I pretty much entirely agree with Dave’s comment. The goal with moral laws is to determine the principles that constitute legitimate reasons. That’s pretty much my point. That’s what we need to be talking about in regards to moral laws, that makes sense, and I buy that. Just, people don’t always do this, and I cannot accept the argument that is sometimes made, not by anyone in particular, just that it’s made, that the government should not – can not – tell people what to do. By definition, laws must tell people what to do. It’s an absurd argument.

To be clear though, I have no theoretical problem with government forcing people to act in ways contrary to their beliefs. Thieves believe stealing is legitimate. Certain Satanists believe human sacrifice is legitimate. Laws that prevent them from acting according to their beliefs are good and right. So there’s nothing inherently wrong with government forcing people people to act in accordance with a particular moral perspective in a way they don’t believe. In fact it’s necessary. The question is just whether particular laws have legitimate reasons.

I’m not saying I know the answers, ask me about these issues and I’ll honestly tell you I don’t know. I just think we need to ask the right questions. Talking about whether the reasons behind moral laws are legitimate, like Dave says, is valid. Let’s talk about that. But arguing that, in terms of moral laws, that government should let people do what they want is, in my opinion, both logically absurd and anti-Scriptural. I dunno.