O
o_mlly
Guest
No, I really don’t need to alter your hypothetical. Again, I don’t want exception but am willing to analyze any changes you may care to make.If you want exceptions then you need to voice your personal opinion on the matter. We can compare them to what others think.
Nope, didn’t write that at all. I wrote:And you said that if it was legally justified it would be ok. It would be against Article 12 of tbe UDHR but again, you said it would be morally acceptable.
Circumstances: Law allowing the state to do so was properly promulgated.
Law does not violate other legitimate authority to which the state has agreed to be bound.
Doesn’t matter what other people may or may not think or may or may not feel. That’s why morality is objective. Again, make the argument that opposes the morality of state surveillance.And I can guarantee that your views would be in direct opposition to very many people.
Nope. Didn’t do that either.You even adjusted yours after making your original statement.
I already wrote that the law was moral ? And, my personal opinion doesn’t matter.So we can keep fine tuning the conditions until you say: ‘Yep, that’s it. That is now morally acceptable’. Would your personal opinion at that point make it an objective matter?
Why keep going around with me on this? Perhaps the reason you will not make your argument against the morality of state surveillance is that you have none.