|
Rather than respond to RedCard and MrsJoseph individually, I'll try this:
There is nothing wrong with having moral qualms or preferences. There is nothing wrong with stating one's moral qualms and preferences.
This happens all the time in every person's life. Some people have moral qualms about eating meat. Some people have moral qualms about pornography. Some people have moral qualms about deforestation. Some people have moral qualms about moral qualms. People always state this. You'll hear a person say, "I wish that person wouldn't drive like that." or "I wish my neighbor would mow their lawn at least once a month." or "I expect the shopkeeper to be honest with me."
To insist that no one ever express their moral opinion or their preferences is thought-control and morality control.
In fact, your responses indicate that you are less comfortable with personal moral freedom than I am. I was explicit in stating that I had no desire to enact any sort of ban--I simply don't want certain things to happen. You, on the other hand, have made it clear that you do not think this is possible--that a person can't wish something was not happening without also desiring to ban it from happening. I take this to mean that you would be comfortable enforcing your own moral standards on me--namely, that I would be required to accept and approve everything you think is worthy of approval, or at least to never express my opinions about it. At the same time, you are more than comfortable expressing your opinions about my statements.
I'm not asking you to agree with my moral opinions. I'm only expecting that I (and others) have the right to express those moral opinions, and I'm making an effort to do so kindly.
|