It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Intention not morals

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 03:03 AM
"Dont you think we should be able to do and say what you want, its our bodies, no one owns my body, the state cant force me to do anything" The first words said at a dinner table by a person who sees himself as a anarchist with the ideology;" - i Believe in the goodness of men and that we all do what we want with our own bodies - ".

I didnt disagree, he thought i would. What you do with your own body is not of any ones concern. However if you influence others with words that sounds pleasing to the cerebral cortex, where do you think your state of mind will end up.

So i asked;" What is your intention? " He looked at me, a simple set of words, he was looking for arguments to fulfill his ideologies. " What do you mean by intention? Why do i need an intention to justify anything? "
He looked at me with angry eyes, i questioned his motives, pure and simple.
I tried to reason with him, so i changed the approach;" Do you like animals? " "Yes, of course"; he replied.
"Do you think anyone should be able to own an animal? ". And he said;" No! "
" Why not ? " He sat quiet for awhile;" Cause its another life, your responsible off " He replied.

" If you influence others, even if your intention is good. It can do more harm than good. Thats the reason why the state regulates what you, what you think and believe doesnt affect anyone until you say or do something that can affect others. Its not about controlling you, its to protect people from you. "

He looked at me again;" But its wrong!" " Understanding why right and wrong exist would make you understand why the state has laws and regulations. Intention not morals"

posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 03:55 AM
Intention nor morals should act as reasons to deny somebody the freedom to think or say anything they like. It's sad that we live in a world where people are willing to respond to words with violent actions.

No matter how hateful, insulting or deplorable somebody's words are, at the end of the day they are just words. They do not merit violent reactions in response.

And those that choose to act violently in response to somebody else's words should be held accountable, alone, not the person who said something.

The word "influence" can be perceived in many ways. Was the criminal that murdered that woman "influenced" by his father? Was the father influenced by a movie he watched? Did the father's cousin lend him the movie to watch? Who bought the movie for the cousin? A very slippery-slope for sure...

edit on 18/9/2016 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 06:10 AM
You gave the fellow a story that had a moral at the end to change his mind... was that your intent?

posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 08:04 AM
So basically, you are saying the state replaces morals?

When did the state become god to start telling us what "thou shalt ..." and "thou shalt not ..." Isn't that the very idea of shoving someone else's morals down your throat? Why is the state a more moral entity to do this than an individual? After all the state is just a bunch of individuals.


log in