Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A humanist who obeys that moral law is no better than a religious fundamentalist. Both people have some belief system that causes them to behave the same way. The only thing different about them is the belief system, because their behavior is exactly the same.
This is similar to 'The Purge' movies...interestingly, in these movies, where all crime is legal for 12 hours, majority of the people focus on murder! I think if this happened in real life, many more people would be focusing on THEFT, money, electronics, drugs, cars, etc etc.
Yes but that movie focuses on no legal consequences. The murders will have far reaching consequences past the 12 hours.
The question hasn't been answered. What actions are we allowed to do that have no consequences? I think the OP might be referring to problems arising from actions, but we cannot eliminate causes and their effects.
Yes but that movie focuses on no legal consequences. The murders will have far reaching consequences past the 12 hours.
The question hasn't been answered. What actions are we allowed to do that have no consequences? I think the OP might be referring to problems arising from actions, but we cannot eliminate causes and their effects.
what is the point of established laws if loop holes become contrary to the established law.it is like a person who wears an upstanding facade that breaks the same laws as the people they judicially condemn. it ultimately becomes futile, hypocritical and unethical. it is easy to wear an upstanding facade of justice while condemning those who do the same as you.
established law with contrary loopholes is not law. it is easy to win without ethics.
it is like condemning those whom you purposely helped the underdevelopment of. it is easy to make fun of stupid underdeveloped people that you helped create
what is the point of established laws if loop holes become contrary to the established law.it is like a person who wears an upstanding facade that breaks the same laws as the people they judicially condemn. it ultimately becomes futile, hypocritical and unethical. it is easy to wear an upstanding facade of justice while condemning those who do the same as you.
established law with contrary loopholes is not law. it is easy to win without ethics.
I don't think it is possible for some powerful force to eliminate consequences. That is what I am trying to say. So basically, it is powerless in that regard.
A humanist who obeys that moral law is no better than a religious fundamentalist. Both people have some belief system that causes them to behave the same way. The only thing different about them is the belief system, because their behavior is exactly the same.
This is true, and it is the problem or objection that we often hear about referencing scientific data as an authority - hardly anybody checks up, they just go with what they have heard.
This is probably inevitable, as few people have the time an inclination to do the research. What is more importantis to ensure that the authority that we reference has the best credibility.
Science or faith in religious claims? Science has the best track record by far. I have seen enough to know this, so even if the average bod in the street hasn't, I know that if he goes with science rather than religious claims, he's on more solid ground.
Similarly with Humanism. I imagine quite a lot of the Thinking humanists have thought about it, but even for those and the average bod, who goes with human moral codes without thinking much about it, since the Biblical moral codes aren't used even by Bible -believers, though they think they do, I'd say that humanism is also on more solid ground. Human moral codes are what cultures of so many religions seem to use in the end. So often we see society moving forward on human rights, and not because religion was calling for it. Race and gender issues. Transplants, contraception. Religion hasn't a very good track record on moral codes, either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spiros7
what is the point of established laws if loop holes become contrary to the established law.it is like a person who wears an upstanding facade that breaks the same laws as the people they judicially condemn. it ultimately becomes futile, hypocritical and unethical. it is easy to wear an upstanding facade of justice while condemning those who do the same as you.
established law with contrary loopholes is not law. it is easy to win without ethics.
it is like condemning those whom you purposely helped the underdevelopment of. it is easy to make fun of stupid underdeveloped people that you helped create
It really is throwing out the baby with the bathwater to suggest that, because some cunning people can get around the Law, it is somehow invalid. In fact challenges on the law can result in improved Law. It is a legal system that refuses to adapt (like for instance Bible codes) that becomes invalid.
I don't think it is possible for some powerful force to eliminate consequences. That is what I am trying to say. So basically, it is powerless in that regard.
i didnt say that. a powerful force may enable; the enabled may ignore their moral compass which results in personal cosequeces .
, persoonallly speaking, i cannot take advantage of someone else, regardless of the incentive or reward for self gain.. i believe in being kind to all
I see. Well, if there is some powerful force, it has already enabled. So it is not a matter of "if."
i am not referring to god. the powerful force could be anything---such as system or---that enables one to do whatever they want. me, personally, i was naturally sympathetic and empathetic before my belief in god
therefore, i personally cannot take advantage or harm another person , regardless of incentive or reward
i advocate individual liberty--not a theocracy
in short, i impractically believe in peace and human dignity
IOW, you're just telling us what a wonderful morally upstanding person you are that doesn't believe permission alone would ever influence you to act contrary to your belief in yourself.
That's nice, although I think most of us act accordingly to our own moral compass whether or not somebody or something else tries to tell us to good ahead and violate it
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
