Comments on: Laws and Morals http://shamuswrites.com/2006/01/05/laws-and-morals/ Trapped within my own mind Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:44:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Jim http://shamuswrites.com/2006/01/05/laws-and-morals/#comment-266 Jim Fri, 06 Jan 2006 15:47:20 +0000 http://open-dialogue.com/blog/?p=105#comment-266 Well, I strive for open dialogue. I see no reason why people cannot disagree and yet still have very agreeable, friendly relationships and interactions. I find it very frustrating that so little productive discussion ever happens simply because people are so hateful in their dialogue against anyone who disagrees. Honestly, it doesn't bother me at all when people disagree with me because I recognize that no one is going to hold the same view on everything. But that is why we discuss, to share what we know and believe and why and hopefully we can all get a little closer to the truth of things. Glad you stopped by and hope you will continue to do so. I enjoy hearing new viewpoints and having my own picked apart. Well, I strive for open dialogue.  I see no reason why people cannot disagree and yet still have very agreeable, friendly relationships and interactions.  I find it very frustrating that so little productive discussion ever happens simply because people are so hateful in their dialogue against anyone who disagrees.  Honestly, it doesn’t bother me at all when people disagree with me because I recognize that no one is going to hold the same view on everything.  But that is why we discuss, to share what we know and believe and why and hopefully we can all get a little closer to the truth of things. 

Glad you stopped by and hope you will continue to do so.  I enjoy hearing new viewpoints and having my own picked apart.

]]> By: Writer's Blog » Blog Archive » Morality Informs Worldview http://shamuswrites.com/2006/01/05/laws-and-morals/#comment-265 Writer's Blog » Blog Archive » Morality Informs Worldview Fri, 06 Jan 2006 15:35:53 +0000 http://open-dialogue.com/blog/?p=105#comment-265 When I say that everything is a moral issue, what I am driving at, what I am actually trying to say is that every single action we take and every decision we make is informed by our worldview, which is nothing more than a set of morals, a set of value ... When I say that everything is a moral issue, what I am driving at, what I am actually trying to say is that every single action we take and every decision we make is informed by our worldview, which is nothing more than a set of morals, a set of value …

]]> By: Theresa http://shamuswrites.com/2006/01/05/laws-and-morals/#comment-264 Theresa Fri, 06 Jan 2006 02:37:54 +0000 http://open-dialogue.com/blog/?p=105#comment-264 I disagree with you for the most part. But I will admit it is pleasantly surprising to see that others can disagree with you without incurring the adolescent wrath from you that most other bloggers would dish out. Intelligent debate and discussion is always a good thing. I disagree with you for the most part. But I will admit it is pleasantly surprising to see that others can disagree with you without incurring the adolescent wrath from you that most other bloggers would dish out. Intelligent debate and discussion is always a good thing.

]]> By: Writer's Blog » Blog Archive » Tension http://shamuswrites.com/2006/01/05/laws-and-morals/#comment-262 Writer's Blog » Blog Archive » Tension Thu, 05 Jan 2006 19:24:47 +0000 http://open-dialogue.com/blog/?p=105#comment-262 There is a tension inherent in holding the belief that morals are absolute but in recognizing that one cannot force one's value system on everyone else. Specifically, I hold to the notion that moral standards are absolute--they do not change over ... There is a tension inherent in holding the belief that morals are absolute but in recognizing that one cannot force one’s value system on everyone else. Specifically, I hold to the notion that moral standards are absolute—they do not change over …

]]> By: Jim http://shamuswrites.com/2006/01/05/laws-and-morals/#comment-260 Jim Thu, 05 Jan 2006 17:19:36 +0000 http://open-dialogue.com/blog/?p=105#comment-260 Thanks for the feedback, Phoe and franky. Definitely some good things to think about, and I will address them soon. franky, I changed the font. Hopefully, that will make it easier to read. It might help to notice that the letters only go from A through F and the numbers from 0 through 9. Thanks for the feedback, Phoe and franky.  Definitely some good things to think about, and I will address them soon. 

franky, I changed the font.  Hopefully, that will make it easier to read.  It might help to notice that the letters only go from A through F and the numbers from 0 through 9.

]]> By: franky http://shamuswrites.com/2006/01/05/laws-and-morals/#comment-259 franky Thu, 05 Jan 2006 17:08:06 +0000 http://open-dialogue.com/blog/?p=105#comment-259 PS, your new word ID thing is terrible, I couldn't read two of them at all :( PS, your new word ID thing is terrible, I couldn’t read two of them at all :(

]]> By: franky http://shamuswrites.com/2006/01/05/laws-and-morals/#comment-258 franky Thu, 05 Jan 2006 17:07:37 +0000 http://open-dialogue.com/blog/?p=105#comment-258 When you eat a hamburger, is that a moral issue? Some people in India would seem to think so. When you eat a hamburger, is that a moral issue?  Some people in India would seem to think so.

]]> By: Phoe http://shamuswrites.com/2006/01/05/laws-and-morals/#comment-254 Phoe Thu, 05 Jan 2006 16:34:05 +0000 http://open-dialogue.com/blog/?p=105#comment-254 You're correct - The abortion debate will probably never end. I spoke with my husband last night, regarding laws being "absolute" and in fact that they are based on morals. Laws are written based on the general conceived perception that the vast majority of the population shares in the moral beliefs of the lawmakers. So, I agree that laws are based on morals. But the majority of the lawmakers are your typical white, Christian males - Most minorities don't have representation when these laws are written. And, laws change when their morality becomes out-of-date. Recently in Canada the definition of marriage changed from "a union between a man and a woman" to be "a union between two people". This is showing that the lawmakers are under the impression that the general populations they represent believe that homosexuals have the right to marriage - Although, it is widely known that there are still people out there who think that homosexual marriage is a travesty. Yet the laws regarding marriage still changed - Which means that almost every law can change over time. This is similar to the abortion debate. Here, it is legal for abortion, whereas in other areas it is not. This law does not represent 100% of any population. It is impossible to represent 100% of any population, but 100% of the population has to abide by the written laws of their region or be prosecuted for their actions. This is common sense, because even if we reject the certain law that we violate, we will still be punished for our "so called" crime. So, logic comes into play that it is in one's own self interest to abide by the written laws, even if they are laws that you do not agree with, or apply to your own morals. If we simplify the argument and compare abortion to murder (as people who believe that human life begins at conception are wont to do) then of course we can say that abortion is unethical. Yet, if there is no law stating that abortion is not moral (IE: illegal) then can it not be considered a moral issue, and lot a legal issue – In which the people who decide to use that particular service are in the right, for there is no governing moral based law saying that they are wrong. Because there is no governing morality on the subject, aren’t they free to do as they chose? So, if abortion is not illegal, isn’t that then saying that the lawmakers do not believe that the general population feels it is immoral? In which case, everyone has the right to his or her own opinion. It comes down to the argument of pro-choice versus pro-life. With pro-life, there are no other options. The child should be born, and that is that. I myself am pro-choice, with an underlying moral belief of pro-life. Yet I feel that other pro-choicers have the option to decide if they chose life or abortion, and that is their right. Just throwing around some ideas . . . . You’re correct – The abortion debate will probably never end.

I spoke with my husband last night, regarding laws being “absolute” and in fact that they are based on morals.  Laws are written based on the general conceived perception that the vast majority of the population shares in the moral beliefs of the lawmakers.  So, I agree that laws are based on morals.  But the majority of the lawmakers are your typical white, Christian males – Most minorities don’t have representation when these laws are written.

And, laws change when their morality becomes out-of-date.  Recently in Canada the definition of marriage changed from “a union between a man and a woman” to be “a union between two people”.  This is showing that the lawmakers are under the impression that the general populations they represent believe that homosexuals have the right to marriage – Although, it is widely known that there are still people out there who think that homosexual marriage is a travesty.  Yet the laws regarding marriage still changed – Which means that almost every law can change over time.

This is similar to the abortion debate.  Here, it is legal for abortion, whereas in other areas it is not.  This law does not represent 100% of any population.  It is impossible to represent 100% of any population, but 100% of the population has to abide by the written laws of their region or be prosecuted for their actions.  This is common sense, because even if we reject the certain law that we violate, we will still be punished for our “so called” crime.  So, logic comes into play that it is in one’s own self interest to abide by the written laws, even if they are laws that you do not agree with, or apply to your own morals.

If we simplify the argument and compare abortion to murder (as people who believe that human life begins at conception are wont to do) then of course we can say that abortion is unethical.  Yet, if there is no law stating that abortion is not moral (IE: illegal) then can it not be considered a moral issue, and lot a legal issue – In which the people who decide to use that particular service are in the right, for there is no governing moral based law saying that they are wrong.  Because there is no governing morality on the subject, aren’t they free to do as they chose?

So, if abortion is not illegal, isn’t that then saying that the lawmakers do not believe that the general population feels it is immoral?  In which case, everyone has the right to his or her own opinion.

It comes down to the argument of pro-choice versus pro-life.  With pro-life, there are no other options.  The child should be born, and that is that.  I myself am pro-choice, with an underlying moral belief of pro-life.  Yet I feel that other pro-choicers have the option to decide if they chose life or abortion, and that is their right.

Just throwing around some ideas . . . .

]]>