Posted on 08/09/2002 10:52:13 PM PDT by jennyp
Funny you should mention the pink flamingo. China's psychiatric ministry recently declared that homosexuality was no longer considered a "disorder". Apparently they've done the math and are preparing accordingly.
If history is any guide, 40 million active homosexuals is pretty close to the definition of (societal) disorder.
Exactly. Freedom has limits. Welcome to conservatism.
If morality is nothing more than a set of rules man has reasoned to and forced upon by others, it has no bind on anyone who chooses to ignore.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Everybody wants their morality to be universal. Due to the realities of human existence, that will always be impossible. What we've done, nevertheless, is to create a framework of a few rules by which most of us can agree (i.e. murder is wrong). Many other moral points are far more contentious, but at least we've agreed to set up a framework where each side to an issue can present their view without fear of being in physical danger.
Good point! In discussing morality, we are necessarily talking about principles. And principles are by definition universally applicable to everyone in a similar context. This is something that the Dostoyevsky argument ("without God all things are permitted") misses. (I guess HV would call it the "Dostoyevsky gambit", since he's just playing chess. :-)
When a sociopath declares they have the right to murder people for the thrill/money/etc., he automatically declares that people in general have the right to murder innocents as well. Such a society would quickly collapse. It would also collapse if people in general were allowed to cheat, steal, rape, & extort.
What's also usually not appreciated is the power of moral judgement. A society flourishes when most people are willing to pass judgement on the statements & actions of others, and it tends to collapse when "good men do nothing". As Ayn Rand put it, "Judge, and prepare to be judged!"
Societies also flourish when people approach the world with an attitude of justice, biased a bit towards benevolence. For example, businesspeople extend credit & cheerfully accept returns, and the most successful companies are always trying to find better ways to please their customers; meanwhile the credit & checking industry has evolved ways to comprehensively track a person's reputation, business fraud earns a CFO the perp walk on TV, etc.
These truths are by no means self-evident. They were only learned thru lots of trial & error. But underlying it all is the fact that human nature is essentially the same for all of us. Our rational minds are the only thing we have going for us against the elements & the other animals. And some kind of libertarian society is by far the best framework for letting rational beings with free will to thrive. All that rational beings need to thrive is an underlying consistency to the world. We don't need to create a supernatural Authority Figure to come down like a deus-ex-machina to impose some arbitrary standard of right & wrong to provide that consistency. It's already there.
No it isn't. I have no ideology. I'm a pragmatist, and I'm just calling it like I see it. We've got to face the reality of the situation, and the reality is that morality is a human invention. The nature of that morality is different in all six-billion of us, but in order to survive and prosper, we are compelled to dictate some semblence of common morality on everybody, whether they're willing or not to accept it.
This is the similarity between Atheist, Communist, Neo-Pagans and all non-Judeo-Christian ideologies. One body forcing another into whatever it deems fit.
Sorry. Zoroastrian-Judeo-Christian-Islamic thought is just as guilty. You just excuse your resort to force by claiming that you're only following the orders of a dictatorial ethereal phantasm named Zoroaster, Yahweh or Allah. Its the same dictatorship without the accountability. At least us atheists are honest about where our power is coming from.
The only law that can be enforce is a prefect law from a moral authority. Man can never meet those requirements
Agreed. Until such time, however, as we find that perfect moral authority, we'll have to make do with our own, flawed, human institutions.
The American system of Law and Morality was based on the perfect Law of the Creator, the one who has true Moral Authority.
Most American moralities may be (I don't completely buy that argument, but I'll accept it for the sake of argument). The legal system, however, isn't. Our legal system is based on Anglo-Saxon law, which, in turn, is composed of an amalgam of Germanic tribal traditions and Roman law, neither of which have monotheistic roots.
I cannot believe I am reading a Freeper who believes that a group of men can rule over another group.
I don't like it either, but that's the reality of the world. My solution is to minimize that hegemony as much as possible. Eliminating it, however, yields only to anarchy.
For the betterment of society of course.
Give me a better reason for opposing murder.
Though I am sure that when that same majority takes your right (your group of man given i.e. GOVERNMENT right) to bear arms you will protest.
Absolutely. Except I don't think gun-ownership is a moral question (its a public policy issue). But even if it were, I'd have no problem disagreeing with the majority. As I've said before, the tyranny of the majority is far from a perfect system, but its the least-bad option around
Your ideology says man in all his corruption can group together and force others to submit to whatever standard they deem fit. How very similar to Communism and Nazism
Again, you fail to understand. I'm not passing judgement on whether this behavior is right or wrong, merely saying its necessary to maintain the current society as we know it. You can play reductio ad aburdum all you want, but you already know I personally oppose more than a modicum of popular control.
Do you truly believe that man can force others to obey whatever law the majority deems fit? That morality is relative and that the majority decides on the final standard?
By what standard can the most people pass judgment on the statements & actions of others? Who sets that Standard and how can we know it is correct? There are majorities that believe killing Christians is Moral and just, how can you argue otherwise. You have no moral authority over them.
Oh geez. You seem to be saying that the only alternatives are anarcy or Communism. Any government control at all == total Communism. Yeah, I was almost an anarcho-libertarian once myself.
You may think you're being clever, but I take that very personally.
My mother had etched on her arm, in faded blue ink, the number 37448. For the rest of her life, she could never stand to be alone for more than a few minutes, or else she'd start to relive the traumatic horrors of her youth.
I would never condone the attrocities of the Nazis. My morality could not differ more sharply. But the fact that the Nazi barbarians did do what they did helps prove my point. The powerful will impose their views on the weak, regardless. The only way around that is to arbitrarily decide that we, as a society, wish hold that imposition to a minimum, and will tolerate the existence of a diversity of opinions and beliefs, whether we agree with them or not. Our Constitution helps us do that. The Nazis, however, believed in no such limits. You know the result.
It would also be morally correct for the Majority of Muslims to kill all non-Muslims and Morally correct for the USA to fight that cause. Or would the Muslims be more correct as they would have much higher numbers in their majority?
Ok, but please turn pyour radio down... lol.
Could you tell my by what authority rights are granted?
We grant ourselves our own rights, based on our own conceptions of morality.
Are you changing the standards of morality?
And the Buddhist respect for life (some won't even swat mosquitos) comes from where?
And the Nazi's granted their own rights, based on their own conceptions of morality. Yet you take issue and seem to imply that they were wrong.
Regrettably, you are correct. There are no innalienable rights. Just ask the Cambodians under Pol Pot what rights they had, or the Cossacks under Stalin. We have what rights we give ourselves. We are the masters of our own fate.
Being Created gives Moral Authority to the Author of the Creation. He can set rules and give inalienable rights.
Even if that were true, which it isn't, its irrelevent. Those inalienable rights only exist when a government predisposed to limiting its own power grants them. If you're mixing cement in a Gulag, you have no right to life, no right to liberty, and certainly no right to the pursuit of happiness.
And when a body of men reason new rules that violate the Creator's standards we can fight, as they have no right to rule over us outside the Creators standard.
We can fight whenever we feel like it. The Joint Chiefs of Staff could lead a coup tomorrow, if they wanted to, regardless of any justification. Again, if there are any standards, they are completely irrelevent. You either agree to live by the rules, or you don't.
Thanks. I never realized I'd left it.
And Christian societies, too. What do you think the pogroms, inquisitions and crusades were really about?
Well, gosh, why do think we're opposed to a One-World-Goverment that would grant equal policy-setting rights to every ignorant dirtfarmer, goatherder, and beggar in the third world. /sarcasm-mode
Do you really this spelled out to you? Read jennyp's post again about "limits" and then read this:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Here's another important idea in black and white:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I hope that wasn't too simple for you.
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.