Where do moral laws come from?

[tycho1572]

My moral values came from my parents. I was taught, and frequently reminded, to always treat others as I would want to be treated.

Do you believe that virtue is an organizing principle?

I believe virtue is an individual decision.

That wasn't what I was asking. Let me try a different approach. Do you believe that two honest people will have a better relationship than two dishonest people?

I believe honesty is always the best policy in any relationship.

That didn't answer the question.

Then it's looking like you have a problem.

 

[Iceweasel]

Some did and do consider it moral so no, you don't see.

I see that what you are describing is moral relativism.

When isn't morality relative?

Never. Your way of thinking is more aligned with the founding fathers of communism while mine is more aligned with the founding fathers of freedom.

Ding. Your fries are done. You shifted the discussion because you can't support your statements. Yes, most founders were religious and I am not. But that doesn't move your stupid theory anywhere, it just proves how bankrupt it is.

To be fair I only needed one word to answer your question and I do believe it is relevant information. I can't think of any better authority on this subject than those who birthed freedom and liberty. They believed that morality and virtue were indispensable pillars of support for liberty and freedom and without them liberty and freedom will not endure. The founding fathers of communism also understood this but from the other side of the table. They knew that lack of virtue and morality was necessary for their programs. So yeah, it is kind of relevant to this discussion.

Our founding fathers did not need to be religious to understand that there are natural laws. It isn't a theory it is reality. Anyone with half a brain can see that failed behaviors naturally lead to failure and successful behaviors naturally lead to success. Maybe that's why they are called natural laws. Surely you can relate to cause and effect, right? Surely you believe that not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes, right?

Like I said, you're trying to change the discussion. As a non religious person I don't believe in religious morality. It doesn't mean I disagree either, murder, stealing, etc. Many had slaves and it was perfectly legal ...oops, there goes your natural law theory.

 

[Iceweasel]

That's called circular reasoning. You are deciding on what the standard is and determining proof is met when that standard is met.

Actually I am not. For any given thing you are free to submit a higher standard for consideration. And if it is indeed the highest possible standard you will have discovered the moral law.

That's circular because you are deciding what a higher standard is. If intercourse with a 12 year old when is it moral? 13? 16? 17? 21? And what is the higher standard?

No. Outcomes decide that. The proof is in the pudding so to speak.

Outcomes decide the higher morality of having sex with someone? You aren't making any sense. What kind of outcome? Some 16 year olds are more mature than some 18 year olds. Face it, you can't support yourself.

Do you believe that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes? If you don't, then what I wrote should not be that hard for you to comprehend, right?

I understood that you're full of shit and can't answer the challenge. Your smug attitude can't mask it.

 

[Iceweasel]

The 'law of causality', 'order', 'justice', 'karma' and many other terms have been used by humans throughout time to describe this aspiration to impose names/nouns upon existence. We live something, experience something and have internal responses, feelings. These themselves are shaped by previous experiences, including socialization. As we navigate life, situations arise that affect us in ways that often resonate with our memories and consciousness. It is natural to try to fit patterns and 'sense' into this mandala of perception. They might even be accurate, at least some of the time. We may never know. We should come to understand our processes, however, and always be prepared to admit that, as certain as we would like to be of 'principles', they are concepts, part of humans and human reasoning, thus, subjective.

Yes, and what I am discussing is the objective moral law which once discovered will be known to be true and unchanging despite the subjectivity of man.

There is no such thing as objective morality.

Sure there is. Remove all preferences for an outcome or consequences to yourself and you can be objective about anything.

You're babbling. That's like saying a machine can decide morality.

Do you know what the difference between subjective and objective is? If you look up their definitions, then what I wrote should make sense to you. If you can't figure it out, get back to me and I will explain it.

Look, you stupid arrogant piece of shit. You can't defend your statements. There's no objective morality, machines are objective, they cannot decide morality. Only man can and he does so given the society and culture he lives in. Pop your head out of your ass, get some air and get back to us.

 

[ding]

I see that what you are describing is moral relativism.

When isn't morality relative?

Never. Your way of thinking is more aligned with the founding fathers of communism while mine is more aligned with the founding fathers of freedom.

Ding. Your fries are done. You shifted the discussion because you can't support your statements. Yes, most founders were religious and I am not. But that doesn't move your stupid theory anywhere, it just proves how bankrupt it is.

To be fair I only needed one word to answer your question and I do believe it is relevant information. I can't think of any better authority on this subject than those who birthed freedom and liberty. They believed that morality and virtue were indispensable pillars of support for liberty and freedom and without them liberty and freedom will not endure. The founding fathers of communism also understood this but from the other side of the table. They knew that lack of virtue and morality was necessary for their programs. So yeah, it is kind of relevant to this discussion.

Our founding fathers did not need to be religious to understand that there are natural laws. It isn't a theory it is reality. Anyone with half a brain can see that failed behaviors naturally lead to failure and successful behaviors naturally lead to success. Maybe that's why they are called natural laws. Surely you can relate to cause and effect, right? Surely you believe that not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes, right?

Like I said, you're trying to change the discussion. As a non religious person I don't believe in religious morality. It doesn't mean I disagree either, murder, stealing, etc. Many had slaves and it was perfectly legal ...oops, there goes your natural law theory.

Not quite, but do you even realize that you just tried to trash our founding fathers just to save face? You are quite the conservative patriot, aren't you?

Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but did not know how to end it at the time of founding but did intend for slavery to perish.

The Constitution was ratified in 1789. ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 states, "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

In 1808, Congress abolishing the slave trade at the earliest date allowed per ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution. Thus proving that the intent of ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution was to end the slave trade.

Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia

"The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that stated that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution."

Daniel Webster testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish.

Daniel Webster

THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION 1

March 7, 1850

(In the Senate)

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Webster7th.pdf

Page 271

"And now, let us consider, sir, for a moment, what was the state of sentiment, North and South, in regard to slavery at the time this Constitution was adopted. A remarkable change has taken place since, but what did the wise and great men of all parts of the country then think of slavery? In what estimation did they hold it in 1787, when this Constitution was adopted? Now it will be found, sir, if we will carry ourselves by historical research back to that day, and ascertain men's opinions by authentic records still existing among us, that there was no great diversity of opinion between the North and the South upon the subject of slavery; and it will be found that both parts of the country held it equally an evil, a moral and political evil. It will not be found, that either at the North or at the South, there was though there was some, invective against slavery as inhuman and cruel. The great ground of objection to it was political; that it weakened the social fabric; that, taking the place of free labor, society was less strong, and labor was less productive; and, therefore, we find, from all the eminent men of the time, the clearest expression of their opinion that slavery was an evil. They ascribed its existence here, not without truth, and not without some acerbity of temper and force of language, to the injurious policy of the mother country, who, to favor the navigator, had entailed these evils upon the colonies. I need hardly refer, sir, to the publications of the day. They are matters of history on the record. The eminent men, the most eminent men, and nearly all the conspicuous politicians of the South, held the same sentiments, that slavery was an "evil," a "blight," a "blast," a "mildew," a "scourge," and a "curse." There are no terms of reprobation of slavery so vehement in the North at that day as in the South. The North was not so much excited against it as the South, and the reason is, I suppose, that there was much less at the North; and the people did not see, or think they saw, the evils so prominently as they were seen, or thought to be seen, at the South. Then, sir, when this Constitution was framed, this was the light in which the convention viewed it..."


Page 273

"...there was an expectation that on the ceasing of the importation of slaves from Africa, slavery would begin to run out. That was hoped and expected."


Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederate States, testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature, that it was evil, that it was not possible for them to end it at the time of the founding, but did intend for it to perish.


“Corner Stone” Speech

Alexander H. Stephens

Savannah, Georgia

March 21, 1861


“Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History


"The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature – that it was wrong in principle – socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent [temporary] and pass away. "


So while Stephens acknowledged that the Founding Fathers knew it was against God's will, had no idea how to end it quickly, and designed for slavery to pass away, Stephens then turned around and said that the Founding Fathers had it all wrong.

"Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. . . . and the idea of a government built upon it. . . . Our new government [the Confederate States of America] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid – its cornerstone rests – upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. That slavery – subordination to the superior [white] race – is his natural and moral condition. This – our new [Confederate] government – is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."


So there can be no better witness than Alexander Stephens.

The final proof that Stephens and Webster were correct that the founders intended for slavery to perish can be found in the Founding Fathers' actions following the ratification of the Constitution in 1789.

In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States.

Northwest Ordinance - Wikipedia

And don't forget that they abolished the slave trade in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.

 

[ding]

Actually I am not. For any given thing you are free to submit a higher standard for consideration. And if it is indeed the highest possible standard you will have discovered the moral law.

That's circular because you are deciding what a higher standard is. If intercourse with a 12 year old when is it moral? 13? 16? 17? 21? And what is the higher standard?

No. Outcomes decide that. The proof is in the pudding so to speak.

Outcomes decide the higher morality of having sex with someone? You aren't making any sense. What kind of outcome? Some 16 year olds are more mature than some 18 year olds. Face it, you can't support yourself.

Do you believe that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes? If you don't, then what I wrote should not be that hard for you to comprehend, right?

I understood that you're full of shit and can't answer the challenge. Your smug attitude can't mask it.

I am answering the question. Not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. Successful behaviors naturally lead to success and failed behaviors naturally lead to failure. Sexual promiscuity (failed behavior) compared to sexual fidelity (successful behavior) will lead to predictable consequences. So unless you believe that these different behaviors lead to equal outcomes, you have just become aware of what I am talking about.

 

[ding]

Yes, and what I am discussing is the objective moral law which once discovered will be known to be true and unchanging despite the subjectivity of man.

There is no such thing as objective morality.

Sure there is. Remove all preferences for an outcome or consequences to yourself and you can be objective about anything.

You're babbling. That's like saying a machine can decide morality.

Do you know what the difference between subjective and objective is? If you look up their definitions, then what I wrote should make sense to you. If you can't figure it out, get back to me and I will explain it.

Look, you stupid arrogant piece of shit. You can't defend your statements. There's no objective morality, machines are objective, they cannot decide morality. Only man can and he does so given the society and culture he lives in. Pop your head out of your ass, get some air and get back to us.

Someone is getting upset. Calm down, brother. The truth usually hurts before it helps. I have been defending and proving my statements. You are getting upset because you are losing this debate. Do you know what the difference is between subjective and objective? It is bias. If you remove bias you won't be subjective you will be objective. To remove bias you must remove a preference for an outcome and all concerns for the consequences to yourself. It is the only way to be objective. Liberals tend to be subjective and get upset when conservatives are objective.

 

[Iceweasel]

When isn't morality relative?

Never. Your way of thinking is more aligned with the founding fathers of communism while mine is more aligned with the founding fathers of freedom.

Ding. Your fries are done. You shifted the discussion because you can't support your statements. Yes, most founders were religious and I am not. But that doesn't move your stupid theory anywhere, it just proves how bankrupt it is.

To be fair I only needed one word to answer your question and I do believe it is relevant information. I can't think of any better authority on this subject than those who birthed freedom and liberty. They believed that morality and virtue were indispensable pillars of support for liberty and freedom and without them liberty and freedom will not endure. The founding fathers of communism also understood this but from the other side of the table. They knew that lack of virtue and morality was necessary for their programs. So yeah, it is kind of relevant to this discussion.

Our founding fathers did not need to be religious to understand that there are natural laws. It isn't a theory it is reality. Anyone with half a brain can see that failed behaviors naturally lead to failure and successful behaviors naturally lead to success. Maybe that's why they are called natural laws. Surely you can relate to cause and effect, right? Surely you believe that not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes, right?

Like I said, you're trying to change the discussion. As a non religious person I don't believe in religious morality. It doesn't mean I disagree either, murder, stealing, etc. Many had slaves and it was perfectly legal ...oops, there goes your natural law theory.

Not quite, but do you even realize that you just tried to trash our founding fathers just to save face? You are quite the conservative patriot, aren't you?

Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but did not know how to end it at the time of founding but did intend for slavery to perish.

Your smokescreen is lame. Wikipedia, like you, is a joke. No, I didn't trash the founders, I stated facts. Facts that demonstrate you don't know what you're talking about. There was nothing in the constitution "to make slavery perish". They had slaves because they had plantations so they justified it. Not everyone had a problem with it, some opposed it from the beginning, others not. The founders debated a great many things, totally unnecessary if they were tapped into a ubiquitous natural law.

 

[Iceweasel]

That's circular because you are deciding what a higher standard is. If intercourse with a 12 year old when is it moral? 13? 16? 17? 21? And what is the higher standard?

No. Outcomes decide that. The proof is in the pudding so to speak.

Outcomes decide the higher morality of having sex with someone? You aren't making any sense. What kind of outcome? Some 16 year olds are more mature than some 18 year olds. Face it, you can't support yourself.

Do you believe that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes? If you don't, then what I wrote should not be that hard for you to comprehend, right?

I understood that you're full of shit and can't answer the challenge. Your smug attitude can't mask it.

I am answering the question. Not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. Successful behaviors naturally lead to success and failed behaviors naturally lead to failure. Sexual promiscuity (failed behavior) compared to sexual fidelity (successful behavior) will lead to predictable consequences. So unless you believe that these different behaviors lead to equal outcomes, you have just become aware of what I am talking about.

I asked you about morality and the age of consent. We do not, as a civilized society, allow people like you to decide if a 13 year old girl is of age.

 

[tycho1572]

That's circular because you are deciding what a higher standard is. If intercourse with a 12 year old when is it moral? 13? 16? 17? 21? And what is the higher standard?

No. Outcomes decide that. The proof is in the pudding so to speak.

Outcomes decide the higher morality of having sex with someone? You aren't making any sense. What kind of outcome? Some 16 year olds are more mature than some 18 year olds. Face it, you can't support yourself.

Do you believe that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes? If you don't, then what I wrote should not be that hard for you to comprehend, right?

I understood that you're full of shit and can't answer the challenge. Your smug attitude can't mask it.

I am answering the question. Not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. Successful behaviors naturally lead to success and failed behaviors naturally lead to failure. Sexual promiscuity (failed behavior) compared to sexual fidelity (successful behavior) will lead to predictable consequences. So unless you believe that these different behaviors lead to equal outcomes, you have just become aware of what I am talking about.

Are you trying to explain your failures?

 

[Iceweasel]

There is no such thing as objective morality.

Sure there is. Remove all preferences for an outcome or consequences to yourself and you can be objective about anything.

You're babbling. That's like saying a machine can decide morality.

Do you know what the difference between subjective and objective is? If you look up their definitions, then what I wrote should make sense to you. If you can't figure it out, get back to me and I will explain it.

Look, you stupid arrogant piece of shit. You can't defend your statements. There's no objective morality, machines are objective, they cannot decide morality. Only man can and he does so given the society and culture he lives in. Pop your head out of your ass, get some air and get back to us.

Someone is getting upset. Calm down, brother. The truth usually hurts before it helps. I have been defending and proving my statements. You are getting upset because you are losing this debate. Do you know what the difference is between subjective and objective? It is bias. If you remove bias you won't be subjective you will be objective. To remove bias you must remove a preference for an outcome and all concerns for the consequences to yourself. It is the only way to be objective. Liberals tend to be subjective and get upset when conservatives are objective.

Your smugness is increasing so adding to it won't work. You are becoming unglued for a reason. You can't defend your theory no matter how many insults you throw out. Machines are not biased and only do what they are told to do. machines cannot determine morality. Only man with his bias can. That proves you're wrong.

 

[ding]

Never. Your way of thinking is more aligned with the founding fathers of communism while mine is more aligned with the founding fathers of freedom.

Ding. Your fries are done. You shifted the discussion because you can't support your statements. Yes, most founders were religious and I am not. But that doesn't move your stupid theory anywhere, it just proves how bankrupt it is.

To be fair I only needed one word to answer your question and I do believe it is relevant information. I can't think of any better authority on this subject than those who birthed freedom and liberty. They believed that morality and virtue were indispensable pillars of support for liberty and freedom and without them liberty and freedom will not endure. The founding fathers of communism also understood this but from the other side of the table. They knew that lack of virtue and morality was necessary for their programs. So yeah, it is kind of relevant to this discussion.

Our founding fathers did not need to be religious to understand that there are natural laws. It isn't a theory it is reality. Anyone with half a brain can see that failed behaviors naturally lead to failure and successful behaviors naturally lead to success. Maybe that's why they are called natural laws. Surely you can relate to cause and effect, right? Surely you believe that not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes, right?

Like I said, you're trying to change the discussion. As a non religious person I don't believe in religious morality. It doesn't mean I disagree either, murder, stealing, etc. Many had slaves and it was perfectly legal ...oops, there goes your natural law theory.

Not quite, but do you even realize that you just tried to trash our founding fathers just to save face? You are quite the conservative patriot, aren't you?

Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but did not know how to end it at the time of founding but did intend for slavery to perish.

Your smokescreen is lame. Wikipedia, like you, is a joke. No, I didn't trash the founders, I stated facts. Facts that demonstrate you don't know what you're talking about. There was nothing in the constitution "to make slavery perish". They had slaves because they had plantations so they justified it. Not everyone had a problem with it, some opposed it from the beginning, others not. The founders debated a great many things, totally unnecessary if they were tapped into a ubiquitous natural law.

Your counter argument to American history is wikipedia? Seriously? Are you a liberal per chance?

You do realize that you can check the Constitution for ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1, right?

You do realize that you can verify The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 independent from Wikipedia, right? It isn't that hard to do. Would you like for me to provide you another source to ease your concerns?

You do realize that “Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History isn't Wikipedia, right? It is from teachingamericanhistory.org

You do realize that Daniel Webster's (you do know who he is right) speech was given on the senate floor and the link was from senate.gov, right?

You do realize that you can independently verify that the founding fathers halted the expansion of slavery immediately after the Constitution was ratified by passing the NW Ordinance, right?

My point here is that your dismissal of historical facts is unreasonable. Maybe you should actually read what I wrote and what the historical facts state.

 

[ding]

Sure there is. Remove all preferences for an outcome or consequences to yourself and you can be objective about anything.

You're babbling. That's like saying a machine can decide morality.

Do you know what the difference between subjective and objective is? If you look up their definitions, then what I wrote should make sense to you. If you can't figure it out, get back to me and I will explain it.

Look, you stupid arrogant piece of shit. You can't defend your statements. There's no objective morality, machines are objective, they cannot decide morality. Only man can and he does so given the society and culture he lives in. Pop your head out of your ass, get some air and get back to us.

Someone is getting upset. Calm down, brother. The truth usually hurts before it helps. I have been defending and proving my statements. You are getting upset because you are losing this debate. Do you know what the difference is between subjective and objective? It is bias. If you remove bias you won't be subjective you will be objective. To remove bias you must remove a preference for an outcome and all concerns for the consequences to yourself. It is the only way to be objective. Liberals tend to be subjective and get upset when conservatives are objective.

Your smugness is increasing so adding to it won't work. You are becoming unglued for a reason. You can't defend your theory no matter how many insults you throw out. Machines are not biased and only do what they are told to do. machines cannot determine morality. Only man with his bias can. That proves you're wrong.

How am I being smug exactly? How have I become unglued?

 

[ding]

No. Outcomes decide that. The proof is in the pudding so to speak.

Outcomes decide the higher morality of having sex with someone? You aren't making any sense. What kind of outcome? Some 16 year olds are more mature than some 18 year olds. Face it, you can't support yourself.

Do you believe that all behaviors lead to equal outcomes? If you don't, then what I wrote should not be that hard for you to comprehend, right?

I understood that you're full of shit and can't answer the challenge. Your smug attitude can't mask it.

I am answering the question. Not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes. Successful behaviors naturally lead to success and failed behaviors naturally lead to failure. Sexual promiscuity (failed behavior) compared to sexual fidelity (successful behavior) will lead to predictable consequences. So unless you believe that these different behaviors lead to equal outcomes, you have just become aware of what I am talking about.

Are you trying to explain your failures?

No, but when I do fail, it is due to my own fault and not the fault of others. You can't fix what you don't acknowledge is broke.

 

[tycho1572]

"You can't fix what you don't acknowledge is broke."

Isn't that what others have been trying to tell you?

 

[ding]

"You can't fix what you don't acknowledge is broke."

Isn't that what others have been trying to tell you?

All men of good will know this.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

How about following the natural law because it naturally leads to success in this lifetime?

there seems to be confusion with what are natural laws ... their existence is neither success nor failure they simply exist, all beings exist equally by natural laws the differences are within the living beings themselves in divergence from those laws that is the genome of life. the genome of life is distinct from the laws that shape the universe.

I don't disagree with what you (rightwinger) wrote except that animals do not possess our level of consciousness and therefore, do not possess the same ability we have of being moral. You are placing human traits on animals.

to bad the christian despises Flora, he is not alone - to bad because Flora undoubtedly has the purest conscious of all ...

in their shallow minds christians in reality are a religion of self indulgence, who other than themselves would want to be with them in their "heaven" ?

 

[sealybobo]

Before space and time were created the laws of nature were already in place. The potential for all realities existed before space and time existed because those laws of nature were in place before space and time. Everything which has unfolded since space and time were created occurred because of the laws of nature. Moral Laws existed before beings that know and create existed. Moral Laws were waiting in time for beings that now and create to catch up to them, thus realizing its potential and fulfilling their role in progressing our conscience and consciousness. So where did the moral laws come from? They came from God who is existence itself; who s reality itself.

Morality is an evolved social trait - just like language, religion, sex, etc...

Well said

When humans were primarily small family tribes of hunter gatherers they would routinely attempt kill anyone not known to them.

as we became more socialized that type of xenophobic violence actually would hurt the community rather than protect it so it slowly stopped and the attitude that killing for no reason was undesirable became prevalent

I notice this at the dog park. At the dog park its moral to hump anyone you want. Not the humans silly.

 

[Boss]

That doesn't hold. If we held the protection of rights as the basis for law, rather than enforcing morality, we'd still have most of the laws we have now.

The fact is there are plenty of actions that people consider immoral that don't violate other people's rights (and shouldn't be illegal) eg - cheating on your girlfriend. And there are plenty of things one might do that would violate the rights of others, but might not be considered immoral (but should still be against the law) - tax evasion.

Sorry but even the concept of our inalienable natural rights is based and rooted in a morality viewpoint. You can't really escape it. At the foundation, ALL laws are rooted in morality judgement.

So are all morals suitable justification for laws? If not, what criteria distinguishes those that are from those that aren't?

No, I think we'd have a great big mess if we tried establishing everyone's morals as laws because our morals often conflict. That's the whole point of contention I am having with the OP, who claims we have this "universal moral truth" we're all evolving toward.

I think the distinguishing criteria should be "will of the people" whenever that is possible. Since I am a Federalist, preferably at the State and local level. As long as there isn't an infringement on a natural right, communities should be constitutionally allowed to set their own moral boundaries in law.

 

[Iceweasel]

Ding. Your fries are done. You shifted the discussion because you can't support your statements. Yes, most founders were religious and I am not. But that doesn't move your stupid theory anywhere, it just proves how bankrupt it is.

To be fair I only needed one word to answer your question and I do believe it is relevant information. I can't think of any better authority on this subject than those who birthed freedom and liberty. They believed that morality and virtue were indispensable pillars of support for liberty and freedom and without them liberty and freedom will not endure. The founding fathers of communism also understood this but from the other side of the table. They knew that lack of virtue and morality was necessary for their programs. So yeah, it is kind of relevant to this discussion.

Our founding fathers did not need to be religious to understand that there are natural laws. It isn't a theory it is reality. Anyone with half a brain can see that failed behaviors naturally lead to failure and successful behaviors naturally lead to success. Maybe that's why they are called natural laws. Surely you can relate to cause and effect, right? Surely you believe that not all behaviors lead to equal outcomes, right?

Like I said, you're trying to change the discussion. As a non religious person I don't believe in religious morality. It doesn't mean I disagree either, murder, stealing, etc. Many had slaves and it was perfectly legal ...oops, there goes your natural law theory.

Not quite, but do you even realize that you just tried to trash our founding fathers just to save face? You are quite the conservative patriot, aren't you?

Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but did not know how to end it at the time of founding but did intend for slavery to perish.

Your smokescreen is lame. Wikipedia, like you, is a joke. No, I didn't trash the founders, I stated facts. Facts that demonstrate you don't know what you're talking about. There was nothing in the constitution "to make slavery perish". They had slaves because they had plantations so they justified it. Not everyone had a problem with it, some opposed it from the beginning, others not. The founders debated a great many things, totally unnecessary if they were tapped into a ubiquitous natural law.

Your counter argument to American history is wikipedia? Seriously? Are you a liberal per chance?

You do realize that you can check the Constitution for ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1, right?

You do realize that you can verify The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 independent from Wikipedia, right? It isn't that hard to do. Would you like for me to provide you another source to ease your concerns?

You do realize that “Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History isn't Wikipedia, right? It is from teachingamericanhistory.org

You do realize that Daniel Webster's (you do know who he is right) speech was given on the senate floor and the link was from senate.gov, right?

You do realize that you can independently verify that the founding fathers halted the expansion of slavery immediately after the Constitution was ratified by passing the NW Ordinance, right?

My point here is that your dismissal of historical facts is unreasonable. Maybe you should actually read what I wrote and what the historical facts state.

I made my point clear. Only fools use wikipedia as a source. Your argument was that morality existed before man and now you're into American history to somehow buttress the theory. I offered no argument against history, you're stupidly trying to make the case to salvage your steamy pile of shit.

Many debates occurred in drafting the Constitution, odd if they were guided by this natural law. They apparently heard different voices and what was moral then isn't moral now. None of that can help you.

It was a stupid theory and only looks worse the harder you try.