Keith

When we do what we understand is morally wrong, we sin. When we do wrong without realizing that it is wrong the wrong is not wrong in the moral sense, nor is it sin, but it may be wrong in some other sense.

Mageth

True, but our society is not just desirable to people because we punish people for breaking our laws, our society is free and prosperous mainly because our laws presuppose inherent individual human rights. Do you agree that we humans have inherent human rights?

I agree that our Society/Constitution presupposes (or assigns to us) some human rights. I agree that I and others can behave like we and others have "inherent" human rights, and that behavior may be beneficial to us all. But I don't agree that there are "inherent" human rights outside of the moral system(s) to which we adhere. Such rights must be granted to us by the society in which we live.

Such rights are constructs of our society, not the other way around. Take equality (i.e. equal treatment under the law) - it's a good right to have and to recognize, but serious thought should make one realize that equality only has meaning in a society that supports equal treatment under the law as a "right", and even then is beneficial to you only if it applies to your group.

When the Constitution was written, the concept of equality (and of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness") was only fully applied to white males.

If you were stuck on an isolated tropical island, would you have any "inherent" human rights? Would the wild animals or fierce natives that might be there treat you as if you had any inherent human rights?

Mageth

Huh? You lost me there. What other sense is there?

You said earlier:

So, as long as someone doesn't think it's morally wrong to cheat on their spouse, it is morally right?

So, based on the above, your answer to your own question would be "It may not be morally right but at the same time it may not be morally wrong?"

Further, you said: "When we do what we understand is morally wrong, we sin." So the "someone" in your above statement who doesn't think it's morally wrong to cheat on their spouse, by your logic, is not sinning.

You seem a bit confused on this whole issue.

Keith

I agree, in many, many ways we'd all be much better off if the crowd lived by the golden rule. But Saddam and Osama certainly don't see things that way and so we're right back to the tricky part--on what grounds can we say that mass murder is morally wrong? It seems to me that if we want the world to be a better place, we ought, first, to know what is good and what is bad. And not subjectively, based on our own feelings, but objectively.

Keith

The legal sense, for one. In some states it is illegal to make a right turn on red. It is possible that someone could break a law such as this without realizing it.

Mageth

The only way to do that, in this case, is for a global moral standard to be applied. This is reached by consensus, is essentially subjective, what is "good" and "bad" are defined/agreed upon by the global society. There is no objective basis for such a global moral standard other than the best interest of the most people of the world.

Keith

No, I said that when we do what we understand is morally wrong, we sin.

Mageth

But a basic tenet of our laws is that "ignorance is no excuse".

In any case, making a right turn on red is, in my opinion, not a moral issue; it's a legal issue. There's nothing immoral or "sinful" about turning right on red, is there? It's not wrong as we've been using wrong in this thread; it's illegal. You might argue that knowingly breaking the traffic laws is morally wrong, I guess.

Mageth

But like I said, in the cheating question, the "someone" does not "understand" that what he or she is doing is morally wrong. So how can they be sinning?

You seem to be arguing for the very thing you've been accusing me of.

Keith

Yes, I would still have inherent human rights. I don't think it's possible for animals to "treat you as if you had any inherent rights" because animals don't comprehend the idea of rights. The natives may or may not treat me as if I had rights, depending on their opinions concerning human rights and what their priorities and objectives happened to be at the time.