Where do moral laws come from?

[ding]

Natural and legal rights - Wikipedia

Wikipedia?

snicker

I usually snicker when information is wrong, was there anything inaccurate or did you just make a summary judgement without any facts?

 

[ding]

Alright. So, rather than my suggestion that only laws protecting rights should be allowed, you might say that only those that violate rights should be prohibited. But don't all laws infringe on rights? I guess it depends on how narrowly you interpret 'natural rights'.

The problem with "natural" rights is they can be whatever you want them to be. In nature it's survival of the fittest. Laws to protect the less fit. No right is absolute, like crying fire in a theater. Our rights stop where the others' begins.

Actually they can't. I have already explained this to you.

Your explanation is bullshit. I already explained that to you. More arrogance won't help.

You mean like how you believe that successful behaviors don't lead to success and failed behaviors don't to failure?

You're flat out insane, you see words that are not there.

I don't see you disagreeing with it, now do I?

 

[Iceweasel]

Natural and legal rights - Wikipedia

Wikipedia?

snicker

I usually snicker when information is wrong, was there anything inaccurate or did you just make a summary judgement without any facts?

The fact is that wikipedia is open sourced and only as good as the last guy that dicked around with it. Only fools use it for anything serious.

 

[Iceweasel]

The problem with "natural" rights is they can be whatever you want them to be. In nature it's survival of the fittest. Laws to protect the less fit. No right is absolute, like crying fire in a theater. Our rights stop where the others' begins.

Actually they can't. I have already explained this to you.

Your explanation is bullshit. I already explained that to you. More arrogance won't help.

You mean like how you believe that successful behaviors don't lead to success and failed behaviors don't to failure?

You're flat out insane, you see words that are not there.

I don't see you disagreeing with it, now do I?

I did indeed.

"You're flat out insane, you see words that are not there."

 

[ding]

Actually they can't. I have already explained this to you.

Your explanation is bullshit. I already explained that to you. More arrogance won't help.

You mean like how you believe that successful behaviors don't lead to success and failed behaviors don't to failure?

You're flat out insane, you see words that are not there.

I don't see you disagreeing with it, now do I?

I did indeed.

"You're flat out insane, you see words that are not there."

So then when you are successful it is because you cheated or were lucky?

 

[ding]

Natural and legal rights - Wikipedia

Wikipedia?

snicker

I usually snicker when information is wrong, was there anything inaccurate or did you just make a summary judgement without any facts?

The fact is that wikipedia is open sourced and only as good as the last guy that dicked around with it. Only fools use it for anything serious.

Sure, did you find anything that was inaccurate in the specific link I provided?

 

[Boss]

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.

Agreed.

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.

Alright. So, rather than my suggestion that only laws protecting rights should be allowed, you might say that only those that violate rights should be prohibited. But don't all laws infringe on rights? I guess it depends on how narrowly you interpret 'natural rights'.

Well, natural rights are explained in the Bill of Rights. Basically, it's life, liberty and property. The interpretation problems are over what "infringes" as opposed to "affecting." An affectation is not automatically an infringement. In other words, you have free speech but you can't use it to endanger the public safety or overthrow the government. You have liberty but you can't use it to run around naked in the park. You can own property but it can be taxed. So, even natural rights can be affected, it doesn't mean they are infringed.

Take something like gay marriage or abortion. These are not "natural rights" but they are interpreted as such under the guise of liberty. This can be prohibited by law at the state level and not infringe on natural rights. It can also be allowed by law at the state level and not infringe on natural rights. All this, not withstanding court decisions which I believe are often incorrect.

Natural and legal rights - Wikipedia

Correct. Natural rights are the inalienable rights we are endowed with by our Creator. Legal rights are also called civil rights.

 

[Iceweasel]

Your explanation is bullshit. I already explained that to you. More arrogance won't help.

You mean like how you believe that successful behaviors don't lead to success and failed behaviors don't to failure?

You're flat out insane, you see words that are not there.

I don't see you disagreeing with it, now do I?

I did indeed.

"You're flat out insane, you see words that are not there."

So then when you are successful it is because you cheated or were lucky?

Huh? When did I mention my success? "You're flat out insane, you see words that are not there."

 

[Iceweasel]

Natural and legal rights - Wikipedia

Wikipedia?

snicker

I usually snicker when information is wrong, was there anything inaccurate or did you just make a summary judgement without any facts?

The fact is that wikipedia is open sourced and only as good as the last guy that dicked around with it. Only fools use it for anything serious.

Sure, did you find anything that was inaccurate in the specific link I provided?

The fact is that wikipedia is open sourced and only as good as the last guy that dicked around with it. Only fools use it for anything serious.

 

[ding]

You mean like how you believe that successful behaviors don't lead to success and failed behaviors don't to failure?

You're flat out insane, you see words that are not there.

I don't see you disagreeing with it, now do I?

I did indeed.

"You're flat out insane, you see words that are not there."

So then when you are successful it is because you cheated or were lucky?

Huh? When did I mention my success? "You're flat out insane, you see words that are not there."

You didn't dumbass. I am asking you the question to prove how much of a dumbass you are. You claim that successful behaviors don't lead to success, right? So how do you explain your success (assuming you have had any)? Because if you didn't earn what you did, work or relationships, then you only got it because you cheated or were lucky. So which is it?

 

[ding]

Natural and legal rights - Wikipedia

Wikipedia?

snicker

I usually snicker when information is wrong, was there anything inaccurate or did you just make a summary judgement without any facts?

The fact is that wikipedia is open sourced and only as good as the last guy that dicked around with it. Only fools use it for anything serious.

Sure, did you find anything that was inaccurate in the specific link I provided?

The fact is that wikipedia is open sourced and only as good as the last guy that dicked around with it. Only fools use it for anything serious.

No. Only fools dismiss information without vetting information. You must be one of those guys who throw babies out with bathwater instead of just draining the bathwater.

 

[Iceweasel]

You're flat out insane, you see words that are not there.

I don't see you disagreeing with it, now do I?

I did indeed.

"You're flat out insane, you see words that are not there."

So then when you are successful it is because you cheated or were lucky?

Huh? When did I mention my success? "You're flat out insane, you see words that are not there."

You didn't dumbass. I am asking you the question to prove how much of a dumbass you are. You claim that successful behaviors don't lead to success, right? So how do you explain your success (assuming you have had any)? Because if you didn't earn what you did, work or relationships, then you only got it because you cheated or were lucky. So which is it?

I made no such claim Dingus. I said you were insane.

I asked you where your moral high standards was regarding legal consent for sex and you can't answer it so you think you childish game will work? LOL, go back to wikipedia, it's about your speed.

 

[Iceweasel]

Wikipedia?

snicker

I usually snicker when information is wrong, was there anything inaccurate or did you just make a summary judgement without any facts?

The fact is that wikipedia is open sourced and only as good as the last guy that dicked around with it. Only fools use it for anything serious.

Sure, did you find anything that was inaccurate in the specific link I provided?

The fact is that wikipedia is open sourced and only as good as the last guy that dicked around with it. Only fools use it for anything serious.

No. Only fools dismiss information without vetting information. You must be one of those guys who throw babies out with bathwater instead of just draining the bathwater.

Only fools use open sourced information. ESPECIALLY when it comes to something like morality. You can't even begin to back up your wild claims.

 

[Boss]

You claim that successful behaviors don't lead to success, right?

Here is the problem as I see it... you're now trying to somehow equate "successful behavior" with this "universal morality" you claimed. There is no correlation. Successful behavior doesn't have to be necessarily moral. Moral behavior doesn't have to necessarily be successful. A drug lord can be all kinds of successful but what he does is highly immoral.

So, allow me to try and help your OP argument a little here.... I've been critical because I think you're not actually articulating this the right way. What you are trying to get across is not necessarily wrong it's just not as you've tried to convey it.

I am a Spiritualist. I don't belong to a religion, I don't believe in any organized religious incarnation of God. I do believe in God but my interpretation of God is Spiritual Energy. This is an unseen natural force coursing through our universe of physical reality. It is essentially what directs humans toward good and away from evil.... toward the light and away from the dark. Did it "exist" before time and space? It's inconsequential because it applies to physical reality within time and space.... it doesn't matter if it did or didn't exist. The SOURCE is Spiritual Energy and the cool thing about that is, it CAN exist beyond and before the physical... in fact, I believe that's what created the physical.

Morals are simply rules established by man, usually through spiritual understanding. There is no "universal morality" because man is flawed and incapable of establishing such a thing. Truth is never known.... we can't KNOW anything absolutely... we're humans. We can believe we know and that is all. Billy Graham certainly believes he is going to heaven... BUT... until he dies and actually goes there, he doesn't KNOW.

 

[rightwinger]

I hold your God to the same standard I would hold anyone else to

If someone was angry with you and murdered your children to punish you, would you think it was OK because God did it?

God needs to lead by example....murdering innocent children is not a good example

What part of you don't believe in God did you not understand?

Its your thread....you are the one making the inference that moral values come from God

I am merely pointing out that those moral values may not be that admirable

I have not gotten within 100 miles of God. You are making arguments that you don't believe.

I am refuting your claim

You claimed moral values came from God and existed for millions of years before man

Those moral values include killing babies as a way of retaliation

So you are refuting my claim with something you don't believe in and you think that is logical?

That is what refuting means

I could just call you a moron for believing in magic
But I choose to attack the silliness of your beliefs...my choice

 

[rightwinger]

I have looked at the moral rights dictated by religion vs the moral rights of our society and the rights we have set for ourselves are superior

The Bible allows slavery, beating of women and children, rape and even the slaughter of children

Our society recognizes the rights of gays, civil rights, the equal rights of women.......something religion still struggles with

 

[BreezeWood]

.
putting morality in a book was the hope by the disadvantaged to have something to point to when they are taken advantage of and used as their recourse against their unsavory advisories. in most cases that morality becomes relegated from a barrier against corruption to the corruption being the actual text written in their book and used against them. as an example look no further than the 4th century christian bible.

 

[ding]

I usually snicker when information is wrong, was there anything inaccurate or did you just make a summary judgement without any facts?

The fact is that wikipedia is open sourced and only as good as the last guy that dicked around with it. Only fools use it for anything serious.

Sure, did you find anything that was inaccurate in the specific link I provided?

The fact is that wikipedia is open sourced and only as good as the last guy that dicked around with it. Only fools use it for anything serious.

No. Only fools dismiss information without vetting information. You must be one of those guys who throw babies out with bathwater instead of just draining the bathwater.

Only fools use open sourced information. ESPECIALLY when it comes to something like morality. You can't even begin to back up your wild claims.

I didn't use it for morality and I have backed up everything I have said. What is it that you believe I have not backed up?

 

[ding]

I don't see you disagreeing with it, now do I?

I did indeed.

"You're flat out insane, you see words that are not there."

So then when you are successful it is because you cheated or were lucky?

Huh? When did I mention my success? "You're flat out insane, you see words that are not there."

You didn't dumbass. I am asking you the question to prove how much of a dumbass you are. You claim that successful behaviors don't lead to success, right? So how do you explain your success (assuming you have had any)? Because if you didn't earn what you did, work or relationships, then you only got it because you cheated or were lucky. So which is it?

I made no such claim Dingus. I said you were insane.

I asked you where your moral high standards was regarding legal consent for sex and you can't answer it so you think you childish game will work? LOL, go back to wikipedia, it's about your speed.

Is that your basis for denying that successful behaviors naturally lead to success and failed behaviors naturally lead to failure? Really? Everything hinges on that?

 

[rightwinger]

The fact is that wikipedia is open sourced and only as good as the last guy that dicked around with it. Only fools use it for anything serious.

Sure, did you find anything that was inaccurate in the specific link I provided?

The fact is that wikipedia is open sourced and only as good as the last guy that dicked around with it. Only fools use it for anything serious.

No. Only fools dismiss information without vetting information. You must be one of those guys who throw babies out with bathwater instead of just draining the bathwater.

Only fools use open sourced information. ESPECIALLY when it comes to something like morality. You can't even begin to back up your wild claims.

I didn't use it for morality and I have backed up everything I have said. What is it that you believe I have not backed up?

You have yet to back up your OP

It is pure fantasy