| > What would we base our arguments for adding or removing rules upon? In practice we use a lot of things to attempt to convince a population to be for/against a law. We do it based on emotion (i.e. how much outrage/empathy/fear can be mustered on this particular crime), a sense of fairness sometimes. But almost all the arguments using morals are poor ones - the against argument for female bodily autonomy is argued using morals, for example, and it didn't work. Same-sex marriages weren't won by making moral arguments inasmuch the other side lost by making moral arguments. When you see an argument based on morals, replace the word "morals" with "my god says so", because in practice that is all it is. > if you want I'd recommend the book "How to Be Perfect" as a relatively fun read on the subject and a good introduction. Thanks, I'll have a look for it. I'm afraid it seems that I haven't convinced you that arguing from morals is pointless, but I'm going to try one more time :-) But, I respect your position, and it is not an uncommon one. ... so, parting thought ... How can you continue an argument using your moral position as support, when the other party can dismiss your argument by saying that your moral position is inferior to his? |