View Single Post
Old 01-21-2019, 04:00 PM
UltraVires is online now
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,216
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Your whole point of view is completely confused.

People want societies with "good" policies. Can we agree on that much? If a society has a bad policy it is desirable to replace it with an improved policy.

Problems arise when different people have different opinions about which policies are "good." The samurais of ancient Japan may have thought it good that they could behead any peasant on whim without retribution. The peasants may have thought otherwise.

Some may think a society is improved when many citizens have guns. Others may prefer to discourage gun ownership. Which version of society is preferable? That's up for debate.

Invoking the Name of God or blather about "natural rights" is irrelevant to this debate; it's just nonsense piled on by people who fear the evidence is against them.
1) Nobody invoked the "Name of God." The theory of natural rights is considered "self-evident" by our FF.

2) So, again, if you would answer my question...I do not believe you mean what you suggest. You wouldn't say that if a Constitutional Amendment of "Let's Kill All Blacks" vs. "Let's Don't Kill All Blacks" came up for a vote that is "up for debate" or that "people have different opinions" on it.

So what do you base your overriding morality about policy A which is a good subject for a healthy debate versus policy B, like the above, which I assume you would not think is the subject of a healthy debate in any decent or moral society.

Where do your ideas of morality come from if not from natural law?

Last edited by UltraVires; 01-21-2019 at 04:01 PM.