2006-07-10 08:56:54 · 10 answers · asked by matthat16 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Individual freedom already reconciles it. The majority is free to live up to its moral standards. That's fair to everybody, since every individual (whether majority or minority) is given equal freedom, including in the entire realm of morality.
2006-07-10 11:59:16 · answer #1 · answered by A B 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This is a great example when it comes to the argument about gay marriage. The argument that the majority of people have voted against it in some states doesn't make it right. Example between 1876 and 1964 It was illegal for a white woman to marry a black man and vice verse, and during that time the so call majority would have agreed, however that didn't make it right then and it doesn't make it right now. The Constitution protect the minority from the majority making rules and laws that make a dual system of laws. That's why they can't seem to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage, cause they have no good legal reason. The only one that they can come up with are religious reasons which have no place in the court system and the whole traditional argument which can be argued the same about 1964 that traditionally that blacks could not marry a whites. if the sexes are equal then two men or two women are the same as one man and one woman. The fact that they can't biologically have children has no merit since some heterosexual couples can conceive either.
2006-07-10 16:14:37 · answer #2 · answered by lg304621942 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think you have to have moral standards in order to have any type of individual freedom. If their were no moral standards then there would be anarchy and everyone would do what they wanted with and to anyone else. It would be the true definition of chaos.
Individual freedoms come with the knowledge that there are rules in a civilized society and everyone must abide by them or suffer the consequences.
2006-07-10 16:18:10 · answer #3 · answered by rhutson 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It can not it is a free for all out there and people are oppressed daily. knowledge is power, but not enough power to stop a group that is organized and evil well unless you are a army of one for real. Societal injustices will exist until we are no longer a race. Hatred is a blanket that many wrap them self's and think ok is the way to live.
2006-07-10 16:01:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Total (individual) freedom for everybody is just as bad as no freedom for anybody. There's got to be a middle ground, and it is the burden of democracies to find it.
2006-07-10 16:15:50 · answer #5 · answered by virgoascendant 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This was the same question the forefathers of the U.S. had to answer. Society must have boundaries. Without it you would have anarchy, individualism, and eventually, various dictators.
2006-07-10 16:08:06 · answer #6 · answered by merdenoms 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
there must be a moral standard. would you want your son or daughter raped because some pervert says it's his right to be in love with them?
2006-07-10 16:01:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
To follow the letter of the law.
2006-07-10 16:18:22 · answer #8 · answered by Dog Mama 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
on a case by case basis
2006-07-10 16:00:41 · answer #9 · answered by worldstiti 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your question is too open ended. Next time please narrow it down a little more, please.
2006-07-10 16:12:03 · answer #10 · answered by jack f 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋