Obama's call for gay rights makes history

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
psychomom said:
Okay, so you appeal to the 'rights' of others.
That's fine.
But where do those rights come from?
Who decides what rights people have?
On what do they base their decisions?
Click to expand...

Especially if nothing is either right or wrong?
Does the 'nothing' include imposing on the rights of others?

Do you see where this line of reasoning leads? :)

 
psychomom said:
Okay, so you appeal to the 'rights' of others.
That's fine.
But where do those rights come from?
Who decides what rights people have?
On what do they base their decisions?
Click to expand...

Personal opinion, emotion, experience. Looking at the world. Observation.

You're asking me how I form an opinion? How does anyone form an opinion.

The rights come from laws and the social hierarchy that society creates.
 
Batman007 said:
I think what we have here is a debate between a nihilist and a realist. I think this is why we're having such a hard time finding common ground.

I don't believe in a moral reality. I don't think anything is either right nor wrong.
Click to expand...

If there is no right or wrong then it should be OK for someone else to steal your cell phone,car or whatever else,beat the snot out of you or whatever else they choose to do to you. Because if there is no right or wrong then how can you honestly say theses things are wrong. What in your mind determines these things are wrong according to you? If they are only wrong for you,why are they not right for someone else?
 
SarahM777 said:
If there is no right or wrong then it should be OK for someone else to steal your cell phone,car or whatever else,beat the snot out of you or whatever else they choose to do to you. Because if there is no right or wrong then how can you honestly say theses things are wrong. What in your mind determines these things are wrong according to you? If they are only wrong for you,why are they not right for someone else?
Click to expand...

You should read some about Moral Skepticism, as I am doing now. It's really fascinating, but I'm not claiming to be an expert. It's hitting home with a lot of my beliefs, though.

Let's take the instance you said, someone steals my car (this is a good one because I just bought a car and I'd be really upset if someone took it). From my point of view, what they did is wrong. I find it wrong to steal, whether it be my car or someone else's. That's why I don't steal.

However, from their point of view, maybe it wasn't wrong. Maybe in their eyes, they really deserved the car. Does that justify what happened? No, I don't think so. That's why I think there should be legal repercussions for people who steal. However, from a moral point of view he didn't do anything wrong, because my opinion that it was wrong isn't universal. Despite the fact that the vast majority of people think that stealing is wrong, that doesn't make it true, because all it is is an opinion.

So your last question, "if they are only wrong for you, why are they not right for someone else?" That's just it, it is right for someone else!
 
Batman007 said:
You should read some about Moral Skepticism, as I am doing now. It's really fascinating, but I'm not claiming to be an expert. It's hitting home with a lot of my beliefs, though.

Let's take the instance you said, someone steals my car (this is a good one because I just bought a car and I'd be really upset if someone took it). From my point of view, what they did is wrong. I find it wrong to steal, whether it be my car or someone else's. That's why I don't steal.

However, from their point of view, maybe it wasn't wrong. Maybe in their eyes, they really deserved the car. Does that justify what happened? No, I don't think so. That's why I think there should be legal repercussions for people who steal. However, from a moral point of view he didn't do anything wrong, because my opinion that it was wrong isn't universal. Despite the fact that the vast majority of people think that stealing is wrong, that doesn't make it true, because all it is is an opinion.

So your last question, "if they are only wrong for you, why are they not right for someone else?" That's just it, it is right for someone else!
Click to expand...

Take it one step further would you then if they are not wrong would it be OK for you to take them to court? Because if they are not wrong them why would it be OK for you to take them to court? Remember according to you they may not be wrong.
 
SarahM777 said:
Take it one step further would you then if they are not wrong would it be OK for you to take them to court? Because if they are not wrong them why would it be OK for you to take them to court? Remember according to you they may not be wrong.
Click to expand...

Yes because like I said above in order to have a high quality of life I don't believe anarchy is a good system. I give up certain rights, like the right to steal, in order to be protected from other people stealing from me.
 
Batman007 said:
Yes because like I said above in order to have a high quality of life I don't believe anarchy is a good system. I give up certain rights, like the right to steal, in order to be protected from other people stealing from me.
Click to expand...

But don't you see,just because you give up certain rights to not live in anarchy doesn't mean someone else will,and if they are right how can you take them to court if they are not wrong? If they are not wrong you are taking to court an innocent person,because if they are not wrong they must be innocent.
 
SarahM777 said:
But don't you see,just because you give up certain rights to not live in anarchy doesn't mean someone else will,and if they are right how can you take them to court if they are not wrong? If they are not wrong you are taking to court an innocent person,because if they are not wrong they must be innocent.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting point, however what makes their opinion better than mine? They see it as right but I see it as wrong so I'm going to fight to do what I consider the good thing, and they're going to fight me in court to do what they consider the good thing. The judge will decide what fits the law.
 
How would you feel if the law said it's perfectly okay for someone to take what is yours, including your life?
 
According to this proposed system, who decides what is law, and on what basis?
 
Batman007 said:
That's an interesting point, however what makes their opinion better than mine? They see it as right but I see it as wrong so I'm going to fight to do what I consider the good thing, and they're going to fight me in court to do what they consider the good thing. The judge will decide what fits the law.
Click to expand...

But don't you see just because you see it as wrong,you are infringing on their rights when you take them to court,because they don't see it as being wrong. And if there is no right or wrong how can you say they are wrong? They can't be wrong if there is no right or wrong,and you would be prosecuting an innocent person.
 
psychomom said:
According to this proposed system, who decides what is law, and on what basis?
Click to expand...

I've answered your first post several times.

It's not a proposed system, it's a moral philosophy. I believe in democracy for laws.
 
SarahM777 said:
But don't you see just because you see it as wrong,you are infringing on their rights when you take them to court,because they don't see it as being wrong. And if there is no right or wrong how can you say they are wrong? They can't be wrong if there is no right or wrong,and you would be prosecuting an innocent person.
Click to expand...

Hmm that's an interesting point.

It's opinion, personal preference. They are innocent in the sense that they view themself as innocent. However they are not objectively innocent. Therefore they are both innocent AND guilty. That's why neither of us can decide and we need a judge.
 
Batman007 said:
Hmm that's an interesting point.

It's opinion, personal preference. They are innocent in the sense that they view themself as innocent. However they are not objectively innocent. Therefore they are both innocent AND guilty. That's why neither of us can decide and we need a judge.
Click to expand...

But how can the judge decide that if the one who took the car is not wrong in the first place? How can they be guilty if they are not wrong in the first place? The judge can only do one thing in that case is declare the one that took the car is innocent because he can't be wrong if there is no right and wrong. He can only be declared innocent of all wrong doing as under that there is no right or wrong.
 
SarahM777 said:
But how can the judge decide that if the one who took the car is not wrong in the first place? How can they be guilty if they are not wrong in the first place? The judge can only do one thing in that case is declare the one that took the car is innocent because he can't be wrong if there is no right and wrong. He can only be declared innocent of all wrong doing as under that there is no right or wrong.
Click to expand...

Morally he can be neither right nor wrong, but he broke the law. The judge doesn't look at it morally, they look at the evidence. It has nothing to do with right or wrong in the legal system. Morality can't be submitted as evidence.
 
Batman007 said:
Morally he can be neither right nor wrong, but he broke the law. The judge doesn't look at it morally, they look at the evidence. It has nothing to do with right or wrong in the legal system. Morality can't be submitted as evidence.
Click to expand...

But under that case then the law is a farce. The law is then wrong because if there is no plumb line to judge by what is right or wrong,then you have convicted an innocent person of wrong doing when they are not wrong.
 
Batman007 said:
I believe in democracy for laws.
Click to expand...

anarchy.
with you in charge.
no matter how you wrap it.

uh....no.
like i said: consider getting your money back (your parents'?) for your indoctrination.
God help us if you ever have enough power to make decisions for the rest of us.
 
Last edited:
SarahM777 said:
But under that case then the law is a farce. The law is then wrong because if there is no plumb line to judge by what is right or wrong,then you have convicted an innocent person of wrong doing when they are not wrong.
Click to expand...

I see why you think that. I don't agree with it but I see where you're coming from. In a way they are innocent, but not from where I'm standing. My opinion is not law I know, but I believe it is more valuable than theirs. I believe their opinion interferes with the lives of others, therefore I'm going to try and prevent them from stealing again.

They agreed to live in this country so they agreed to follow its laws. The law is not right or wrong, but it is convenient for the majority of people.
 
Batman007 said:
I see why you think that. I don't agree with it but I see where you're coming from. In a way they are innocent, but not from where I'm standing. My opinion is not law I know, but I believe it is more valuable than theirs. I believe their opinion interferes with the lives of others, therefore I'm going to try and prevent them from stealing again.

They agreed to live in this country so they agreed to follow its laws. The law is not right or wrong, but it is convenient for the majority of people.
Click to expand...

But don't see all you end up with is one person rights trumping another's,if neither are wrong then that is all the law is good for. What you are then saying is that your right's are somehow better then the rights of the one who stole the car,nothing more or nothing less. Either the law shows what is right and wrong or it is nothing more than a way to take away someone else's rights. Because if there no right or wrong then the law just takes away their right's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back