Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Mung to SB: What about Laws of (human?) Nature . . .

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

SB is one of UD’s treasures, who often puts up gems as comments. Accordingly, I headline his current response to Mung on laws of (human) nature:

_______________

>>Mung

SB,

Can you explain why the natural moral law requires a lawgiver?

ETA: I don’t believe in natural laws, I believe in natures/essences. So keep that in mind.

[SB, reply:] Very interesting comment. Let me try to say something that might bring us together.

I assume that we agree that a physical “law,” is really just a human paradigm that describes a “law-like” regularity that is observed in nature. So, ontologically, we are referring to an event that happens over and over again, trying to make sense of it and giving it a name. It is the “nature” of matter to be moved in this way. So, the question becomes, who created matter with such a nature?

If you attribute that regularity or movement to a final cause or something that explains the

Aristotle's four causes (HT: VPC courtesy Google)
Aristotle’s four causes (HT: VPC courtesy Google)

ordered regularity from a philosophical perspective, all well and good. I am just as comfortable with first cause as lawgiver. The philosopher calls it one thing, the scientist, another. Since truth is unified, there can only be one truth. The philosopher studies one aspect from one perspective, the scientist, another. The former is nobler because it probes the why and not just the how.

The point being that order, regularity, and the reasons for it, require an orderer, a regulator, and a reasoner in the same way that any effect requires a cause. I gather that you would agree. Order, regularity, and the nature of matter cannot be brought into existence or be sustained except through some outside power or cause. A nature requires a nature giver, so to speak.

With respect to the moral law, we are really discussing the morality of human nature. What does it mean for a human to be good. Philosophy has already answered that question as well. Anything is good if it operates the way it was designed and intended to operate. (Aristotle, Aquinas).

A good can opener is one that opens cans. A good pencil is one that writes. A good pencil cannot be a a good can opener and it will destroy itself if it tries. So it is with a human being. A good human being is one that operates the way he/she was designed to operate. Humans were designed to practice virtue and avoid vice so that they can be with God someday. It is their nature. Anything that is consistent with their nature is good for them; anything that is not, is bad for them.

Some of us call it that natural moral law to emphasize its binding nature. Break it, and you (and others) will suffer. So, in that sense, I think the word “law” has some merit. If you prefer to dispense with the word “law,” we can call it the morality proper to human nature. Naturally, it applies only to humans, not animals. Like the pencil that destroys itself by assuming the nature of a can opener, a human will destroy himself by assuming the nature of (and acting like) an animal. He will never fulfill his destiny, which is to love and be with God. In the end, he will not be a good person, he will be a bad person. He acted against his nature and his reason for being. If, on the other hand, he has no final purpose of reason for being, then he cannot be good or bad since it is impossible for him to frustrate a purpose that doesn’t exist.

These conditions did not simply appear from out of nowhere. A Creator had to set them up. So, too, in this sense the “law of human nature” or, if you like, the morality of human nature, requires a lawgiver or, if you like, a first cause, — or nature giver.>>

________________

Well worth pondering, especially in light of the necessary balance of rights, freedoms, duties and responsibilities that marks the distinction between liberty within the pale of the civil peace of justice, and the abusive, ill-advised and ultimately ruinous chaos that results from license . . . the abuse of freedom. END

Comments
Box @83
sean samis: Sure. Mistakes are inevitable, but they are often avoidable.
That doesn’t make sense.
Umm, well, that’s pretty straight forward; hard to see what your problem with it is.
Obviously there are great books to prepare oneself for a physics exam, however there are no books that can prepare you for the exam called life. IOW a book is not real life.
Looks like you are repudiating your own metaphor. OK, what’s next?
These “solutions” you come up with (“caution” & “be prepared”) tell me that you are a young person who hasn’t faced many crises in his life.
LOL! Literally LOL! Actually Literally! You know nothing about me, Box. Nothing.
Trust me on this one: one day you will find out that ‘caution’ and ‘being prepared’ have very little meaning when one is faced with the real problems in life.
Chuckle. So Box, ever have to shove someone’s guts back into their belly? Ever hold a beating human heart in your hand? Ever pull a stranger’s baby into the world? Ever have to talk a suicider out of it? Ever give CPR to someone you came across in a park? I have, all these and more. Caution and preparation are the tickets.
So what do you propose? Don’t take the exam called life? Or didn’t you get the metaphor?
It’s your metaphor; if it’s defective, that’s on you. sean s.sean samis
July 27, 2015
July
07
Jul
27
27
2015
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT
sean samis: Sure. Mistakes are inevitable, but they are often avoidable.
That doesn't make sense.
sean samis: If you knew you had to take a physics exam and you knew you didn’t know much about physics, you should have prepared.
Obviously there are great books to prepare oneself for a physics exam, however there are no books that can prepare you for the exam called life. IOW a book is not real life. These "solutions" you come up with ("caution" & "be prepared") tell me that you are a young person who hasn't faced many crises in his life. Trust me on this one: one day you will find out that 'caution' and 'being prepared' have very little meaning when one is faced with the real problems in life.
If you recklessly took the exam without preparing for it, you are responsible for the consequences. Sure. Is there a problem with that?
So what do you propose? Don't take the exam called life? Or didn't you get the metaphor?Box
July 26, 2015
July
07
Jul
26
26
2015
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT
Box @80
Okay, let’s assume that one is partially aware of incomplete understanding. How does that help?
It corrects a mistaken impression about what constitutes ethical behavior. It puts them on notice to take care.
Even if a person proceeds with caution he can still make mistakes. Suppose that I have to do a physics exam, I don’t know much about physics and I’m aware of my lack of knowledge. I’m also more than willing to proceed with caution during this exam, but I’m pretty sure it won’t help much.
Sure. Mistakes are inevitable, but they are often avoidable. If you knew you had to take a physics exam and you knew you didn’t know much about physics, you should have prepared. Your awareness of that problem should have told you to prepare. Your unwillingness to prepare means you did not proceed with caution. Caution would have helped a lot.
In the same sense that I’m culpable for flunking my physics exam.
If you recklessly took the exam without preparing for it, you are responsible for the consequences. Sure. Is there a problem with that? sean s.sean samis
July 26, 2015
July
07
Jul
26
26
2015
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
StephenB:
Carpathian: A lot of Muslims believe Sharia Law to be acceptable. StephenB: Perhaps, but the fact remains that Sharia Law does not promote the principles of freedom or support the inherent dignity of the human person?
I agree with you but the problem is that those deep in a faith believe or let's say in some cases, grudgingly bear the demands of their faith. To them it is not an objective decision they can make to exclude some portion of their teachings and because of that they will support that loss of freedom as being a necessary component of their faith. How do you now decide which faith has the right to influence the governing of everyone else? By simply making that decision, you have stripped one faith the rights that you demand for yours which is to be an influence on government and law.
Carpathian: You and I don’t believe it acceptable, but any system that would allow religion A must grant religion B the same rights otherwise one of the two cannot express their faith. StephenB: Right. Let a thousand flowers bloom. Let everyone express his or her religious faith. Christianity says yes. Islam says no. (So does atheism).
Here our difference lies in what we each mean by "expressing your faith". I have no problem accepting the rights of people to relate to the world via their religion, but I draw the line at the point where their faith trumps my beliefs. I don't believe that any religion should pressure government into enacting legislation that enforces some component of their religion's beliefs. As an example, if two people come to a bakery to order a cake for their wedding, the government has no right to enact legislation that allows the bakery to discriminate against that couple because of the religious beliefs of law-givers.Carpathian
July 24, 2015
July
07
Jul
24
24
2015
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
Sean Samis #75,
sean samis:
Box: ethical behavior is only ethical behavior if it stems from within and if it’s done consciously. That last conditional is crucial. An act has only true value when done with full understanding and fully awareness.
Can’t agree. Even if you commit an act with less than full understanding and awareness, you are almost certainly partially aware of your incomplete understanding and awareness.
Okay, let’s assume that one is partially aware of incomplete understanding. How does that help?
sean samis: Given that, an ethical person is obligated to proceed with caution regarding those who might be affected by their actions. Failing to do so renders the reckless act unethical even in the absence of full understanding and awareness.
Even if a person proceeds with caution he can still make mistakes. Suppose that I have to do a physics exam, I don’t know much about physics and I’m aware of my lack of knowledge. I’m also more than willing to proceed with caution during this exam, but I’m pretty sure it won’t help much.
sean samis:
Box: …if person has finished his learning process, reached enlightenment and finally knows what he talking about her/his morality wrt sex with children can be taken seriously.
Given my prior comment, persons who have not achieved enlightenment are still culpable for their reckless and harmful behavior.
In the same sense that I’m culpable for flunking my physics exam.
sean samis: Sexual acts with children are INTRINSICALLY wrong because they are never actually consensual.
I agree. Your morality and mine are in perfect harmony at this point.Box
July 24, 2015
July
07
Jul
24
24
2015
02:28 AM
2
02
28
AM
PDT
Carpathian
You have just compared two religions which is the problem.
It is important to compare religions because some are more conducive to political freedom than others. Did you know that many of the political processes that you cherish were derived from the Christian world view? Did you know that the Book of Judges inspired the concept of "consent by the governed?" Did you know that the Christian principle of "inherent dignity" influenced the legal principle of "due process?" Did you know that it was the "natural moral law" the served to define what we now call "inalienable rights?" Without Christianity, there would be no such thing as political freedom. It sure didn't come from atheism or Islam?
A lot of Muslims believe Sharia Law to be acceptable.
Perhaps, but the fact remains that Sharia Law does not promote the principles of freedom or support the inherent dignity of the human person?
You and I don’t believe it acceptable, but any system that would allow religion A must grant religion B the same rights otherwise one of the two cannot express their faith.
Right. Let a thousand flowers bloom. Let everyone express his or her religious faith. Christianity says yes. Islam says no. (So does atheism).
If these rights extend to making law, then you have to accept the other side of the sword.
We must always be careful when we pass laws that involve religious sensibilities. Agreed. However, there is a great misunderstanding about the relationship between God and government. There are two extremes to be avoided: [a]Radical Union of Church and State (Theocracy) [b]Radical Separation of Church and State (Secularism) What the founders established was the intersection of Church and State, such that both existed independently but each was permitted to influence the other. It is only that optimal combination that will support basic freedoms. Insofar as one takes power at the expense of the other, freedoms are compromised, and eventually lost. That is what is happening at the moment. Secularism has the upper hand. That is why your concerns about too much religion are misplaced.StephenB
July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT
Briefly, as a typical lurker for many years, I usually see my possible contributions to dialogue in the words of others. I breathe my sigh of relief, and I move on. Without responding to any one particular contribution, I'd like to answer a couple of, as yet, unanswered challenges. I paraphrase: "Because all religions derive and arrive at different opinions and conclusions, all ought to be regarded as equally true and equally false. Therefore, one is not obligated to submit to any religiously motivated system of laws. The above paraphrase is, in and of itself, a religious and moral imperative of the relativistic secularist and the universalist. And yet, it goes unquestioned. To wit: All theological belief systems are not equal in content, philosophical underpinnings, nor historical justification. I believe many here are implicitly stating this in their answers to the dissenter. IOW, my belief in the historical and philosophical underpinnings of Judeo-Christianity is grounded and defensibly so. All others are not. This is not a statement of arrogance or of ignorance; just the opposite. A former "Big A" Agnostic, I relented and studied the major religions. I compared and contrasted their truth-claims against the data available in the sciences and known history. Comfort had no bearing whatsoever, unless one meant I wasn't comfortable remaining in a lazy state of ignorance, aware my days were numbered...an awareness itself grounded in the evidenced certainty that everyone dies. To sit at a table of representatives of all major belief systems and then to judge them all as being equally non-authoritative is (again) an absolute claim of truth made by our posting relativist/secularist. All religions, indeed, all beliefs are believed to be universally true...even the universalist wishes we all agree with his dogma. The difference, the main and entire crux of dispute, lies in verification of one's beliefs. Historical evidences, perfect compatibility with laws of nature, real science based in a self-aware system of presuppositions derived from metaphysics and philosophy....theology over religion. Universalizing one's own understanding of the world can be the only true harmony...to cite another contributor's ill-used term. If that understanding is easily proven to be incompatible with history, logic, etc...nothing binds me to treat that individual or organized view of the world as equally valid and, therefore, worthy of my respect, especially with regard to determining a government of laws predicated on reality. I would have much more to say on these matters....the illogic of reincarnation given the number of "new" souls necessary to justify the exponential population increases, the necessity of retention required of learning from "past lives"... or the categorical error that results in a failure to understand God's freedom in His eternal, omniscient Goodness, that God is free and outside of the darkness of future uncertainties that necessitate human moral choices in the first place...that Christian "faith" has nothing to do with whether God exists or that Christ is the Messiah; those are grounded certainties. The faith to which the bible refers is a faith in future promises of resurrection and deliverance, again a result in living within linear time, blind to the certainties of the future. I guess I'm appealing to other more patient, more articulate contributors to extrapolate these counter-points so I can go back to my lurking! Thank you all for fighting the good fight of truth and its natural consequences.mugwump3
July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT
Silver #50,
Silver: Laws are not imposed on God because nothing can be external to God and nothing can be imposed. Order (laws) is essential to being, which is God.
I agree.
Silver: But for us, we’re obviously dependent on many things for our existence.
I don’t agree. We are free eternal beings.
Silver: Order is imposed on us because we are not self-created.
Consciousness is freedom. Freedom cannot be externally caused. Maybe this a discussion for another day.
Silver: We haven’t achieved fullness of being (…)
I agree.
Silver: (…) – we have potential that can be fulfilled or not.
I argue that it is guaranteed.Box
July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT
StephenB @71 Good for you, you’ve pleased two people predisposed to agreeing anyway. Huzzah! Preaching to the converted is a piece o’cake. sean s.sean samis
July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
Box @70
As I said in post #5 ethical behavior is only ethical behavior if it stems from within and if it’s done consciously. That last conditional is crucial. An act has only true value when done with full understanding and fully awareness.
Can’t agree. Even if you commit an act with less than full understanding and awareness, you are almost certainly partially aware of your incomplete understanding and awareness. Given that, an ethical person is obligated to proceed with caution regarding those who might be affected by their actions. Failing to do so renders the reckless act unethical even in the absence of full understanding and awareness.
...if person has finished his learning process, reached enlightenment and finally knows what he talking about her/his morality wrt sex with children can be taken seriously.
Given my prior comment, persons who have not achieved enlightenment are still culpable for their reckless and harmful behavior. Sexual acts with children are INTRINSICALLY wrong because they are never actually consensual. Carpathian @72
As I said, I have no problem with religion asking for acceptance, but that isn’t typically where it stops.
Asking for acceptance is not typically where anyone stops, so why should the religious be especially suspect? We just have to remember that we don’t have to give them everything they want. If we give in inappropriately, that’s on us. sean s.sean samis
July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
StephenB:
The Christian religion, because it teaches the inherent dignity of the human person, provided much of the rational foundation for religious freedom in the United States. That doesn’t mean that I should have no problem if Islamists want to install Sharia Law, which is the mortal enemy of political freedom.
You have just compared two religions which is the problem. A lot of Muslims believe Sharia Law to be acceptable. You and I don't believe it acceptable, but any system that would allow religion A must grant religion B the same rights otherwise one of the two cannot express their faith. If these rights extend to making law, then you have to accept the other side of the sword.Carpathian
July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT
StephenB:
I think you are confusing the content of my religious ideas, which you may reject all day long, with my right to express them and even use them to persuade others, which you are legally required to respect.
You may express and persuade but you may not pressure or mandate. That is what happens when government and religion are not kept separate.Carpathian
July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
sean samis:
But NO RIGHT IS ABSOLUTE. When one person’s religious exercises causes harms to others, that religious exercise is properly prohibited.
Very true. The problem with allowing religion to influence government is that the beliefs of that religion are enforced to varying degrees on people outside of that religious group. As I said, I have no problem with religion asking for acceptance, but that isn't typically where it stops.Carpathian
July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT
sean samis
Your “single and unified” answer cobbled together unrelated claims and topics. I’d give you a unified and single answer if I could, but when you argue disparate things, my response must be disparate also.
If it makes you feel better to think so, I am happy for you. The person that I answered thinks my thesis hangs together. So does the person who converted it into this thread. Meanwhile, if you have one or two things to say, I will respond to them. If you have 25 things to say, I am not interested.StephenB
July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT
StephenB #55: If person A is free to make up a morality such that sex with children is good, and person B is free to make up a morality such that sex with children is evil, how can these conflicting notions of freedom be reconciled in harmony?
IOW how can person A and person B reach an agreement? Obviously in the short term they cannot. However when person A and B both have reached enlightenment and are able to look at the problem from all angles, chances for mutual understanding will improve enormously. Does it follow that, according to my philosophy, everybody should have sex with children in order to reach enlightenment? I don’t think so. However I do believe relationships with extreme power imbalances are part of a set of essential lessons. As I said in post #5 ethical behavior is only ethical behavior if it stems from within and if it’s done consciously. That last conditional is crucial. An act has only true value when done with full understanding and fully awareness. God doesn’t take our acts and opinions seriously. Why should he? IOW only if person has finished his learning process, reached enlightenment and finally knows what he talking about her/his morality wrt sex with children can be taken seriously.Box
July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
Carpathian @62
If A’s religious expression is an action that forbids B’s, who decides which one prevails? The problem with religions is that they are not identical and thus their actions come into conflict with each other. That is why religions should be kept private, not public.
There’s been an extended discussion of a topic with an obvious answer. Religious Liberty must include the free exercise and expression of religious beliefs. But NO RIGHT IS ABSOLUTE. When one person’s religious exercises causes harms to others, that religious exercise is properly prohibited. We also cannot keep religious exercises “private” because some religious exercises are necessarily public (ex: evangelization). The controlling factor must be harms to others, not public versus private. sean s.sean samis
July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic @54
...since we can choose evil as well as good (which God can only choose good) our freedom is a lot different.
If God can only choose good, God has NO freedom. Did God give us an ability even God lacks? BTW, if every choice God makes is necessarily good, then that would mean either God has no freedom or ‘good’ has no meaning. For God to have freedom, God must be able to choose to do ACTUAL EVIL. Perhaps God never does, but God must be able to. sean s.sean samis
July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
StephenB @53
If it was your goal to get the last word by strewing out 20 dubious and disconnected claims (I counted them) as a response to a single and unified answer I provided to a specific question asked by someone else, the context of which you are not even remotely aware of, your mission was accomplished.
That was not my goal. Your “single and unified” answer cobbled together unrelated claims and topics. I’d give you a unified and single answer if I could, but when you argue disparate things, my response must be disparate also. I’m sorry if my habit of dissecting your comments is disconcerting, but when I encounter a Gordian knot of thoughts like your comment #289 was (and the OP here), some careful dissection is required. If my statements seemed “disconnected” it’s because they were in response to tangled claims by yourself. I realize you are growing tired of my comments, but my comments are on point. Perhaps they are unwelcomely so, but they are on point. You can of course withdraw from the conversation, or just ignore me. But that contradicts your claim to want a rational discussion. BTW, I do want a rational discussion, but I will not let you control the terms of the debate no more than you should allow me to. You reply to my points in your way; I reply to yours in my way; and so forth. That’s how rational discussions happen. If you don’t know how to respond to my points, that does not mean my points are invalid nor disconnected. It just means you don’t have an answer. If that’s the case, that is a telling fact. sean s.sean samis
July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
SB: If you don’t understand that religious liberty means the free exercise of religion and the freedom of religious expression, and not simply the right to believe something, then I cannot help you. Carpathian
You are certainly not free to exercise your religion in any way that forces me to accept that exercise.
I think you are confusing the content of my religious ideas, which you may reject all day long, with my right to express them and even use them to persuade others, which you are legally required to respect.StephenB
July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT
Carpathian
Anyone who thinks religion should influence government policy should have no problem accepting a non-Christian government promoting a non-Christian religion. You seem to have a problem with this statement. Why?
The second clause does not follow from the first. The Christian religion, because it teaches the inherent dignity of the human person, provided much of the rational foundation for religious freedom in the United States. That doesn't mean that I should have no problem if Islamists want to install Sharia Law, which is the mortal enemy of political freedom.StephenB
July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT
StephenB:
If you don’t understand that religious liberty means the free exercise of religion and the freedom of religious expression, and not simply the right to believe something, then I cannot help you.
You are certainly not free to exercise your religion in any way that forces me to accept that exercise. Laws are such an example. Any law with a religious component is trampling on the rights of those who reject that religion.Carpathian
July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
StephenB:
Anyone who thinks religion should influence government policy should have no problem accepting a non-Christian government promoting a non-Christian religion.
You seem to have a problem with this statement. Why?Carpathian
July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
mjoels:
He doesn’t understand that that right comes from God and not the state… so sad.
Everyone has the right to say this, "My rights come from my god, not yours". This of course leads to a collision of religions. Your opinions about rights are just that, opinions.Carpathian
July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
StephenB:
If you don’t understand that religious liberty means the free exercise of religion and the freedom of religious expression, and not simply the right to believe something, then I cannot help you.
As soon as religion expression becomes an action then there is a risk of a collision of "freedoms". If A's religious expression is an action that forbids B's, who decides which one prevails? The problem with religions is that they are not identical and thus their actions come into conflict with each other. That is why religions should be kept private, not public.Carpathian
July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT
He doesn't understand that that right comes from God and not the state... so sad.mjoels
July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT
Carpathian
Anyone is allowed to do what the law allows, the problem is whether those laws favor certain elements of society.
If you don't understand that religious liberty means the free exercise of religion and the freedom of religious expression, and not simply the right to believe something, then I cannot help you.StephenB
July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT
Carpathian
Anyone who thinks religion should influence government policy should have no problem accepting a non-Christian government promoting a non-Christian religion.
Inasmuch as you did not read what I wrote with sufficient care, much less respond to it, I will leave you to your own thoughts.StephenB
July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT
StephenB:
Quite the contrary. If you cannot act on your religious beliefs, you are not free? It is, after all, called the freedom of "religious expression." Or, it is your opinion that only secularists should be free to express themselves and that Christians should be forced to keep their mouths shut?
Anyone is allowed to do what the law allows, the problem is whether those laws favor certain elements of society. Any law that favors any religion should not be binding to those who don't practice that faith. As far as keeping our mouths shut, I have no problem if a church has a membership drive and asks people to come and hear their message. I have a big problem though when churches become political and try and shape public policy with their religious views. I see religion as a way of understanding the world, not running it. Anyone who thinks religion should influence government policy should have no problem accepting a non-Christian government promoting a non-Christian religion. IfCarpathian
July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT
Headlined: https://uncommondescent.com/education/carpathian-vs-the-sword-blindfold-and-scales-of-justice/kairosfocus
July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
Box
A free person makes her/his own laws of morality.
If person A is free to make up a morality such that sex with children is good, and person B is free to make up a morality such that sex with children is evil, how can these conflicting notions of freedom be reconciled in harmony?StephenB
July 23, 2015
July
07
Jul
23
23
2015
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply