I have an answer that works for me no matter how opposed to it you are, so your purity tests are up to you. They don't work for me. Seems you'll have to deal with that yourself.

Quote:

---

you always resort to name calling

---

It's not name calling if it's true! Just another thing for you to deal with.

Still the same. No answer, but that's OK. You are entitled to your own views. BTW, it is name calling. Asking serious questions does not make me a "judgmental, hard core right-winger". It makes me a person who has thought these issues through carefully for years and arrived at some pretty clear decisions.

That's good for you and am truly glad, but let's be clear here, it's not your questions that are objectionable, but the reaction to responses. Dismiss a response that doesn't agree with your own as a non answer is judgmental in my book. If you don't understand another position then keep asking questions. You are hardly the only one here who has given thought to their own positions.

Quote:

---

That's good for you and am truly glad, but let's be clear here, it's not your questions that are objectionable, but the reaction to responses. Dismiss a response that doesn't agree with your own as a non answer is judgmental in my book. If you don't understand another position then keep asking questions. You are hardly the only one here who has given thought to their own positions.

---

Fair enough until you remember that the question was, "If killing a child is morally wrong, then why is is not equally wrong to kill a child before it is born?" Your reply was essentially an appeal to the law. But then you gripe and complain all day long about tax laws that supposedly favor the rich, so the law clearly does not establish morality even in your mind. That's why I referred to it as a non-answer. It didn't strike me as anything you have seriously thought through, and it still doesn't. When you consider that, do you really believe just stating the law actually resolves a moral question? If that's true, then slavery was moral in 1850, but then immoral in 1870. That fairly clearly doesn't make sense, does it?

In your own words from another post, "The absence of data, rhyme or reason often illicits a negative response from me."

Quote:

---

This is America and while we are entitled to our beliefs and individual morality, the law prevails and so it's a simple matter to follow the law. So what does the law say about abortions and killing a child that's been born?

---

what people don't realise is the law is not the moral abiteur, it is the lowest standard of behaviour

Very true. Laws are a very imperfect reflection of moral values.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Fair enough until you remember that the question was, "If killing a child is morally wrong, then why is is not equally wrong to kill a child before it is born?" Your reply was essentially an appeal to the law. But then you gripe and complain all day long about tax laws that supposedly favor the rich, so the law clearly does not establish morality even in your mind. That's why I referred to it as a non-answer. It didn't strike me as anything you have seriously thought through, and it still doesn't. When you consider that, do you really believe just stating the law actually resolves a moral question? If that's true, then slavery was moral in 1850, but then immoral in 1870. That fairly clearly doesn't make sense, does it?

---

The law can be and has been changed supposedly in the interest of the fairness and equality as set out in our constitution, and other documents to form a better union. Morality is an individual thing, guided by people on a personal level and they have a right to vote that morality or conscious. Thus we have laws subject to review and change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

what people don't realise is the law is not the moral abiteur, it is the lowest standard of behaviour

---

I can agree but you must have a structure of LAW to set that standard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Very true. Laws are a very imperfect reflection of moral values.

---

So are humans.

Quote:

---

Morality is an individual thing, guided by people on a personal level and they have a right to vote that morality or conscious. Thus we have laws subject to review and change.

---

Morality is individual? So if I think racism and sexism are morally OK, then would they be OK for me since, after all, that's my belief?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Morality is individual? So if I think racism and sexism are morally OK, then would they be OK for me since, after all, that's my belief?

---

It's called free will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Morality is individual? So if I think racism and sexism are morally OK, then would they be OK for me since, after all, that's my belief?

---

Most belief systems are imperfect, you have just demonstrated that, but we are called to a higher standard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Morality is individual? So if I think racism and sexism are morally OK, then would they be OK for me since, after all, that's my belief?

---

There are many that indeed do feel those things are okay, FOR THEM. People of like morality tend to flock together, and they do have a right to their beliefs in free nations anyway. Now you can disagree with whatever, and believe it's wrong, but changing people hearts and minds isn't an easy thing, and darn near impossible. It's not easy being human JL, whatever your positions are and for sure those that go in different directions and add to that the ordinary stressors of life's daily events it can be quite difficult.

If Tal is correct, there is no higher standard. There is just individual moral beliefs, but no higher standard to which a person can appeal. So if I believe that being a racist is morally acceptable, then for me it is. The result, ultimately, is that there is really no such thing as morality. It's all just opinion. It's pretty much the exact opposite of Christian beliefs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

If Tal is correct, there is no higher standard. There is just individual moral beliefs, but no higher standard to which a person can appeal. So if I believe that being a racist is morally acceptable, then for me it is. The result, ultimately, is that there is really no such thing as morality. It's all just opinion. It's pretty much the exact opposite of Christian beliefs.

---

Not at all JL, as maybe the law reflects the lowest standard, there is nothing stopping anyone from having a higher standard for themselves is there?

Quote:

---

there is nothing stopping anyone from having a higher standard for themselves is there?

---

There is no such thing as an individual higher standard. If we don't have a higher standard for morality which stands above the individual, then how can we say that the Nazis were "wrong" for killing the Jews? If it was morally right to them, and it was consistent with their laws, then on what basis would you say they were "wrong"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

There is no such thing as an individual higher standard. If we don't have a higher standard for morality which stands above the individual, then how can we say that the Nazis were "wrong" for killing the Jews? If it was morally right to them, and it was consistent with their laws, then on what basis would you say they were "wrong"?

---

So what's that higher standard?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

There is no such thing as an individual higher standard. If we don't have a higher standard for morality which stands above the individual, then how can we say that the Nazis were "wrong" for killing the Jews? If it was morally right to them, and it was consistent with their laws, then on what basis would you say they were "wrong"?

---

As an individual, I have my own standards for morality, that's between me and my God so what exactly are you aiming for? That's how I can say what's right and wrong.

Quote:

---

So what's that higher standard?

---

The writer of the Declaration of Independence felt it was God. "..they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.." He appealed to a higher standard. It's interesting to me that you cannot get to human rights in the Declaration of Independence without first going through a Creator.

Tal, my question was, "If we don't have a higher standard for morality which stands above the individual, then how can we say that the Nazis were "wrong" for killing the Jews? If it was morally right to them, and it was consistent with their laws, then on what basis would you say they were wrong?"

Your answer was, "As an individual, I have my own standards for morality, that's between me and my God so what exactly are you aiming for? That's how I can say what's right and wrong." Without wanting to hurt your feelings, please allow me to point out that you completely dodged the question. You gave an answer that basically says, "It's wrong because Tal says so." I know you are plenty smart enough to know just how lame that is.

Now you might be appealing to a "god" of some sort, but if you are, then doesn't that contradict what you said earlier? "Morality is an individual thing, guided by people on a personal level." So is morality guided by people, or is it guided by a higher standard you are calling "my God"? And if your god really is "God", and not simply a figment of your imagination, then shouldn't everyone listen to what He says? In what way should people have a right to outvote God?

Quote:

---

So what's that higher standard?


The writer of the Declaration of Independence felt it was God. "..they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.."

---

right on right on right on !!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

The writer of the Declaration of Independence felt it was God. "..they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.." He appealed to a higher standard. It's interesting to me that you cannot get to human rights in the Declaration of Independence without first going through a Creator.

---

That says nothing about a higher standard of morality.

It says nothing about a higher standard of morality? Well, it certainly speaks of a higher standard which is Jefferson's point. Those certain rights are inalienable because they did not come from man but from God, and what higher standard do you want?

And you want to suggest that human rights bear no relationship to moral values? You really believe that the rights of humans have nothing to do with morality? It IS morality. Your liberal political persuasions have driven you away from the most obvious thing in world.