[Great Awakening]

I'm interested in discussing the effects of Culture, Religion & Government in the Politics. Who & why do we cycle back & forth in the establishment then breakdown of a civil society? Is there a paradoxical conflict between the individual & society? What are the underlying causes of our current social problems?

[Biggirl]

This all goes back to the feel good 60s.

[I want the USA back]

Before discussing this, define “morality.” Is it what the law says? what colleges say? what the ordinary folk think? what atheists like bammy say?

No definition, no discussion.

[gloryblaze]

Well, it looks like Chicago’s new mayor doesn’t think lawbreaking is too serious in the Smollette case.

https://thegrapevine.theroot.com/chicago-mayor-elect-lori-lightfoot-confirms-jussie-smol-1834046133

[reasonisfaith]

This comment suggests the author doesn’t think very carefully:

“These two very different avenues of effect on our actions”

Morality and law are not “very different.” In fact, one of the primary goals of the immoral is to deceive people into thinking they are different.

Law always comes from morality.

[Grampa Dave]

Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means — to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal — would bring terrible retribution!!

– Louis Brandeis (1856-1941)

[Olog-hai]

“Your notion that the Constitution is in some sense law must rest upon an obscure philosophic principle with which I am unfamiliar.”

— Unnamed Harvard Law professor to Robert Bork, from “The Tempting of America” (1990)

That is pretty much the measure of what comes out of Harvard Law School, with few exceptions (and former dean Elena Kagan was not one of those exceptions).

And welcome to FR.

[reasonisfaith]

To Steven Shavell I would say you can identify moral questions if they start with the word “should” or the word “ought.”

From there the connection with law is fairly straightforward.

[blueunicorn6]

This is a path that leads to madness.

It is a world of shadows dancing on the walls of caves and chariots flying across the sky.

[HangnJudge]

What is seen in society now is a catastrophic failure of primary Virtues,

Gratitude, Humility, Prudence, Fortitude, Courage, Justice, Honor
Temperance, Chastity, Charity, Patience, Kindness...

Replaced by the false gods of “Values” and “Money”

[Great Awakening]

A definition of morality - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

A definition of mores - https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/mores

I propose that mores, morals, law emanate from experience aka Common Sense.

Even a simple game of marbles, corn-hole, mumbletypeg or rock-paper-scissors cannot be played without rules.

The purpose of morality & law is to facilitate an orderly & peaceful society.

Sadly, these tools can be & often are corrupted for other nefarious purposes, mainly to mislead, defraud or control the unwary.

Eternal vigilance is a common sense concept which has been largely washed away by those who seek to weaken the sovereignty of nations & individuals.

IMHO

[Wuli]

I didn’t read it all through, but maybe what the author is trying to get at is morality, which comes from “morals”

1a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical moral judgments
b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior a moral poem
c : conforming to a standard of right behavior took a moral position on the issue though it cost him the nomination
d : sanctioned by or operative on one’s conscience or ethical judgment a moral obligation
e : capable of right and wrong action a moral agent

is a “judgments” based on a belief system but it acts through belief & persuasion that that moral judgment is right, whereas “the law” acts through its ability to compel adherence to it by legal force of the government behind it.

Maybe, he is trying to argue which method do we prefer, and that “we” being any certain group of listeners.

As Christians I think that poses a good question. Is it the law (secular law) most of all, or Christian morality that we think it is most important for our behavior to follow, and behavior we want to teach others? And if it is Christian morality as most important, and that it be followed because Christians see it as right, whether the law agrees or not, then how far is it really Christian to seek to get secular law to equal Christian morality? Is it “the law” in secular terms Christians should focus most on “reforming” or is it the choices people willingly make, law or no law?

Is it not His mission that He be followed because He is in our heart, not because we have tried make secular law mirror him?

I think of those questions when I remind myself that Yeshua did not come to reform this world, and held no beief that humans could reform the world, and He did not see the secular powers of this earth (”kingdoms” i.e. power systems) as part of His kingdom. Either the book of revelations is correct about where this world will lead, or it is wrong and we humans can and will reform the world to “Christian” precepts. The two positions seem mutually exclusive.

Which is better, a Libertarian legal position with a Christian morality, or a “Chritian” legal position with a statist morality (”we” will compel you how to behave)?

Just some thoughts I had on the topic.

[aquila48]

“What are the underlying causes of our current social problems?”

In a word, AFFLUENZA.

When people’s physical needs are easily met then the next level of ephemeral needs start surfacing such as satisfying urges, even delusional ones like a man wanting to be a woman or a man wanting to marry a man, that at a time when one struggles to feed or house oneself, one would not pay attention to.

In a generous welfare state one has time to indulge in those delusions. More importantly many lose an appreciation for the old set of set values that produced that abundance. In fact they end up despising them because those old values go against his new lifestyle and desires. So they set out to destroy them and replace them with new, untested, unproven ones that eventually lead to the collapse of society and a return to physical suffering and then the old, time proven values once again will reign supreme.

Kipling put this societal cycle in poetic form in his “Gods of the Copybook Headings”

http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_copybook.htm

[LS]

I think the best explanation of this is in Strauss and Howe’s “Generations.” While not perfect, it shows that “what you are now is who you were then.”

It is critical-—though not 100% axiomatic-—that we understand the impact of our familial surroundings, and how the generations before you greatly shape who you are.

The boomers, having been coddled (with good intentions-—the “Greatest” generation, or “GIs” did not want their kids going through what they went through)-—ended up thinking “no one could tell them what to do.” They resisted rules, boundaries and limitations. At times this was good. Only people who didn’t see limitations could put a man on the moon, or think racism could be eradicated.

But they, in turn, continued much of this with their Millennial kids. Strauss and Howe really detail these changes well.

Andrew Breitbart said “politics follows culture.” I believe that, but it’s also the case that, as Trump has now done, the placement of hundreds of judges has a key impact on how the law is perceive, then perception becomes reality.

[IronJack]

Ask the Clintons about the gap between criminality and morality.

[reasonisfaith]

As far as I can tell, the number one reason for people rejecting their Creator is they don’t want to follow his rules.

[YogicCowboy]

It is a worthy subject, but I do not submit to the tutelage of any product of Marxist Law School.

My exemplar is Jesus Christ. I aspired to be a lawyer until, at age seventeen, I saw what they were.