Concept of Authority=ability to control people and making it the moral duty of the people to obey the authority
morality=concepts of right or wrong
trying to determine what's true ≠ to declaring what's true
Let see if I followed this right; government declares laws, in which, declaring nullifies the law. Are you also saying morality is also impossible to determine other than for a few universal truths?
I think what he is saying is that morality is highly subjective on many levels - different ages, races, cultural ethnicities, genders, sexual orientations, even relationship statuses, religion, whether we are with or without children... all have a difference of opinion on what is and is not moral - and that opinion which we hold is fluid, it changes as we journey through life and have experiences which alter our moral compass.
So, to govern a body of people based off of the morals of one or two groups is not what is in the best interest of a diverse society as a whole or for individuals. Legislation was never about the well-being of the citizenry, it is used to control the masses while making as much money as possible so that those in charge can retain their power. There is no power without money and a presumption of the leadership having moral superiority. If we didn't view them as morally superior why would we listen to anything they said? We wouldn’t. This, I think, is what he's referring to when he asks "Do you still believe this?"... I could be wrong, but that's what I got.
Obviously, there is a code of conduct which humans must follow to keep from upsetting the herd and to keep the herd thriving through reproduction and then training the next generation to do the same. And these morals should be obvious to all humans except maybe the mentally, emotionally, or spiritually broken - they are literally part of our DNA and are instinctual, like all other mammals. For example, don't murder your neighbor, be a contributing part of society, take care of your family and friends, and many more. Before we evolved, we had to live by those morals to survive, "it takes a village" and that is true - and is no different today.
But, we do not need legislators telling us what we can ingest, where we can go, what we can say, what we can read or watch, etc. based on their personal morals - it simply isn't their place, especially when we know that their "morals" are forever changing to suit their needs without a care for how it affects other members of society.
And in case you don't know what brought @highimpactflix to this mindset, read the latest news about AG Jeff Sessions, or watch his video from yesterday - I've said enough. Sorry this turned into a book, I sometimes get carried away!
excellent post that help a fellow Steemian gain a better understanding of a subject. Thanks again.@millennia Thanks for your through explanation! 😃 With your explanation, I watched the video again, and I understood. It is unbelievable that Sessions is still adamant the "War Drugs."😡 By the way, it was
Thank you for the compliment and no, problem! That's what I love about Steemit! Steem on @unicornvomit!
And yes, I also spent most of yesterday mad about Sessions, but I'm hoping the US attorneys (who Sessions says will be the ones to determine if people are prosecuted) are going to follow the herd on this one. They are not elected officials themselves, but they are closely tied to the whims of local politicians who aren't going to want to cause a mass exodus of their following over something as trivial as this.
Yesterday I read a study about how researchers have finally determined that drinking too much alcohol actually causes DNA to change, which is irreversible - yet it's legal. It's time we quit this silly war on pot and focus our attention on the people who are suffering with very serious addictions like heroin, meth, etc. That is a health crisis, not a criminal one, and should be treated as such. And places where pot is legalized has seen a drop in overdoses of other drugs. To me it's a no-brainer.
Am I saying "morality is also impossible to determine."
No. The NAP (non-aggression principle) is, without question, one of the most self-evident moral standards I know of. It basically says, "if you don't want anyone harming YOU, don't YOU harm anyone else. If you don't want people stealing your stuff, don't YOU steal anyone else's stuff." It's basically do to others what you want others to do to you.
It is this basic principle that agents of government violate every single day. Taxation is theft, war is mass murder. These things are self-evidently wrong simply because those who carry these things out would NOT want such evils to fall upon them or the ones they love.
That is basically the summary of the entire video.
Remember, EVERY "law" is merely the command of a man. And EVERY "law" (moral or immoral) is backed by the treat of force.
100%. (please do NOT upvote this!!!! I already got one) I just wanted to AGREE VERY VERY VERY STRONGLY HAHA