[aconservaguy]

There is definitely an overlap between law and morality. But in some societies at various times non-consensual sex has not been considered immoral, but we can easily look at it from the perspective that the victims rights were violated. Legislating from a Rights perspective versus morality makes things simpler.

I agree.

That's a common opinion, but I'm curious as to your arguments to substantiate it? If you're going to point to the Bible, then what about people of other religions? Jews and Christians certainly don't view the Bible in the same way, and even among Christians alone there are widely varying concepts of morality. Looking at Catholics alone you will see church standards on morality changing radically over the centuries.

I won't point to the bible or any "religious" reasons; you make a good point about the changing standards of the church, though; however, those changing standards don't necessarliy mean morality is relative, imo. and it's true that "church standards" have changed over the centuries; but, and this is just pure conjecture, could it be possible that the reason the standards have changed (or not) isn't because of any difference in time, place, etc., but because the "church" realized it was in error? Also, again i look at my earlier statement which stated that morals exist "independent of..." we may have differing opinions on what is morally right or wrong, but nonetheless i believe that objective morals do exist (now finding those out is another story all together, lol).

Also, I think if we admit morality is relative, then so are rights and other such things.

Basically, I view morality to be too slippery a topic and I really don't like the idea of gov't telling me what I can and can't do on an arbitrary basis (because someone finds it immoral). But I think we can agree that people have rights and legislate our behaviour only to protect the rights of others. This keeps things simple, or at least simpler : )

I agree that morality is a slippery topic; but just something i'm just wondering : how would you defend your statement that

"I think we can agree that people have rights and legislate our behaviour only to protect the rights of others."

in light of your statement

"I really don't like the idea of gov't telling me what I can and can't do on an arbitrary basis (because someone finds it immoral)"

It just seems there's a little tension between the two... Also, I think there are certain underlying "moral" principles which formulate and influence the (or any) government.

[moderation_is_not_a_bad_thing]

>"I agree that morality is a slippery topic; but just something i'm just wondering : how would you defend your statement that "I think we can agree that people have rights and legislate our behaviour only to protect the rights of others." in light of your statement "I really don't like the idea of gov't telling me what I can and can't do on an arbitrary basis (because someone finds it immoral)""


While the difference between legislating Rights versus Morality can seem to be a minor semantic argument the results can be significant.

The biggest difference between legislating rights versus morality is that when looking at rights there can be no crime if no one's rights have been violated. Yet, legislating morality allows the gov't to proscribe even private victimless behaviour and that is too arbitrary for me. I believe that unless there is a victim, unless someone else is affected, a person should be free to follow their own conscience and moral standard without interference from gov't.