NationStates Jolt Archive

Something I want to get clear, as some people seem to switch opinions on this middebate. Which do you support?

no

Morals don't need to be enforced. Morals can't be enforced. If you enforce them, then they are laws, not morals.

Morality is about doing the right thing because it is the right thing to do.

My religion/morality has laws that apply to nonbelievers, but don't need to be enforced

Except for not killing other people.

Well since my morality doens't consist of much except the importance of respecting other people's rights, freedoms, and feelings, then I probably won't feel too hypocritical saying that it should apply to everyone, even people who follow religious teachings that label me as a horrible mean ol' sinner :)

My religious law is simply that of Allah.

Some people beleive that God had a son and that that son imposed a will beyond human "defyment".

To each thier own.

Allah imposed two things:

1] Scientific law.
2] Allah's will.

Those are not mutually exclusive. If we find that Allah created the world in 20 billion years and dinosaurs roamed the earth and that F=ma, then so be it.

Allah never intended us to believe that everything was created in 6 days and that an apple eating wench was the cause of all problems.

If anyone actually believes that, I, and all Muslims, feel very sorry for those people.

As much as I hate how its been done in the past, I admire those who try to enforce their morality on their surroundings. If one knows what is right and wrong, but one does nothing to try and spread this...
They would simply be a powerless idealist.
Those who try and convert, or try and enforce their morality at least express a love that is not powerless.
That's assuming that love is a part of their morality.

That's another thing, so many people say freedom from morality. Isn't freedom for them in and of itself a moral? And they go about trying to make everyone free like them... and get mad at others for trying to spread theirs.

If a respectable, if a godly man smarter than you told you not to do something because it was immoral, would you still do it simply to be free from him? Or do you have a respect for your superiors?

It kind of depends. The part of my moral code that says that others must not be harmed should certainly be imposed upon others, by force if necessary.

However, those parts of my moral code which can be broken without hurting others are not things I would enforce upon others.

Something I want to get clear, as some people seem to switch opinions on this middebate. Which do you support?

They don't have to, but they should be able to defend/argue in favour of their own. That means they must actually have spend time thinking about their beliefs, exploring the flaws in it and have compared them to others. Most people never bother to do that - especially if their beliefs are based in religion.

If people wish to participate in a society the societies morals should of course take precedence over their own in daily life. If the ideas conflict too much - leave.

Well there is a delimma here. As my moral code states that everyone should be something like a Stinrerian Egoist. Thus, obedience to "spooks" such as Gods, religions, moral principles and Governements is considered the cause of all conflicts between individuals as well as between groups and between man and nature.

My morality and politics simply states that Each and every individual thing comes to be with it's own unique place in the universe, it's own path and niche to fulfil, and if everyone was strong willed and self-sufficient enough to persue that individual purpose, with 100% of their energy and and focus, there would be no problems. Everything would just fit together like clock-work.

The problem is that people but invent spooks and convince others to serve the goals of these spooks, rather than one self alone. We are taught to serve every other goal, and to put our own goals last.

I say we put our own goal first and serve other goals only in so much as they benefit our own goal. Then we each add to the world what is in our innate potential from birth, and the world as a whole benefites from our contributions.

However, imposing this on others as a set law will only lead to one idea of what is right, being imposed on all individuals, and thus a superficial understadning of the egosit principle become just another spook that prevents true Egosim from manifesting itself.

I suppose I'd go for the second option. Ideally everyone WOULD follow the code I follow (everyone thinks that way, 'tis true), but I see no point in enforcing it.

No. Not only isd nobody obligated to obey a religious or moral structure they disagree with, they are not even obliged to take it at all seriously. I find it incredibly offensive that fundamentalist types (of whatever religion) expect public opinion and the laws of the land to accomodate their ridiculous superstitions while refusing to show the slightest scrap of tolerance or respect for any opinion that differs from their own.

I have something of a minimalist moral code as it is, and it covers things that we already agree should be enforced, like murder. Since my moral code is only a prohibition on initiating the use of force, I see no reason why this should not be upheld by everyone.

I do believe that society should abide by my moral beliefs, not necessarily enforce them. This is a tricky question when your morality states that no morality should be imposed.

As for religion, I am nonreligious, and that is how the government should act as well.

I think others should comply to my religious morale!
Like sionism, the Roman Catholich Church, the different churches in USA preaching creationism or death for a foreign head of state (No, no not Saddam, Chavez!).
Like all these religions my religion has authority to teach you the way.

You will not have 72 virgins to *** in our paradise, you will have no purgatory to buy by indulgences, you will have all your Friday nites free for whatever you could do and no temple to rebuild.

My Church is not democratic.
This is a private faith of no concern for anyone !
The ULC country is in charge of these carbage religious crap.
We don't give a *** what is after death, we are the Gods, we believe in ourselves never in our bank.

We are modern!!!
We accept plastic, Amex, Visa etc...
And we accept new membership to the Bas Pays region.

Our credo is do not awake the Lazy Greasy Last Emperor of Zigounette the UN delegate (compulsory) of the Bas Pays.

Like Cthulu he' OK when he sleeps, he just shut up.

Jimmy Carter
Peanuts dealer
Tourist in this forum
Free Lander of Autolyse

would I like it if everyone obeyed my moral structure? maybe, well probibly
Do I think they should haveto? nope.
is there any real way to force people to do something they don't want to? no
should there be? absolutley not.

that cover it? ;)

I have no religion or ethical views at this time. I've been looking for one, but I haven't really seen it.