Differences can become conflicts when we don’t clearly define issues we must take a stand on at any cost because they are immoral. People may fight than rationally discuss issues such as health care or taxes when they have not clearly defined what issues must be considered moral in nature.
I am not arguing that anything goes.
All rational human beings oppose certain behaviors because of moral common sense. We know murder or abuse are wrong because they are wrong. Laws are possible and necessary because there are certain behaviors that we just know are immoral.
How can we determine if an issue is moral in nature to argue come hell or high water?
Behaviors toward others that you would not accept toward yourself are likely to be moral in nature. Thievery is wrong because all would object being stolen from. Same for abuse, murder, etc. Extremists impose their religious beliefs on others as if moral in nature, but they would not accept religious beliefs imposed on them. Actions violating one’s physical safety are obviously moral.
Political decisions such as health care or taxes mentioned do not violate one’s physical rights. Two consenting adults choosing to enter a heterosexual or homosexual relationship are not violating anyone’s physical safety. Legal definitions of marriage could be resolved by democratic vote than resorting to violence. Even God who supposedly thought one partner for one partner was ideal did not spend time condemning concubines in OT.
One cannot claim an issue is moral according to some book such as the Bible.
Literature is subject to interpretation thus we cannot claim for certain our view is God’s. Also, we cannot guarantee the writers always had the correct view of God and didn’t misunderstand God as times. Terrorists are misguided by demanding their interpretation of a Book. A God who created freedom couldn’t possibly be a God who seeks to control one’s beliefs or be killed. Soldiers go to war for such basic freedoms. Many only condemn homosexuals because of their supposed correct interpretations of a Book, though scholars have contrary interpretations.
We could say drinking and driving is a moral issue because impaired judgment puts others in danger. Some would argue a woman’s decision to abort is not impacting others’ rights, but some feel the unborn baby has rights to not suffer pain in anyway. At the very least we should not argue on moral grounds because of some understanding of God in a book but on medical grounds.
We must choose carefully what issues we claim are moral in nature.
Are decisions made violating one’s rights to physical safety? The beauty of a democratic society is that such decisions after rational debate can be decided on by the majority vote. Violence or hurtful words prevent such discussions. Do you act toward others how you wish to be treated when disagreeing?