[QUOTE="mr111111"]

[QUOTE="Enid_Green"]

So being gay is wrong because a portion of the population think it's icky. Good reason to proactively ban something.

Enid_Green

no i disagree. all i'm saying is that sometimes you should listen to your gut to determine what is right.

Morality is found through thoughtful process. Remember when segregation was okay, because people felt it was right in their "gut?" Going by your "gut" feeling isn't something you can build laws upon.

no its not but its useful for determining what is right. i live in the south, arkansaw actually, the history and origins of slavery and segregation are complex and deep rooted. of course you shouldn't build a society on a gut feeling! plato would be rolling in his grave. what i'm arguing is that determining what is "inherhently good" is difficult, sometimes just using your head isn't enough, sometimes you have to make a "leap of faith" so to speak

[QUOTE="Sword-Demon"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]overweight by whos standards??? surrealnumber5

take all the opinions and different scales and average them

RAN by akira kurosawa, i cried man tears

[QUOTE="Enid_Green"]

[QUOTE="mr111111"]

lol i agree with you its wrong, but what im saying is sometimes the line gets blurry. its not always "good is what benefits mankind" "bad is what hurts mankind" its not that simple

alexside1

So being gay is wrong because a portion of the population think it's icky. Good reason to proactively ban something.

humans are by nature a social animal - aristotle

the human psyche is by nature religious - carl jung

[QUOTE="mr111111"]

[QUOTE="Enid_Green"]

It is in the best interest of people to not do harm to each other, because we are social organisms. How exactly would picking off people with genetic dispositions for disease (and therefore ridding the planet of a huge chunk of our population) benefit people?

Enid_Green

lol i agree with you its wrong, but what im saying is sometimes the line gets blurry. its not always "good is what benefits mankind" "bad is what hurts mankind" its not that simple

So being gay is wrong because a portion of the population think it's icky. Good reason to proactively ban something.

no i disagree. all i'm saying is that sometimes you should listen to your gut to determine what is right.

[QUOTE="Enid_Green"]

[QUOTE="mr111111"]

right but it gets tricky. consider what our bhuddhist friend said earlier in this thread. he asked whether or not we should round up people with disease and wipe them out. on one hand it would benefit society, by thinning our ranks the "genes" in humankind get better. but is this a "good" thing to do?

worlock77

It is in the best interest of people to not do harm to each other, because we are social organisms. How exactly would picking off people with genetic dispositions for disease (and therefore ridding the planet of a huge chunk of our population) benefit people?

Less chronically diseased people bogging down the health care system?

lol now we're going from "what is good" to "what is good about eugenics"

[QUOTE="mr111111"]

[QUOTE="Enid_Green"]

All of those things you've listed as "good" benefit humanity in one way or another. Something being "bad" in itself can usually be explained as being harmful to society.

Enid_Green

right but it gets tricky. consider what our bhuddhist friend said earlier in this thread. he asked whether or not we should round up people with disease and wipe them out. on one hand it would benefit society, by thinning our ranks the "genes" in humankind get better. but is this a "good" thing to do?

It is in the best interest of people to not do harm to each other, because we are social organisms. How exactly would picking off people with genetic dispositions for disease (and therefore ridding the planet of a huge chunk of our population) benefit people?

lol i agree with you its wrong, but what im saying is sometimes the line gets blurry. its not always "good is what benefits mankind" "bad is what hurts mankind" its not that simple

[QUOTE="mr111111"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Because non religious people can and do oppose it.:|LJS9502_basic

doesn't the presence of morality imply the presence of a religous and/or philosophical framework? if i think something is wrong, then there must be a hierarchy of "rights" and "wrongs", right?

oh well if i think something is good, then the opposite must be bad right?

[QUOTE="mr111111"]

[QUOTE="Enid_Green"]

"It just feels wrong" isn't really good reasoning for outlawing something.

Enid_Green

no i agree, but its still helpful in determing morality. something has to be "good by itself" by that i mean it is good in and of itself, like helping your family or loving knowledge, and it also has to be "good in its consequences" by that i mean it must promote justice or the greater good. the "it just feels wrong" feeling is helpful when determining when things are "good in and of themselves"

All of those things you've listed as "good" benefit humanity in one way or another. Something being "bad" in itself can usually be explained as being harmful to society.

right but it gets tricky. consider what our bhuddhist friend said earlier in this thread. he asked whether or not we should round up people with disease and wipe them out. on one hand it would benefit society, by thinning our ranks the "genes" in humankind get better. but is this a "good" thing to do?

[QUOTE="Enid_Green"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Not everyone against same sex marriage is religious.....:|

LJS9502_basic

Then provide a reason that isn't?

doesn't the presence of morality imply the presence of a religous and/or philosophical framework? if i think something is wrong, then there must be a hierarchy of "rights" and "wrongs", right?