supporting arguments
0% ·
[make argument]
no supportive arguments over 0%
|
opposing arguments
100% ·
[make argument]
0%
· Re: Ammoral
by wikipedia on 2005-05-01 21:08:46
The charge of "immorality" is subjective, and can be defined differently according to different perspectives and beliefs, all of which may be valid. Thus, with such conflicting views, a law based on "morality" cannot be fairly applied to any population.
0%
· Re: Ammoral
by wikipedia on 2005-05-01 21:10:21
In the general sense, the argument for the prohibition of drugs because they are immoral ignores many other substances which remain legal but have many of the same addictive, behavioral, and health effects as drugs. However, this is not entirely true, as there are many advocates of drug prohibition who also advocate the prohibition of substances such as alcohol and tobacco.
0%
· Re: Ammoral
by wikipedia on 2005-05-01 21:11:06
The state already tolerates the distribution of many things much of the population considers immoral, such as pornography, alcohol, various religions/atheism, and Internet access that allows access to things that are clearly illegal or 'immoral.' There is a very large debate open as to if the government should even be allowed to have a say in 'moral' issues (see Same-sex marriage).
|