Legislating Morality

What gives someone the right? I have a hard time understanding things like this, usually conservative morals. Morals are a great thing, they set us apart from other animals, but when did people ever think it was a good idea to take what they think is right, and force it on others?

I'd love to see some points from both sides bashing the others ideology, but only if they have valid points. I only wanna see truth to why someone's morals are "better" than others, or the specific reasons why someone should be allowed to use their morals to guide others.

Questions, comments, concerns?

In the past I would have tried to write something in-depth and try to argue my side of the story....

That gets OLD after awhile :(

People either "get it," or they don't.

You can not police a persons values, morals, or beliefs... anymore than you can stop someone, that is alone in a room, from punching themselves in the face repeatedly.

Yes, it may not be the most appropriate thing to do in the eyes of the public... and if done constantly for an extended period of time, it may result in health problems or death.
So can:
Sleeping
Fucking
Jumping
Hiccups
Going online
Eating cold leftovers
Drinking tap water
Sticking your head in the oven
Using chemicals for cleaning
Cutting up an apple
Squirting grapefruit juice in your eye

FUCK??? See what I mean? EVERYTHING, when done in excess and without ADULT supervision, can result in health problems or death. We need to at least PRETEND that adults can make decisions on their own.

Shit... that wasn't as short as I wanted it to be :stoned:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheMetal1

So can:

Squirting grapefruit juice in your eye

---

I died a little inside when I read that. I wonder if people really do that....

Haha... the intent was for absurdity :jointsmile: People do all sorts of strange shit. The difference is... if it effects you negatively, you should have the critical thinking skills to understand that you should stop it.

I guess I may be relating your thread topic too closely to the Cannabis vs. Morality argument. That is what I was referring to.

In terms of policing other morals? CAN'T HAPPEN :thumbsup:

There is not ONE single person on this Earth that has any definitive answer as to what we are here for... or how we got here... or where we go after here... and then... and then...
For all we know, the purpose of life is to get rich... or connect to nature... or get fat... or a million other things that nobody has disproven yet.

We are restricted by our individuality. We can ONLY base our "morality" from how we perceive Right and Wrong. Those judgements are influenced by the individuals environment and their personal relationships. We all live in different places, know different people, and think different things. You can not debate with someone about "how they feel." It IS how they feel, whether YOU like it or not.

Although it IS... morality SHOULD never be policed. Morals should not be pushed or forced on anyone else. Morals should simply be practiced and displayed to the public. IF those actions that are displayed are TRULY the best way to behave in society... naturally, the rest of intelligent society will notice and follow suit. It is when morals are voiced and advertised... but NOT displayed and practiced... that people become wary of adopting the views of a particular group.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheMetal1

Haha... the intent was for absurdity :jointsmile: People do all sorts of strange shit. The difference is... if it effects you negatively, you should have the critical thinking skills to understand that you should stop it.

I guess I may be relating your thread topic too closely to the Cannabis vs. Morality argument. That is what I was referring to.

In terms of policing other morals? CAN'T HAPPEN :thumbsup:

There is not ONE single person on this Earth that has any definitive answer as to what we are here for... or how we got here... or where we go after here... and then... and then...
For all we know, the purpose of life is to get rich... or connect to nature... or get fat... or a million other things that nobody has disproven yet.

We are restricted by our individuality. We can ONLY base our "morality" from how we perceive Right and Wrong. Those judgements are influenced by the individuals environment and their personal relationships. We all live in different places, know different people, and think different things. You can not debate with someone about "how they feel." It IS how they feel, whether YOU like it or not.

Although it IS... morality SHOULD never be policed. Morals should not be pushed or forced on anyone else. Morals should simply be practiced and displayed to the public. IF those actions that are displayed are TRULY the best way to behave in society... naturally, the rest of intelligent society will notice and follow suit. It is when morals are voiced and advertised... but NOT displayed and practiced... that people become wary of adopting the views of a particular group.

---

See, this is all obvious to me. Like, I don't see how people CAN justify policing others' morals. Its a shame more people don't/can't/won't see it that way. This is why I feel like a lot of people just aren't intelligent, because those same people can't fathom that something another person does isn't such a bad thing, or that it isn't their place to judge (as I'm doing now, lol).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaBudhaStank

I don't see how people CAN justify policing others' morals.

---

My only response to that..... People are stupid :stoned:
Haha I wish it were that simple. The scary part... most people ARE smart enough to know better. They just truly feel that they know what's right... and you don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheMetal1

They just truly feel that they know what's right... and you don't.

---

thereby indicating that they do NOT, in fact, know better!


Those who know better, know they do not know better than themselves.




meaning you can know what is better for yourself, and only for yourself. the buck stops with YOU. someone running with siscors? warn them, but you have no right to stop them. let's let natural selection weed out the stupid ones again, like mother nature intended!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stoner Shadow Wolf

thereby indicating that they do NOT, in fact, know better!........Those who know better, know they do not know better than themselves.

---

Exactly. It is a slippery slope one walks when trying to explain the rediculous and idiotic behavior of self-proclaimed intelligent adults.

In my opinion, if we can just admit that we are not in the position to determine right/wrong/good/bad (in a moral sense) for anyone other than ourselves... then we will be that much closer to being able to co-habitate on this planet.

The need to legislate morality is proof that humans are not always going to apply logical tests to their actions, or care about the outcome.

This came up in a discussion between myself and an ex BF during the course of an absurd breakup that, among other things, involved him having a crisis of faith and deciding that since it was apparent that we were not going to get married, and he is a religious sort, we should stop having sex. 'The WHAAA?' I asked... and thinking about it, I came to the conclusion that we are running incompatible operating systems.
His test defies logic in my opinion, since the original rule that he was trying not too hard not to break was 'no sex before marriage', with a really odd sort of interpretation, and his statement of "I wasn't trying to hurt you" didn't help.

My test is less complex and has 2 parts, in this order:
-Does it have the potential to hurt or inconvenience another human?
-Does it have the potential to hurt me?
And saying 'I wasn't TRYING to hurt you' isn't the same as saying, "I was trying NOT to hurt you", as the latter infers more participation in avoiding a problem.

I can't really get into it all now (got a meeting in half an hour) but I've come to the conclusion that he is a person who NEEDS his morals legislated, and apparently QUITE SPECIFICALLY at that, lol... since logic has definitely not played a part, and the misapplication of his moral system has created more problems than it solved. Grrr.

Apparently this is a hot topic recently:jointsmile: This is on MSN dot calm today. :rasta:

Is Morality Natural? | Newsweek Health for Life | Newsweek.com

no need to pick morality apart. just BE. stop wasting time and thought power on the needless inconsistancies of life, such as weather this is right or wrong, or weather it is moral or amoral, or weather any (right, wrong, morality, justice) are even real.



Just be as you need to be. Just do as you need to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheMetal1

Apparently this is a hot topic recently:jointsmile: This is on MSN dot calm today. :rasta:

Is Morality Natural? | Newsweek Health for Life | Newsweek.com

---

Thats kind of funny. I was thinking about what humans would be like without morals. More animalistic and less...whatever we are. I think it may be the upcoming election that sparked this interest in me for the moment. Many people still have strong animal instinct...such as trying to be the dominant animal maybe? To have control...power.

the first thing you'd better realize is that none of these folks see it as legislating morality. they see it as policing the way you interact with others in society and they've been doing it since the beginning of civilization. the simple fact is that everything you do involves moral guidelines, so how could the law avoid sticking its greasy fingers into the pie as well. from deciding whether or not to kill that bastard who stopped in front of you at a yellow light to choosing between the hamburger and the vegetable plate for lunch, your morality is entwined in your every move.

i'm sure we all agree that there must be some sort of code of conduct when dealing with others. the sticking point is where to draw the line between personal and interpersonal actions. where one might see gay marriage as no one's business but the two people involved, another might see it as degrading a beloved institution for the entire society. where i find no harm in rolling up a nice fat joint and settling in for the evening, some see such actions as encouraging the abuse of a hazardous substance and setting a dangerous example for the nation's youth. in both cases there is some merit to both positions (i must admit i see logic on only one side of both examples, but that is my own bias) and legislation is the only way to decide the argument civilly.

the reasoning behind it all is less one of morality than it is of power. mankind is a creature of hunting packs and grazing herds (depending on individual temperament). within those societies there will be leaders and followers and the power lies with those who can bend the others to their will. determining why decisions will be made (morality) provides more power than merely making the decisions alone. once the bureaucratic nightmare of intrusive government was developed, laws took the place of brute force, but the concept is still the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaBudhaStank

usually conservative morals

---

maybe it's your outlook or the way you were raised that blinds you to the massive intrusions of liberal morality. what could have more to do with morality than forcing the accepted guidelines of religion from the public square? as an atheist i can understand the push to keep religion from being forced down our throats at every turn, but to banish it completely seems a bit much. next we should look at the fervor with which they attempt to keep everyone from being offended. where morality and common decency should be enough to chasten the intolerant in society, they demand laws with special penalties should certain terms be used and even attempt to determine the mindset of the accused so that special punishments can be enforced. finally; we should think long and hard about the wealth redistribution so beloved of the socialistic liberals and see it for what it really is, enforced charity. charity, the act of giving without the slightest thought to recompense. surely the domain of morality and here they are trying to legislate us into a charitable mood.

the desire to grasp the power of determining why decisions are made is the sin of all our leaders.

There are laws that exist nowadays that prohibit activities that cause damage to other people. Any law that is not in that vein, like drug laws or nudity laws or divorce laws or tax laws or zoning laws, exist purely as a result of the economic model upon which the [United States] economy rides.

So basically all the laws that impinge upon the private moral authority of each individual are reasoned on the skewed math that retards the flow of money in the US. Do you expect that to have a smooth end?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TurnyBright

There are laws that exist nowadays that prohibit activities that cause damage to other people. Any law that is not in that vein, like drug laws or nudity laws or divorce laws or tax laws or zoning laws, exist purely as a result of the economic model upon which the [United States] economy rides.

So basically all the laws that impinge upon the private moral authority of each individual are reasoned on the skewed math that retards the flow of money in the US. Do you expect that to have a smooth end?

---

No, actually, i expect either A: it comes smashing down on us all swiftly, or B: we destroy the fuck out of it before it kills us.


What we're going with, however, is C: sit around like retards, picking our noses, asses, and other various bodily cavities expecting someone else to work things out for us.



There is no god willing to intervene with our free will fuckers! stand up and rock out for crying out loud!


Three shits to the wind everyone.



aieee, how cant you see that we are responsible for our own world of creation?! we ARE our creators!

FFS!!!




P.S. this isnt directed at anyone in particular, im jsut ranting the fuck out cuz no one listens :rastasmoke: yeah im cool like that.:cool:

:sorry1:
:bump2:
:stupid: