Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by pavlosmarcos, Jun 8, 2010.
"Laws must be moral but are not."This sentence is meaningless?
If so, I expressed myself wrong.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Grammatically it makes sense, but practically it is impossible. It is like saying "the sky must be blue, but it isn't". As opposed to "the sky should be blue, but it isn't". Say on a cloudy day.
"Laws should be moral.", but clearly they are not always - in Nazi Germany, it was against the law to aid a Jewish person. This does not make the law "moral".
"Must" implies "necessarily" - obviously not all laws are "necessarily" moral, even though they perhaps "should" be. A weird nuance of the English language...
That means I was wrong and I had to use "should" instead of "must".Sorry.
No problem - you are welcome. Just trying to help...
OK, now you've seen your error, is it a moral requirement to wear a seat belt whilst driving?
You could argue that it was.
If you get unnecessarily injured you will take up a hospital bed and other resources that needn't have been allocated to you.
However, it is not immoral to go through a red traffic light if you are certain it will not cause an accident.
It's just illegal.
Ah, yeah, but your second premise kinda puts some restraints (pun intended) on your first. Is it only immoral to not wear a seat belt if you subsequently crash? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Hmm, does that mean it's immoral to get injured, or be ill? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I wonder where that would lead if we adopted it!
Are two opinions.
One considers that it is immoral because they believe it is their job if they are injuries or not, and they believe is a restriction of their individual freedoms.
Others say that emergency is free, and so they contribute through taxes, is normally try to minimize the cost of emergency.
From another point of view.If you live in a democracy and we believe that laws are made by majority decision, and decided the traffic law, you must respect them.
No, because you must take into account the possible outcomes of your actions, to a reasonable extent.
Eg If you run across the road into busy traffic, you may well cause an accident to other people.
People should not let their dogs run wild for the same reason.
Even with the red light example, to be morally perfect, you should still obey the law on the principle that you would be giving a poor example.
Personally, a red light is something I obey to a ridiculous extent.
Even when a traffic light is clearly malfunctioning, I find it difficult to go through it.
In the UK, we have no option to turn left at a junction where there is a traffic light, even if the opposing traffic cannot turn right into the same road.
So we will stop there for absolutely no reason except it's the law.
This is a good philosophical question, but morally I think we should stick with the thread subjectPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Are you talking about the USA? Doesn't sound like it.
We talked about USA?
Where is this Mosque being built?
It is a particular case.I discuss in principle, no matter where or who is going to do.Could be done elsewhere by other kinds of extremist groups.The same.
What extremist groups?
Oh, the regular Muslim American citizens who want the same treatment as other American citizens? They aren't extremists. People trying to deny them the same rights as others are.
I do not understand where you want to go?What is your goal?
I think I pretty clearly expressed my opinion.
Building a Muslim center in the disaster area 911 is immoral,it is not illegal.
You will not succeed to make me change my opinion.
Do not succeed either to "put your fist in my mouth",I can not express my opinion.
You accused me several times that I am a bigot.
I said, as if for you it means to be bigot, then yes, I am a bigot.
For me this means being bigot:
I think your attitude is clearly provocative.Not aim to improve the situation of "regular Muslim American citizens" and the rest of the citizens.I think building a Muslim center in the disaster area 911,will bring joy to Muslim extremists.
Like Rauf and his curious connections?
Rauf rauf, indeed.
Fuck your morality, if you think it's OK to oppress citizens and prevent them from going about their lawful business.
I'd merely suggest that placing a Mosque there will make the 9/11 Ground Zero much like one of those disputed territories over in the middle east. I hope they realise that they will constantly have need for the National Guard to patrol around the financial district, what a great way of putting everyone at ease their to get the financial turmoil behind you.
Separate names with a comma.