Moral America, where do we go from here?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Kerrie
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the evolving moral landscape in America, particularly in relation to laws and societal norms. Participants explore various controversial topics such as gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, and the role of religion in public life. The conversation touches on the balance between individual freedoms and moral codes, as well as the implications of these issues on education and societal values.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that the definition of moral issues varies widely, suggesting that freedom should take precedence when one group's behavior does not directly affect another.
  • Concerns are raised about the influence of religious beliefs on laws, with questions about whether laws are based on religious morality or practical considerations.
  • Participants express differing views on the Pledge of Allegiance, with some seeing it as a historical misunderstanding rather than a moral issue.
  • There is a call for a base moral code that could be accepted by the majority to address contentious issues like abortion and education on evolution versus creationism.
  • Some participants find it amoral to prohibit certain freedoms, such as gay marriage and stem cell research, while others emphasize the need for tolerance and understanding of diverse beliefs.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential consequences of advancing scientific research, such as cloning, and whether it could lead to beneficial outcomes.
  • Discussion includes the idea that societal norms should evolve with scientific advancements rather than remain stagnant due to traditional beliefs.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that there is no consensus on what constitutes moral issues, and multiple competing views remain on how to navigate these topics in society. The discussion reflects a range of perspectives without a clear resolution.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of defining morality in a diverse society, noting that many laws may be influenced by religious views, yet practical reasons also play a significant role. The conversation reveals a tension between tradition and the need for change in response to evolving societal values.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to individuals exploring the intersection of morality, law, and societal change, particularly in the context of American values and freedoms.

  • #31


Originally posted by Njorl
Ah. You're probably right. My first thought was natural law=law of the jungle. I now vaguely recall that there is a set of concepts collectively known as natural law. My mistake.

Njorl
You're probably thinking Hobbes: "state of nature," ie anarchy. No biggie.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Originally posted by phatmonky
My amazing awful, horrible, vile, stances...


That 'creationist junk' has as much founding as evolution.

Actually, if you venture into the science forums, you'll see many intelligent threads on exactly why creationism is awful, horrible, and incredibly stupid bull****.

Teaching creationism in science class is like teaching holocaust denial in history class.
 
  • #33
Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
Actually, if you venture into the science forums, you'll see many intelligent threads on exactly why creationism is awful, horrible, and incredibly stupid bull****.

Teaching creationism in science class is like teaching holocaust denial in history class.
Be fair...creationism isn't quite as bad as holocaust denial. However, neither subject deserves serious study in America's schools.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
Originally posted by Zero
Right...so when are the Christian right going to quit whining and depending on political correctness to get away with what they do?

Got you rolls reversed here, I think. Political correctness is the whine of the liberal; almost exclusively.
 
  • #35
Originally posted by LURCH
Got you rolls reversed here, I think. Political correctness is the whine of the liberal; almost exclusively.
That is exactly the opposite of true. While the name may not be the same, the official osition of the right-wing seems to be "if you say anything negative about our side, it is hate speech, and should be stopped". Conservatives are the masters of whining, from their lie that religious freedom is at risk from the ACLU, to their lie about "liberal media bias".
 
  • #36
Originally posted by LURCH
Got you rolls reversed here, I think. Political correctness is the whine of the liberal; almost exclusively.

I disagree. Political correctness is what republicans stick to so they don't say something overtly racist, sexist, etc. Not that the occassional freudian slip doesn't get out.
 
  • #37
Originally posted by Zero
Be fair...creationism isn't quite as bad as holocaust denial. However, neither subject deserves serious study in America's schools.

I disagree. The motives are somewhat different (although you'll often find the same people advocating both), if you judge each belief based on fact they're quite comparably from an intellectual standpoint.
 

Similar threads

News Separation of Church and State May God Bless the rest of us?
  • · Replies 99 ·
4
Replies
99
Views
13K
News Is War Sometimes Necessary to Achieve Peace?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
News Obama Inaugural Address: Summary & Analysis
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
6K
News Ahmadinejad's speech at Durban II
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
8K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K