You're right, I should have been more specific.
A society must come to a consensus as to its set of governing laws. Ours are based on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which, among other things, states that all men are created equal, and that our citizens should be granted life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
How do you arrive at a consensus? What if one person decides that killing is part of their moral code, and that they should be allowed practice it?
Well, we fall back on our basis: the Constitution. Basically, it ensures certain inalienable rights and freedoms. I view it as such: as long as you do not interfere with anothers rights and freedoms, you should be allowed to practice your moral code. We shape our laws in order to draw that very line between freedom and ensuring the rights of all citizens.
This line of reasoning is how I arrive at my aforementioned argument. You believe that women are primarily child rearers, and homosexuals are deviants. I believe that it is none of your damned business if a woman refuses to have or raise children in favor of a career. It's none of your damned business if homosexuals want to marry and share their lives together while enjoying the legal privileges that go with the certificate. It's none of your damned business if I worship trees and bay at the moon. No harm, no foul, no mutual tromping of rights or freedoms.
So, right and wrong become more specialized, in that they pertain to what is right and wrong with regards to the interaction of individuals in society. I cannot yell Fire! in a crowded theater, even if my religion says I must, without violating the rights of others to a safe movie experience. I can, however, dress up in pink tights and a feather boa and prance the streets without fear of bodily harm from the good Christian Right.
Once you understand the difference, you'll understand the basic principle of Democracy. |
