Please allow me to rephrase the options;
A. Sacrificing an individuals rights for the greater good of society is always justifiable.
B. Sacrificing an individuals rights for the greater good of society is sometimes justifiable.
C. Sacrificing an individuals rights for the greater good of society is never justifiable.
I'm going to ask that you choose one because they are mutually exclusive. I'll try to explain using your example of how life began on earth:
B. At some point life did begin on earth. No matter what answer is given to the question of how, the answer will be subjective - meaning there can be no correct or incorrect (absolute) answers as to how.
C. At some point life did begin on earth. While we may not currently know the correct answer as to how, a correct answer exists and that answer is an absolute.
The question pertains to the source of knowledge of good and evil.
Am I to understand correctly that you believe we are born with hereditary knowledge (e.g. instinct in animals) of good and evil?
This seems to contradict what you said earlier. Police, Fire, Military and the Courts are examples of government's role in protecting our rights, such as life, liberty and property. Schools, Roads, Highways and Bridges are examples of government going beyond the role of protecting our rights.
Should government's role go beyond that of protecting our rights?
Does this mean we should be forced against our will to help others (forced charity) or that helping others should be purely volitional (voluntary charity)?
Thanks PLC. I do appreciate everyone who takes the time to answer them, it gives me a chance to learn more about how their views of the world are formed and hopefully they learn something valuable as well.
