...
One could easily argue on those grounds that no one actually knows the definition of the things which the same texts unequivocally condemn. Therefore, you can't punish anyone for anything ever again. Was this murder? Or merely killing? And so forth. You take a person's right to define their boundaries and put it in the hands of the tribe--the entity most likely to violate it. The tribe has its favorites, those who can do no wrong in its eyes. For them, this will be a paradise. For those they violate, a hell. Plus, you can then say that one's position in society is the result of some sin in a prior life! So awesome! Not only is what I just did to your daughter's body not called 'rape' where I'm concerned, but if it hurt her, she obviously did something to deserve it in some former existence. And if you accuse me of lying, that's obviously unbeliever talk. Sweeeeeeet.
Quoting: SureThingBuddy This is where reason and logic come into play.
Emotions are real, and people experience them irregardless of perspective.
Knowing that killing or murder will anger the kin of the deceased a rule would be placed forbidding murder not on the grounds of morality, but because of the implications for the efficient functioning of a society.
If a loved one is killed by an act of violence, a drunk driver or any other method, the family and those who love that person will experience the emotions of hurt, sadness, anger, rage.
This would give them a personal justification and motivation to enact revenge.
Acts of revenge spiral into blood feuds so this would be detrimental to society because of the way such things escalate, thus a no killing law.
The purpose of laws in a society are not to enact the moral will of some group, this is where most societies screw things up, the laws of a society should only serve the purpose to keep the society functioning because humans are more successful in large numbers.
The same rules of logic could be applied to anything, and basing the laws on the functioning of society only would prevent moral bias.
Ideally such a system would place as much power as possible in the hands of the individual, the second most power on the city, then county, then state, then national.
Such a system would place no laws to restrict a persons moral prerogative, but would prevent such morality from being the basis for creating laws.
Things like abortion would have to be weighed logically as well.
What are the trends for the population?
Are more people desperately needed?
How many people are looking to adopt?
Can the parent care for the child?
Is something wrong with the child?
Is the child the result of an emotionally damaging rape that could result in a difficult childhood?
Is the parent mentally impaired?
What does the parent want to do?
What are the feelings of the potential father?
The order of importance would be what the population needs and the desires of the parents.
It would work as a 3 way vote if it met certain criteria.
The moral prerogative of the mother would take president.
