Posted on 05/28/2004 5:25:59 AM PDT by Aquinasfan
Inasmuch as some lies serve the purposes of initiating force or fraud (e.g. "This car gets 200 miles to the gallon"), some do not (e.g. "That dress looks just fine, dear"), and some actively defend against the evil of agression (e.g. "Nein, Herr Gauleiter, there aren't any Jews hidden around here"), the question cannot be answered without more specific information.
Having already admitted that the state has every right to do just that by your "moral" system, you have now added hypocrisy to the other failings of what passes for your argument.
What of nontheistic religions such as Buddhism?
Er, no. A liar asserts as fact that which he does not believe to be true, and therefore does not "know".
(One might reasonably question whether Bill Clinton is, strictly speaking, a liar -- he gives some indication of actually believing what he says at the moment he says it, however it might conflict with the facts of the matter or his own experiences.)
Nice try.
This case is an example of choosing the lesser of two evils, lying to the Nazis or handing two people over to be killed.
Lying remains intrinsically evil, yet lying is the proper action in this case, since only two courses of action are possible.
A completely unsupported argument. Just because you believe something is evil, does not make it so.
I've explained why pornography and prostitution are unnatural and evil many times in this thread.
Do you believe that theft and murder are evil? Should they be illegal? Why can't I murder someone if I want to?
Lying does not exist in a vacuum. Whether or not lying is evil is based on the circumstances of the lie. I can sit around all day saying "I am Napolean." Clearly a lie, but no evil occurs as a result of such a lie. On the other hand, if I lie about my identity in order to use someone else's credit card to make purchases, my lie results in evil.
It is impossible to judge the evil or non-evil of a human action without knowing the circumstances surrounding such action.
In any event, your definition of "intrinsically evil" has been repeatedly shown to be circular.
My ideas of what is best are derived from the natural law.
The truth and popularity don't necessarily go hand in hand. Popularity is only relevant with regard to determining the best tactics for use in the advancement of good legislation.
Your explanations have clearly fallen flat. As has been show, they are based on unproven premises.
Do you believe that theft and murder are evil? Should they be illegal?
If we're using the legal definition of murder, it is evil. If we're talking about killing another human being, that is only evil in certain circumstances. Whether theft is evil is based on the circumstances of the theft. Robbing a bank to feed one's drug habit is evil. Stealing classified information from the Soviets in order to protect the US is not evil.
Why can't I murder someone if I want to?
Because murdering another human being violates that human being's right to live. Of course, we're relying on the legal definition of murder here.
The concept of natural law is an intellectual dead end. At its base, it requires that all human beings "know" what is the natural order of things. That is impossible.
How is this relevant?
An evil is defined as something that is unnatural or disordered. Therefore, anything that interferes with the proper ordering of human sexuality is an evil. The State is within its rights in criminalizing evil.
"Why did nature include pleasure in the design of the human reproductive system?"
Well, pleasure probably evolved as an aspect of sex because the more pleasurable an activity is, the more it will occur, thus increasing the specie's chances of survival. Those that had more fun tended to last longer. But again, relevance?
You're right. Sex was designed for reproduction, hence the name, "reproductive system." Nature also intended that the mother and father raise the child produced as the result of their sexual union. The pleasurable aspect of intercourse also serves to unify the couple, adding to the strength of the family. Therefore, sexual expressions that serve to break the family bonds are unnatural, disordered and evil.
"Is this a proper use of the will? It can be if the couple isn't using artificial means of birth control, which is analogous to gorging and vomiting."
Birth control is not "intrinsically evil".
Care to offer a reason?
Again, anything that serves to hinder the proper operation of the body is unnatural, disordered and evil, just as gorging and vomitting is disordered and evil.
We all recognize the latter, because we all recognize the proper way to eat, just as we all recognize the proper use of the eyes, legs, arms, ears, etc. But when it comes to human reproduction we suddenly become very obtuse, deliberately obtuse.
Also, neither you nor the law has any business whatsoever deciding "the proper use of the will" of another, if that will harms no one.
How does engaging in evil not harm anyone? The purpose of the State is to promote the common good or the good of everyone in a society. Certainly those engaged in evil are harming themselves, at the very least. As members of society, they diminish society when they harm themselves. They diminish the common good. Therefore, the State is within its rights to limit their evil behaviors.
Of course, those who engage in "consensual" evils harm others as well. Ask the spouse of a man who engages in "consensual" sex with a prostitute. Or ask the children of a drug addict if they're harmed by "victimless" drug use.
If the only "proof" you have for your positions are "we all know it's evil..." and "the Bible says...", I really don't see where this is going.
No Bible-based arguments above.
Er, you do realize that you've blown yet another hole in your notion that "intrinsically evil" (which you still have not defined in a manner more satisfactory than Borges' Chinese animal classification)?
How can you possibly justify empowering the state (I don't spell it with a capital letter, as I do not consider it to be a Deity) to punish someone for taking the "proper action", as that is clearly antithetical to the "common good"?
Since your argument applies with equal force to prove the absurd conclusion that boxing and football are evil (they turn combat prowess from its proper ordering toward defense and deterrence toward vulgar bread-and-circuses entertainment), it is not convincing.
FascismHow does The State acting in a fascistic manner increase the mythical common good?1)a.A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b.A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2) Oppressive, dictatorial control.
Suppressing fascism is fascist?
Under a fascist regime all rights are eliminated. An effort to prevent the rise of a fascist regime by suppressing fascist ideology serves two goods, it diminishes the spread of evil ideas and it can help to prevent the establishment of a fascist regime.
Unless you believe that fascism serves the common good.
You have repeatedly admitted that your philosophy justifies legislation that most people (and all sensible people) recognize as tyranny. Your response is not the honest one of seeking different tactics to advocate such legislation while openly admitting your goal, but the dishonest one of disavowing your advocacy in order to avoid being considered a crank.
I cannot put my finger on any distinction between your approach to politics and Bill Clinton's.
The state (lowercase; it isn't a Deity) has no "rights" at all. It has only delegated authorities given to it by the people in order to serve as their agent.
The situation is similar to that of (for example) the exterminator. He has a delegated authority to enter my house; I let him in, or give him a key, because he needs access to do his job. He doesn't have a right to be in my house -- if he did, I wouldn't have the option of terminating his employment and requiring him to leave.
Um, No. Evil is defined as:
e·vil ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vl)
adj. e·vil·er, e·vil·est
1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious
I don't see anything about "unnatural" or "disordered" in there. If you're going with disordered=evil, then people with a mental illness qualify as evil.
The purpose of the State is to promote the common good or the good of everyone in a society.
The nanny-state, maybe. Conservatives prefer not to live in a state like that.
One example that follows inevitably from this argument is the right of your deified "State" to prohibit its members from neglecting their physical condition:
'Smith!' screamed the shrewish voice from the telescreen. '6079 Smith W.! Yes, you! Bend lower, please! You can do better than that. You're not trying. Lower, please! That's better, comrade. Now stand at ease, the whole squad, and watch me.
I don't know what you mean.
Second, does the above imply the Catholic Church spent the Middles Ages (and a good deal of time afterward, for that matter) violating natural law?
No. The establishment of State Churches is legitimate, if not desirable. The suppression of heresy can be a legitimate act of the State in such cases. Generally speaking, the Catholic nations tolerated non-Christian religions to various degrees. The most intense State/Church suppression of non-Christian religions occurred with the Catharists and Mohammedans. Even so, the extent of the Spanish Inquisition has been greatly exaggerated. A recent research project of the BBC revealed that 3-5,000 people were put to death under the Spanish Inquisition, over a period of 700 years.
People are coming to see the suppression of Mohammedanism in a different way in light of recent events. The Catharists prohibited marriage, and the spread of their religion would have obviously destroyed society.
Third, even if the promoters of Christ-denying false religions are "innocently" spreading soul-destroying lies, why withhold compassion from those who would be fooled if false religions are allowed to proselytize, but would remain Christian if they are not?
After all, that was, as I recall, your first argument for banning pornography. I can hardly see how reiterating the distinction between "intrinsic" and "non-intrinsic" evils takes away the virtue of protecting the vulnerable from harm. After all, if you knew someone's breaks were going out (which involves no kind of moral evil at all), you'd stop them from driving, wouldn't you?
That's a fair point, and a matter for prudential judgement. The prime conflicting principle is freedom of conscience.
Suppressing fascism is fascist?
Suppressing the free flow of ideas certainly qualifies as "oppressive, dictatorial control," don't you think?
Unless you believe that fascism serves the common good.
No, but the free flow of ideas certainly serves the common good. Unlike you, I don't trust the state enough to give it the power to decide what ideologies are "correct" and which ones are not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.