I really don’t think that the people in this forum are going to be receptive to a conversation on the proof of the existence of the Christian god and despite some peoples belief that I post here just to cause trouble, I’ll say that I respect peoples right to believe in whatever god or no god, if that’s what they choose. I’ll just say that I don’t share your belief while at the same time I respect your right to it.
So then you freely admit that morality is arbitrary as no matter what god commands it will be moral by definition even if gods command caused, ohhhhh, saaaaay endless and unimaginable pain and suffering and declared it was good?
I’m familar with positive and negative rights, it’s just that we live in a homogeneous world with respect to cultures and ideas. Therefore if as a culture we fail to live up to our potential, we could lose our rights, oops, excuse me, we could have our rights permanently infringed upon by other societies that are stronger than we are because they worked together in ways that we refused to because we felt were an infringement on our negative rights.
I believe that a culture that refuses to coordinate won’t live up to it’s potential and will be susceptible to force from outside.
It’s not that I disagree with the idea in spirit, it’s just that regardless of what you believe, you have to make a choice. You apparently believe that the choice is made for you, the problem I have with the way you believe is that someone else can interpret what god says differently. How can you, for instance, say that Bin Laden was wrong? He believed in his god as much as you do.
No one “owns” me.
If my boss asks me to do something, I do it, try to convince him I shouldn’t do it, or I quit.
If my government creates a rule that requires I do something, I do it, I try to convince others that the law should be changed or I move somewhere else in the world. Fortunately, I live in a country where I can try to convince others to change the law is possible.
So the question that BJ asked and I’m sure your wondering is, how do I determine what is “right” and “wrong”?
Easy, something is wrong or bad if it causes actual or potential harm or suffering or it does both and something is good or right if it results in actual or potential happiness or well-being or it does both.
Now take note that there is nothing about this that is subjective or relativistic about my definition. The fact that murder causes harm or that saving a life minimizes it is objectively true. These facts are true independent of my belief in them they are not a personal opinion just for me. Harm pain, health, and well-being, these are real states of human existence. We now have the technology to objectively measure pain and suffering and happiness in the brain. Now an individual experience of happiness or pain can be subjective, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s objectively happening. I don’t have to agree that you are dying for you too, in fact, be dying.
Now I think I can predict your next objection. You might say something like, “Well all that might be true, but you have subjectively chosen to define morally wrong as something that causes actual or potential suffering.”
Well, duh. Of course.
There is no such thing as a correct or incorrect definition. We choose the combination of letters and sounds to represent ideas arbitrarily and subjectively.
What isn’t arbitrary or subjective is what phenomenon fit those definitions once they have been established.
So given my definition, is rape objectively wrong?
Of course, because it objectively causes unnecessary pain and suffering. This is a moral fact.
What’s that? I’ve simply chosen these ideas subjectively? Of course, as have you, as does the believer in Allah as does the believer in whatever other ideas pass as religion or ideology. Which is, of course, my point.
People make choices about right and wrong. You’ve chosen to define right and wrong as what you believe your god says. Since you can’t prove that you’re god exists, that instead, you have faith, you’ve made a choice as have I.
In both cases, whether someone believes you or believes me, the world is a better place than it would be if people believed someone like Hitler.
Here let me answer this again…IF god, and by god I assume you mean your understanding of the Christian God, exists then everything you’ve said is 100% true if you will concede that if he does not exist, then people have to make a subjective choices about objective states of human existence.
Woe to you who live in the wrong universe with the wrong God, right? Not arbitrary. No more arbitrary than the stones such a God created for you to walk upon.
I figured you were. That’s why I didn’t waste time trying to explain the difference
We do? Maybe this is a typo?
Working together is not remotely incompatible with negative rights. In fact, it is quite necessary. It is to our advantage to coordinate and cooperate.
I notice you used the word coordinate rather than cooperate. Cooperation requires consent. Coordination does not. Coordination simply requires someone to be in charge.
A homosexual marriage, an individual’s sovereign right, is not going a matter of self-defense. We won’t lose or win on that basis. The founders, me and conservatives here agree that we must coordinate and cooperate for the common defense. Without such, we can and likely will face attacks on our rights. It is the ultimate bane of anarcho argument as far as I’m concerned that the anarchist condition must and did ultimately lead to the existence of a state. It does not mean that some right to healthcare, housing, food, power, education, etc. and so forth, exists or is not in fact an infringement on our negative rights.
Read your Thomas Jefferson quote, the one I quoted.
I cannot think of a more contradictory statement. I find the employer-employee superior-subordinate relationship to be offensive. Employment is a transaction like buying a loaf of bread, albeit a long-term transaction. It can only be that way if we own ourselves.
You live in a country that asks you to do things it shouldn’t do because folks do not respect the rights of others and hire politicians to represent them in this. They discount the validity of or simply ignore what the Founding Fathers and thinkers of the Enlightenment wrote in favor of often despotic and capricious policy.
Except for Nazi Germany and Aryans throughout the world, for example, which means right and wrong just depends on the winner. Wipe out all of the Jews and deplorables of that era, leaving only the Master Race and whoever else it could manage to tolerate, objectively no more suffering, therefore good.
I absolutely concede that. And you are correct. From an atheistic perspective – The universe doesn’t care.
Our rights are founded on that “Christian” idea even by “heretics” like our Founding Fathers, and the secularized version of negative rights is compelling on a practical level. Social ownership over our bodies leads to suffering. Nazi Germany, slavery, the Soviet Union and North Korea are all the results of “socially granted rights.”
Ayn Rand explained why negative rights pretty well, and it’s about the best argument for anything that you’ve got as a secularist. It’s basically Natural Law. You tell me you agree with the Declaration, which encapsulates these ideas (Creater-given or Natural Law), then dispute it. Sure, the argument that a right is intrinsic may be faulty. And Rand certainly made that argument as well as it can be made, I think.
Nevertheless, I am thoroughly convinced though that I do not own you and you do not own me, not as individuals or collectively. Refusing to recognize this framework is highly destructive and leads to the suffering. Accepting the negative rights framework leads to prosperity and happiness. The need for an objective or relatively objective framework is incredibly important – in order to avoid the suffering you worry about. The capriciousness a “society” with too much power is too dangerous.
Everyone here looks at it through that lens more or less. You agree to it on one hand and then dispute it for no apparent reason – unless you’re going to start trying to sell positive rights, which weren’t even in play in this thread. I’m a little confused.
I asked this question earlier after you made a claim. You did not answer it as far as I can see.
I don’t believe that’s logical at all. It’s entirely possible that god omnipotent child who is doing a science experiment. God could be evil, someone who delights in the suffering in the world. I’m not certain how you could deny that as a matter of fact.
1 No, I don’t think He can, because He already said otherwise; and He doesn’t change.
2 Some have, but a lot have not. And Thomas Jefferson was far from the only prominent figure among the Founders; many of them were unmistakably Christian.
3 If God says it, how does that translate to “arbitrary?”
4 How do you determine that this is moral? 5 I dispute this. I see nothing but assumption without determination. How do you establish that they’re true? Pigs might take exception to the morals of a species that enjoys bacon. Or perhaps Martians or Cylons or Borg might have their own take on morality that isn’t human-centered. Why is human-centered morality right? How can humans be objective about determining that? 6 Yes, you have; and it sabotages your argument that your definition isn’t subjective or relativistic.
7 Including this one? 8 Then how can any words- or the beliefs they represent- have any meaning? And you believe that truth isn’t absolute? 9 But the arbitrary definition renders it all moot. You can’t build a house of argument without a foundation. 10 Again, your “fact” (not that I disagree with it; just the reasons) is subjective. 11 Nope. Because my belief is based on my own genuine experience (whether you or others believe it or not) of the power and authority of God. 12 Our faith isn’t in a vacuum. I can’t prove the existance of God to anyone who doesn’t want to believe; but to quote scripture:
Whether you believe it or not, I’m satisfied that God’s signature is everywhere (even where Satan has sprayed over it with graffiti). 13 But what about at third party who believes that Hitler’s way would ultimately have made for a much better society?
14 But it doesn’t color his argument.
15 I don’t even concede the possibility that He doesn’t exists. But for the sake of your point, if I were to, I would have to conclude that morality is quite subjective because there’s no stable point of reference. It’s why socialism keeps failing; people always apply the definitions and actually do the defining to their own selfish benefit.
And in the end, it’s all moot. Because if God did not exist, then death is oblivion, every human action is an exercise in absolute futility, and even the universe itself degenerates into entropy. Which is why the truest atheists are suicidal; if they were right, there would ultimately be nothing to live for. It would all be a complete waste. Which makes Pascal’s Wager very attractive.
16 But you submit that consensus is the basis for morality; God, by definition, is effectively a majority of one. And scripture makes it pretty clear that He didn’t create us as a haphazard experiment.
First, I’d like to sincerely thank you and RWNJ and others for having this discussion with me. I think of RO kind of like a virtual organization where most of the people here people share similar ideas. As corny as this sounds, I take it as a compliment that you would even entertain me in this subject as I recognize that it is central to everything you believe. You’ve allowed me to stay and voice my (usually) unpopular opinion. It’s not easy when people question the foundations of your beliefs. For that, you all have my deepest respect. Understand, that even though I disagree with you, I respect your right to believe what you wish (within reason).
Next sorry about the length…Yikes…
And as soon as you can demonstrate this as an empirical fact you will have my attention. Until then that is little more than your subjective opinion and something you choose to believe.
Ok, but the point of that line of debate is the word “god” was purposefully omitted for the DOI and the Constitution. The founders, Deists and Christians alike understood the danger of a national religion and how it affected the governments of other nations in the past. The idea of a creator (or lack of a creator) is an individual choice and therefore should not be defined by a government.
If you believe that what good chooses by definition is “good” rather than something being good because of the results it produces, then how can god’s choices be anything but arbitrary?
I think something is “good” if it results in increased happiness, health well-being or any combination of the three and something is “bad” if something results in pain, suffering sickness or any combination of the three.
My definition relates the objective experiences of human existence, your belief relates to what a god says. RWNJ has admitted that God could if he chose to, make dishonesty “good”. Just because god says he wouldn’t do that, the fact is he could if he wanted to (unless you think that he cannot, which has its own implications), that, by definition makes his choices arbitrary, unless you think that God chooses to make honesty good because of the objective results that valuing honesty provides.
Thus, either god:
Can make any choice he wants.
He has made a choice based on values.
For example. If you believe that God values the life of humans, then morality isn’t the beginning of good and bad, it is the framework upon which we judge good and evil based on the things that god values, that is, unless you don’t think that god values human life.
In which case, things aren’t good because God says so, they are good because of how they relate to the experience of humans and god is just letting us know what things we should value and those we should avoid based on the objective outcomes they produce.
The only way you could call gods choices “objective” without relating to the outcomes they produce is to make them objective by definition in which case you are committing the logical fallacy of “special pleading”. Of course, that is your choice and you can deny that violates the laws of logic, or god isn’t subject to them, but the fact remains that it violates the laws fo logic and without logic, we can quite literally believe anything.
Now there is often, in other conversations I’ve had with Christians on this topic, some confusion about the term “arbitrary” and “subjective”.
I have chosen my ideas of right and wrong subjectively, not arbitrarily, agreed?
Because I value human life, that has objective consequences just like not valuing human life has objective consequences.
Do you deny that being burned causes harm or that people that experience being burned describe it as bad, or do you think it’s mealy a choice to call it bad? I believe that suffering and pain really happen and I value freedom from states of suffering and pain. I recognize that virtually everyone who can contemplate their existence would rather live than die (unless they are suffering or in dreadful pain or lack the capacity to make reasoned choices).
You asked me how I establish they are true, that is my answer, but I think your question isn’t how I establish, but why I establish that some choices are bad and others are good.
That’s easy. I value my life, I value the life of those I care about and I am empathetic and value the lives of others. Even those without empathy realize that if they don’t value the life of others and they cause others harm or allow harm to come to others when they could have done something about it, others will seek to isolate and punish them.
Hitler didn’t value life. He knew that his lack of values would lead to the risk of his own life, as it did.
Kim Jung Un does not value life or the pain and suffering of others. Kim suffers as a result. He is the maniacal dictator of an entire nation. The only reason he isn’t dead is that killing him might result in the deaths of a LOT more people. People literally call him god, but I can travel to places he can only dream. Why? Because if given the opportunity there are lots of people that would kill him or imprison him for the rest of his life for what he has done. With the exception of religious zealots and perhaps primitive peoples of the world, most people don’t want to kill me because I respect and value the lives of others and they reciprocate. That means I can go lots of places without fearing that most people want to kill or hurt me.
Can you acknowledge the very real, objective outcome of valuing the life of others? Sure it’s a choice, but it’s NOT an arbitrary choice, it’s subjective based on real objective results.
Would I rather be Kim Jun Un or me? Me of course, I can visit the Gand Canyon or visit the Colosseum in Rome, or swim in the waters off Aruba. Can Kim do this? No, not because of any religious idea, but the very practical reason that he does not value the lives of others and as a result, others do not value his life in turn.
Pigs do not have the same level of awareness as humans, nor do they understand cause and effect. Which brings us back to values.
Ever notice that we (as in everyone, not just me and u) tend to value the lives of non-humans based on our perception of their experiences?
If we believe that something is capable of suffering, or that it can contemplate the loss of its child or others it cares for,
we tend to value it more. We kill bugs and rodents without a second thought, but how many people could crush the head of a primate or an elephant and not feel bad? Not feel that what they had done was wrong?
Well, it’s human-centered because that’s all we know. When hypothetical aliens land on earth, I’m not sure how anything changes. If those aliens are intelligent, are aware, value their own lives and can experience pain and suffering, then we’d do exactly what I’ve said all along. We’d try to convince them that they should value our lives and in turn, we’ll agree to value theirs.
Now it’s no longer “human-centric”, but nothing has changed from my point of view.
As far as the objectivity of it, things objectively happen to us, fire burns us and water replenishes us…It is only our experience of those things that subjective.
For example. There is a condition called Pica. Where people eat non-foods. Like for example, someone might eat cornstarch (there are documented cases of this). Subjectively they may enjoy it, but regardless of their subjective experience, it can cause objective harm.
The point is, don’t confuse our subjective interpretations of our existence with what is objectively happening.
I’m not saying it isn’t subjective. It is, but you act as if the term “subjective” is a random choice made without any consideration. Subjective isn’t arbitrary.
Let me see if I can explain it this way.
Why is 10 yards a first down? Why is a basketball hoop 10’ off the floor, why do baseball players use bats and not toothpicks?
You understand that all of these choices are subjective, but they aren’t chosen at random. If 1 yard were a first down or a basketball hoop was 25’ off the floor, or a home run was anything beyond the pitcher’s mound, how do you think choosing these metrics at random would affect the games?
We chose 10 yards in football and 10’ in basketball and 300-450’ in baseball relative to objective facts about humans.
The same can be said for morality, we choose ideas of right and wrong based on things we experience subjectively, but that are objectively happening.
You don’t need an objective definition of what it means when someone is sick in order to determine that they are sick, why do you need something to be objectively wrong in order to determine it’s wrong?
Just as our subjective experiences of illness don’t change the objective reality, our subjective choices about right and wrong, do not change the objective consequences of what we choose to call "good and “bad”.
The difference is that you CHOOSE to believe that concepts of right and wrong are out of your hands, but that’s a choice based on a belief that cannot be empirically shown to be true.
Any evidence you give can just as easily be given to prove someone else’s idea of god exists. In the end, you have to admit that you’ve simply chosen to believe something subjectively.
I just skip the god part and simply choose to believe in right and wrong based on how those things objectively affect the lives of living beings.
This is the best explanation of relativism I could come up with:
The results of relativism are self-explanatory. I’m not a relativist because I believe the consequences of our actions matter. I don’t think might makes right and even though I do believe that society sets laws, I think the right and the wrong of societies decisions should be based on the moral principles I’ve already laid out.
There is no such thing as a correct or incorrect definition.
First, that was a statement not a definition. Second, you understood what I meant, even though all the words in that sentence were chosen arbitrarily. The evidence for this is that other cultures choose different words to mean the same thing and they communicate with equal efficiency.
We choose the combination of letters and sounds to represent ideas arbitrarily and subjectively.
Because we choose to agree what phenomenon or explanation fits a word chosen at random. The important thing isn’t the word, it’s the ability to choose to agree what those words mean. That’s what definitions are.
Definitions aren’t arbitrary, they are subjective, what isn’t arbitrary or subjective is the phenomenon that fit those definitions once we’ve agreed on what objective phenomenon fit the definition.
In other words, www.republicanoperative.com was chosen subjectively, once the web address has been established and linked to the server that runs this site, that web address objectively takes you to this website. The reality is that the creator could have chosen any combination of letters, numbers or symbols that can be recognized by your computer as a web address, what important is that you know when you type it where it (should) take you…
The fact that the choice could have been totally random, does not take away from the objective reality of where this link goes once it’s been established.
Do you believe that the experiences of everyone and their accounts of it are objective and true?
Do you think it’s possible that someone can believe they’ve had an objectively true experience that, in fact, has not?
If the answer to #1 is “no” and #2 is yes, then how do we determine reasonable truth?
In logic, we call that a circular argument. I can think of lots of examples where you’d point out an argument is wrong because it’s circular, I’m not sure why you’d believe that a circular argument is acceptable as evidence to your point.
Basically what you are saying is that to believe, you must believe.
THus, you cannot rationally eliminate the claims of any dogmatic belief or religion if that is what constitutes acceptable evidence when trying to determine the truth.
And that is a subjective choice and that makes your justification for what you believe no better than mine (I’d argue it’s not as good as mine, but that’s why we’re debating :).
What defines “better” (a subjective idea) is based on subjective values (something I said at the beginning of this conversation). My explanation then is the same as it is now. Humans can choose to value things that cause objective harm. If people fail to convince each other to value the kinds of things that lead to health and well-being, then as a species we will fail to live up to our potential or worse, wipe ourselves out.
As I’ve said, we should convince each other to value both potential and actual health, well-being and happiness and freedom from both potential and actual pain, sickness, and suffering.
Tell me, where does my choice to define morality in this way go wrong? If everyone believed this, would that be “bad”?
See, there is objective evidence that supports my conclusions. Believing that honesty is good and rape is bad produces quantifiable empirical results. When I try to convince others in society to beleive as I do, I don’t point to a god, but the real results.
To be clear, my comment had nothing to do with whether God exists, but why if He did then He may be the foundation of morality. Your response slides right by mine.
In order to be right, his god must exist. I’ve seen nothing that would offer empirical evidence of the existence of a god or more specifically, the Christian god. Thus RWNJ’s argument lies on a presupposition. It is his presupposition that colors his argument.
But neither can you offer empirical evidence, or even tell me why someone cannot justifiably believe in any god based on the criteria of God’s existence that you’ve given me. Specifically, that to believe, one must believe (i.e. if you convince yourself that God exists, he exists). To say nothing of how you jump belief of God’s existence to all the things that you believe that god desires.
Yes, it is subjective, however, you can choose to believe that the objective experiences of living beings is a good place to start as a stable point of reference.
The reality is that my morality is 100% consistent with yours (save the sins of not declaring that god exists and that Christ was his son…).
I believe that Christianity is largely founded on the principles that I’ve laid out. People have learned through experience the very real and objective consequences of their actions and over 6-10,000 years have documented it in ideas, parables, psalms, stories, and metaphor ways to teach people to do things that result in positive outcomes and avoid negative ones. Of course, I think Christianity fails in some areas, but then, so does secular morality.
Thus I don’t deny Christianity as a source of morality, I simply deny that god is necessary to realize that morality if he exists or not.
Well, I suppose that’s true of all non-believers were nihilists, but they aren’t so…To the contrary, the fact that it’s the end, gives my actions MORE meaning, not less. It means I have but one chance to get it right. It means that I don’t have a chance to repent, to fix things after I die. I must do them here and now. I must live this life and enjoy it because when I’m gone that’s it.
Is it futile to love my children?
Is it futile to enjoy a vacation?
Is it futile to save a life?
It’s hard to believe that you could believe the answer is yes without eternal existence, though I do understand that some people fear a limited existence and believing there is more is a way to cope with that fear.
Having said that, I don’t really have a problem with people that believe it. I know believing in life after life helps people cope with a loss.
I’ve quite literally lost everyone that knew me before I was 12 years old. Both of my grandparents, both of my parents, all of my aunts and uncles I spent time with as a child (which amounts to about 6 people). Do I believe they are in heaven? Nope, I believe they are in the same place they were the moment before they became conscious of their existence. And personally, I’m ok with that. I miss them all and I mourned deeply the loss of everyone I cared about, but I never needed to believe they were in “heaven”. But that’s just me personally, and I would NEVER, EVER try to take that away from someone if they needed it as a way to deal with loss. So if you believe it, I hope it brings you happiness.
(Edit: I fixed a quote tag for you there. FC)
I don’t think so, but I think my refutation of Pascal’s Wager would probably be considered offensive, thus I will just agree to disagree as you’ve been gracious enough just to have this conversation, which frankly I find hard to believe doesn’t offend you in some small way.
Citing scripture (circular arguments) and being right by definition doesn’t really compel me.
“Rights” do not emanate from people collectively choosing to defend them, people collectively choose to defend “Rights” because they accept that “Rights” are unalienable because they emanate from a “Creator”.
There are no societies that have rejected the authority of the “Creator” in favor of the “wisdom of men” who also collectively choose to die in defense of these now entirely alienable “rights”.
All morality emanates from authority, if there is no God then there is no “morality”; just an ever changing list of preferences that are imposed via force by whoever the latest “winner” is.
I agree, RET, except that there ARE some rights that are granted BY the government…such as the “right” to come into this country for specific purposes. Such is CERTAINLY not a “natural right” as AS keeps claiming.
It’s basically conservative turf here, but neither the founder of RO nor the the second or third (current) owners wanted to make it an echo chamber of conservativism. I’ve had many debates with liberals here, many of them heated. But I find you easy enough to get along with even though I disagree with you (strongly on some things).
As to the right to believe what we wish, well, actually, we all have that within reason or not; it’s acting on it (including manner of presentation of said beliefs) that can run off the rails (on either/any side).
I’ll get back to the main text of your post later; it’ll take a while, I think…
From the video I saw, I’d say the FBI shot Finicum down in cold blood. That video apparently no longer exists. Huh, whodathunkit?
EDIT: PD, I may have misinterpreted your use of ‘resisted’ (since this thread has a lot of replies I haven’t had time to read, I may have read it out of context). I thought you meant ‘resisted arrest’ in a sort of ‘got what was coming to him’ or ‘what did he expect’ kinda way.It…looks different on second reading…
EDIT2: where did the link come from? There’s no formatting in my post… ?
I read that he was shot with non-lethal bullets and when he reacted to being shot (so the story goes) law enforcement said they feared for their lives (presumably because he reached down in reaction to being shot)…
Basically what you are saying is that i, as a person who does not recognize god as the arbiter of morality, I cannot objectively evaluate right and wrong, even if I live my life as a moral person. That I lack the the ability to justify my actions as good or bad.
So let me try to explain this a different way.
You need to see the metaphor for what it is.
Is this a “good” design?
If not, why? What is it that makes it a poor design? If god declared this a “good” design. it may be good be definition, but because we evaluate good and bad in the real world, we know that no matter what you want to call this, it’s bad.
We don’t evaluate good and bad based on declarations regardless of the declaration comes from society or a god, rather we evaluate good and bad based on the outcome.
In this case, does this design fulfill it’s design purpose?
Now let’s say god said that this is a bad design, you’re telling me that because I don’t believe god determines what is good or bad that I have no rationale for deciding that this is a bad design (even if we agree it’s a bad design).
I’m telling you all I have to do is look at it and see its flaws and describe why its bad and perhaps even offer an alternative.
Moving back to reality…
Lying is “bad” because of the negitive outcomes it produces in society.
Now I’ve said that “rights” come from society. Perhaps I should change my language to make myself clearer. Society decides what is acceptable, but what is “right” is determined by the evidence (is that better?).
Society could mandate drawers like the one shown above, but just because society says it’s good, does not make it good if the drawers above are supposed to function the way drawers are supposed to function.
How do you convince society that the drawers above are “bad”. Evidence.
What I said was that “All morality emanates from authority”, this has nothing to do with whatever any of us considers good or bad.
Your status as a person who does not “believe” in a god is irrelevant beyond the fact that whatever you decide is “moral” carries no authority.
If men are the source of “morality” then all mens opinions regarding what is “moral” are equal to all other opinions of men regarding what is “moral” whether those opinions contradict or not.
While a majority can certainly force its opinions upon a minority it does not change the fact that no opinion which emanates from men is any more or less “moral” than any other opinion that emanates from other men.
Force can create and enforce laws, force cannot create morality; you have no Right or position to define morality for anyone else who is also a man whether you possess the ability to force them to obey you or not.
Only a Superior entity can possess the authority to define what constitutes “Moral” and “Immoral” actions/thoughts/agendas
If you ever find yourself in a society that believes as you believe you will quickly learn the difference between a people who fight for the Rights that emanate from their Creator and those who fight to implement their human opinions; you will not have any trouble comprehending the difference on that day.