If morality is merely something that is decided by society, then how can you claim we have a right to anything? Now I know the Founding Fathers were not devout Christians by any means, but they strongly believed in inalienable rights, which are imparted in us by a Supreme Being. Doesn't mean they are right of course, but if you argue that a woman has a right to chose, who says she has a right to chose? Herself? But I thought society was supposed to decide? Where does a homosexual's right to marry the same sex come from?
There are four ways to govern a society: 1) Representative government (i.e. states will disagree and there will be no uniformity) 2) Mob rule (51% of the people oppress 49%) 3) A leader rules (Supreme Court, President, dictator, etc) 4) Anarchy, no one tells us what to do...
Which one is more in tune with what you believe? Or did I miss one? And just if you think "no one can tell us what to do" then how can there even be a co-existant, governed society?
2007-06-20 06:20:03 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Sure it's relative. That means that those of us who disagree with how things are now should speak up and vote and work to change things. WE being part of society can help society decide what to change and when and why.
This is the concept of 'liberal' and 'conservative'. Liberal means you are open to new ideas and want change, conservative means you like how things are and want things to change very little if at all.
Remember that society and laws are both dynamic things that change over time. Part of the change is having discussions on the topics in question and voicing one's opinion. Remember also that all people are part of society; we are not separate from it. Thus change happens from within.
And I like the representative government, it's the only practical way to rule a country this large.
2007-06-20 06:32:53 · answer #1 · answered by KC 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Morality IS something that is decided by society - that statement is correct. That same social consciousness forms the structure of what a society as a whole considers "civil rights". A government of the people will attempt to legislate what, for the most part, the constituents consider to be their civil rights.
Regarding your example of abortion. Society in some cultures HAS decided to leave that choice to the woman. They haven't decided for her, they have given her the right to choose, within limits. Homosexual's rights come from that same society that refuses to discriminate against someone just because they are different that the "norm".
Obviously a democratic government is elected by the people but once in office must use their judgement to do what they feel is right, even if on ly 49% (or less) of the people would agree.
Given the options, what we have in the west is the best choice that I see.
2007-06-20 06:32:34 · answer #2 · answered by blooz 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Who says atheists all believe morality is relative? As far as government goes, I believe our system is pretty good, a constitutional government, with the system of checks and balances.
Our society is evolving. Our founding fathers allowed the practice of slavery. What happened to the rights of the slaves? We progressed to a point where we saw that slaves deserved the same rights. It was not easy, but we moved past that. Women went through a similar, though not nearly as traumatic for our society, change in roles and rights.
2007-06-20 06:28:58 · answer #3 · answered by in a handbasket 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Morality is relative.
Look at the history of woman's rights.
Look at the history of slavery.
Many of those American founding fathers that declared those "inalienable rights" owned slaves.
As for governing. 3 is ideal, if you have the right dictator. But it is too easy to get the wrong one.
1 is meaningless. How do the states decide?
Democracy is he best of a set of poor choices. What we have lies somewhere between 2 and 3.
We elect an elite, who then decide what is best for us.
"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."
- Sir Winston Churchill
2007-06-20 06:29:48 · answer #4 · answered by Simon T 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
"Now I know the Founding Fathers were not devout Christians by any means, but they strongly believed in inalienable rights, which are imparted in us by a Supreme Being."
WRONG!
Inalienable rights simply means those rights are inviolate, and cannot be removed or changed.
It has nothing at all to do with a supreme being.
You go off on such mad tangents after this, my migraine made me stop.
2007-06-20 06:42:34 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Your confusion springs from misunderstanding the nature of the origins of morality.
The broadest strokes of morality spring from evolution -- empathy and altruism. Understand others, and help them. It's the golden rule.
However, we've built up this complex system where there is Self, Other, Tribe, and Us. Worse yet, we might be part of multiple Tribes. I am part of the citizenry of Arkansas, which means I have an interest in the goals of Arkansas, but I'm also a member of the Furry community, and like it or not considering the low quality of much of the gay community in the area, I'm a member of that community to.
Every Self has goals, every Other has goals, every Tribe has goals, and yes, We have goals as well.
The problem is...
These goals often conflict.
And that is exactly why morality is relative beyond the broadest evolved strokes, because all morality is goal-based. Change the goal, and you change the morality. Change the Tribe and you change the morality.
If morality was absolute... why would we even be having this discussion, after all?
2007-06-20 06:26:41 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
No way. the U. S. is a perfect united states of america. i've got lived right here all my existence, have served interior the protection rigidity and have been a protection rigidity spouse for almost 18 years. yet, i won't be in a position to combat a conflict over faith. If it ever got here to that, i could bypass someplace this is greater open to atheists. i could provide up my citizenship without hesitation and seek for a place (Sweden perhaps?) the place peace and acceptance have been greater effectual than intolerance and dogmatic faith.
2016-09-28 04:20:52 · answer #7 · answered by hoehl 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You bring up good points. I think civil rights, as you speak about them, are relative. If you go to another country, a woman no longer has the right to choose and gays cannot marry. These rights, however, are guaranteed to us, not by God, but by the foundations of America (ie the Consitution). The roots of morality can be traced back, from law to belief in God to societal norms to biological benefits. These underlying morals, rights, and rules are not relative...They are based on cause and effect.
2007-06-20 06:25:42 · answer #8 · answered by Eleventy 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Inalienable rights are not imparted by an invisible magic man.
YOu speak of LIBERTY. Liberty is freedom or in your terms: "The soul's right to breathe."
None of this has to do with religion or "god."
Freedom is when you are able to do anything you wish as long as it doesn't impinge upon the freedom of others. (And that is still too restrictive.)
What this has to do with religion.
Civil rights. Make sure you understand them. Homosexuals can marry under the constitution of the USA. 14th Amendment (or 15th?)
You are not understanding liberty or freedom. A co existant governed society can exist without "god." Already has, already will.
Society is as mythological as your god (see The Public and its Problems by John Dewey.)
I am responsible for me.
2007-06-20 06:28:15 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
look around the wrold and you will that with diff religions morality is relative.
It's all state of mind. Child is a like a computer what ever you will fill at the beginning that's the way it will work
I would say dump all religions and let economis to work out the deal.
2007-06-20 06:25:45 · answer #10 · answered by PicassoInActions 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋