lukfugl at gmail.com
Fri Feb 4 16:16:09 MST 2005
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 15:04:06 -0700, tuxgirl at gmail.com <tuxgirl at gmail.com> wrote:
> > different people, different morals, different laws.
> > if you are part of a moral minority in your community and are outraged at
> > the legislative influence of the majority, get used to it - it's the same
> > everywhere.
> if you happen to be LDS, and living in Missouri in the 1800s, well,
> you better move because the government put out an extermination order,
> and by virtue of it being a law, it's completely moral.
> somehow, i don't think it works that way
I'm getting tired of hoping people will notice this, but they're not.
So I'm going to have to spell it out.
*** Josh isn't claiming that it's moral ***
He's stating that that is the "the way things are" regardless of
whether we believe it to be moral or not.
And per your example, if I'm mormon and living in Missouri in the
1800's I have the following choices:
* try and change the law through the political process
* resist the law and rebel (fight back)
* get out of missouri and fast
Now whether the law in Missouri was moral and just or not is
irrelevant. The law was there. It was what the morality of the
majority dictated. Outrageous? Morally, yes (according to our
morality, at least). Logically, politically, socially? Not really.
So do I believe that legislating morality is a good idea? It depends.
But I agree with Josh's analysis of "the way things are". Questions
about whether it's the way things *should be* are completely separate.
More information about the PLUG