Personal v Public

@secondson said
Veganism.

Rights. Freedoms. Entitlements. Taxation. Government authority. Intervention. Responsibility Representation. Social obligations. Justice. Punishment. Values. Religion. Gender. Sexual orientation. Nature and the environment. Stuff like that. Stuff that touches on what your moral compass tells you as is the case with abortion. "Veganism" just sounds facetious.

@fmf said
So, you'd like to see all your moral beliefs enshrined in law so that other people had to comply with them? You can't think of ANY moral issues you'd be willing to compromise on?

The "morality" I hold to is "enshrined" in the sacred scriptures of which the only true and living God has enumerated.

Ideally I'd like to see that morality enacted into law because it would be for the good, health and wellbeing of all mankind.

But let's be practical. That won't happen in reality until Jesus returns.

@secondson said
The "morality" I hold to is "enshrined" in the sacred scriptures of which the only true and living God has enumerated.

Ideally I'd like to see that morality enacted into law because it would be for the good, health and wellbeing of all mankind.

So, just to be clear, your answer to...

"So, you'd like to see all your moral beliefs enshrined in the law of the land so that other people had to comply with them?"

...is "yes", right?

@secondson said
The "morality" I hold to is "enshrined" in the sacred scriptures of which the only true and living God has enumerated.

You'd ideally like to impose the implications of these personal beliefs on the people around who don't share them?

@fmf said
So, just to be clear, your answer to...

"So, you'd like to see all your moral beliefs enshrined in the law of the land so that other people had to comply with them?"

...is "yes", right?

My moral beliefs?

@fmf said
You'd ideally like to impose the implications of these personal beliefs on the people around who don't share them?

I would impose?

@secondson said
I would impose?

Yes, in the sense framed by the thread topic.

@divegeester said
Could you provide a working example of a “metaphysical leap of faith” upon which a series of values would be based by a secular humanist state ?

Sure -- it's too easy, because basically everything that is not rooted in empiricism is a sort of value judgment, and I think that you could even argue that empiricism itself brings with it its own value judgment.

So, even if we say something like men and women are equal, what most people in the world view as highly agreeable and think of as a sort of basis for many of our laws based on gender equality, it is still very much just a leap of faith. There is nothing in the natural world that would suggest men are equal, let alone two distinct genders with different physical characteristics and even different tendencies in their cognitive lives are equal.

You would be hard pressed to even find evidence for a statement that men with the same father are equal.

But, it is treated as a sacred principle, and it is just commonly accepted conventions enshrined in our Western liberal democracies, in spite of the fact that there is nothing in the natural world to suggest it is true.

These things are all metaphysical leaps of faith that our secular humanist societies have come to.

@philokalia said
Sure -- it's too easy, because basically everything that is not rooted in empiricism is a sort of value judgment, and I think that you could even argue that empiricism itself brings with it its own value judgment.

So, even if we say something like men and women are equal, what most people in the world view as highly agreeable and think of as a sort of basis for m ...[text shortened]...
These things are all metaphysical leaps of faith that our secular humanist societies have come to.

Are there any personal principles or standards that are important to you that you would not want to see enshrined in laws that force everybody to conform to how you see the world.

@fmf said
Are there any personal principles or standards that are important to you that you would not want to see enshrined in laws that force everybody to conform to how you see the world.

I didn't answer this the first time because it just seems like a rude rhetorical question, and my opinion of it has not changed.

@philokalia said
I didn't answer this the first time because it just seems like a rude rhetorical question, and my opinion of it has not changed.

How is it "rude"?

@philokalia said
I didn't answer this the first time because it just seems like a rude rhetorical question, and my opinion of it has not changed.

Nope. It's not a "rhetorical question". If you don't want to answer, that's fine. But I think you are hiding behind a misuse the word "rhetorical" because it was clearly a question that invites an answer.

@philokalia said
I didn't answer this the first time because it just seems like a rude rhetorical question, and my opinion of it has not changed.

If you don’t already, you should play Dodgeball.

@philokalia said
So, even if we say something like men and women are equal, what most people in the world view as highly agreeable and think of as a sort of basis for many of our laws based on gender equality, it is still very much just a leap of faith. There is nothing in the natural world that would suggest men are equal, let alone two distinct genders with different physical characteristics and even different tendencies in their cognitive lives are equal.

think we have a different idea of what “metaphysical” means.

No one claims “men and women are equal”, they talk about “equality” of rights.