Why not? What about an intervention for an addict? That "affects" their lives and its quite likely if you asked them if they wanted one they'd say "hell no!".

But if I was an addict, I would want someone to do it for me.


I'm not quite sure what you're saying here.

Some think they do. For example, running around naked - someone may claim nakedness 'offends' them. or cussing, someone claims it offends them. But, do I know why they are offended?

If someone is offended, they will plainly state their objection in clear terms beyond, "well, because it is against the law."

People forget that, at one time, there was no law against something. Before the law, there was a discernible sense of offense.

The truly offended will cite objection beyond the statutes/laws/mandates. Then, and only then, can I respect that. This is my way of saying, "I have not done unto you what you insist I have done."

Basically, once the two interact, it stops being "live and let live". It doesn't contradict, it merely becomes something else entirely.

I know, I know, I can see how it might be slightly confusing but, hey, cut a brtha' a break, I'm only on my third cup of coffee...!

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

No. I am trying to find what the hell yours and other moral values are based on.I want someone, anyone to make sense. What an individual's moral values are based on indicates a great deal about their character.No. The easiest what is to have contributors actually share what they base their morals on. It appears as if most base them on nothing and float around willing nilly.I already see where they stand, on shakey ground and I am going to stand back, way back from the ledge you are all gathered around. Whatever the hell their moral values are based on is still a mystery because instinct, the weather, what someone thinks at some particular moment and other explanations are seemingly helter skelter and undefinable like being in a gray fog wondering around a quicksand field.

__________________
United We Stand.

People have answered you ad nauseum.

However, you're unaccepting of those answers, because you'll only accept answers of "the ten commandments" or "I am morally bankrupt".

Please stop playing this fucking game of yours.

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

If you commit suicide that wouldn't affect me, right? How about if you engage in pornography? Do you have any moral values that are recognizable or is it based on "if it feels good, do it?"

__________________
United We Stand.

What is stupid is the fact that almost no one can answer the damn question, "What are Moral Values based on?" without claiming that anything goes, whatever, that there should be freedom ect. I am alarmed that you don't even see it and go after me like I am the one who has the problem because I actually have a doctrine and you and they don't, none, nada, zip.

__________________
United We Stand.

Let's take this statement at face value and assume that you're correct. God exists, and He is the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong (this would seem to follow logically from the existence of God in the first place).

How does this help us define right and wrong? All we can do is guess at God's standard, and hope for the best. And, it seems to me that there will be as many interpretations of God's standard as there are people (there are countless religions that "answer" this question, and countless interpretations of each of those), which leaves us with defacto moral relativity here on Earth. Sure, at Judgement Day some will be proven right and some wrong, but until that time comes, we're left only to take books, prophets, priests, etc on faith.

If some absolute compass of right and wrong exists, it doesn't do us any good for establishing practical laws on Earth as mortals.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

I go after you because you'll only accept one of two answers. You're not at all interested in where people get there morals. You're only interested in telling them that they should get them from the same place you get yours.

There have been quite a lot of answers to your question. You don't like the answers, so you whine that nobody's answering your question.

You asked the question, and you got your answers. Deal with it...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Sorry pal, but I did answer your question, directly and to the point. It's not my problem if you are either incapable of, or just plain stubbornly refusing to comprehend my answer. Get a clue bud, just because people don't have the same "morals" as you, doesn't mean they have none. You are not an authority on anything, least of all, "morals. I don't care where you think "morals" should "come from", only that you and other people like you, don't forcefeed them to the rest of us.

Gotcha.

So you would say (and correct me if I'm wrong here) that of those two moral propositions, "Live and let live" takes priority over "Do unto others..."?

No worries. I found everything becomes crystal clear (if somewhat jumpy) by the fifth.

Making up morals isn't basing them on anything. It's the complete opposite.Oh, yes I am or I wouldn't have asked the question.Then I would have started a thread titled something else like a soda vendor at a ball game walking thought the isle: "Morals here! Get your morals here."Instinct is hardly a respectable answer and neither is, "I don't know, they just come from my head whenever."They're not answers. They're excuses for not having anything to base their moral valuse on.I have and am. So far there about two who have an idea where they come from and the rest are caught in the fog.

__________________
United We Stand.

Well, people being unclear certainly complicates things. But I don't think that nullifies the possibility of contradiction. What if "doing unto others as you'd have them do unto you" interferes with their lives?

Kinetic,

I'm not quite sure what more you're expecting to get here. If your objective was to demonstrate that most people have no fully external, objective authority that defines their moral beliefs then you have already succeeded in doing that: most of your respondents have freely admitted that they define their own moral system themselves.
If you consider those systems to be "not based on anything" then there you have it: most people's morals are (by your definition) not based on anything.

If that isn't what you're after, then may I suggest that you offer some examples of the types of answers you're looking for. You've mentioned "the ten commandments" already. Please provide some other sample answers so people will know what sort of response you have in mind. At present, everyone seems somewhat confused. Thanks.

That's not actually true. We can pray and ask God the truth. He does answer prayers. We aren't left to just guess. We can know that what the scriptures and prophets and other servants of God say are true. Plus, God gave us all a conscience that helps us to know what is right and what is wrong.

The other thing to note is that God only expects us to do our very best but not more than that.

__________________
Serious Quotes:


Funny But True Quotes
Those who argue for complete secularism are funny. They see what government does and then argue that we don't need it to start with prayer.