Guess what: They can't "simply play the game" until they ALL agree on some basic, rules, period.
Not true, most children don't even agree who's turn it is, but still play. Ergo, no laws or rules involved.
you're right...some people want to push their morality on others... thank you AGAIN for proving my point. If someone forces someone else to do something they are infringing upon that person's right. (unless of course that person is stopping said person from harming another) So what is happening?? They aren't following the idea objective law of not being personally infringed upon b/c they are forcing somonee else do their own will (ie- they haven't agreed w/ the absolute law of morality).
Nope, no absolute law of morality at play due to the fact that all rules are
tentative, and that
not everyone agrees to the same rules. That means morality is objective in that there are right and wrong attributes, but in itself not applicable to the same issues at all times.
For example, the act of force. Killing is considered wrong by most people, but why? Why isn't killing a fish to feed yourself wrong? Why isn't killing in self-defense wrong? The answer is that the wrongness of the situation is based on the idea of whether one owns one's self. Therefore killing a fish to eat isn't wrong since the fish has no rational faculties, and it's not wrong to kill in self-defense since the action is in defense of life.
Another example is fraud. Why is fraud[theft] wrong? The simple answer is that it's wrong since it deals with the issue of self-ownership. The act of self-ownership is the act of controlling one's self, thus controlling other things is another form of ownership. Therefore, stealing another's 'thing' that which s/he possesses is morally wrong since s/he owns that thing by the act of controlling it.
In each case, there is no absolute coefficient except self-ownership. Self-ownership doesn't have to be agreed upon since it is an AXIOM that all humans can understand. Moral systems not predicated on self-ownership are
doomed to failure since such systems do not regard humans as sovereigns. Moral systems that don't assert a universal ideal and accepts rational axioms as such are poised to succeed since it doesn't place any more requirements other than self-ownership, which humans by default AFFIRM.
Now, show me where this is absolute and show me where being a transsexual violates any morality.
-- Bridget