Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: craig crawford who wrote (238862)	3/17/2002 12:46:43 AM
From: Kevin Rose	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

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.

To: craig crawford who wrote (238862)	3/17/2002 1:40:47 AM
From: d.taggart	Respond to of 769670

We should do what they did to Him who taught such doctrine,we should crucify them,nuff said on that subject.

To: craig crawford who wrote (238862)	3/17/2002 11:56:33 AM
From: Carl Shaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Craig, I must disagree. Society can only successfully attempt to legislate morality when there is a VERY strong consensus that the law will be followed. In the example you give of murder, we as a society have agreed that it is wrong, and will agree that laws against it are just. The punishment for the offence is another debate. In the question of something like marijuana, we have laws against it, but in this case , society is split on the justness of these laws, so this attempt to legislate morality has failed, and will continue to do so, unless a huge majority of the people change their minds. I feel the distinction to be made is the degree that the morality being spoken of affects other, as opposed to ones self , or a group who shares some common purpose. In the case of a murder, obviously, the victim did not consent. In the case of marijuana, the user is the primary "victim" of the deed, and that is the one to decide the morality of his choice. I realize that this is a very complex subject, and we will probably never all agree about it, but I don't believe you can legislate morality. We should spend our time and money on solving bigger problems , and I think doing so would have the effect of making us all more "moral".