duderonomy Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 redross, You know that this debate could never come to a logical conclusion unless we, the debaters could (at least in our little world) define which is murder and which is killing. Who's elected official, "ours" or "theirs"? Is he taking the will of the people and running with it, or corrupting it to fit his own purposes? And are his purposes 'wrong', even if he lied to get elected and now is using his authority as an elected official to help his constituents 'for their own good', and if so, does an official have the right or an obligation to do so? This could go on for ages, but none of these questions will be answered by either one of us, nor can a conclusion be reached by us, until we define who has the right to make laws, moral or otherwise, and does that right also cover me or you under some umbrella clause i.e. Deity vs. man's ideas/needs, instinctive or not. And if Deity, am I then obligated to follow such 'laws'? What if have a bigger God of my own somewhere that I must follow? What if I have no God at all, including your opinion and where it comes from? Must I then follow the 'laws' and thus morals of the society in which I live? No...you ask a simple question, but the answer isn't very simple at all, and you thus have not made your position clear. You spoke both of the needs of society contributing to the development of morality, and a seperate law of morality that isn't derived from society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redross Posted October 10, 2006 Author Share Posted October 10, 2006 redross, You know that this debate could never come to a logical conclusion unless we, the debaters could (at least in our little world) define which is murder and which is killing. Who's elected official, "ours" or "theirs"? Is he taking the will of the people and running with it, or corrupting it to fit his own purposes? And are his purposes 'wrong', even if he lied to get elected and now is using his authority as an elected official to help his constituents 'for their own good', and if so, does an official have the right or an obligation to do so? This could go on for ages, but none of these questions will be answered by either one of us, nor can a conclusion be reached by us, until we define who has the right to make laws, moral or otherwise, and does that right also cover me or you under some umbrella clause i.e. Deity vs. man's ideas/needs, instinctive or not. And if Deity, am I then obligated to follow such 'laws'? What if have a bigger God of my own somewhere that I must follow? What if I have no God at all, including your opinion and where it comes from? Must I then follow the 'laws' and thus morals of the society in which I live? No...you ask a simple question, but the answer isn't very simple at all, and you thus have not made your position clear. You spoke both of the needs of society contributing to the development of morality, and a seperate law of morality that isn't derived from society. I said that morality derived from society's needs, yet not every societal 'law' is a moral. And I did define a difference between murder and killing: murder is the wrongful killing of a person. I don't care who makes laws or rules, that has nothing to do with morality. Someone could make a law that contributes to the destruction of society, but that would not make the law moral. Morals sustain societies, regardless of law or opinion or god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts