tonyenglish7 wrote:But here is the rub; is there an absolute albeit hard to determine at times, right or wrong? If no, then anything goes, including ignoring the intent of the writers, if yes, then the judges are responsible to seek what is right or wrong from the clear moral intentions that exist as part of the universe, and further, if they fail in that regard, they are derelict of duty and will be held responsible from the ultimate supreme court, GOD!
Yes... see my note above or, re-read the relevant portion here:
DU wrote:1) All Men are created equal. --- putting aside the contextual sexism of the second word - this is perhaps the most profound statement of morality ever penned. America should be proud to be the country that based its justice system upon it, and once believed and acted upon it.
"All Men are created equal" is second only to the next thought, one which has a more ancient history and which is embedded in all world religions - even if it did NOT originate in religion but in a secular set of rules.
2) The Golden rule / also known as the law of reciprocity - Treat others as you would like to be treated - Extend to others the same rights and privileges as you expect for yourself - recognize that others, despite their differences, have as much right to live in peace and harmony as you do. THESE are moral rules that enable a society to thrive and prosper. It is THESE rules that can dictate our behavior EVEN when our emotions, our biases, our first impulses would have us act differently. It is THESE rules and how we adhere to them that define our true worth. It is THESE rules that allow us to make ourselves better than what we were, so that we can become who we'd be proud to be.
Those two rules in combination - will help us through most moral quandaries with respect to how we should live in harmony together.
If you can find some fundamental flaw to my assertion - then I'd request you post it here.