inherently personal, being both subjective and relative. Social morality gives rise to obvious contradictions which indict its usefulness in human life.

In Saudi Arabia, you'd be beheaded for your atheism, legally. Is that moral? Why or why not?

I'll leave you to work out the ramifications on your own. I don't think you've thought this through.

(August 11, 2016 at 4:36 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(August 11, 2016 at 4:17 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: No, she spoke about what she thinks laws should not address, i.e., personal morals.

There's a slight difference.

No, there isn't, at least none that was pointed out. As it is, personal morals = thoughts about what laws should(or shouldn't) be about.

Nonsense. Your inability to differentiate the two doesn't confine others to your limited thinking ... it only marks you as someone who culls his values from the larger group rather than thinking for himself.

I know what I think about right and wrong. I also know that seeking to impose my own views on others by dint of law is not only foolish in the practical sense, but also wrong for imposing my values on those who don't share them.

By your logic, a theocracy is moral. By your logic, you, an atheist, should kneel each Sabbath and proclaim your fealty to some deity, if such is required by law. By your logic, you yourself don't have the right to your own self-expression, if your society deems your views verboten.

(August 11, 2016 at 5:40 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(August 11, 2016 at 5:39 pm)Losty Wrote: I didn't. I consider it to not be morally wrong and I still think it should be illegal because it causes harm to the victim and is destructive to society.

So you don't think causing harm to the victim and being destructive to society is morally wrong?

So you're a moral absolutist, then?

If I steal a loaf of bread to prevent a child starving, is that good or evil?

It's surprising, the simple level that this conversation has assumed. I should have thought that anyone pondering morality would have also considered ambiguity.