Kentucky Clerk Denies Marriage Licenses | Update: Clerk Freed w/Warning!

[JWeinCom]

padib said:

JWeinCom said:

It absolutely does not.  The reasoning behind the right to property is fairly well explained by many moral philosophers, most notably in the western world John Locke.

I don't know if you actually want to go through the pointlessly assinine exercise of debating whether or not stealing is wrong, but it is objectively healthier for a society to protect property rights.  We can come to this conclusion through basic human empathy (I don't like my things being taken from me, you are a human being like me, therefore I should not take your things), and we can easily see how stealing removes incentives for hard work, and leads to violence, etc.  It is pretty easy to see, even in a simple microcosm like a Kindergarten classroom, how stealing leads to conflict and disruption.  We have good reason to believe the consequences of stealing are detrimental to society.

I'm really hoping you're not going to actually argue that we should allow stealing...

Human empathy is important, but why is it important?

What is wrong with Chaos, from a really practical point of view? Ultimately what does it matter? One person gains this another gains that we all die in the end.

If you look at it from a moral point of view though, it starts to make much sense.  How will a person feel if I do X, how does my conscience react if I do X?

That is much more important than detrimental or not detrimental, which is all relative to each person's opinion.

Human empathy is important, but why is it important?

Because it enables us to cooperate, which allows us to help eachother, live a higher quality of life, live longer, reproduce, etc.  

What is wrong with Chaos, from a really practical point of view? Ultimately what does it matter? One person gains this another gains that we all die in the end.

It does not enable us to build societies, and enjoy the benefits mentioned above.  

If you look at it from a moral point of view though, it starts to make much sense.  How will a person feel if I do X, how does my conscience react if I do X?

No.  Because if we allow each person to act according to their conscience, that is what is known as anarchy.  We establish laws to help us maintain a society which works, ideally, to the mutual benefit of all of us.  Social contract theory.  Reed some Rousseau.

So, we have long worked on figuring out what helps us live together as a society to ensure happiness to all.  And we're far from perfect, but we're making progress.  One of the keys to that progress has been ensuring people basic rights.

Of course, you could argue for living in a social darwinist nightmare, but I'd argue that is a very bad idea.

That is much more important than detrimental or not detrimental, which is all relative to each person's opinion.

That's totally backwards.  Conscience is relative to the individual.

 

Do you have a point in this that is about gay marriage?