Moral Disagreement Quotes

A lot of people out there pay good lip service to the idea of personal freedom... right up to the point that someone tries to do something that they don't personally approve of.

Secularism has no central goal, it's just promoting endless relativism. That's why there is a huge moral drift in the country. Everybody is infallible except the Pope, if you like.

The right to kill another person is not a right that I would agree with and support.

I'm definitely not going to go and sing a song that condones certain things.

Hollywood, we get it. The Christian faith just doesn't work for you 'in the long run.' However, for a large percentage of this country (the same country that makes your movies millions of dollars), it does. So please, for all of our sakes, keep your 'beliefs to yourself' and just 'stop the hate.'

Christians get very angry toward other Christians who sin differently than they do.

Political differences essentially depend on disagreement in moral principles.

If you look at issues like immigration, gay marriage, gun regulation - these are all things that probably wouldn't be a source of much discussion at all in D.C., if they weren't sources of self-perpetuation.

To be a vegetarian is to disagree - to disagree with the course of things today... starvation, cruelty - we must make a statement against these things. Vegetarianism is my statement. And I think it's a strong one.

It appeared to me obvious that the happiness of mankind should be the aim of all action, and I discovered to my surprise that there were those who thought otherwise.

We're not going to spend taxpayers' money on abortion. This is an issue that divides America. But certainly reasonable people can agree on how to reduce abortions in America.

Here’s why I find it impossible to be a Republican: any crowd that instantly cheers the execution of 234 individuals is a crowd I want to flee, not join.

There are people of good will who believe that. But there are other people of good will who do not …. It is fundamentally a religious question …. People of great faith … are trying to impose that faith on everyone.

Swindlers and murderers never agree, for they practice distinct professions

Abortion raises moral and spiritual questions over which honorable persons can disagree sincerely and profoundly. But those disagreements did not then and do not now relieve us of our duty to apply the Constitution faithfully.

Whatever I thought right, to others seemed wrong; what I held to be bad, others approved of.

One person's definition of evil is another person's different definition.

Conservatives consider liberals well-intentioned, but misguided. Liberals consider conservatives not only wrong, but really, really bad people.

If we did find that (most) mathematically gifted people possessed a special gene, would implanting such a gene in our children ever be justified? If certain traits are objectively superior to others, should we not promote active potentials to acquire such traits? The difficulty in answering this question lies in the fact that we live in a pluralist society. If people were to disagree about the ranking of certain characteristics, how would we decide which ranking is the correct one? It may be true that some characteristics are objectively superior to others (or better before God). And it may be true that many people would be capable of picking out a few such superior qualities. But who is to be appointed supreme judge?

If I should go out of church whenever I hear a false sentiment, I could never stay there five minutes.

Of course, we know that not everyone agrees with assisted suicide, but people might agree that one has the right to it, even if they're not themselves going to exercise it.

I stopped going to mass, and boy, it was painful for me, and it was certainly painful for my family, but I just couldn't ratify their behavior and their decisions anymore by showing up on Sundays.

You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; while we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us.

We have all had the experience of finding that our reactions and perhaps even our deeds have denied beliefs we thought were ours.

The issue [slavery] is clear, explicit, determinate. The parties understand each other, and are drawn in battle array. They can never be reconciled--never walk together--never consent to a truce--never deal in honeyed phrases--never worship at the same altar-never acknowledge the same God. Between them there is an impassable gulf. In manners, in morals, in philosophy, in religion, in ideas of justice, in notions of law, in theories of government, in valuations or men, they are totally dissimilar.