Quote:
Ahh, Jeff, that's an easy one!

When someone's actions or "morals" are to the detriment of other people's well-being, then society is justified in enforcing a change in that person's behavior.


Easier said than done, I'm afraid. As has already pointed out, "other people's well-being" is very subjective. You and I both have clear ideas of what someone's "well-being" is, and they aren't the same. Even beyond that, though, there is a line we all draw between how adversely someone is affected and the personal liberty of the person doing the affecting that we draw to determine if we should permit the action. Murder? Clearly the aggressor should be stopped. Putting someone down and using harsh words against them? We let that go, even though it clearly affects people's well-being. How about not giving money to those in need? That begins to get into the grey area of whether the government should step in. On one hand we value people's rights to spend the money they make the way they wish, on the other we want those who are starving to be fed. We kind of draw the line in the middle, so that some needs are met without a person having to forfeit their entire earnings. But almost no one is happy with where that line is drawn; there are advocates for moving it in both directions.

I think the determinations of both what is “well-being” and what affects it largely separate the left from the right. Many of the accusations that get hurled at the left from the right are due to these fundamental differences of worldview, and I can only assume the same is true about insults the right hurls at the left. Most people that I know who are against homosexual marriage don't hate anyone, but they do believe it will contribute to an overall decline in our country's "well-being". Yes, you don't understand or agree with that perspective and feel that denying homosexuals the right to get married is a greater blow to "well-being". I'm not trying to argue the merits of either perspective here, but both are seeking greater human "well-being", not to diminish it. Or in other words, both sides feel that they are carrying out your statement exactly, and who is to judge which side is right? You can say "the people do", but that only works if you're sitting in the majority. You know as well as I that sometimes the majority is wrong, but what else do we have? In many ways our system is designed to lessen the “tyranny of the majority” (one example is supposedly the electoral college), but in the end, as long as we view morals as subjective (and I agree they are with regards to how they affect the law), the laws of the land will have no choice but to follow the subjective morals of its people.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.