4 ms·

> And you're not qualified to be the arbiter of the subjective devices we call societal justice and morality all by yourself. Does this mean that you have no

> And you're not qualified to be the arbiter of the subjective devices we call societal justice and morality all by yourself. Does this mean that you have no internal conscience? You just go along with what the majority of society considers to be moral? You've indicated you believe that same-sex marriage is moral, but before that became a majority opinion, did you believe the opposite? >> I don't believe that morality is defined by the majority. > Then you agree with all the most reviled villains in history who also knew better what is moral for everyone else. You mean like Jesus of Nazareth or Buddha? The belief that morality isn't defined by the majority is an extremely common viewpoint. Probably the most common viewpoint, since its one shared by every major religion. > Let's play this out. You break the law. People, known as law enforcement, who chose of their own free will a violent career path will arrive with loaded firearms. These individuals are intentionally chosen for their lack of mental ability and for their willingness to follow orders and endure violent and dangerous situations, aggressively. So America's police force is so corrupt and violent that they'd think nothing of gunning down unarmed protestors in cold blood. Why do you think that following the law would stop this? I'm honestly trying to understand your thought process here. On the one hand you imply that most police officers are a hair trigger away from firing on a crowd; on the other, you seem to be insinuating that a individual's adherence to the law is an absolute defense.

trimethylpurine 1y ago
>You just go along with what the majority of society considers to be moral? As pertains to the law. Yes! >did you believe the opposite? Did I behave the opposite would be the question. You're talking about duty which implies action. No. I did not break any laws. >You mean like Jesus of Nazareth or Buddha? There is no evidence of any Jesus, but that's another discussion. The Buddha is a fantastic example of a man who advised the acceptance of all beliefs in society, showing humility and exemplifying how his beliefs were not the end all doctrine for morality. An opposition to invasion isn't relevant here because invasion isn't an attempt at a societal agreement on morality. >The belief that morality isn't defined by the majority is an extremely common viewpoint. No it isn't. All religions attempt to align society on a singular "higher" shared morality provided by the church, which throughout history represented their state and their justice system too. >police force is so corrupt and violent that they'd think nothing of gunning down unarmed protestors in cold blood. I didn't say corrupt. But violent, yes. Unarmed protesters aren't breaking any laws. But if they fail to move when instructed, breaking the law, then that definition no longer applies and they are indeed physically relocated by increasingly violent means. >Why do you think that following the law would stop this? The law is the closest thing to a moral agreement of the majority. You're acting against that agreement when you break the law. Any amount of force used by police to protect that moral agreement becomes easy to justify in court. How many cops are sitting in jail? It's not a big number. That should tell you all you need to know. You're giving the opponent a justification for violence if they want it. And as I said before, they are selected from a pool of people who want it. That's a job requirement. No individual agrees with all laws. But society must agree with that near moral agreement known as the law. It's the best we have. When people don't have that near moral agreement, the fabric of society is degraded into anarchy, which empowers the most violent. And that's so much worse, isn't it?
- weavejester 1y ago
  >> You just go along with what the majority of society considers to be moral? > As pertains to the law. Yes! I'm interested in where you draw the line. For instance, suppose a doctor is treating an underage rape victim whose pregnancy would put their life in danger, but the doctor practices in a state that outlaws abortion. The doctor decides to prescribe abortion pills anyway, breaking the law but following their oath to do no harm. Do you believe the doctor acted morally or immorally in this case? To be clear, this isn't me attempting to catch you out - I'm just trying to understand what you personally believe. Are there any instances where you would agree that breaking the law is the right thing to do? I'm also curious how you view changes to beliefs over time. Was it moral in 1950 to discriminate based on race and sex, because that was the majority opinion at the time? Or is it only today's majority opinion that matters? And if so, what happens in the future when the opinions of the majority shift further? > No it isn't. All religions attempt to align society on a singular "higher" shared morality provided by the church, which throughout history represented their state and their justice system too. Christians, Jews and Muslims would say that God is the highest moral authority. That's core to their faith. How much society influences their interpretation of God's word is up for debate, but their belief is that morality does not stem from majority opinion; it stems from the word of God. > I didn't say corrupt. But violent, yes. Unarmed protesters aren't breaking any laws. Unarmed protesters certainly can break laws! You don't need a weapon to block off a highway, break into a building, or deface a wall with graffiti. But if the police aren't corrupt, then why do you suggest that they're likely to shoot? Because they're stupid or under-trained? > The law is the closest thing to a moral agreement of the majority. You're acting against that agreement when you break the law. Any amount of force used by police to protect that moral agreement becomes easy to justify in court. How many cops are sitting in jail? It's not a big number. That should tell you all you need to know. Sure; it tells me that the law is unjust when it comes to punishing police officers who commit crimes. > No individual agrees with all laws. But society must agree with that near moral agreement known as the law. It's the best we have. I don't disagree that society needs laws to function, but there are also many laws that are unjust, and they won't change without societal pressure. Obviously the safest way to change laws is through legal protest and democratic reform, but that isn't always the most effective way. Breaking the law is a good way to make headlines and spread awareness. Another issue with democratic reform is that democracies are not all equally representative. A system like the USA is less representative than, say, Switzerland. In other words, its more difficult in the US to change laws than in some other democracies, even if the majority agree the law should be changed.

trimethylpurine 1y ago

>You just go along with what the majority of society considers to be moral? As pertains to the law. Yes! >did you believe the opposite? Did I behave the opposite would be the question. You're talking about duty which implies action. No. I did not break any laws. >You mean like Jesus of Nazareth or Buddha? There is no evidence of any Jesus, but that's another discussion. The Buddha is a fantastic example of a man who advised the acceptance of all beliefs in society, showing humility and exemplifying how his beliefs were not the end all doctrine for morality. An opposition to invasion isn't relevant here because invasion isn't an attempt at a societal agreement on morality. >The belief that morality isn't defined by the majority is an extremely common viewpoint. No it isn't. All religions attempt to align society on a singular "higher" shared morality provided by the church, which throughout history represented their state and their justice system too. >police force is so corrupt and violent that they'd think nothing of gunning down unarmed protestors in cold blood. I didn't say corrupt. But violent, yes. Unarmed protesters aren't breaking any laws. But if they fail to move when instructed, breaking the law, then that definition no longer applies and they are indeed physically relocated by increasingly violent means. >Why do you think that following the law would stop this? The law is the closest thing to a moral agreement of the majority. You're acting against that agreement when you break the law. Any amount of force used by police to protect that moral agreement becomes easy to justify in court. How many cops are sitting in jail? It's not a big number. That should tell you all you need to know. You're giving the opponent a justification for violence if they want it. And as I said before, they are selected from a pool of people who want it. That's a job requirement. No individual agrees with all laws. But society must agree with that near moral agreement known as the law. It's the best we have. When people don't have that near moral agreement, the fabric of society is degraded into anarchy, which empowers the most violent. And that's so much worse, isn't it?

weavejester 1y ago
>> You just go along with what the majority of society considers to be moral? > As pertains to the law. Yes! I'm interested in where you draw the line. For instance, suppose a doctor is treating an underage rape victim whose pregnancy would put their life in danger, but the doctor practices in a state that outlaws abortion. The doctor decides to prescribe abortion pills anyway, breaking the law but following their oath to do no harm. Do you believe the doctor acted morally or immorally in this case? To be clear, this isn't me attempting to catch you out - I'm just trying to understand what you personally believe. Are there any instances where you would agree that breaking the law is the right thing to do? I'm also curious how you view changes to beliefs over time. Was it moral in 1950 to discriminate based on race and sex, because that was the majority opinion at the time? Or is it only today's majority opinion that matters? And if so, what happens in the future when the opinions of the majority shift further? > No it isn't. All religions attempt to align society on a singular "higher" shared morality provided by the church, which throughout history represented their state and their justice system too. Christians, Jews and Muslims would say that God is the highest moral authority. That's core to their faith. How much society influences their interpretation of God's word is up for debate, but their belief is that morality does not stem from majority opinion; it stems from the word of God. > I didn't say corrupt. But violent, yes. Unarmed protesters aren't breaking any laws. Unarmed protesters certainly can break laws! You don't need a weapon to block off a highway, break into a building, or deface a wall with graffiti. But if the police aren't corrupt, then why do you suggest that they're likely to shoot? Because they're stupid or under-trained? > The law is the closest thing to a moral agreement of the majority. You're acting against that agreement when you break the law. Any amount of force used by police to protect that moral agreement becomes easy to justify in court. How many cops are sitting in jail? It's not a big number. That should tell you all you need to know. Sure; it tells me that the law is unjust when it comes to punishing police officers who commit crimes. > No individual agrees with all laws. But society must agree with that near moral agreement known as the law. It's the best we have. I don't disagree that society needs laws to function, but there are also many laws that are unjust, and they won't change without societal pressure. Obviously the safest way to change laws is through legal protest and democratic reform, but that isn't always the most effective way. Breaking the law is a good way to make headlines and spread awareness. Another issue with democratic reform is that democracies are not all equally representative. A system like the USA is less representative than, say, Switzerland. In other words, its more difficult in the US to change laws than in some other democracies, even if the majority agree the law should be changed.