Absolute Right and Wrong?

[fedfem]

Quote by: Logjam Ah, yes. Liberals love to show that prohibition was a terrible ammendment. But what you don't know is that prohibition reduced drinking in the US by about 90%. Most folks followed the dictates of prohibition and they quit drinking. This brought on the associated benefits of a more sober society. Sure some didn't stop drinking and sure the bootleggers became prosperous and sure Big Al gained control of South Chicago. But that does not take away from the fact that for the most part Prohibition did stop most Americans from drinking. I'll betcha didn't know that.

Ahh, not true. Forbidden fruit is much sweeter. In reality, binge drinking became more popular. The average family that was used to wine with dinner had to stop...but we know how destructive that bunch is. :eek:

If you really believe that prohibition was successful, why do you think they repealed it?

Where do you people get your history?

[fedfem]

Quote by: Logjam Okay, I've read your quote. But it does not say that people should throw out the established rules of society and adapt ones that apply to a specific individual. It seems that you support people making rules for themselves, and screw everyone else. What Jefferson is saying is that rules should and can be changed to meet new conditions of society. This is true. Nor does the Jefferson quote disspell what I said earlier, which is: don't change rules unless you can prove that the old ones are false and that new ones are better. I doubt that Jefferson would argue with me.

Where the heck do you get that from. I do not think there should be rules for specific individuals. I do believe in self-government however, as did Jefferson. The debate is about right and wrong absolutes. We live under rule of law and have a mechanism for laws to change when they need to based on many factors.

[fedfem]

For Logjam: Some info on the failures of prohibition.

Executive Summary


National prohibition of alcohol (1920-33)--the "noble experiment"--was undertaken to reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, reduce the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses, and improve health and hygiene in America. The results of that experiment clearly indicate that it was a miserable failure on all counts. The evidence affirms sound economic theory, which predicts that prohibition of mutually beneficial exchanges is doomed to failure

The lessons of Prohibition remain important today. They apply not only to the debate over the war on drugs but also to the mounting efforts to drastically reduce access to alcohol and tobacco and to such issues as censorship and bans on insider trading, abortion, and gambling.[1]


http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html

[belverron]

Quote by: Logjam No, I did dealt with your question earlier in this thread. The "absolutes" are the rules that we live by. Some are heaped upon us by government, these are indeed suspect rules. (such as the stop sign at a cross road in the middle of the desert; do you stop or not? I do.) Others come from our culture; lessons learned from ions of the experiences of life. The cultural rules are the rules that you learned from your folks, things like: It's wrong to marry your sister, or don't eat food that's fallen on the ground, or don't touch the stove burner, flush after use, don't throw cigarette butts in the urinal (it makes the soggy and hard to light), etc, etc..

By focusing on only this portion of my post, you've missed my point. Again. You're dealing primarily with the easy issues. I'll argue the marrying your sister one, if you'd like, but for the most part you're dealing with common courtesy and common sense. Refer to my first post.

Quote by: belverron So, when we talk about absolutes, are we talking about the easy issues, like murder and drunk driving, or are we talking about the real dilemmas? Let's get deep enough that this discussion at least matters.

So, are there moral absolutes when it comes to abortion, to gay marriage, to all of the issues which we don't have a societal consensus on?

[Aaron Spicka]

I don't believe what I'm about to say but yes, abortion is right because child isn't a child yet it merely has potential to be and gay marriage is right because without using religion to back it up as wrong, I don't think one can say that wanting to make a serious commitment to another person is wrong just because they have a similar physical make up. How would one say that either of these are wrong without using religion?

[Starboy]

Quote by: fedfem Where do you people get your history?

The pastor, mullah, rabbis, priest, minister, witchdoctor, oracle, seer, monk, shaman, prophet, or (place you god intermediary here) tells them. After all if a god intermediary speaks for god then how could they ever be wrong? Being a god intermediary is much better than staying at a Holiday Inn Express.

Starboy

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Starboy What I said is that life doesn't present itself in a nice little package that can be boiled down into absolutes. To have such a view of life would require a vantage point on life that we just do not possess and arguing about absolutes makes as much sense as arguing how many angels can fit on the head of the pin.

How about absolute accusations of "dishonesty"? Can those be boiled down to absolutes Starboy?

[Starboy]

Quote by: Prometheus How about absolute accusations of "dishonesty"? Can those be boiled down to absolutes Starboy?

Never said they could. You are free to debate the point any time you like.

Starboy

[Logjam]

Quote by: belverron Yes, I do use sic just to annoy. Now, moving on, when did we establish that Jesus was the originator of absolute morality? You can claim that, and in your faith you will always be considered right, but does absolute not mean that they transcend religious boundaries? If not, then you should say right now that this debate is limited to Christians.

I do not hold myself out as being a Christian. I'm just not sure that Christ was the Son of God. I do, however; consider myself a member of a society that has been dominated by Judio/Christian philosophy.

Our society/culture has used the Bible as a basis for our morals for a very long time, and I concur with them.

Furthermore, most of our cultural morays have been made by secular men. Sure the laws as stated in the Bible are important here, and they may be just fine. I'm not sure that we should replace the dictates of our society easily. You first have to prove that the old way is wrong and then explain why new "rules" are better than are old ones. We have done just that relatively recently when we figured that inter racial unions are allowed; which for a very long time weren't.

[belverron]

Quote by: Logjam You first have to prove that the old way is wrong and then explain why new "rules" are better than are old ones.

Why? Our county is one of freedom. I don't need to go to absurd lengths to justify myself. There are ways older than Christianity. When were they proved wrong? As Christianity did with them, so do I with Christianity: I incorporate it as a part of my understanding of morality. But our understandings are all evolving as time passes. It is foolish to advocate moral stasis because you're afraid of the new frontier.

[Samildanach]

As for the original question I will give it a go.

You are in a room someone is holding a gun to the back of your head, you also have a gun in your hand with three bullets in it. In front of you you have three innocent people who are completely unrelated to the situation apart from the fact they are there.
In another room are your family being held hostage by a person with an explosive device. You are told they will be released as soon as you have killed the three people in front of you, if you dont kill them in the next 30 secs your family will die. What do you do?

[Thunder Wave]

Quote by: Samildanach As for the original question I will give it a go. You are in a room someone is holding a gun to the back of your head, you also have a gun in your hand with three bullets in it. In front of you you have three innocent people who are completely unrelated to the situation apart from the fact they are there. In another room are your family being held hostage by a person with an explosive device. You are told they will be released as soon as you have killed the three people in front of you, if you dont kill them in the next 30 secs your family will die. What do you do?

I'd quickly turn around and grab the guys gun and hold him until the police came.

How about War? Is it ever moral?

[belverron]

The consensus seems to be that WW2 was the most just war in history. Was it just?

[Thunder Wave]

I would have to say "no" because of one main (but not the only) reason. Atomic Bombs were used and there was no real need to use them. Why? if interested here is a website based on it: http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm

[Sonart]

The consensus seems to be that WW2 was the most just war in history. Was it just?

In our fighting WWII just? Yes, I believe it was. Huge parts of the globe were being subjugated by force by rather nasty regimes. Ending the ambitions of those regimes was just, as was liberating the people they'd subjugated.

Was the way we conducted WWII just? No, not in every case, but few wars are.

.

[Samildanach]

I'd quickly turn around and grab the guys gun and hold him until the police came. How about War? Is it ever moral?

Brilliant.....say goodbye to your family :rolleyes:

[Thunder Wave]

Quote by: Samildanach Brilliant.....say goodbye to your family :rolleyes:

I didn't commit murder and God would accept me and the family for having died for a good cause.

I mean isn't that what religion teaches? So you do what's right and no matter the outcome God would accept you because you followed his teachings.

Sarcasm?

I'll leave that up to you to decide.