NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's a poll for you objectivists and altruists to bash heads over.

You will have to be clear what you mean by Law. Will this poll only apply to statutes issued by governments etc, or will Talmudic law or Papal Bulls count as laws?

Morality, I'd say. Take theft. A rationalist would say if you can get away with it, go for it. A moralist would say it's inherently wrong. Practically every lawbook you find is against theft. That's just one example, but I reckon there are more.

First off, I mean whatever laws are set in place to govern the interaction of members of a society.

Morality, I'd say. Take theft. A rationalist would say if you can get away with it, go for it. A moralist would say it's inherently wrong. Practically every lawbook you find is against theft. That's just one example, but I reckon there are more.

A rationalist could have a great deal of reasons for theft to be illegal.

Secular law is, I believe, based on rationality more than on morality. (Unless of course you are Kantian, when there is no difference). The example of theft, as given by Ut-Jor, is a good example for the discussion. Theft is illegal because society depends upon the stability of possesion. Rationality does not discard the effects of an act and look just at the act itself. If theft were legal, then there would be no basis for almost any part of legal society. Why would anyone work. Some I suppose would do so for the pleasure of working, but beyond this, why bother. You want something, steal it. Eventually no one makes anything and society collapses. That is one rational reason to outlaw theft.

A moral reason would be something like you would not want people to steal from you, so you should not steal from them. This is not rational in itself. It only becomes rational when there is a final end included.

I am not just talking about religious morality, either, I also mean altruistic morality, too.

both

both

Why, and since I am objectivist of sorts, I would especially like to see your argument for morality based laws.

Both. I think morality should be rational. If something doesn't harm people it's moral, if it does, it's not. See my sig. :D

Why, and since I am objectivist of sorts, I would especially like to see your argument for morality based laws.
When I say moral, I mean more like the issue of "you shouldn't do this to someone else because we're all in the same boat." It's more philosophical than religious or anything.

This should be a no-brainer: Rationality and reasoning should be the basis of law, but unfortunately they're not.

Does utilitarianism give an altruistic atheistic moral justification for laws?

Do whatever maximises the good. A corollary of which would surely be to prohibit any action that inevitably reduces the good. As unchecked theft inevitably results in less social production, this would be an inevitable reduction of the good, and as such should be outlawed.

There are problems though with laws like anti-slavery laws under this system, any law that apears to be purely rights based is going to difficult to justify through utilitarianism. You then have to introduce a factor of sympathy or identification with the other.

That slavery is wrong because all men are equal before the law appears to me to depend upon this type of social thinking. But it may not. Any counter proposals?

Pfft ... laws are based on delicious port-wine cheese.

Mutable, spreads well, and goes great on a Wheat Thin(tm) with a sliced grape.

Does utilitarianism give an altruistic atheistic moral justification for laws?

Do whatever maximises the good. A corollary of which would surely be to prohibit any action that inevitably reduces the good. As unchecked theft inevitably results in less social production, this would be an inevitable reduction of the good, and as such should be outlawed.

There are problems though with laws like anti-slavery laws under this system, any law that apears to be purely rights based is going to difficult to justify through utilitarianism. You then have to introduce a factor of sympathy or identification with the other.

That slavery is wrong because all men are equal before the law appears to me to depend upon this type of social thinking. But it may not. Any counter proposals?


Basically what I was trying to say. Thanks.

First off, I mean whatever laws are set in place to govern the interaction of members of a society.



A rationalist could have a great deal of reasons for theft to be illegal.

and many more for it to be legal (especially if they are in a position of power... Majority over minority)

Basically what I was trying to say. Thanks.

You are very welcome. :)

When I say moral, I mean more like the issue of "you shouldn't do this to someone else because we're all in the same boat." It's more philosophical than religious or anything.
I see your point. When I hear moral, I immediately picture a big guy in the sky shaking his finger at me and going "Tsk!".

But isn't morality based on rationality, at it's best? I mean, I can't see how morality could've evolved without a sense of reason.

I see your point. When I hear moral, I immediately picture a big guy in the sky shaking his finger at me and going "Tsk!".

But isn't morality based on rationality, at it's best? I mean, I can't see how morality could've evolved without a sense of reason.
In a way...I just typically tend to see it in a sort of loop, as my opinion changes fairly often.

and many more for it to be legal (especially if they are in a position of power... Majority over minority)

Out of curiosity, how does majority over minority work to make theft rational. In human society the haves are always, or at least to date have always been, the mimority. Is it then rational to allow the majority, the have-nots, to take what they want. It may not be possible to stop them, a revolution, but is this rational?

Secular law is, I believe, based on rationality more than on morality. (Unless of course you are Kantian, when there is no difference). The example of theft, as given by Ut-Jor, is a good example for the discussion. Theft is illegal because society depends upon the stability of possesion. Rationality does not discard the effects of an act and look just at the act itself. If theft were legal, then there would be no basis for almost any part of legal society. Why would anyone work. Some I suppose would do so for the pleasure of working, but beyond this, why bother. You want something, steal it. Eventually no one makes anything and society collapses. That is one rational reason to outlaw theft.

A moral reason would be something like you would not want people to steal from you, so you should not steal from them. This is not rational in itself. It only becomes rational when there is a final end included.

of course rationally speaking there is no position for equality of all men under the law.. in systems with clear majorities it is more benifical to take advantage and supress the minorities then it is to empower them with the same rights you have.. so of course while a rationalist may not want stealing to be legal for everyone.. he may well want it legal toward minorities.. so that he can reap the benifits of theft whlie maintaing a realitivly high probablity that he will not be robbed as the majority will not rob from its own.

Out of curiosity, how does majority over minority work to make theft rational. In human society the haves are always, or at least to date have always been, the mimority. Is it then rational to allow the majority, the have-nots, to take what they want. It may not be possible to stop them, a revolution, but is this rational?

I was not considering majority and minority in terms of haves and have nots.. but rather along ratial ethnic or cultural lines... Whites over Blacks.. Christians over atheists.. etc.

of course rationally speaking there is no position for equality of all men under the law.. in systems with clear majorities it is more benifical to take advantage and supress the minorities then it is to empower them with the same rights you have.. so of course while a rationalist may not want stealing to be legal for everyone.. he may well want it legal toward minorities.. so that he can reap the benifits of theft whlie maintaing a realitivly high probablity that he will not be robbed as the majority will not rob from its own.

True, but if he takes his thinking one step further, losing the us vs them style and thinks in a little deeper, or he considers other factors, he comes up with a different result.

He could oppress the minority, through the use of the machinery of state, and ensure the dominant position of the majority, except that opressed people have a very nasty habit of rebelling. Would in not be more rational to empower everyone with the same rights, thereby increasing the size of the pie, rather than reducing it by limiting the capacity of part of the population. This is equivalent to the protectionism vs free trade debate. It is clear that free trade is better for the worlds economy as a whole and as a result better for the dominant members of that economy, however the irrational fear that others doing better implies the ones already on top doing worse tends to lead to protectionism, which in this case is opression.

I was not considering majority and minority in terms of haves and have nots.. but rather along ratial ethnic or cultural lines... Whites over Blacks.. Christians over atheists.. etc.

That became clear. Forum lag.

of course rationally speaking there is no position for equality of all men under the law.. in systems with clear majorities it is more benifical to take advantage and supress the minorities then it is to empower them with the same rights you have.. so of course while a rationalist may not want stealing to be legal for everyone.. he may well want it legal toward minorities.. so that he can reap the benifits of theft whlie maintaing a realitivly high probablity that he will not be robbed as the majority will not rob from its own.

No, the rule of majority is not justified with rationality. Rationality would state that if you set a precedent of more power = more rights, then society would break down.

VO, you're giving me flashbacks. Didn't we do this last week?

Anywho, rational law seems to degenerate into, "I won't kill you if you don't kill me," or some derivative thereof. I have a problem with that. There are some things that are inherently wrong. Our laws should reflect that. Law should be based on morality.

I see your point. When I hear moral, I immediately picture a big guy in the sky shaking his finger at me and going "Tsk!".

But isn't morality based on rationality, at it's best? I mean, I can't see how morality could've evolved without a sense of reason.

OK, try this one. Our personal morality is a set of motives for us to act. If it does not bother us, make us do something, then it really is not a moral issue for us. Morality is part of motivation.

Now rationality is something completely different to this. Rationality does things like tell you that if you go outside in the rain you will get wet. This does not imply anything about your desire to get wet or stay dry. Rationality also tells us what actions are possible, and what actions will lead to what results. It is instrumental and expositional.

None of these things gets you off of your backside. What does that is your desires, your goals and aims etc. You go to university because you want something. Want, there is the key to motivation.

Now if morality can motivate us, and it has to to be morality, then it has to be based on desires and wants, not on rationality.

(Paraphrased from Book 2 of Hume's Treatise on Human Nature.)

VO, you're giving me flashbacks. Didn't we do this last week?

Anywho, rational law seems to degenerate into, "I won't kill you if you don't kill me," or some derivative thereof. I have a problem with that. There are some things that are inherently wrong. Our laws should reflect that. Law should be based on morality.


What are things that are inherently wrong, and how do you actually assign this inherent wrongness?

I answered morality, but not a specific morality, but rather a general sense of common moral consensus. Elsewise, we end up with Soylent Green type shit.

VO, you're giving me flashbacks. Didn't we do this last week?

Anywho, rational law seems to degenerate into, "I won't kill you if you don't kill me," or some derivative thereof. I have a problem with that. There are some things that are inherently wrong. Our laws should reflect that. Law should be based on morality.

We certainly did, but I thought it was unfinished.

That is not a rational reason for making murder illegal. It can be rationally dismissed by saying that legalizing murder would be very detremental to the free growth of society and that murder is a total elimination of an individuals rights.

What are things that are inherently wrong, and how do you actually assign this inherent wrongness?

I'm a believer in absolute morality, so those sorts of things come from God. It's not unreasonable, but we wouldn't be able to figure it out on our own.

I'm a believer in absolute morality, so those sorts of things come from God. It's not unreasonable, but we wouldn't be able to figure it out on our own.

What happens when different groups argue that their laws are those based on God's will but the laws are incompatable. If they both exist in the same society, do you not have to find a secular solution to maintain that society? If so, is this solution a rational or moral one?

To me, it could be either. As I understand your position it would have to be rational as the opposing view of God's will is simply not moral.

*snip*
Well I learned something new today. That's very interesting.
I'm definitely a moral relativist, and "morality", for me doesn't seem cut and dry, black and white. So I think things become confusing when the inevitable question arises (as we see happening every day in politics):

Who's sense of morality do we rely on?

I'm a believer in absolute morality, so those sorts of things come from God. It's not unreasonable, but we wouldn't be able to figure it out on our own.

Ah. I'm not too big on moral absolutism. As Eichen just said, who determines which morality is the absolute morality?

That is not a rational reason for making murder illegal. It can be rationally dismissed by saying that legalizing murder would be very detremental to the free growth of society and that murder is a total elimination of an individuals rights.

So we're back to the idea of rights, are we? If memory serves, you believe that rights are from nature, and it is only society that takes away those rights. Yet in a state of nature, we have other problems. We might not get killed by another person, but we might get killed by a bear. To quote Thomas Hobbes, life in the state of nature is, "Nasty, brutish, and short."

Hobbes also provides an interesting case study on the idea of rights from nature. He thought that, in order to assure security, people should give up their rights to an absolute sovereign (usually a monarch) in a social contract.

At the same time that Hobbes was alive, John Locke was also writing about rights from a Christian perspective, adopted from Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex. In Locke's version, people retained the right to rebel when the government became too oppressive, which is a right that Hobbes did not believe existed.

The final result can be seen in their personal lives. Hobbes supported Charles I, who was eventually executed in a Parliamentary uprising. Locke supported Parliament in the English Civil War. Locke's writings also deeply influenced Jefferson and the other founders of America.

and many more for it to be legal (especially if they are in a position of power... Majority over minority)


And here I thought it was the moralists who liked to use the "We are the majority" argument.

So we're back to the idea of rights, are we? If memory serves, you believe that rights are from nature, and it is only society that takes away those rights. Yet in a state of nature, we have other problems. We might not get killed by another person, but we might get killed by a bear. To quote Thomas Hobbes, life in the state of nature is, "Nasty, brutish, and short."

Hobbes also provides an interesting case study on the idea of rights from nature. He thought that, in order to assure security, people should give up their rights to an absolute sovereign (usually a monarch) in a social contract.

At the same time that Hobbes was alive, John Locke was also writing about rights from a Christian perspective, adopted from Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex. In Locke's version, people retained the right to rebel when the government became too oppressive, which is a right that Hobbes did not believe existed.

The final result can be seen in their personal lives. Hobbes supported Charles I, who was eventually executed in a Parliamentary uprising. Locke supported Parliament in the English Civil War. Locke's writings also deeply influenced Jefferson and the other founders of America.
That was all very interesting, but what does the natural social state of mankind have to do with getting eaten by a bear?

That was all very interesting, but what does the natural social state of mankind have to do with getting eaten by a bear?

The point being that the argument for rights form nature doesn't hold. You aren't being oppressed by anyone because there is no one to oppress you. It's not that nature is nice and gives you rights. It's that nature is more interested in killing you than keeping you from voting.

So we're back to the idea of rights, are we? If memory serves, you believe that rights are from nature, and it is only society that takes away those rights. Yet in a state of nature, we have other problems. We might not get killed by another person, but we might get killed by a bear. To quote Thomas Hobbes, life in the state of nature is, "Nasty, brutish, and short."

Hobbes also provides an interesting case study on the idea of rights from nature. He thought that, in order to assure security, people should give up their rights to an absolute sovereign (usually a monarch) in a social contract.

At the same time that Hobbes was alive, John Locke was also writing about rights from a Christian perspective, adopted from Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex. In Locke's version, people retained the right to rebel when the government became too oppressive, which is a right that Hobbes did not believe existed.

The final result can be seen in their personal lives. Hobbes supported Charles I, who was eventually executed in a Parliamentary uprising. Locke supported Parliament in the English Civil War. Locke's writings also deeply influenced Jefferson and the other founders of America.

People in a society are not at the will of nature, especially in modern times. And I also meant that they were natural in the sense that you are born with them. You are granted rights by your mere existence.

But even without considering rights, you have to consider enforcing peacible and secure interaction withing the society.

True, but if he takes his thinking one step further, losing the us vs them style and thinks in a little deeper, or he considers other factors, he comes up with a different result.

He could oppress the minority, through the use of the machinery of state, and ensure the dominant position of the majority, except that opressed people have a very nasty habit of rebelling. Would in not be more rational to empower everyone with the same rights, thereby increasing the size of the pie, rather than reducing it by limiting the capacity of part of the population. This is equivalent to the protectionism vs free trade debate. It is clear that free trade is better for the worlds economy as a whole and as a result better for the dominant members of that economy, however the irrational fear that others doing better implies the ones already on top doing worse tends to lead to protectionism, which in this case is opression.

Before i get on about free trade I will first pose the argument that in having the majority suppress the minority they maintain a level of power at the risk of rebellion (of a minority)... the trade off to equality is a loss of generalized power over a minority... I may argue that this trade off is more detrimental to the majority (losing generalized power to suppress a minority for a slightly to moderate higher percentages of stability)

you say you increase the size of the pie.. however, as with all natural resources.. there is a fixed pie size.. as with the the free trade vs protectionist debate.. Its true that free trade is clearly better for the World economy... and better for the dominate members of that economy.. however the dominant members in a free trade economy are not the same as the dominant members in a protectionist/current world economy... Nations with greater popluations lower standards of living naturally benifit from free trade (reality) which is in direct opposition of traditional theory in which free trade would benifit equally( or more) the established dominant players....

Disclaimer: of course when I speak of free trade i speak of it in the realistic terms in which it exists today, not the theoretical terms one might suggest...

(I would also like to point out even in the case of the EU in which the notion of free trade comes quite close to the theoretical belif of free trade.. nations are only brought into that system with some degree of equality (economic stablitiy/preformace)

People in a society are not at the will of nature, especially in modern times. And I also meant that they were natural in the sense that you are born with them. You are granted rights by your mere existence.

But even without considering rights, you have to consider enforcing peacible and secure interaction withing the society.

For the first part, who gives you those rights? Babies aren't born with the right to vote, or to be free from discrimination. We, as a society, have decided to confer those rights on people because we thought that it was morally right to do so.

For the second, it's degenerating into the mutual non-killing idea again, the best example for which is the Mutually Assured Destruction idea of the Cold War.

For the first part, who gives you those rights? Babies aren't born with the right to vote, or to be free from discrimination. We, as a society, have decided to confer those rights on people because we thought that it was morally right to do so.

For the second, it's degenerating into the mutual non-killing idea again, the best example for which is the Mutually Assured Destruction idea of the Cold War.
Not that it was MORALY right ... rather that it was RATIONALY right to have someone that cant understand what is going on make decisions

Not bassed on morals at all

Not that it was MORALY right ... rather that it was RATIONALY right to have someone that cant understand what is going on make decisions

Not bassed on morals at all

I'm not talking about age or power of reason here. I'm saying that there is nothing to confer these "rights" to people when they are born. Or, to put it another way, why is it wrong for me to take someone's rights?

For the second, you are are correct. MAD was not based on morals. It was based on survival. Often that is what statecraft is reduced to. What I'm saying is that a rational basis for laws turns into a small-scale version of MAD.

So we're back to the idea of rights, are we? If memory serves, you believe that rights are from nature, and it is only society that takes away those rights. Yet in a state of nature, we have other problems. We might not get killed by another person, but we might get killed by a bear. To quote Thomas Hobbes, life in the state of nature is, "Nasty, brutish, and short."

Hobbes also provides an interesting case study on the idea of rights from nature. He thought that, in order to assure security, people should give up their rights to an absolute sovereign (usually a monarch) in a social contract.

At the same time that Hobbes was alive, John Locke was also writing about rights from a Christian perspective, adopted from Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex. In Locke's version, people retained the right to rebel when the government became too oppressive, which is a right that Hobbes did not believe existed.

The final result can be seen in their personal lives. Hobbes supported Charles I, who was eventually executed in a Parliamentary uprising. Locke supported Parliament in the English Civil War. Locke's writings also deeply influenced Jefferson and the other founders of America.


One or two minor disagreements with this, mostly historical rather than philosophical.

Hobbes' Leviathan, which you quote, was first published in early May of 1651. Charles was executed in 1649. There is considerable dispute as to when Hobbes actually wrote the book, but certain passages (p 241 in particular) imply that it was written during the war.

Locke published his Two treatise on Government in 1690, 11 years after Hobbes had died. (I am assuming that this is the Locke work you are referring to and not the Essay.) He was born in 1632, so he was alittle young to support anyone in the civil war, but he certainly took a strong protestant religious line, which fit into the Cromwellian scheme of things.

Neither, though, denied the concept of natural rights. They differred only in detail on this, not in theory. The detail however is critical as Hobbes attributes rights to kingship whereas Locke only to being human.

The point being that the argument for rights form nature doesn't hold. You aren't being oppressed by anyone because there is no one to oppress you. It's not that nature is nice and gives you rights. It's that nature is more interested in killing you than keeping you from voting.
Well, this line of logic may have made some sense 500 years ago, but I find it holds no water in modern times.

Unless you're a survivalist wacko living somewhere in Montana.

I believe our natural state is one of liberty, and it is only through the use of coersion or force that our natural state becomes unnaturally perverted.

From your angle, don't you believe that God gave us all free will, and with good cause?

One or two minor disagreements with this, mostly historical rather than philosophical.

Hobbes' Leviathan, which you quote, was first published in early May of 1651. Charles was executed in 1649. There is considerable dispute as to when Hobbes actually wrote the book, but certain passages (p 241 in particular) imply that it was written during the war.

Locke published his Two treatise on Government in 1690, 11 years after Hobbes had died. (I am assuming that this is the Locke work you are referring to and not the Essay.) He was born in 1632, so he was alittle young to support anyone in the civil war, but he certainly took a strong protestant religious line, which fit into the Cromwellian scheme of things.

Neither, though, denied the concept of natural rights. They differred only in detail on this, not in theory. The detail however is critical as Hobbes attributes rights to kingship whereas Locke only to being human.

My mistake, it was Locke's father who supported Parliament in the war. I had to check the reference again.

As for the works mentioned, I have all of them, and we are currently talking about both Locke and Hobbes in my modern philosophy class.

However, it might also be noted that Hobbes supported Cromwell, who was famous for his abuses of human rights. Locke, however, had to run for his life from James II, and only returned with William and Mary in the Glorious Revolution.

For rights, Locke did say that his rights came from nature, but it was another version of Rutherford's Christian rights.

Before i get on about free trade I will first pose the argument that in having the majority suppress the minority they maintain a level of power at the risk of rebellion (of a minority)... the trade off to equality is a loss of generalized power over a minority... I may argue that this trade off is more detrimental to the majority (losing generalized power to suppress a minority for a slightly to moderate higher percentages of stability)


I was only drawing the comparison with the free trade vs protectionist debate, to make my position clear. I am going to put aside the detailed arguments of that debate for now, as it is not directly relevant. You make some good points though.

I am curious as to what this power of supression benefits the majority. Sacrificing something that, in my view, provides no benefit for even a marginal benefit somewhere else seems to be the rational thing to do.

To show oppression to be rational, there has to be some benefit gained, in real terms, not just subjective posturing ones, for the oppressor from this action.
Under some circumstances I can see this happening. But in these circumstances the oppression is of the majority by the minority. The King, the rich man, these gain by opressing the masses, by taking for themselves more than they would have under a more equitable arrangement.

I do not see how this can work for the whites oppressing the blacks. They don't get more by doing this, they simply lose out on whatever contribution that a non oppressed black could provide.

For the first part, who gives you those rights? Babies aren't born with the right to vote, or to be free from discrimination. We, as a society, have decided to confer those rights on people because we thought that it was morally right to do so.

For the second, it's degenerating into the mutual non-killing idea again, the best example for which is the Mutually Assured Destruction idea of the Cold War.

Babies are considered an extension of the parent in society. It has minimal interaction with society outside of its parents. Since the parents are responsible for the child, they are given the right of the child.

Well, this line of logic may have made some sense 500 years ago, but I find it holds no water in modern times.

Unless you're a survivalist wacko living somewhere in Montana.

I believe our natural state is one of liberty, and it is only through the use of coersion or force that our natural state becomes unnaturally perverted.

From your angle, don't you believe that God gave us all free will, and with good cause?

Can one really be called free in the state of nature? There are no political rights because there is no politics to speak of. There are no civil rights because there is no civility to speak of.

Yes, I do believe that God gave us free will. He also gave us the rights that we enjoy. We have rights, not because of soem societal convenience, but because of the inate human dignity involved with being created in the image of God.

Babies are considered an extension of the parent in society. It has minimal interaction with society outside of its parents. Since the parents are responsible for the child, they are given the right of the child.

The question here is not age, as I mentioned in another post. The question is what sort of rights we get naturally. I don't see how we can get them from a worldview that includes evolution and atheism. I believe in rihts because I believe that man was created in the image of God, and hence has an inate dignity. Violating those rights violates that dignity, and is an offense against the image of God, or God Himself.

My mistake, it was Locke's father who supported Parliament in the war. I had to check the reference again.

As for the works mentioned, I have all of them, and we are currently talking about both Locke and Hobbes in my modern philosophy class.

However, it might also be noted that Hobbes supported Cromwell, who was famous for his abuses of human rights. Locke, however, had to run for his life from James II, and only returned with William and Mary in the Glorious Revolution.

For rights, Locke did say that his rights came from nature, but it was another version of Rutherford's Christian rights.

On the last point true, but still natural. Locke had to run from Charles II due to his being a protestant, and there was a witch hunt under Charles II for protestants. (Not surprising when you consider what happened to his old man.) William and Mary were protestants and therefor Locke was safe to returm, and go on to receive a stipend of £1,000 a year from them.

I hope that you look at the Scottish Enlightenment soon. This is too often skimmed over by Philosophy courses. Too few people have heard of Butler or Hutchenson.

I hope that you look at the Scottish Enlightenment soon. This is too often skimmed over by Philosophy courses. Too few people have heard of Butler or Hutchenson.

Sorry. After this, we're hitting Berkley, Hume, and Kant for the rest of the semester.

Goodnight all. It has been good to discuss civilly (sp?) again.

P.S. Berkley and Hume are fun. Berkeley's idealism is a mind blower. Kant, not my cup of tea, but he has a good few followers.

A problem is that it is difficult to understand Hume's moral thought without looking at Butler and Hutchenson, as it appears to come out of nowhere. But enjoy it anyway.

The question here is not age, as I mentioned in another post. The question is what sort of rights we get naturally. I don't see how we can get them from a worldview that includes evolution and atheism. I believe in rihts because I believe that man was created in the image of God, and hence has an inate dignity. Violating those rights violates that dignity, and is an offense against the image of God, or God Himself.

You cannot imagine how a man can have dignity without a God?

You cannot imagine the value of human existence without a God?

Even your view of God respects the value of free choice, so certainly that is above God in importance.

...Why would you want to base laws on -irrationality-?

Morals should be based on rationality. Don't mistake it for rationalization. Being able to spout rhetoric is not the same as true logic.

Well, this line of logic may have made some sense 500 years ago, but I find it holds no water in modern times.
Unless you're a survivalist wacko living somewhere in Montana.

first off.. of course it holds water.. because in any anarchitical system weather it be modern times or ancient times the theory of the state of nature remains constant.. without government and laws you have all freedoms but that freedom of security and so you may fall prey to those looking to exercise power over you.

after this it becomes simply a philisophical question then.. For me.. government is a system by which an individual surrenders all of his or her natural rights to ahceive the one single right the state of nature does not alocate (being life without fear) and one you have the security government gives.. the government then distributes rights out to the citizenry at its disgression.. or you belive people have natural rights and government serves only to limit those rights you have... instead of giving you rights you dont have...(example government gives people the right to marry vs people exercising their natural right to marry)


I believe our natural state is one of liberty, and it is only through the use of coersion or force that our natural state becomes unnaturally perverted.

i guess both of us belive the same thing.. in the state of nature the individual has total freedom.. however are you saying those freedoms become peverted through the exercise of power and control (ie government) ?

You cannot imagine how a man can have dignity without a God?

You cannot imagine the value of human existence without a God?

Even your view of God respects the value of free choice, so certainly that is above God in importance.

No, I can't see who man either has dignity or value without God. If evolution is true, then I am no better than a dolphin, chimp, or dog. I am just a cosmic accident, with no value whatsoever.

As for free will, God created man with free will so that we could choose to do right, rather than being automatons. I don't see why it would be above God in importance.

Can one really be called free in the state of nature? There are no political rights because there is no politics to speak of. There are no civil rights because there is no civility to speak of.

Yes, I do believe that God gave us free will. He also gave us the rights that we enjoy. We have rights, not because of soem societal convenience, but because of the inate human dignity involved with being created in the image of God.
Well, now we're speaking of faith. And I can't touch you there.

I still don't see how you could consider liberty a "social construct".
To me, it's a given, and infringements on those liberties constitute the only social construct.

I was only drawing the comparison with the free trade vs protectionist debate, to make my position clear. I am going to put aside the detailed arguments of that debate for now, as it is not directly relevant. You make some good points though.

I am curious as to what this power of supression benefits the majority. Sacrificing something that, in my view, provides no benefit for even a marginal benefit somewhere else seems to be the rational thing to do.

To show oppression to be rational, there has to be some benefit gained, in real terms, not just subjective posturing ones, for the oppressor from this action.
Under some circumstances I can see this happening. But in these circumstances the oppression is of the majority by the minority. The King, the rich man, these gain by opressing the masses, by taking for themselves more than they would have under a more equitable arrangement.

I do not see how this can work for the whites oppressing the blacks. They don't get more by doing this, they simply lose out on whatever contribution that a non oppressed black could provide.

A simple example is slavery... the white majority enslaving a black minority as free labor... this has explicit advantages to the majority population which far outweigh the disadvantages of an increased probability of rebellion as opposed to giving equal rights and having to pay these people for their labor at a significantly lower probability of rebellion.. even taking into account the probability of rebellion if one factors in the probability of success to that rebellion the risks tied to a threat of rebeillion becomes lowered significantly.. So rationally thinking one would deterime to subjegate and oppress a minority to the benifit of the majority would be the best decision.

and on the contrary to your last comment whites dont lose out on what blacks could provide.. but take advantage of what they can provide at little or no cost to the society (cost of wage labor)

Well, now we're speaking of faith. And I can't touch you there.

I still don't see how you could consider liberty a "social construct".
To me, it's a given, and infringements on those liberties constitute the only social construct.

From a Christian perspective, liberty is not a social construct. It is how God created us, or, if you like, what our nature is. What I don't understand is how liberty can be anything but a social construct in a worldview where man is just another animal.

No, I can't see who man either has dignity or value without God. If evolution is true, then I am no better than a dolphin, chimp, or dog. I am just a cosmic accident, with no value whatsoever.

As for free will, God created man with free will so that we could choose to do right, rather than being automatons. I don't see why it would be above God in importance.

God could have created nothing but followers, but he chose to give people the choice, so the act of choosing, the free will, must be more important than the actual service of God. This means that God would want your rationality to lead to your morality. So the ability of humans to behave and think in their own way, in other words, rights of belief and speech and behavior are rights that even God respects. Even God believes in inherent individual rights.

EDIT: Life has value simply for the experience. The human experience is a much higher one than that of another animal, so the life of a human has more inherent value.

I find it funny that most liberals are for locial gov't 'cause really, tolerance and acceptance are all a part of morality. Logically speaking, all but one view point should be eliminated in order to create social stability and cohesiveness.

From a Christian perspective, liberty is not a social construct. It is how God created us, or, if you like, what our nature is. What I don't understand is how liberty can be anything but a social construct in a worldview where man is just another animal.

because in a worldview it becomes a thing known as a state of nature.. in that every animal has the freedom to do what it will when it will.. live where it wants eat what it wants kill who it wants... IN these respects every creature has the ultimate freedom say one... (freedom to live without fear) because every animal must fear another animal with more power (stregth what have you) will attack it.. for food.. for property/territory whatever...

Every living being has natural rights in an arachic system (non governmental)
But with government the argument changes to what happens to those rights.. some belive they are all surrendered to the governing authority (hobbes theory) others belive they are inherent and cannot be taken away.. (Locke)

From a Christian perspective, liberty is not a social construct. It is how God created us, or, if you like, what our nature is. What I don't understand is how liberty can be anything but a social construct in a worldview where man is just another animal.
Well, you've really just contradicted yourself. It's his natural state.

It just seems to be a social construct because liberty eventually got a name, and became a force for philosphies.
Doesn't mean it didn't exist, naturally, before we started calling it by name.

I find it funny that most liberals are for locial gov't 'cause really, tolerance and acceptance are all a part of morality. Logically speaking, all but one view point should be eliminated in order to create social stability and cohesiveness.

... this entire point of this discussion is to determine weather or not tolerance and acceptance is part of morality or reason... there is an argument (the MAD issue) that tolerance and acceptance is primarly based on Reason not morality

God could have created nothing but followers, but he chose to give people the choice, so the act of choosing, the free will, must be more important than the actual service of God. This means that God would want your rationality to lead to your morality. So the ability of humans to behave and think in their own way, in other words, rights of belief and speech and behavior are rights that even God respects. Even God believes in inherent individual rights.

I see what you're getting at. But the problem is one of the liimits of reason. Reason cannot give us morality. Given a jihadist's worldview, pulling the cord on a DuPont vest is the moral thing to do. Reason can help us apply morality, but only once we get those moral principles.

God gave us free will so that we could choose to follow him instead of just a race of robot slaves. God believes in rights because He created us with them, not because rights are something above Him.

... this entire point of this discussion is to determine weather or not tolerance and acceptance is part of morality or reason... there is an argument (the MAD issue) that tolerance and acceptance is primarly based on Reason not morality

How is tolerance logical? Complete tolerance is not even possible due to the nature of human beings, so logic would have us just say "screw it."

I see what you're getting at. But the problem is one of the liimits of reason. Reason cannot give us morality. Given a jihadist's worldview, pulling the cord on a DuPont vest is the moral thing to do. Reason can help us apply morality, but only once we get those moral principles.

God gave us free will so that we could choose to follow him instead of just a race of robot slaves. God believes in rights because He created us with them, not because rights are something above Him.
That Jiihadist was excersizing his free will in order to follow his God. And thought it was the moral thing to do.

EDIT: The question I was beggin wasn't very clear:

How does that prove your point that morality is superior to rationality?
He believed his action was moral, but let's not kid ourselves that he was being rational.

Well, you've really just contradicted yourself. It's his natural state.

It just seems to be a social construct because liberty eventually got a name, and became a force for philosphies.
Doesn't mean it didn't exist, naturally, before we started calling it by name.

You're right. It is his natural state. But how do you support that natural state? I support it from a Christian worldview, which is how Samuel Rutherford supported it. You are trying to support it from (I assume) an atheistic worldview, where man is just another animal, and hence has no rights.

That Jiihadist was excersizing his free will in order to follow his God. And thought it was the moral thing to do.

True. He also thought it was rational.

True. He also thought it was rational.
I think the thing here is, it can be demonstrated not to be rational within logic, but within his system of morals it can't be.

True. He also thought it was rational.
Okay, but only because his sense of morality ultimately dictated his faculty for reason.

Eyeball, NOW! :mad: :D

I see what you're getting at. But the problem is one of the liimits of reason. Reason cannot give us morality. Given a jihadist's worldview, pulling the cord on a DuPont vest is the moral thing to do. Reason can help us apply morality, but only once we get those moral principles.

You are somewhat correct that me saying that the human experience is the justification for rights is based on morality. But I come to this justification by removing all excess morality.

No matter who you ask, they will agree that the human experience is a valuable thing. So if we break it all down, and justify our rights through human experience, we can assign a universal value to human life, and provide a universal basis for human rights.

God gave us free will so that we could choose to follow him instead of just a race of robot slaves. God believes in rights because He created us with them, not because rights are something above Him.

God has rights, does he not? He has freedoms of choice? Who provide him with those?

Even if you are a Christian you have to recognize the value God placed on the human experience.

Eyeball, NOW! :mad: :D
:p

You are somewhat correct that me saying that the human experience is the justification for rights is based on morality. But I come to this justification by removing all excess morality.

No matter who you ask, they will agree that the human experience is a valuable thing. So if we break it all down, and justify our rights through human experience, we can assign a universal value to human life, and provide a universal basis for human rights.



God has rights, does he not? He has freedoms of choice? Who provide him with those?

Even if you are a Christian you have to recognize the value God placed on the human experience.

He's God, man, jeez. Where did he come from for that matter?

I think the thing here is, it can be demonstrated not to be rational within logic, but within his system of morals it can't be.
Okay, but only because his sense of morality ultimately dictated his faculty for reason.

So how would you refute him? By saying that killing was wrong? But that is also based on a worldview, one which he does not subscribe to. In the end, right and wrong, whether we're talking about morality or law, is based on one's worldview.

Eyeball, NOW! :mad: :D
http://www.bioeng.auckland.ac.nz/images/database/special_sense_organs/eyeball.jpg

:p
I have responded to her invitation twice and she has never replied, arrgh! :headbang: :D

Edit: Okay, now were talkin'. *licks screen*

How is tolerance logical? Complete tolerance is not even possible due to the nature of human beings, so logic would have us just say "screw it."

Only viewpoints that are rational should be tolerated. Viewpoints such as racism that are based on artificial factors and illogical deductions, and should not be tolerated.

Viewpoints that are based on rational thought and facts should always be tolerated. The flow of information and ideas is central to the growth of a society.

Only viewpoints that are rational should be tolerated. Viewpoints such as racism that are based on artificial factors and illogical deductions, and should not be tolerated.

Viewpoints that are based on rational thought and facts should always be tolerated. The flow of information and ideas is central to the growth of a society.

Why should society grow? Growth is dangerous and unpredictable.

Edit: I am fairly tolerant. I'm basically playing Devil's Advocate here.

You are somewhat correct that me saying that the human experience is the justification for rights is based on morality. But I come to this justification by removing all excess morality.

No matter who you ask, they will agree that the human experience is a valuable thing. So if we break it all down, and justify our rights through human experience, we can assign a universal value to human life, and provide a universal basis for human rights.

God has rights, does he not? He has freedoms of choice? Who provide him with those?

Even if you are a Christian you have to recognize the value God placed on the human experience.

I'll hit this in reverse order.

God does not have rights in the traditional sense of the word. He has free will, but that does not automatically confer rights. Also, when there is only one of Him, do rights even apply? Rights govern interaction among beings on the same level. God is in the position of the earthly government, which has powers and responsibilites rather than rights.

I agree that human life and experiance is a valuable thing, but based on what? If it's just an agreed-on thing, then the whole issue of right and wrong just goes out the window. We're back to mutually agreed non-killing. But outside of that, people have no inherent value based on an atheistic worldview.

So how would you refute him? By saying that killing was wrong? But that is also based on a worldview, one which he does not subscribe to. In the end, right and wrong, whether we're talking about morality or law, is based on one's worldview.
I'm not sure what you mean. At all.

Mine (and apparently Neo's) point was, based on your assumption that morality is superior to reason, it's ironic that you brought up a point that seems counterproductive to the one you were making.
His sense of morality was diametrically opposed to rationality. His sense of reason was eclipsed by his own twisted morals.
It is not reasonable, in any sane sense of the word, to blow yourself up and take others with you. No matter how you try to slice that crapcake.

I understand your faith, but I'd hope it was based more on reason, and philisophical insight than any moral obligation toward blind faith.
That's what leads to Jiihadists and Inquisitions.

Nothing wrong with religion, as long as one doesn't forget that you can't throw reason to the dogs for faith.
Same goes for law.

(Neo, you speedy devil, you were too quick on da draw for me on that post!)

Why should society grow? Growth is dangerous and unpredictable.

Edit: I am fairly tolerant. I'm basically playing Devil's Advocate here.

If society is allowed to grow naturally, with the best ideas and thoughts being the most accepted then it should grow in beneficial directions.

I'm not sure what you mean. At all.

Mine (and apparently Neo's) point was, based on your assumption that morality is superior to reason, it's ironic that you brought up a point that seems counterproductive to the one you were making.
His sense of morality was diametrically opposed to rationality. His sense of reason was eclipsed by his own twisted morals.
It is not reasonable, in any sane sense of the word, to blow yourself up and take others with you. No matter how you try to slice that crapcake.

I understand your faith, but I'd hope it was based more on reason, and philisophical insight than any moral obligation toward blind faith.
That's what leads to Jiihadists and Inquisitions.

Nothing wrong with religion, as long as one doesn't forget that you can't throw reason to the dogs for faith.
Same goes for law.

On the contrary, given his morals, his reason dictated what he should do. That's the point. We use reason inside the bounds of morals, not the other way around. Reason alone will not get us moral principles. Follow the chain of logic all the way to the top, and you will find some value statement that you can's support by a rational argument. This follows for every worldview: atheistic, Christian, Islamic, whatever.

As for faith, I don't have "blind faith." As far as I'm concerned, that's an oxymoron. But that is for another time and thread.

If society is allowed to grow naturally, with the best ideas and thoughts being the most accepted then it should grow in beneficial directions.

But who decides what is beneficial? What if I think that it is beneficial to let sick people die so that they don't take resources from the healthy ones? Please note, that is the practice in some cultures. The Eskimos used to send the old or terminally ill out to ice floes to die.

If society is allowed to grow naturally, with the best ideas and thoughts being the most accepted then it should grow in beneficial directions.

But this is not possible, since humans don't have the ability to officiate what the best ideas are. A mistake would be disastrous.

On the contrary, given his morals, his reason dictated what he should do. That's the point. We use reason inside the bounds of morals, not the other way around. Reason alone will not get us moral principles. Follow the chain of logic all the way to the top, and you will find some value statement that you can's support by a rational argument. This follows for every worldview: atheistic, Christian, Islamic, whatever.

As for faith, I don't have "blind faith." As far as I'm concerned, that's an oxymoron. But that is for another time and thread.
Well, now the conversation has devolved into "Which came first; the chicken or the egg?"

I say reason, you say morality. I believe in evolution, and that morality was the natural outcome of rational faculties. You'd say it's the other way around.

Probably irreconcilable differences in our fundamental beliefs, so I'll just agree to disagree. I respect your rational explainations for your faith. It's quite refreshing compared to the usual militant drivvle I hear from other faithfuls.

You seem like an excellent example of your faith, from what I've seen so far.

I agree that human life and experiance is a valuable thing, but based on what? If it's just an agreed-on thing, then the whole issue of right and wrong just goes out the window. We're back to mutually agreed non-killing. But outside of that, people have no inherent value based on an atheistic worldview.

If we can agree that the human experience has value, then we can agree on a system of rights based on this value.

But this is not possible, since humans don't have the ability to officiate what the best ideas are. A mistake would be disastrous.

The sheer mass of reason and input from the human race makes a wrong decision almost impossible to arrive at. It is assumed that people will act in their own self interest, and it can be assumed that enough people will understand their best interest.

Probably irreconcilable differences in our fundamental beliefs, so I'll just agree to disagree. I respect your rational explainations for your faith. It's quite refreshing compared to the usual militant drivvle I hear from other faithfuls.

You seem like an excellent example of your faith, from what I've seen so far.

If all I've done is shown you that Christians are not just drooling freaks, then I've succeeded. Best wishes.

If we can agree that the human experience has value, then we can agree on a system of rights based on this value.

Not so fast. We haven't agreed that human life has value yet.

Granted, I do agree, but I'm playing devil's advocate here. How do you establish human value?

People can argue over morals, and find out that they're incredible subjective; but time and data confirm the rational.

How do you establish human value?

It's subject to ones mind,....

Morals in government aren't as important as it being practical, imo.

The sheer mass of reason and input from the human race makes a wrong decision almost impossible to arrive at. It is assumed that people will act in their own self interest, and it can be assumed that enough people will understand their best interest.

What if those best intersts conflict between people? What if they conflict with societies best intersets? Plus, many do not know what's in their best interest. Elsewise, stuff like 16 year olds dropping out of school wouldn't happen.

But who decides what is beneficial? What if I think that it is beneficial to let sick people die so that they don't take resources from the healthy ones? Please note, that is the practice in some cultures. The Eskimos used to send the old or terminally ill out to ice floes to die.

It is my opinion that human life is valuable as long as there is an experience occuring.

But, objectivism is tough about this situation, as it is assumed that there the individual is in no way obligated to help a sick person.

Although there's a thin line that should always be drawn. A bill of rights for example. Certain particular rights that remain under that practical image of a civilized society.

It is my opinion that human life is valuable as long as there is an experience occuring.

Again, that's your opinion. Do you have anything to base it on so that I should accept it?

What if those best intersts conflict between people? What if they conflict with societies best intersets? Plus, many do not know what's in their best interest. Elsewise, stuff like 16 year olds dropping out of school wouldn't happen.


Where does the bountry of self-responsiblity start....? Anyones opinion is welcomed...

If all I've done is shown you that Christians are not just drooling freaks, then I've succeeded. Best wishes.
Nah, I'm not a biggot. I come from a predominantly Christian family, and am tight with them to this day. I also used to be quite a devout Baptist, myself.
I've just found that most Christians do not know how to debate rationally about their beliefs for long. It usually downshifts into ad hominem, or the conversation turns into a conversion attempt.

You haven't strayed from the topic once, and you had relevant points, even if I don't accept them personally.
And here on NS, I wouldn't be suprised if most of the "Christians" shock you too.

Not so fast. We haven't agreed that human life has value yet.

Granted, I do agree, but I'm playing devil's advocate here. How do you establish human value?

The only thing that a person can truly own are his or her own experiences. Material possessions are only valuable through the experience they prevoke. So it is my belief that this experience is the only value a person has and should be protected.

Sorry to stray, but is it just me or is this the most civil, thoughful debate that's taken place on General in a week or so?

Nah, I'm not a biggot. I come from a predominantly Christian family, and am tight with them to this day. I also used to be quite a devout Baptist, myself.
I've just found that most Christians do not know how to debate rationally about their beliefs for long. It usually downshifts into ad hominem, or the conversation turns into a conversion attempt.

You haven't strayed from the topic once, and you had relevant points, even if I don't accept them personally.
And here on NS, I wouldn't be suprised if most of the "Christians" shock you too.

Evil Baptists!!! :gundge:


J/K-I'm methodist :p

Sorry to stray, but is it just me or is this the most civil, thoughful debate that's taken place on General in a week or so?

Except for the eyeball stuff, yes.

The only thing that a person can truly own are his or her own experiences. Material possessions are only valuable through the experience they prevoke. So it is my belief that this experience is the only value a person has and should be protected.

How can you prevent experience?...other than murdering someone. Life is a continuely experience, is it not....?

I don't know how you would protect that, because it seems rather abstract. Maybe I'm missing the point. ????

What if those best intersts conflict between people? What if they conflict with societies best intersets? Plus, many do not know what's in their best interest. Elsewise, stuff like 16 year olds dropping out of school wouldn't happen.

It must be assumed that the majority of people will act in their best interest and that the majority will make the best decisions. It is also assumed that those who make the best decisions will rise in the society and will be the most likely to be imitated.

The only thing that a person can truly own are his or her own experiences. Material possessions are only valuable through the experience they prevoke. So it is my belief that this experience is the only value a person has and should be protected.

But why should it matter? In an atheistic worldview, my life is meaningless anyway, so what difference does it make what my experiences are, or if I have them?

Given the chance, I think most men/women would make the best choices for themselves. I don't think everyone is given that chance, though...everybody else seems to be choicing for them or limiting them. Politics would be the key place we're we are limited to camps of ideas and not choices of ideas.

It must be assumed that the majority of people will act in their best interest and that the majority will make the best decisions. It is also assumed that those who make the best decisions will rise in the society and will be the most likely to be imitated.
My question still stands, what if one person's best interest conflicts with another? Say, what if its my best interest that you die? Mightn't there be a conflict of interests there?

How can you prevent experience?...other than murdering someone. Life is a continuely experience, is it not....?

I don't know how you would protect that, because it seems rather abstract. Maybe I'm missing the point. ????

A person should have a right to their experience, and that means that they should have the ability to choose their own experience. Experience has very little value if choice is taken out of it.

Gotta go Vittos, but you talk a good line, even if I disagree with you. Very stimulating, indeed. Later. :cool:

My question still stands, what if one person's best interest conflicts with another? Say, what if its my best interest that you die? Mightn't there be a conflict of interests there?

I am not talking about our basic little interaction. I am talking about the guidelines of society. If society generally accepts that murder is detremental, then they will outlaw it. Societies that make the best choices as to how to regulate interaction will be the most successful, and in the end will eventually overtake those societies that make poor decisions.

A person should have a right to their experience, and that means that they should have the ability to choose their own experience. Experience has very little value if choice is taken out of it.

What difference does it make which esperiences I have? I can't choose a lot of things just based on my physical limits as a human being. Why would it be wrong for government to place other limits on them?

But why should it matter? In an atheistic worldview, my life is meaningless anyway, so what difference does it make what my experiences are, or if I have them?
Now that sounds pretty biggoted. Why would you think atheists believe that life is meaningless?
Perhaps this comes from a myopic view of them that dictates that without religion, there's no meaning to life.
Rediculous and small. There are many ways to lead a meaningful life, with or without eternity.
Actually, eternity would render this life meaningless.
Oh wait, that would be small-mindedness as well. ;)

There are many things to live for, and many things that bring meaning to the human experience. It's all very individual, there's no single formula to living a meaningful life.

Nobody owns the corner on that market. It's not available to monopolists.

A person should have a right to their experience, and that means that they should have the ability to choose their own experience. Experience has very little value if choice is taken out of it.

All clear....

I agree, actually. T'was the meme of the Matrix.

Gotta go Vittos, but you talk a good line, even if I disagree with you. Very stimulating, indeed. Later. :cool:

The same goes to you, I hope we can manage some more production discussions in the future.

We have had a very good thread tonight, and it is due to everyone's avoidance of questioning other's ideologies.

I am not talking about our basic little interaction. I am talking about the guidelines of society. If society generally accepts that murder is detremental, then they will outlaw it. Societies that make the best choices as to how to regulate interaction will be the most successful, and in the end will eventually overtake those societies that make poor decisions.

Doesn't that mean that society is violating my right to murder? What if society decides that the right of free speech is detremental? Why would it be wrong for them to revoke that as well?

Now that sounds pretty biggoted. Why would you think atheists believe that life is meaningless?
Perhaps this comes from a myopic view of them that dictates that without religion, there's no meaning to life.
Rediculous and small. There are many ways to lead a meaningful life, with or without eternity.
Actually, eternity would render this life meaningless.
Oh wait, that would be small-mindedness as well. ;)

There are many things to live for, and many things that bring meaning to the human experience. It's all very individual, there's no single formula to living a meaningful life.

Nobody owns the corner on that market. It's not available to monopolists.

Essentially, I'm asking how it is possible for my life to have value when I am nothing more than a cosmic accident. My life has meaning to me, but not to anyone else, or to the world in general.

What difference does it make which esperiences I have? I can't choose a lot of things just based on my physical limits as a human being. Why would it be wrong for government to place other limits on them?

It is the choice that is the most important part of the experience. Just like a car has no value if you can't drive where you want, experience is worthless if you can't choose what you experience.

I believe that any attempt by man to limit the human experience would take away the only definite value we have and would only be detremental to humankind.

All clear....

I agree, actually. T'was the meme of the Matrix.

Yes, and the story behind the original Matrix was very compelling, unfortunately they steered away from that story.

I am not talking about our basic little interaction. I am talking about the guidelines of society. If society generally accepts that murder is detremental, then they will outlaw it. Societies that make the best choices as to how to regulate interaction will be the most successful, and in the end will eventually overtake those societies that make poor decisions.

Yep.


Socially, violence is just a part of human instinct (especially within the inner aggression of man). Society has deemed it an instinct that needs to be quelled by conciouness or punishment. I consider this a prevalent move to a greater form of civilization; not because it's moral, perse, but because society can't progress on a level beyond it's nature if it lives in an instinctual pattern.

The paradigm of progress lives in a society of non-violence or the prohibition of force.

Doesn't that mean that society is violating my right to murder? What if society decides that the right of free speech is detremental? Why would it be wrong for them to revoke that as well?

Murder would be the ultimate usurping of another's rights, and it is the purpose of society to protect an individual's rights, so murder has no place in a rational society either.

Like I explained earlier, the flow of information and ideas is vital to the improvement of society, the more advanced the society, the more efficiently it protects the rights of its members.

Essentially, I'm asking how it is possible for my life to have value when I am nothing more than a cosmic accident. My life has meaning to me, but not to anyone else, or to the world in general.
That seems too cold and overly analytical to me, to the point where we seem to be talking about machines instead of men.

You give your own life meaning, the universe doesn't give it to you. You offer society meaning by contributing to it with your own life.
The whole of humanity benefits from societies benefiting from the meaning you've given your own life.

It's all a web, and we're all hoplessly, for better or worse, interconnected.
There is no meaningful society without the individual meaningful life.

Doesn't that mean that society is violating my right to murder? What if society decides that the right of free speech is detremental? Why would it be wrong for them to revoke that as well?

Look at my former post, that should answer your question.

It is the choice that is the most important part of the experience. Just like a car has no value if you can't drive where you want, experience is worthless if you can't choose what you experience.

I believe that any attempt by man to limit the human experience would take away the only definite value we have and would only be detremental to humankind.

As I mentioned above, my experiences are valuable to me, but not to anyone else, or to the universe in general. To be quite honest, I could also go into how we have free will given an atheistic mindset, but that's for another thread.

And about choosing our experience, can I choose anything? Can I choose to define my life by helping old ladies accross the street? Can I also choose to define my life by pushing old ladies in front of buses? After all, her experiences don't mean anything to me. My experience is what's valuable.

Murder would be the ultimate usurping of another's rights, and it is the purpose of society to protect an individual's rights, so murder has no place in a rational society either.

Like I explained earlier, the flow of information and ideas is vital to the improvement of society, the more advanced the society, the more efficiently it protects the rights of its members.
Damn, Vittos! I've never heard you sound so Libertarian before. I'm left aghast and impressed.
:D

Murder would be the ultimate usurping of another's rights, and it is the purpose of society to protect an individual's rights, so murder has no place in a rational society either.

Like I explained earlier, the flow of information and ideas is vital to the improvement of society, the more advanced the society, the more efficiently it protects the rights of its members.

We haven't established rights yet, so that argument doesn't work. And if rights come from nature, in nature I have the right to kill anything that I want to, including another person. So why not in society?

That seems too cold and overly analytical to me, to the point where we seem to be talking about machines instead of men.

You give your own life meaning, the universe doesn't give it to you. You offer society meaning by contributing to it with your own life.
The whole of humanity benefits from societies benefiting from the meaning you've given your own life.

It's all a web, and we're all hoplessly, for better or worse, interconnected.
There is no meaningful society without the individual meaningful life.

Exactly. This reminds me of a 'Wonderful Life', which airs on American tv's millions of times (every Christmas). Personally, I could say my life means a great deal to certain others, and I feel that I will add a significant difference into the future....now I may be overrating myself, but I feel that everyone in this world can leave a legacy and enjoy the empty plate that can be filled with so many different wonders.

That seems too cold and overly analytical to me, to the point where we seem to be talking about machines instead of men.

You give your own life meaning, the universe doesn't give it to you. You offer society meaning by contributing to it with your own life.
The whole of humanity benefits from societies benefiting from the meaning you've given your own life.

It's all a web, and we're all hoplessly, for better or worse, interconnected.
There is no meaningful society without the individual meaningful life.

True, we are talking about machines. From what I understand, an atheistic worldview does turn everyone into a machine, if we follow it to it's logical conclusion.

As for meaning, how can I give it meaning? If there is no value in the first place, as everything is just an accident, then where does meaning come from?

As I mentioned above, my experiences are valuable to me, but not to anyone else, or to the universe in general. To be quite honest, I could also go into how we have free will given an atheistic mindset, but that's for another thread.

And about choosing our experience, can I choose anything? Can I choose to define my life by helping old ladies accross the street? Can I also choose to define my life by pushing old ladies in front of buses? After all, her experiences don't mean anything to me. My experience is what's valuable.

The only thing that we can be positive that we all have is the ability to experience life. So the basic role of society should be to protect everyone's ability to experience. By removing those ladies' ability to experience, you have shown that you will not abide by society's rules and should be removed from society.

Damn, Vittos! I've never heard you sound so Libertarian before. I'm left aghast and impressed.
:D

I like it as well. Although I'm a leaning-libertarian, so that might not be fair.

The only thing that we can be positive that we all have is the ability to experience life. So the basic role of society should be to protect everyone's ability to experience. By removing those ladies' ability to experience, you have shown that you will not abide by society's rules and should be removed from society.

So you have established denying someone the ability to experience life as a morally wrong act?

Damn, Vittos! I've never heard you sound so Libertarian before. I'm left aghast and impressed.
:D

I draw much of my reasoning in the same way libertarians do, I just differentiate on several economic standpoints, such as wealth redistribution after death, anti-trust laws, and taxation. But on social issues I am very libertarian.

Exactly. This reminds me of a 'Wonderful Life', which airs on American tv's millions of times (every Christmas). Personally, I could say my life means a great deal to certain others, and I feel that I will add a significant difference into the future....now I may be overrating myself, but I feel that everyone in this world can leave a legacy and enjoy the empty plate that can be filled with so many different wonders.
I didn't even think about that, but you're right. Maybe that's why it's a classic: It contains a timeless truth.

I don't believe that there are any "small lives". Each of us has an effect on many people in our lifetimes, for better or worse. Help or hurt?
That choice is up to us.

We haven't established rights yet, so that argument doesn't work. And if rights come from nature, in nature I have the right to kill anything that I want to, including another person. So why not in society?

We have established that, without experience, humans would have nothing. From that we can logically assign an inherent value to that quality. So for us to have anything we must first secure our right to experience, and that is true for every ideology.

You are using a different definition of natural than me. I am not referring that rights come from nature, I mean that they are inherent, they cannot be acquired, you either have them or you don't.

We have established that, without experience, humans would have nothing. From that we can logically assign an inherent value to that quality. So for us to have anything we must first secure our right to experience, and that is true for every ideology.

You are using a different definition of natural than me. I am not referring that rights come from nature, I mean that they are inherent, they cannot be acquired, you either have them or you don't.

Sure. I agree on the rights being non-confered. But how do we know that we have them?

I didn't even think about that, but you're right. Maybe that's why it's a classic: It contains a timeless truth.

I don't believe that there are any "small lives". Each of us has an effect on many people in our lifetimes, for better or worse. Help or hurt?
That choice is up to us.

And if we assume that people who make the right choices will be rewarded, we can count on the human race to grow best when left to its own devices.

I have to ask this bluntly: is it morally wrong to violate someone's rights?

Sure. I agree on the rights being non-confered. But how do we know that we have them?

Because we can be sure we have the experience. All other rights must be an extension of right to experience. The freedom of religion, the freedom of speech, even things as trivial as the right to bear arms or drug laws.

As for meaning, how can I give it meaning? If there is no value in the first place, as everything is just an accident, then where does meaning come from?

Your not a non-volition atheist, are you? I didn't thing those existed. Not everything happens by accident, although I guess you can say much of it does.

Our mind's are very unique, in that they percieve subjectivities that other creature aren't really capable of. We can dive into the inner depths of 'whys'...and still not be satisfied that some things which aren't answerable. 'Meaning' is subjective, in terms of human value.

Trying to percieve the meaning out of our emotions (e.g angry, lust, love or sadness) isn't nescessarily going to give us objective answers all the time. Situations and feelings are just sometimes circumstantial, and by over analysising the credence of these posture running through your head you conceive a problem that only lies within your mind.

Not everything needs to make sense. Sometimes they just are what they are. No need to discover why the rock is grey, because it doesn't diminish the fact that you have to live with it. This never ending quest to find meaning is just that,...it's god's resurfacement into the mentality of man. That we all have to have meaning. Just live...stop asking yourself the meaning of everything or else you've doomed yourself to the endless circle of your mind.

Your not a non-volition atheist, are you? I didn't thing those existed.

Nope. I'm a Jesus Freak. :D

I have to ask this bluntly: is it morally wrong to violate someone's rights?

It is very hard to explain justify rights and the violation of rights with morality.

But when you consider it rationally as a human need and function of society, then it can very easily be shown to be wrong. If you allow rights to be taken by the more powerful, then you set a precedent that will only benefit one individual in the end. To ensure the rights of more than one person, society must ensure the rights of everyone.

Although it may only apply to us here in the U.S., what about Constitutionality?

Doesn't the "Right" to make a Law have to be derived from the Constitution, or at least not subvert it?

And hence the reason I believe our Drug Laws to be UnConstitutional.

Regards,
Gaar

And if we assume that people who make the right choices will be rewarded, we can count on the human race to grow best when left to its own devices.
I can already hear your detractors: "Why should we assume that people who make the right choices will be rewarded? Too many bad choices are rewarded with all kinds of perks every day!"

I'd lengthen the timeline a bit, and say that it catches up with everyone eventually. But that's the Buddhist in me speaking, and I see evidence of Karma daily. Not as a metaphysical law, but something much closer to common sense. An asshole is going to attract misery, and vice versa.

This is the status quo, but some slip through the cracks (unfortunately) without punishment or reward. It doesn't negate the truth of Karma, it just shows that for every rule there are a few exceptions. Nothing is absolute.

Because we can be sure we have the experience. All other rights must be an extension of right to experience. The freedom of religion, the freedom of speech, even things as trivial as the right to bear arms or drug laws.

Sorry to sound like a two-year-old here, but why do I have the right to experience? I value my experience, but I don't value anybody else's experience. Why should I respect their experience? Would it be morally wrong to do otherwise?

It is very hard to explain justify rights and the violation of rights with morality.

But when you consider it rationally as a human need and function of society, then it can very easily be shown to be wrong. If you allow rights to be taken by the more powerful, then you set a precedent that will only benefit one individual in the end. To ensure the rights of more than one person, society must ensure the rights of everyone.

What if that one person had my best interest at heart? Wouldn't depriving others of rights then be allowed?

Your not a non-volition atheist, are you? I didn't thing those existed. Not everything happens by accident, although I guess you can say much of it does.

I personally believe that there are no accidents. That there is only a set of inputs, a system, and a result. But I believe that the entire system could have been created accidentally. Is that what you are referring to?

This is very off topic, so a brief answer would suffice, and I will drop it at that.

Not everything needs to make sense. Sometimes they just are what they are. No need to discover why the rock is grey, because it doesn't diminish the fact that you have to live with it. This never ending quest to find meaning is just that,...it's god's resurfacement into the mentality of man. That we all have to have meaning. Just live...stop asking yourself the meaning of everything or else you've doomed yourself to the endless circle of your mind.

I think everything makes sense if you are given sufficient capacities and information to understand it. I also find the understanding of things and events much more satisfying than the simple observation of them.

I have to ask this bluntly: is it morally wrong to violate someone's rights?

I happen to think the war over morals is endless and trite. Thankfully society thinks violence is wrong, and thus tries to deem it immoral...either by morally pushing it upon society or by punishing those whom offend it. Although people try to make exception everywhere, and consider them 'moral'.

Being moral means to favor the good. Thus if society deems surpassing their nature as good, then it's morally corrupt to violate someone through force. Force should be subject to a neutralize force...peaceful if possible, violent if nescessary. This is the only prospect movement past the 'ape-man'.

Sorry to sound like a two-year-old here, but why do I have the right to experience? I value my experience, but I don't value anybody else's experience. Why should I respect their experience? Would it be morally wrong to do otherwise?

No one says you have to "respect" their experience, but you can't DENY them their own experiences either, just as they cannot deny you your own...

Anything other than that IS Morally wrong, yes. In other words... Yes, there are Moral Absolutes.

Regards,
Gaar

Sorry to sound like a two-year-old here, but why do I have the right to experience? I value my experience, but I don't value anybody else's experience. Why should I respect their experience? Would it be morally wrong to do otherwise?

The fact that you value your own experience should lead you to reasonably agree to respect other people's experience in return for their respect for yours.

It would be irrational to risk one's own experience in order to interfere with someone else's.

The fact that you value your own experience should lead you to reasonably agree to respect other people's experience in return for their respect for yours.

It would be irrational to risk one's own experience in order to interfere with someone else's.

So we're back to the "I won't kill you if you won't kill me" idea?

No one says you have to "respect" their experience, but you can't DENY them their own experiences either, just as they cannot deny you your own...

Anything other than that IS Morally wrong, yes. In other words... Yes, there are Moral Absolutes.

Regards,
Gaar

I agree.

I can already hear your detractors: "Why should we assume that people who make the right choices will be rewarded? Too many bad choices are rewarded with all kinds of perks every day!"

I'd lengthen the timeline a bit, and say that it catches up with everyone eventually. But that's the Buddhist in me speaking, and I see evidence of Karma daily. Not as a metaphysical law, but something much closer to common sense. An asshole is going to attract misery, and vice versa.

This is the status quo, but some slip through the cracks (unfortunately) without punishment or reward. It doesn't negate the truth of Karma, it just shows that for every rule there are a few exceptions. Nothing is absolute.

Also, in the long run, the societies that are lenient on people who make poor decisions or are easily fooled into acting out of their own self interest will be weakened and eventually overcome and assimilated into more efficient societies.

Survival of the fittest applies to society as well.

So we're back to the "I won't kill you if you won't kill me" idea?

Or better said...

I have a Right to Live, so you have no Right to kill me.

Regards,
Gaar

[QUOTE]I personally believe that there are no accidents. That there is only a set of inputs, a system, and a result. But I believe that the entire system could have been created accidentally. Is that what you are referring to?


No, not necessarily. I'm just referring to the length of choices an individual has. One can't control everything...essentially that's what I'm reffering to.

The universe is far too complex for me to comment on.



I think everything makes sense if you are given sufficient capacities and information to understand it. I also find the understanding of things and events much more satisfying than the simple observation of them.

Perhaps. I just think there's some things which are far beyond us now. Till we have a computer lodged in our brain, which operates billions of analytical processes, it's safe to say we don't know enough.

At one point we may.

Also, in the long run, the societies that are lenient on people who make poor decisions or are easily fooled into acting out of their own self interest will be weakened and eventually overcome and assimilated into more efficient societies.

Survival of the fittest applies to society as well.
I agree with you completely, but I have to add: With the unpopularity of American influence and the growing trend toward globalization, you seem to have inferred a socio-political opinion that I didn't think you had.

Or better said...

I have a Right to Live, so you have no Right to kill me.

Regards,
Gaar

Rights implies value, and that you think that I have value. We haven't established that. The way I phrased it is based on self-preservation.

No one says you have to "respect" their experience, but you can't DENY them their own experiences either, just as they cannot deny you your own...

Anything other than that IS Morally wrong, yes. In other words... Yes, there are Moral Absolutes.

Regards,
Gaar

No, there are no moral absolutes. There are only rational absolutes.

By agreeing to not deny a person of their experience, you agree to respect their right of experience.

Any attempt to deny a persons rights that are set down by society cannot be tolerated inside a society, and therefore must be punished through exclusion from the society.

What if that one person had my best interest at heart? Wouldn't depriving others of rights then be allowed?

Would that be what HE or YOU "believe" to be in your best interest? Who gets to decide?

And are you going to agree on that decision BEFORE he takes any action?

Regards,
Gaar

Or better said...

I have a Right to Live, so you have no Right to kill me.

Regards,
Gaar

Bingo.

It is a rational decision to coexist rather than to constantly struggle.

So we're back to the "I won't kill you if you won't kill me" idea?
Well, yeah! That's the social contract that societies have unanimously been built around since day one: It's called the Golden Rule in your faith.

Why do you make it sound so dirty?

No, there are no moral absolutes. There are only rational absolutes.

By agreeing to not deny a person of their experience, you agree to respect their right of experience.

Any attempt to deny a persons rights that are set down by society cannot be tolerated inside a society, and therefore must be punished through exclusion from the society.

So it's MAD all over again? And society figures that if I killed once, I'm likely to do it again, so I'm a danger, so I should be locked up.

But look at what you said. It's not inherently wrong. It's only that you and I have agreed not to kill each other. It's not a "right." It's self-preservation.

I agree with you completely, but I have to add: With the unpopularity of American influence and the growing trend toward globalization, you seem to have inferred a socio-political opinion that I didn't think you had.

Enlighten me.

I quite often find myself stumbling onto new ideologies, and most of the time I am surprised by what I find.

No, there are no moral absolutes. There are only rational absolutes.
Damn, that's sigworthy right there! Mind if I use it?

No, there are no moral absolutes. There are only rational absolutes.

By agreeing to not deny a person of their experience, you agree to respect their right of experience.

Any attempt to deny a persons rights that are set down by society cannot be tolerated inside a society, and therefore must be punished through exclusion from the society.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree...

I do not, for one moment, believe that I HAVE to "respect" any experience YOU may have, I CAN be "indifferent" to any subject that involves YOU or anyone else for that matter, can I not?

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/moral_law.html

The vast areas of agreement between moral codes of different societies throughout the ages and throughout the world is strong evidence that these moral norms were discovered in light of an unchanging and objective set of moral principles that find their source in the realities of human existence.

These moral rights protect the human person and allow him to achieve his end in life. In the modern age, respect for these moral principles have been upheld through the promulgation of human rights.

It is important for us to grasp what might be called the inner structure of this worldwide movement [the universal quest for freedom]. It is precisely its global character which offers us its first and fundamental "key" and confirms that there are indeed universal human rights, rooted in the nature of the person, rights which reflect the objective and inviolable demands of a universal moral law. These are not abstract points; rather, these rights tell us something important about the actual life of every individual and of every social group. They also remind us that we do not live in an irrational or meaningless world. On the contrary, there is a moral logic which is built into human life and which makes possible dialogue between individuals and peoples. If we want a century of violent coercion to be succeeded by a century of persuasion, we must find a way to discuss the human future intelligibly. The universal moral law written on the human heart is precisely that kind of "grammar" which is needed if the world is to engage this discussion of its future.
In this sense, it is a matter for serious concern that some people today deny the universality of human rights, just as they deny that there is a human nature shared by everyone. To be sure, there is no single model for organizing the politics and economics of human freedom; different cultures and different historical experiences give rise to different institutional forms of public life in a free and responsible society. But it is one thing to affirm a legitimate pluralism of "forms of freedom", and another to deny any universality or intelligibility to the nature of man or to the human experience. The latter makes the international politics of persuasion extremely difficult, if not impossible.

(Pope John Paul II, Address to the United Nations General Assembly, October 5, 1995

Well, yeah! That's the social contract that societies have unanimously been built around since day one: It's called the Golden Rule in your faith.

Why do you make it sound so dirty?

Because we're gettin rid of the idea that killing is wrong and replacing it with mutual self-preservation. I can break that agreement without any real consequences until you get your friends together to stop me, which then becomes society stopping me with the police. It's not "rights." It's just a matter of agreeing to get along.

Perhaps. I just think there's some things which are far beyond us now. Till we have a computer lodged in our brain, which operates billions of analytical processes, it's safe to say we don't know enough.

At one point we may.

I will agree with you there. I am agnostic and believe that there are many things that we will never understand.

It is for this reason that I can cope with the my determinist ideas. Even though our future may be laid out by millions of already determined factors, our inability to understand or predict the algorithm grants us the experience.

Damn, that's sigworthy right there! Mind if I use it?

Anything I post is fair game, for good or for bad.

I don't believe in 'human' rights, but I defintely believe in individual rights.

Because we're gettin rid of the idea that killing is wrong and replacing it with mutual self-preservation. I can break that agreement without any real consequences until you get your friends together to stop me, which then becomes society stopping me with the police. It's not "rights." It's just a matter of agreeing to get along.

Something tells me that, if you TRIED to "break that agreement" and DIED in the process, then there ARE INDEED some "real consequences" even WITHOUT my friends, or anyone else for that matter, interfering in ANY way...

And just because you are able to "break the agreement" doesn't make it NOT a Right, does it? You can break all kinds of "Rights" from our Constitution and it makes them no less a Right, does it?

Regards,
Gaar

Anywho folks. It's been real. It's been fun. It's even been real fun. But I need to go to bed. I have class in the morning. VO, we can continue this at a later date if you so wish. Night all.

Enlighten me.
Well, you've definitely hit the nail on the head as far as social Darwinism goes:

(They) will be weakened and eventually overcome and assimilated into more efficient societies.
This implies that a nation that is culturally or imperialistically either taken or absorbed, was weaker (morally, rationally, whatever) than the victor, and so it is better for the progress of mankind that it become assimilated by the stronger force. America's cultural and political detractors believe the exact opposite. Globalization, and all of it's implications can be seen as a positive influence, in the long run as well given this philisophical (or scientific, depending on how you look at it) worldview.

Survival of the fittest applies to society as well.
And you summed it up here, leaving no doubts about where you stand.

Because we're gettin rid of the idea that killing is wrong and replacing it with mutual self-preservation. I can break that agreement without any real consequences until you get your friends together to stop me, which then becomes society stopping me with the police. It's not "rights." It's just a matter of agreeing to get along.

Murder can be morally justified, if given the moral set that allows it to be justified.

Murder can never be justified rationally within a society, however.

Anywho folks. It's been real. It's been fun. It's even been real fun. But I need to go to bed. I have class in the morning. VO, we can continue this at a later date if you so wish. Night all.

I haven't left this thread for nearly an hour. It is a rare occasion to have this many good, disciplined posters responding to a thread for such a long duration.

I would be very happy to continue this conversation at another time.

I will agree with you there. I am agnostic and believe that there are many things that we will never understand.

I'm an agnostic as well.

It is for this reason that I can cope with the my determinist ideas. Even though our future may be laid out by millions of already determined factors, our inability to understand or predict the algorithm grants us the experience.


I think a great deal of this universe most likely operates on mathematical and deterministic factors (completely predictable), although I do believe our conciousness is beyond the boundaries of determinism. I'm almost geared to the 'Many-Worlds' theory ie they're multiple universes, where million, billions or infinite selfs are taking on different choices. Although I'll say much of that is just pure speculation.

I haven't left this thread for nearly an hour. It is a rare occasion to have this many good, disciplined posters responding to a thread for such a long duration.

I would be very happy to continue this conversation at another time.
It's been the best convo I've had on NS in a long time as well, but I've gotta dive into bed now myself. Let's continue this tomorrow though.

Oh, BTW Vitto, you've now been "sigged". :cool:

G,Nite everybody, let's do this again soon.

Well, you've definitely hit the nail on the head as far as social Darwinism goes:


This implies that a nation that is culturally or imperialistically either taken or absorbed, was weaker (morally, rationally, whatever) than the victor, and so it is better for the progress of mankind that it become assimilated by the stronger force. America's cultural and political detractors believe the exact opposite. Globalization, and all of it's implications can be seen as a positive influence, in the long run as well given this philisophical (or scientific, depending on how you look at it) worldview.

I have struggled with the benefits and costs of globalization. I think it is a consequence of capitalism that it will overflow and assimilate other economies. However, I am worried that we are spreading a very warped system of both democracy and capitalism. We are beginning to distance ourselves from the good decisions and ideas that helped us grow in the first place.

And you summed it up here, leaving no doubts about where you stand.

Anything based on evolution or darwinism is a tough sell (especially socially), and I almost never bring up those arguments unless surrounded by more open listeners.

I'm almost geared to the 'Many-Worlds' theory ie they're multiple universes, where million, billions or infinite selfs are taking on different choices. Although I'll say much of that is just pure speculation.
Awwwwww, man... A chance for me to talk String theory, multiple universes...

Why when I can't keep my eyes open? Why? :(

G'Nite. :D

I'm an agnostic as well.



I think a great deal of this universe most likely operates on mathematical and deterministic factors (completely predictable), although I do believe our conciousness is beyond the boundaries of determinism. I'm almost geared to the 'Many-Worlds' theory ie they're multiple universes, where million, billions or infinite selfs are taking on different choices. Although I'll say much of that is just pure speculation.

I'm not sure where this is coming from and it is completely off-topic and I certainly don't know how to explain this thought, but could we be the the embodiment of a certain possibility? You mentioned infinite selfs, but what if there were no selfs, only possible outputs, meaning that we would not be a continuous stream of thoughts, but only a stream of different realities?

I wish I hadn't started this post, and I am sure that it doesn't make much sense. I am very tired and rambling, but I am going to leave this out there.

[QUOTE]I have struggled with the benefits and costs of globalization. I think it is a consequence of capitalism that it will overflow and assimilate other economies. However, I am worried that we are spreading a very warped system of both democracy and capitalism. We are beginning to distance ourselves from the good decisions and ideas that helped us grow in the first place.

Agreed. I think the problem with most countries, especially America...is that the example of how it should be done is plagued with non-essentials. Globalization pretty much is the natural occurence of 'free'-trade. It's been happening for some time now, it's just that we're hitting a high point in a more complete infrastructure.

I'm hoping that the figure-heads of each country leaves their country within the bountries of rationality, thus provoking a steady stream of progress and not a spiked flow e.g China; which might give the world the impression that globalization is wrong for us. Actually free-trade is best progress for civilization, and any exponent of capitalism should promote it in the right light.

I'm not sure where this is coming from and it is completely off-topic and I certainly don't know how to explain this thought, but could we be the the embodiment of a certain possibility? You mentioned infinite selfs, but what if there were no selfs, only possible outputs, meaning that we would not be a continuous stream of thoughts, but only a stream of different realities?

I wish I hadn't started this post, and I am sure that it doesn't make much sense. I am very tired and rambling, but I am going to leave this out there.

I don't know if you wish me to continue this, so I won't. I think I'll go to sleep as well, and leave this topic to a separate or fairly interesting thread.

Gnight everyone.

I don't know if you wish me to continue this, so I won't. I think I'll go to sleep as well, and leave this topic to a separate or fairly interesting thread.

Gnight everyone.

Awww, yes. Sleep, the sensible solution. Why am I always the last to come to it?

I guess we will have to agree to disagree...

I do not, for one moment, believe that I HAVE to "respect" any experience YOU may have, I CAN be "indifferent" to any subject that involves YOU or anyone else for that matter, can I not?

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/moral_law.html

The vast areas of agreement between moral codes of different societies throughout the ages and throughout the world is strong evidence that these moral norms were discovered in light of an unchanging and objective set of moral principles that find their source in the realities of human existence.

These moral rights protect the human person and allow him to achieve his end in life. In the modern age, respect for these moral principles have been upheld through the promulgation of human rights.

It is important for us to grasp what might be called the inner structure of this worldwide movement [the universal quest for freedom]. It is precisely its global character which offers us its first and fundamental "key" and confirms that there are indeed universal human rights, rooted in the nature of the person, rights which reflect the objective and inviolable demands of a universal moral law. These are not abstract points; rather, these rights tell us something important about the actual life of every individual and of every social group. They also remind us that we do not live in an irrational or meaningless world. On the contrary, there is a moral logic which is built into human life and which makes possible dialogue between individuals and peoples. If we want a century of violent coercion to be succeeded by a century of persuasion, we must find a way to discuss the human future intelligibly. The universal moral law written on the human heart is precisely that kind of "grammar" which is needed if the world is to engage this discussion of its future.
In this sense, it is a matter for serious concern that some people today deny the universality of human rights, just as they deny that there is a human nature shared by everyone. To be sure, there is no single model for organizing the politics and economics of human freedom; different cultures and different historical experiences give rise to different institutional forms of public life in a free and responsible society. But it is one thing to affirm a legitimate pluralism of "forms of freedom", and another to deny any universality or intelligibility to the nature of man or to the human experience. The latter makes the international politics of persuasion extremely difficult, if not impossible.

(Pope John Paul II, Address to the United Nations General Assembly, October 5, 1995

Good Morning Urantia II

The position that you CAN be indifferent to others is logicaly possible. I doubt though that it is humanly possible, except in sociopaths. Is it not the case that we see others as being like ourselves and that we have an empathic connection these others? That their suffering causes us to suffer, that their happiness is a source of happiness to us.

The relative constancy of moral codes over time and location can be seen as good evidence of there being social utility in these codes, rather than there being anything inherent in the world or in us as humans that these codes derive from.

The basic moral concepts of fairness and freedom are possible to derive from social experience. A society that does not provide freedom of thought, to some degree, will have a tendency toward stagnation. This in itself may not be a bad thing, so it could be argued that there is an inherent propeerty that underlies the concept of freedom, the desire for progress. This may be historically confirmed by the concept of autonomy, or personal freedom, arising with the highly prgogressive thinking of the enlightenment.

I agree with the Pope that we must find a way to discuss the future intelligibly, but I do not agree that this requires there to be absolute morals. Can it not be that there is an absolute rationality instead, and this is what we use as a basis of discussion.

The proposal that morals are absolute would limit morality to certain types of things which have been constant. It could not be said that anything which at some point of time or place has been morally acceptable to some group is truly immoral. This includes some very controversial items, abortion, the torture and murder of POWs, slavery to name but a few. I think that these are sufficient evidence to show that not all morality can be considered absolute.

Here's a poll for you objectivists and altruists to bash heads over.
It's false dichotomy you bonehead. If fact, I would argue that it's irrational to base laws on anything but that which is moral.

It's false dichotomy you bonehead. If fact, I would argue that it's irrational to base laws on anything but that which is moral.

Why do you think it is a false dichotomy. Are you implying that morality and rationality are the same thing? If so, why are moral arguments not reducable to logical ones? Why is there a huge debate about Hume's argument that we can not deduce a should from an is?

The proposal that morals are absolute would limit morality to certain types of things which have been constant. It could not be said that anything which at some point of time or place has been morally acceptable to some group is truly immoral. This includes some very controversial items, abortion, the torture and murder of POWs, slavery to name but a few. I think that these are sufficient evidence to show that not all morality can be considered absolute.

I don't believe I ever said that ALL Morals are absolute, just that there ARE Moral Absolutes, there is a difference.

Regards,
Gaar

I don't believe I ever said that ALL Morals are absolute, just that there ARE Moral Absolutes, there is a difference.

Regards,
Gaar

We can agree then that some moral principles are a result of us being social creatures, and thus to all intents and purposes absolute. At least that is how I see it.

I am still uncertain though whether our secular laws should be based on morality or reason. I tend toward morality as this has normative force when reason does not, but law should be justifiable by a little more than saying that it is because this is the right thing to do.

This should be a no-brainer: Rationality and reasoning should be the basis of law, but unfortunately they're not.

Do you have a rational basis for that assertion?

I don't believe I ever said that ALL Morals are absolute, just that there ARE Moral Absolutes, there is a difference.

Regards,
Gaar

Name some absolute morals.

It's false dichotomy you bonehead. If fact, I would argue that it's irrational to base laws on anything but that which is moral.

Why is that a false dichotomy?

Also explain the second part of that statement as well.

Name some absolute morals.

What I have worked by myself to produce is mine to dispose of. It is immoral to steal the work of others that you have in no way participated in producing.
This however is a social absolute. It is necessary for society to function and we are, of necessity social animals.
I am not suggesting that this is something inherent in the universe, or an objective truth, but it is a consequence of our nature, and applies equally through all times and at all places.

The highlighted part is critical. Slave owners when slavery was regarded as moral did provide food and shelter for the slaves, they participated, minimally, in the production. In the modern world the corporation provides the conditions and resources for you to produce for them. etc.

I know this is not what you meant, but it is one form that an absolute moral can take.

Name some absolute morals.

-Thou shall not Murder
-Thou shall not Steal
-Thou shall not Bear False Witness (Lie)

What I have worked by myself to produce is mine to dispose of. It is immoral to steal the work of others that you have in no way participated in producing.
This however is a social absolute. It is necessary for society to function and we are, of necessity social animals.
I am not suggesting that this is something inherent in the universe, or an objective truth, but it is a consequence of our nature, and applies equally through all times and at all places.

The highlighted part is critical. Slave owners when slavery was regarded as moral did provide food and shelter for the slaves, they participated, minimally, in the production. In the modern world the corporation provides the conditions and resources for you to produce for them. etc.

I know this is not what you meant, but it is one form that an absolute moral can take.

But it wouldn't be an absolute moral. Take taxation for example. Taxation is the redistribution of wealth through the government. It is a morally justifiable process that goes against your moral absolute.

-Thou shall not Murder
-Thou shall not Steal
-Thou shall not Bear False Witness (Lie)

-The death penalty
-Taxation
-Falsehoods, when expressing the truth would be harmful to both sides.

But it wouldn't be an absolute moral. Take taxation for example. Taxation is the redistribution of wealth through the government. It is a morally justifiable process that goes against your moral absolute.

If the government does not contribute in some way to the person, by providing military protection at the very least, then taxation would be immoral. This is one more example of why that "in no way" phrase that I highlighted is there.

If the government does not contribute in some way to the person, by providing military protection at the very least, then taxation would be immoral. This is one more example of why that "in no way" phrase that I highlighted is there.
he was talking about the redistrobution portion ... such as welfare

he was talking about the redistrobution portion ... such as welfare

Exactly. Welfare, social security, government healthcare can all be morally justified altruistically.

he was talking about the redistrobution portion ... such as welfare

The redistribution of wealth through taxation and welfare is only morally justifiable if all those that are taxed are eligible for such welfare. This is one more way in which the government provides something for the producer. In this case it is insurance, peace of mind. Now there are people that would argue that this is irrational, and they would be right in my opinion.
Insurance is better provided for the individual by the individual having free choice in what to insure against and for how much etc.
So not all law is based on reason, some is based on a moral value. Now taxation and welfare is something that all governments everywhere have always had to some degree (welfare can be interpreted as drafting into the military). This being the case it is histrically a moral absolute.

Exactly. Welfare, social security, government healthcare can all be morally justified altruistically.

1. Are you suggesting that altruism is a moral absolute. That we should be good to others is a moral commandment independent of location, time and the other?

2. Just because these things can be justified altruistically, does not mean that theyare altruistic. They can also be justified egoistically. They are in the interest of the individual.

The redistribution of wealth through taxation and welfare is only morally justifiable if all those that are taxed are eligible for such welfare. This is one more way in which the government provides something for the producer. In this case it is insurance, peace of mind. Now there are people that would argue that this is irrational, and they would be right in my opinion.
Insurance is better provided for the individual by the individual having free choice in what to insure against and for how much etc.
So not all law is based on reason, some is based on a moral value. Now taxation and welfare is something that all governments everywhere have always had to some degree (welfare can be interpreted as drafting into the military). This being the case it is histrically a moral absolute.

I agree completely that much of law in the past and present HAS been based on morality, but the question is, should it continue to be?

First off, I can argue that wealth redistribution is rationally justifiable. There are often opposing sides in rationality, but those are always due to inperfect information and human bias, not due to some fallibility of rationality. A perfect rationality would be absolute, but I cannot understand how a moral could be absolute were it not based on rationality.

It's false dichotomy you bonehead. If fact, I would argue that it's irrational to base laws on anything but that which is moral.
BC, you're the last member I would've thought would argue for the altruist's side! :eek:

1. Are you suggesting that altruism is a moral absolute. That we should be good to others is a moral commandment independent of location, time and the other?

2. Just because these things can be justified altruistically, does not mean that theyare altruistic. They can also be justified egoistically. They are in the interest of the individual.

1. No, I think that altruism is detremental to human development.

2. I am not arguing about their justification, I am arguing about the underlying morality. If moralities are at odds, there is no way an absolute morality can be established. If rationalities are at odds, an absolute can still be established through more information and an elimination of biases.

Eichen, I am very honored by being in your sig, especially since you have fit it in there so nicely. Most would have just thrown it into a giant quote box that would have been obnoxious and caused me to stop scrolling whenever I saw their posts.

Eichen, I am very honored by being in your sig, especially since you have fit it in there so nicely. Most would have just thrown it into a giant quote box that would have been obnoxious and caused me to stop scrolling whenever I saw their posts.
Arrrgh, I hate quotes in sigs. Ugliness and horrific design atrocity!

I looked for this thread this morning, thinking it was gone... but it's been revived... Huzzah!

In Hazzard County, my word is law.

Arrrgh, I hate quotes in sigs. Ugliness and horrific design atrocity!

I looked for this thread this morning, thinking it was gone... but it's been revived... Huzzah!

Lets hope it stays alive and clean. Alien Born and UpwardThrust are good posters so we have have still maintained a clean thread so far. In fact this may be the longest of any clean thread I have ever seen. Ad hominem and spam have been kept to a minimum.

2. Just because these things can be justified altruistically, does not mean that theyare altruistic.
Hmmmmm. That's a good point. But if the individual dictates their own morality, would you agree that there are no absolutes?
Wouldn't this hint that rationality should be the basis of law, and morality or altruism be secondary, primarily an individual experience?

Why do you think it is a false dichotomy. Are you implying that morality and rationality are the same thing? If so, why are moral arguments not reducable to logical ones? Why is there a huge debate about Hume's argument that we can not deduce a should from an is?
It's a false dichotomy because a law that is moral can certainly also be rational. I would argue that no law should exist that is either immoral or irrational. Law should be both moral and rational. It's not an either-or situation, and that is why it's a false dichotomy.

-The death penalty

The death penalty is not murder.

-The death penalty
-Taxation
-Falsehoods, when expressing the truth would be harmful to both sides.

Like others have already explained, murder and a Societies Right to rid itself of people who would do it harm, instead of letting them continue to be a burden to Society, are NOT the same thing...

Taxes are the COST of Living in a Society and, if you live in most types of Democracies, you get to help decide what will and won't be paid for by those taxes. And if you don't like what the Majority decides, you are free to either find a Society that more closely represents what you would like or you can try and change your present Society to more closely match, either way you have choice... Stealing is something you hardly have any choice in.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain when lying may be beneficial to "ALL" sides in any given instance/dispute/action?!?! There may, and often are, more than 2 or even 3 and sometimes many more "sides" in any given "thing" are there not? Not everything is, as they say, just "Black or White", right?

And so while you may argue that 2 or even more "sides" may benefit from not telling the truth, I will argue that I can find at least 1 "side" that will benefit from it in any and all cases, and that MY side will almost always be the one with the "Majorities" interests at its Heart.

Although I am also willing to admit that you may find some cases where this is not the case, but I am sure it will hold true for the majority of instances we are able to cite.

Regards,
Gaar

Lets hope it stays alive and clean. Alien Born and UpwardThrust are good posters so we have have still maintained a clean thread so far. In fact this may be the longest of any clean thread I have ever seen. Ad hominem and spam have been kept to a minimum.

Having revived myself from the depths of RL, I wish to thank you for the compliment and return the sentiment, to both yourself and Eichen. To date this has been a most excellent thread.

I agree completely that much of law in the past and present HAS been based on morality, but the question is, should it continue to be?

First off, I can argue that wealth redistribution is rationally justifiable. There are often opposing sides in rationality, but those are always due to inperfect information and human bias, not due to some fallibility of rationality. A perfect rationality would be absolute, but I cannot understand how a moral could be absolute were it not based on rationality.

Ok back to work.
I still have a problem with a rational system of laws as these laws could leave me thinking "Very good. It all fits together, but who gives a damn." I think to make the laws connect to the people there has to be a moral element. It may be that BC is right when he says that Laws should be based on both.

Yes perfect rationality is absolute. Kant showed that quite clearly, it is prior to our experience or even to our existence. But we are not absolute. We are human. To seek perfection in law would force the law to be based on rationality rather than morality. A perfect creature is amoral, the good and the desired automatically coincide. However we are not perfect. To us a perfect law is alien, unnatural and immoral. There are moral absolutes for humans. This means that they are not independent of us, our natures or thinking. Instead they are consequences of these things. The concept of fairness is such an absolute for humans. Now fairness is not necessarily rational. Given the choice of killing one person to save twnety, rationality says save the twenty. Fairness says do not kill the one as it would be unfair to treat that one differently to the others.

Morality is really about how we view ourselves and how we believe others view us. It is about our egos, our desires to be liked and respected. To be thought of as good and moral people. There are certain opinions that we attach positive values to. There are not necessarily any rational reasons for these positive assessments, but they exist all the same. We like to be thought of as fair, courageous, honest, truthful, trustworthy, respected etc.These then are moral values to us. By us I mean all of us. How do you really upset an immoral person, by quoting things like "there is no honour amongst thieves", because there is honour, according to the rules of engagement chosen.

Do you know of, or have you ever heard of someone who does not wish to be respected? There, in my opinion is a human moral absolute. We all desire respect.

It's a false dichotomy because a law that is moral can certainly also be rational. I would argue that no law should exist that is either immoral or irrational. Law should be both moral and rational. It's not an either-or situation, and that is why it's a false dichotomy.

And if the two conflict?

On the planet Zarg, the Zargothions think like this: Reason says that aborting a fetus in the case where a mother will not be able to support a child should be legal, whereas morality says that aborting a fetus is wrong and should be illegal.

What should the law follow on Zarg? It is, sometimes an either-or case.

Like others have already explained, murder and a Societies Right to rid itself of people who would do it harm, instead of letting them continue to be a burden to Society, are NOT the same thing...

Under most moralities it is considered that human life has some sort of special properties that should not be taken away by other humans. Under a moral outlook what separates society killing someone from a person or people killing someone?

However, it is my opinion that the value of human existence and experience is the only absolute, and so laws should be based around that, so thou shall not murder would be a rational extension of that.

Taxes are the COST of Living in a Society and, if you live in most types of Democracies, you get to help decide what will and won't be paid for by those taxes. And if you don't like what the Majority decides, you are free to either find a Society that more closely represents what you would like or you can try and change your present Society to more closely match, either way you have choice... Stealing is something you hardly have any choice in.

He was naming moral absolutes and named thou shall not steal. I replied with taxation, because under some morality bases taxes are necessary to redistribute wealth, while under some moralities wealth redistribution is immoral because it is stealing. And I think that all of you will agree that wealth redistribution is stealing from the rich and giving to the poor.

So thou shall not steal is not a moral absolute.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain when lying may be beneficial to "ALL" sides in any given instance/dispute/action?!?! There may, and often are, more than 2 or even 3 and sometimes many more "sides" in any given "thing" are there not? Not everything is, as they say, just "Black or White", right?

Well no morality is black and white. The moral justification for "thou shall not lie" is not absolute therefore that is not a moral absolute.

And so while you may argue that 2 or even more "sides" may benefit from not telling the truth, I will argue that I can find at least 1 "side" that will benefit from it in any and all cases, and that MY side will almost always be the one with the "Majorities" interests at its Heart.

Although I am also willing to admit that you may find some cases where this is not the case, but I am sure it will hold true for the majority of instances we are able to cite.

Regards,
Gaar

If I were to find any instance where everyone benefited from a lie, then thou shall not lie would not be a moral absolute.

Under most moralities it is considered that human life has some sort of special properties that should not be taken away by other humans. Under a moral outlook what separates society killing someone from a person or people killing someone?

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto God that which id Gods.

Thou shall not murder.

So thou shall not steal is not a moral absolute.

And you just dismiss my argument about the cost of Society out of hand I guess.

Well no morality is black and white. The moral justification for "thou shall not lie" is not absolute therefore that is not a moral absolute.

If I were to find any instance where everyone benefited from a lie, then thou shall not lie would not be a moral absolute.

So first you state the result of an "experiment" you have yet to run? How does that work, in your mind?

Key word there is "IF"... So you try to come up with something and we'll see if it holds up under scrutiny, ok?!?! Maybe we could try that BEFORE you claim your "Victory"?

Regards,
Gaar

And if the two conflict?

On the planet Zarg, the Zargothions think like this: Reason says that aborting a fetus in the case where a mother will not be able to support a child should be legal, whereas morality says that aborting a fetus is wrong and should be illegal.

What should the law follow on Zarg? It is, sometimes an either-or case.

What conflict?

You believe that if someone is unable to "afford" having a child is a legitimate reason to use Abortion as Birth Control?

What about those who CAN afford a child but can't have one? You think they may be able to be a "substitute" for the actual Parents that are unable to afford it?

Regards,
Gaar

Your poll is flawed. It suggests that morality cannot come from rationality. Morality is the specific code of ethics one sets up for themselves to live by. I would suggest changing the poll to get the answer you REALLY are looking for. What IS the answer you're looking for anyway? Are you refering to dogmatic morality versus rationally derived morality? I would go for the latter, simply because if we go with the former, we end up with stupid laws like "no serving alcohol on Sunday". I defy anyone to tell me that is not a religiously derived law that does nothing but make christians feel high and mighty about themselves.

Your poll is flawed. It suggests that morality cannot come from rationality. Morality is the specific code of ethics one sets up for themselves to live by. I would suggest changing the poll to get the answer you REALLY are looking for. What IS the answer you're looking for anyway? Are you refering to dogmatic morality versus rationally derived morality? I would go for the latter, simply because if we go with the former, we end up with stupid laws like "no serving alcohol on Sunday". I defy anyone to tell me that is not a religiously derived law that does nothing but make christians feel high and mighty about themselves.

It's also a holdover from unapologetic anti-semetism (no I'm not jewish). Observant Christians who would not sell alchohol on Sunday were at an advantage against observant Jews who could not sell it on Sunday and would not on friday evening to saturday evening.

Their you go, it's not religous, it's racist :)

If I were to find any instance where everyone benefited from a lie, then thou shall not lie would not be a moral absolute.

Where is "thou shalt not lie?"

I thought it was "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." Meaning don't tell lies with the intention of hurting others, not with the intention of protecting yourself.

Yes perfect rationality is absolute. Kant showed that quite clearly, it is prior to our experience or even to our existence. But we are not absolute. We are human.

I'm back, at least for a few minutes.

Funny you should mention Kant, as I take particular exception to his ethical system. Now I am not fully versed in Kantian ethics, but I am fairly familiar with it. Here's my take on it:

The problem with Kant is that he emphasizes reason in forming an ethical system, but he does not provide any principles to use in that system. Or in other words, he wants to form some sort of argument of this form:

Premise 1
Premise 2
....
__________
Therefore, ......

But he does not provide the premises. He does attempt this at one point with the second formulation of the Catagorical Imperative, but that also fails us. We tend to accept it, as it sounds like another formulation of the Golden Rule, but he has no basis for it. A Christian follows the Golden Rule because he recognizes the fundamental dignity of his fellow human beings as they are also created in the image of God. However, Kant rejects any sort of metaphysical ideas out of hand. Without a metaphysics to back it up, his ethics is lacking a foundation for it's principles. This is precisely why I have trouble with basing law on a strictly secular basis.

It's also a holdover from unapologetic anti-semetism (no I'm not jewish). Observant Christians who would not sell alchohol on Sunday were at an advantage against observant Jews who could not sell it on Sunday and would not on friday evening to saturday evening.

Their you go, it's not religous, it's racist :)
It's racism (if anti-semitism can be called "racist") because of religion. Therefore it is still a religiously based law.

And you just dismiss my argument about the cost of Society out of hand I guess.

I was not referring to the payment of government for services, I was talking about wealth redistribution, and the cost of society does not apply to that.

Also, the cost of society is a rational argument not a moral one.

So first you state the result of an "experiment" you have yet to run? How does that work, in your mind?

Key word there is "IF"... So you try to come up with something and we'll see if it holds up under scrutiny, ok?!?! Maybe we could try that BEFORE you claim your "Victory"?

Regards,
Gaar

I don't know what you are referring to with the experiment comment, and you were a little to emphatic with your second question.

As to my comments, morality is filled with grey area, in fact I would argue that morality is entirely made up of different shades of grey. There is no black and white, there is no absolute morality.

Rationality is all black and white, the only reason we see grey is because of distortion. With sufficient focus it always becomes more black and white, with the eventual result being absolute rationality.

Therefore, there can be no absolute morality, only absolute rationality.

Your poll is flawed. It suggests that morality cannot come from rationality. Morality is the specific code of ethics one sets up for themselves to live by. I would suggest changing the poll to get the answer you REALLY are looking for. What IS the answer you're looking for anyway? Are you refering to dogmatic morality versus rationally derived morality? I would go for the latter, simply because if we go with the former, we end up with stupid laws like "no serving alcohol on Sunday". I defy anyone to tell me that is not a religiously derived law that does nothing but make christians feel high and mighty about themselves.

I am referring to altruistic morality, acting with others in mind. Religious morality is an offshoot, but not what I wished to address directly. In simplist terms, should laws be based on right and wrong, or upon actions and consequences.

You are correct that morality can be an extension of ones rationality, but morality becomes flawed through biases.

Where is "thou shalt not lie?"

I thought it was "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." Meaning don't tell lies with the intention of hurting others, not with the intention of protecting yourself.

I was not paraphrasing the Bible, I was paraphrasing another poster.

He stated that thou shall not lie (maybe in those words, maybe not) was an absolute moral.

He stated that complete truthfulness was an absolute moral, and I said that he was incorrect, as in some situations lying can be morally justified. Even if it is a poor moral justification, it is still morally justified.

I am referring to altruistic morality, acting with others in mind. Religious morality is an offshoot, but not what I wished to address directly. In simplist terms, should laws be based on right and wrong, or upon actions and consequences.

You are correct that morality can be an extension of ones rationality, but morality becomes flawed through biases.
Altruistic morality comes from self interest and a social contract. If I don't want people to steal from me, then I had better not steal from anyone else. To extend that into law is only natural.

Both. I will stop there.

Altruistic morality comes from self interest and a social contract. If I don't want people to steal from me, then I had better not steal from anyone else. To extend that into law is only natural.

So it's not really moral. it's just an agreement like, "I won't kill you if you don't kill me." Like the Cold War MAD idea on a smaller scale. Right?

Without a metaphysics to back it up, his ethics is lacking a foundation for it's principles.

Did you read the Metaphysics of Morals in its entirety. Just curious, as it pertains to your comments.

So it's not really moral. it's just an agreement like, "I won't kill you if you don't kill me." Like the Cold War MAD idea on a smaller scale. Right?
Morality is the set of ethical codes one gives to oneself to live by. To live by a social contract is an ethical code. Thus, a social contract falls as being part of one's morality.

Morality is the set of ethical codes one gives to oneself to live by.

Reverse that.

I was not referring to the payment of government for services, I was talking about wealth redistribution, and the cost of society does not apply to that.

Also, the cost of society is a rational argument not a moral one.

And hence the reason I voted for rational and not Moral reasoning behind Laws.

I don't know what you are referring to with the experiment comment, and you were a little to emphatic with your second question.

The "experiment" was your stated ability to find a situation that fit your assertion. You haven't supplied yet, and yet you claimed you could.

As to my comments, morality is filled with grey area, in fact I would argue that morality is entirely made up of different shades of grey. There is no black and white, there is no absolute morality.

Rationality is all black and white, the only reason we see grey is because of distortion. With sufficient focus it always becomes more black and white, with the eventual result being absolute rationality.

Therefore, there can be no absolute morality, only absolute rationality.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one, since you haven't/cannot seem to supply your "thesis" for proving your assumption.

And as far as Morals versus Rational, again I voted for Rational... But that doesn't mean they won't also have some that fit the Moral agenda also, since the two seem very intertwined, right?

I actually believe that you SHOULD NOT Legislate Morals, and will go one better and say that Legislating just Morals is actually UnConstitutional and that you HAVE to have rational reasoning supported by the Constitution in order to make a Law.

Regards,
Gaar

Did you read the Metaphysics of Morals in its entirety. Just curious, as it pertains to your comments.

I haven't. All that I am familiar with about Kant's ideas on metaphysics is what we have talked about in class, where we said that he thought that metaphysical knowledge was impossible. Also, the stuff that I have read about Kant's ethics never mentioned metaphysics at all.

Morality is the set of ethical codes one gives to oneself to live by. To live by a social contract is an ethical code. Thus, a social contract falls as being part of one's morality.

So morality is just how I have decided to live? It has nothing to do with what is actually right or wrong? I could decide to become the next Ted Bundy, and it wouldn't really matter because that is the set of ethical codes that I have decided to live by?

Both: A progressive tax system uses a marginal tax rate commensurate to a persons income. This is sense it is believed that utility derived from the extra dollar is less to an affluent person than to a poor person. (This is what philosophy teachers told me, however I think they are confusing purchasing power with utility derived from having money.)

However, taxes are used presumably to pay for public services. The basis of paying for a public service is that an individual would not be able to pay for the service, while pooling resources allows those in the pool to recieve the service. Reciept of the service is equitable, for instance, defense spending.

Therefore, the government uses a progressive tax system to provide services the benefit of which are equitably distributed. Rational if you believe that the more affluent person does not value his dollar as much as a poor person. Yet, probably not moral as you are requiring those who recieve the same benefit from the public service to pay more for recieving that service (inequitable).

I haven't. All that I am familiar with about Kant's ideas on metaphysics is what we have talked about in class, where we said that he thought that metaphysical knowledge was impossible. Also, the stuff that I have read about Kant's ethics never mentioned metaphysics at all.

The man is very dry, but I recommend the Re-Thinking the Western Tradition translation of Kant's The Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. He even discusses rational grounds of morality.

The man is very dry, but I recommend the Re-Thinking the Western Tradition translation of Kant's The Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. He even discusses rational grounds of morality.

We're doing Kant later in the semester in my Modern Philosophy class, and I think that we are reading part of that work. Given my current workload, I think that it will have to wait until then.

Reverse that.
No, because morals come under ethical codes. Take a class on or read up on ethics. Ethics is the umbrella that morals fall under.

So morality is just how I have decided to live? It has nothing to do with what is actually right or wrong? I could decide to become the next Ted Bundy, and it wouldn't really matter because that is the set of ethical codes that I have decided to live by?
If that's the morals you choose for yourself. I wouldn't agree with them, and so would most people, but if you decide to do so, then that's your choice. Of course, if you prove yourself to be dangerous to society, you will be removed from it one way or another.

If that's the morals you choose for yourself. I wouldn't agree with them, and so would most people, but if you decide to do so, then that's your choice. Of course, if you prove yourself to be dangerous to society, you will be removed from it one way or another.

Granted, I assume that society wouldn't care much for my new ethical ideas, and I would be expecting the death penalty as soon as I am caught. However, the point is, what if a majority of society decided to put their ethical standards into something like this? What if we started basing our laws off of it? It seems that you would have no problem with that, at least in the abstract.

Granted, I assume that society wouldn't care much for my new ethical ideas, and I would be expecting the death penalty as soon as I am caught. However, the point is, what if a majority of society decided to put their ethical standards into something like this? What if we started basing our laws off of it? It seems that you would have no problem with that, at least in the abstract.
What do you mean by "I would have no problem with that"?

What do you mean by "I would have no problem with that"?

Meaning that it would fit the definitions that you use for an ethical system. And if we all agreed to it, it would then be some sort of social contract, and then eligible to become law.

Morality is the set of ethical codes one gives to oneself to live by.

No, because morals come under ethical codes.

I was not trying to be mean. But does the above make sense to you? Sounds circular to me ;)

When one refers to Ethics they are typically referencing a code of moral beliefs (or principles) that they abide by. Professional ethics for example outline the code of conduct for a professional (what is considered by those professionals to be moral conduct). (A code of morality-system of moral principles-governing the appropriate conduct for an individual or group.)

Ethics is also alternatively reffered to as an academic study of morality, if that is the train of thought you were relaying.

What is the distinction? Comprehending morality is impossible without reason, and reason is valueless without morality.

What is the distinction? Comprehending morality is impossible without reason, and reason is valueless without morality.

bingo

And with that last response, I'm going to bed.

All morals are based on some form of reasoning, so, yes.

The trick is that the 'moral' arguments are often based on unproven/unprovable things, and often outright BS. The arguments are sometimes valid, but the premises are largely nonsense.

For instance:

"Morkath the Devourer can send anyone anywhere, and can create people of any color."
"Morkath the Devourer created blue people."
"Morkath doesn't like people being blue. He wants them to paint themselves green and pretend its their true color, which will make him happy."
"Morkath sends people who don't make him happy to the hot stinky place."
"Therefor, blue people who don't paint themselves green and pretend its their true color will be sent to the hot stinky place."

Thus, nice people will try to steer blue people towards going green.

But. There's no real evidence that Morkath exists, many of the stories of Morkath don't even make sense and often contradict each other, and the hot stinky place is similarly unproven.

Of course, that doesn't make Morkath moral. It just means he's bigger than you.

Meaning that it would fit the definitions that you use for an ethical system. And if we all agreed to it, it would then be some sort of social contract, and then eligible to become law.
As far as strict definition goes, I can't have a problem with that. It's not for me to have a problem with it. If someone builds something that fits the definition of an automobile, no matter how much I don't like it, it's still an automobile.

Ok back to work.
I still have a problem with a rational system of laws as these laws could leave me thinking "Very good. It all fits together, but who gives a damn." I think to make the laws connect to the people there has to be a moral element. It may be that BC is right when he says that Laws should be based on both.

All rational people would give a damn, because all rational people would understand the importance of a organized, peaceful society. You are starting to sound religious, as this is the same as saying you don't like atheism because you're thinking, "Alright, were here, but who gives a damn."

Yes perfect rationality is absolute. Kant showed that quite clearly, it is prior to our experience or even to our existence. But we are not absolute. We are human. To seek perfection in law would force the law to be based on rationality rather than morality. A perfect creature is amoral, the good and the desired automatically coincide. However we are not perfect. To us a perfect law is alien, unnatural and immoral. There are moral absolutes for humans. This means that they are not independent of us, our natures or thinking. Instead they are consequences of these things. The concept of fairness is such an absolute for humans. Now fairness is not necessarily rational. Given the choice of killing one person to save twnety, rationality says save the twenty. Fairness says do not kill the one as it would be unfair to treat that one differently to the others.

I watched a television show on C-Span in which a member of the Ayn Rand institute was asked a question about an emergency situation where one would be forced to kill another in order to survive. He said that that situation is not addressed by rationality, as rationality is only concerned with when life is possible, not when it is impossible.

This goes for society as well. If there comes a situation when our actions become based on self-preservation in the physical sense, rationality, society, and laws break down. I would be unsure how to set a law that decides who dies if you are on a life raft.

Morality is really about how we view ourselves and how we believe others view us. It is about our egos, our desires to be liked and respected. To be thought of as good and moral people. There are certain opinions that we attach positive values to. There are not necessarily any rational reasons for these positive assessments, but they exist all the same. We like to be thought of as fair, courageous, honest, truthful, trustworthy, respected etc.These then are moral values to us. By us I mean all of us. How do you really upset an immoral person, by quoting things like "there is no honour amongst thieves", because there is honour, according to the rules of engagement chosen.

Do you know of, or have you ever heard of someone who does not wish to be respected? There, in my opinion is a human moral absolute. We all desire respect.

I do not believe that wants and desires represent morality. I also believe that if I looked hard enough, I could find someone who honestly doesn't care about respect.

But you may be right on this point, I will think about it.

Altruistic morality comes from self interest and a social contract. If I don't want people to steal from me, then I had better not steal from anyone else. To extend that into law is only natural.

No, that social contract is rationality.

Altruistic morality would hold that it is wrong to steal from someone, as it would hurt that person. Rationality would dictate that it would be a poor decision, as he may retaliate.

The "experiment" was your stated ability to find a situation that fit your assertion. You haven't supplied yet, and yet you claimed you could.

Very cliched and simplistic example:

Someone's overweight wife asks him if she is starting to get fat. He is morally justified in lying as a falsehood would spare her feelings and the truth would hurt her.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one, since you haven't/cannot seem to supply your "thesis" for proving your assumption.

Morality is all perception, what you view as detrimental to someone might not actually be detremental, what you view as wrong might not be wrong to someone else. Therefore morality cannot be absolute.

Rationality is only concerned with data and logical deductions. Rationality can either be right or wrong, black or white. Therefore rationality can have absolutes.

And a thesis cannot prove an assumption, in fact theses aren't used to prove anything.

And as far as Morals versus Rational, again I voted for Rational... But that doesn't mean they won't also have some that fit the Moral agenda also, since the two seem very intertwined, right?

I actually believe that you SHOULD NOT Legislate Morals, and will go one better and say that Legislating just Morals is actually UnConstitutional and that you HAVE to have rational reasoning supported by the Constitution in order to make a Law.

Regards,
Gaar

We agree a good deal towards the initial question, our disagreement stems from our view on the nature of morals.