Why do liberals insist on subjective morality being laws?

I have stated that even discounting that I can still feel that something isn't wrong.

You have gone no where with any of this damo.
 
Once again, what you "feel" doesn't matter. I speak to the societal level you attempt to reduce that to an individual. The individual works within that societal level. They ask the question, "Who is "us"?" each individual with a different answer. That will give them what they will "feel" guilt about, but they also understand the larger societal picture, the less emotive "wrong" that I have stated that I was speaking of.

Pretending I haven't spoken directly to this insistence of "feeling" of yours is just pretense. I even informed you I was speaking of societies and how these same rules are prevalent throughout human societies...

I have talked about how the individual works within that framework and explained why what they "feel" is wrong is different from what they know to be "wrong". How they choose to face or to chance facing the consequences as they understand the cost.
 
Regardless of disagreement, it is reality. It is understanding, not agreement, that matters when speaking of the individual within society. There are many laws individuals may not agree with, but still know that they would face consequences if they are caught. They work to hide their action to keep from getting caught because of that understanding. It doesn't matter what they "feel".

My original question was within that framework. Are there "morals" that we find within all societies? I believe that I put forward one specific one found within all societies as a norm. That it is basically "universal" at that particular level.
 
Anyway, Grind. It has been fun for me, and I think frustrating for you so I'll give you your thread back...

:D

:hij:
 
Damocles said:
This is exactly NOT what I was arguing. I was arguing that the emotion of regret is unnecessary in understanding a "wrong"... I specifically stated so several times along the way.
Click to expand...

Pol Pot - Cambodia

Murdering three million of his fellow cambodians was state policy, and considered entirely justfiable.

I don't think you can claim all the khmer rouge were clinically "insane".
 
Cypress said:
Pol Pot - Cambodia

Murdering three million of his fellow cambodians was state policy, and considered entirely justfiable.

I don't think you can claim all the khmer rouge were clinically "insane".
Click to expand...

I do believe that they had a different perspective on "us" and "them" though. I also made a promise to Grind to return his thread that I "jacked" to talk on sociology and subjective universality... so I think if we want to talk more on this subject we'll need to create a new thread.
 
LadyT said:
That's a pretty idiotic statement on many levels:

#1) What the hell would be the purpose of the FDA if their findings weren't binding?

#2) Do you really think pharmaceutical companies, food companies, biotechs, etc have your best interest at heart when they've invested hundreds and millions into a particular product?

If you believe the answer to #2 is yes, then you have a shit load growing up to do. If anything, the FDA has been too laissez-faire about a lot of things, but I won't hijack the thread.
Click to expand...


man do I miss lady T too
 
Poor insane Deshy. She resorts to gravedigging and lamenting the good ol' days.

Dig, Deshy, dig.
dig.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top