So basically Bluemooners, this is Mark85's vicar brother, using his account, for some reason he seems to be unable to create his own account and thus prevent Markt85 from looking like a Schizophrenic or a maniac.
So, basically, what this guy is talking about, which he has assumed his audience is aware of without naming it (so you can Google it) - a stupid idea in and of itself, is objective morality; the idea that morality isn't subjective but because it is God-given, it is absolute.
However, he seems to have missed out the points where supposedly the laws that are God-given are self-contradictory. So, assuming a God exists, one hell of an assumption, and assuming he has spoken to us on Earth through prophets, another big assumption, we've now got to work out what this self-contradictory twat wants. Apparently, we should not kill, but apparently we can also put people to death for many reasons, including stoning to death our children for being disobedient and for being a homosexual. So, it seems to me that objective morality is about as useful a a chocolate teapot. Can't prove the fucker exists, can't prove he spoke to us, and even if he did it's self-contradictory nonsense and hence is not useful.
Right, now, onto my version of morality. Human beings have power over their own bodies. A fact - unlike the existence of God, his prophets, and a tangible way to extract sense from a sea of self-contradiction. This means we should be judged by our individual actions. Extending on from this is the idea that, because we have freedom over own bodies, we should have freedom to do what we want with our own bodies, as long as we don't interfere with the freedom of other people to do the same. This idea was formulated by John Stuart Mill in the harm principle. Which says we can do what we want as long as we do not harm others. So there you go, you cannot kill, rape, or kidnap, hurt, or steal from someone because you are doing them harm. Meanwhile, you cannot stop homosexuals from having a relationship, taking drugs, engaging the services of a prostitute etc. because it doesn't harm anyone else by doing so. I'm quite happy to take my version of morality. I will say this isn't my only form of morality. My personal morality goes further and actually embraces many ideas purported to be those of Jesus Christ, including love, charity and forgiving people. However, the harm principle should be what the law is based on. It doesn't subscribe to the whims of any person. It cannot enforce my personal morality. It is absolute. If you harm someone, it's a crime. If you don't, it's not, even if it's questionable behaviour. Altruistic behaviour is unenforceable. It only demands no harm, and as I say, it is derivable from the fact that we as individuals control our own actions.
