(September 9, 2011 at 8:35 pm)Rwandrall Wrote:(September 9, 2011 at 3:10 pm)Peter44 Wrote: I think this is just ignorance. In many Islamic countries the law demands death for blasphemy for instance.
That is not moral.
I could go on and give many examples of Christian Jewish and Islamic laws that have no moral content whatsoever in fact they have just the opposite.
To suggest that Law in anyway equates to morality is just ignorance probably induced my indoctrination.
You have no idea what your talking about.
What is legal and what is moral differs all over the world. I have been there.
There is no connection. Moral and legal authorities are nothing like each other.
One example will suffice;
It is moral not to kill.
It is Sharia Law to kill apostates.
Get real.
You hold your own morality as a purely objective universal value, and that is wrong. What you think is moral has no effect on what someone else thinks is moral, and claiming you can objectively decide what is or is not moral is absolutely self-centered and insane.
"It is moral not to kill": not in self defense. Which directly means there is, in some scenarios, a way in which killing can be morally acceptable. Who are you to say it is immoral to kill apostates ? In their morality it is moral to do that, who are you to say it's not ? You do not have any authority on deciding what is moral or not, but still claim your own morality is THE ONE MORALITY that everyone else must abide to. That is properly insane.
What's more, you assume that my opinions are based on indoctrination, which means you hold yourself as another of those "enlightened" ones who think anyone having an opinion that defers from theirs is an idiot or a sheep. Which is, again, an impressive display of douchiness. You're not helping your case much.
Morality is subjective, and the Law directly and accurately reflects this subjectivity. That is a fact which you have yet to in any way disprove.
Hardly anything you stated is true. I quoted a well known authority on morality with whom I and many others who have studied it happen to agree. Its based on research and is certainly not insane.
I have never claimed anyone who differed from me in an understanding of these principles is an idiot (your words) or a (sheep)
again your words. Not mine.
The law is subjective and inefficient that's why an objective universal application of morality is so superior to those that take influence and writings from whatever source in the past and use it as criteria to live by today.
Because they do this and don't use their own cognitively generated principles. The world is a mess. Children are born in in the servitude of medieval religious beliefs and laws and mankind is paying the price of human ignorance.
I say killing anyone to to justify a a faith without evidence and without reason but what is written by something passed down to a failed desert tribe is not only immoral. Its evil and selfish. That's my judgment and my morality based on reasoning ability and a concern for humanity.
My morality doesn't accept victimless crime nor does it accept those who do these things as normal. It may be culturally and religiously driven but killing someone for changing there mind (apostasy) is worse than insane. Its criminal with intent.
I dont have to disprove anything as I am not the one killing for a belief. Guilt has to be proved not innocence.
No one killed anyone from a lack of belief.
As you admitted the law is subjective (and i certainly agree that morality is) it shows the law is not really to be taken as 'law' and is something only to use in a practical way. I am all for that.
Because of its subjectivity it should expect many of us to contradict it to disagree with it and to break it for all the right reasons.
But as for studying law and its agreed subjectivity I think its a complete waste of someones intellect. Just like religion.
