People should be forced to abide by core laws preventing actions that are detrimental to society, like murder and rape.
I completely agree. There should be some harm involved if action is to be taken.
Sure people should adhere to certain precepts: Those they believe to be just and deserving, and those established as law. But this doesn't mean that they can't include a scale of permissible harm.
.
I can understand this, I mean some believe in not murdering yet believe in capital punishment, though thats a more extreme example than what your talking about.
hi.
sin is prohibited in religions because its detrimental to people, for there salvation, there body or there spirit!
Yes religion does try and prevent things like what you mention but the question is if people should force people to not sin, or do people have a right to sin then face consequences for god to judge?
"Immoral." Ehh, I don't know. Immoral doesn't necessitate bad per se.
People should follow the law ideally, but being forced to adhere to precepts that prohibits "sin?" Not so much.
Yes morality can be a bit subjective so I can see that being a factor in not prohibiting some things.
I could be described as a moral nihilist in that I don't see things as "moral" or "immoral." As such, it doesn't get to the point of "allowing things." I do not see these things in the fashion framed by the question. So for me, this question functionally translates to "what are your beliefs in allowing things you might dislike?" On that, I hold to the virtue of pluralism. I allow everything that I dislike; it has every right to exist and flourish. Live and let live is the maxim. Both conflict and cooperation are inevitable outcomes of multiplicity interacting, and that is worked with as it unfolds.
The better question is "can you force people to abide by certain precepts." The answer is no, no I cannot; such is not and will likely never be within my power, even supposing I had any desire to do so in the first place (which I do not - again, the virtue of pluralism). Thus there is little reason to make prescriptive "should" statements for something I have no desire to do and for something which is not possible.
Moral nihilism makes sense logically but could open up a lot of unwanted consequences. I think its ok to say some cultures are wrong especially some of the more inhumane things that can be done to women in other cultures.
Can we force people? No. That is a pretty strong point. I don't think that should prevent people from trying. Ideally when we know when and where wrong will occur it would be our duty to at least try and stop it.
I am usually trying to "cut people a break" morally as I know I do stupod things that dont warrant capitol punishment (for example). I agree with mor vs immoral because if everthing was say moral then X person can shoot up schools and we wont address the behavior because there is no opinion on it.
So, I find that nuetral view unproductive to society. If someones morals had to do with hurting onself, others, or medical or so have you I wouod find it moral to address the concern based on situation. If it were a choice, I wouldnt allow these things to happen since I find them immoral and as a result detrimental to our society.
If someone doesnt harm themselves, others, and can take care of themselves without breaking up society or promoting morals on people who dont share them, then people can do whatever they choose. But most societies have precepts or laws based on morality (such as freedom of speech in america) and the boundy would be if they abuse that freedom.
No. I feel if people are treated as people rather than prey, calliteral, or otherwise, we would not feel we need to force people to act X way. It woule be natural in the environment and culture they grow up in.
I am very much in agreement with what your saying.
If, for example, I find a patient to be abused, it is the moral thing to do to report it and make sure the evidence is documented. I will continue to fight to make sure it is well understood this is happening. Now, the problem is, imagine that after much investigation, it's still a fact the patient is being abused, but they are like Harley Quinn and refuse to leave this person no matter what out of "love". To force a separation would also cause severe emotional harm and possibly make things worse, if there is retaliation, physical or otherwise. My moral indignation is being contrasted with the morality (and practicality) of respecting the patient's rights (even if I think it's stupid). I can only watch as the relationship continues to unhealthy because my moral sense was not enough to change things: THEY had to want it, too.
Gonna need a drink for a bit ... *sniffle* ... I'll be fine ...
When talking of suffering I can see a need to fight for what is right.
If anyone is going to try to make me follow the purported commandments of their god(s), they'd better be prepared to demonstrate - to MY satisfaction - that:
- their god(s) actually exist
- their god(s) really did say what they're supposed to have said
I have to agree, shouldn't be a holy book telling us what is right, especially for an incognito type deity.
Religion and Allowing Sin
What are your religious or non-religious beliefs in allowing things that you might find personally immoral?
My beliefs are that if you personally allow something that is immoral, that is a sin and should be repented of. (you should actually not do it if possible)
Are there lines you draw on amount of harm caused or should people just adhere to certain precepts?
The lines that should be drawn are to treat others as you want to be treated yourself, people should adhere to the law of loving others.
Should people be forced to abide by certain precepts or is slack allowed in your view?
All people were given free will, and have their free will to follow the laws and precepts that their religion calls for. For instance, Christians have the 10 commandments that are our precepts along with the commands of Jesus to Love God and love our neighbors.
ronandcarol
I'm in agreement and can appreciate your openness to religious values.
Isn't it better to control oneself rather than being controlled by others?? I realize society must and will protect themselves. On the other hand, sometimes it takes choosing evil to discover what evil really is. It's called living your lessons. When it all returns and one understands, one will not have to be controlled by others.
As I see it. Mankind's greatest problem is that everybody wants to rule the world. The greater sin is to control others. The diversity of freedom brings much more goodness than most realize. Sure, interaction brings much Drama. On the other hand, most of the learning also happens around drama.
That makes sense that we are still learning from each other. Perhaps there are things that are more obvious that we are able to agree with like murder being wrong. Interesting take that controlling others being a greater sin, this makes sense which lends to people who may be more of the self.
A big thing for me being love for others which necessitates putting the self last. It does sometimes mean allowing people to learn from their own mistakes as long as it isn't bringing great harm on people or society. Of course this is hard to control for even our own children where we want to allow them to learn but we don't want them ending up in jail or worse.
