Posted on 10/11/2002 1:29:58 PM PDT by HAL9000
Perhaps a $1000 per item excise tax on "sex toys" would be in order.
"All must admit that the reception of the teachings of Christ results in the purest patriotism, in the most scrupulous fidelity to public trust, and in the best type of citizenship." Grover Cleveland
"In this actual world, a churchless community, a community where men have abandoned and scoffed at, or ignored their religious needs, is a community on the rapid down-grade." Teddy Roosevelt
"They were intent upon establishing a Christian commonwealth in accordance with the principle of self-government. They were an inspired body of men. It has been said that God sifted the nations that He might send choice grain into the wilderness ... Who can fail to see it in the hand of Destiny? Who can doubt that it has been guided by a Divine Providence?" Calvin Coolidge, speaking of the founding fathers.
"Without God there could be no American form of government, nor an American way of life. Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first--the most basic--expression of Americanism. Thus, the founding fathers of America saw it, and thus with God's help, it will continue to be." Gerald Ford
"The spirit of man is more important than mere physical strength, and the spiritual fiber of a nation than its wealth. The Bible is endorsed by the ages. Our civilization is built upon its words. In no other book is there such a collection of inspired wisdom, reality, and hope."-Dwight Eisenhower
"A nation which does not remember what it was yesterday, does not know what it is today, nor what it is trying to do. We are trying to do a futile thing if we do not know where we came from or what we have been about.....The Bible is the one supreme source of revelation of the meaning of life, the nature of God, and spiritual nature and needs of men. It is the only guide of life which really leads the spirit in the way of peace and salvation. America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture." Woodrow Wilson
"The fundamental basis of this nation's law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teaching we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in the right for anybody except the state." Harry S. Truman.
"Let us, young and old, join together, as did the First Continental Congress, in the first step, humble heartfelt prayer. Let us do so for the love of God and His great goodness, in search of His guidance, and the grace of repentance, in seeking His blessings, His peace, and the resting of His kind and holy hands on ourselves, our nation, our friends in the defense of freedom, and all mankind, now and always." Ronald Reagan
"The great faith that led our nation's founding fathers to pursue this bold experience in self-government has sustained us in uncertain and perilous times; it has given us strength and inspiration to this very day. Like them, we do very well to recall our 'firm reliance on the protection of divine providence' to give thanks for the freedom and prosperity this nation enjoys, and to pray for continued help and guidance from our wise and loving Creator." George Bush
No, I believe that he is. Most people become cops because they have some need to tell other people what to do.
It would be nice to get find out what jurisdiction this guy serves in and have a WRAL reporter stick a microphone in his bosses' face to ask him if it is really departmental policy to hassle teenagers parked in cars and couples shacking up and having oral sex rather than busting murderers and rapists and car theives.
I wonder if he wears his jack boots when he busts people or if he just keeps them at home to parade around in while he's playing with his own stash of seized sex toys.
Your exact words were: "I believe that, if I have a look in a law library, I shall find that robbery is a statutory crime in NC, and would be so prosecuted. "
Robbery and ARMED Robbery are different. I specifically referred to Common Law Robbery in my post.
The Exchange went like this. IN post 164 you said: "So, in NC, LEOs are empowered to enforce common law?"
I replied with "Yes NC LEO's are empowered to enforce Common Law. Example there are common law offenses. Common Law Robbery for example."
You apparently didn't believe it because you said in your next response: "I believe that, if I have a look in a law library, I shall find that robbery is a statutory crime in NC, and would be so prosecuted. "
You didn't know that North Carolina had a common-law robbery. You assumed wrongly that Robbery was a statutory crime. Armed robbery is.
Considering the amount of gray language in the two citations you provided, I wonder what, exactly, would make the courts prosecute a case as robbery at Common Law as opposed to robbery per statute. There appears to be very little difference between the two, thereby strengthening my contention that in court, robbery prosecutions would likely fall under the statute.
Here you go talking about something that you know nothing about. North Carolina law is complicated. I will give you some more examples in a bit. Right now let us focus on the robbery question.
There is a world of difference between Armed Robbery and Common-Law Robbery.
I will quote to you directly from "North Carolina Crimes 5th Edition 2001." This is the guidebook to the elements of crime..
Common Law Robbery:
Statute: This is a Common Law Offense.
Elements: A person is guilty of this offense
(1) commits larceny
(2) from the person or person's presence
(3) by violence or intimidation
This is a Class G Felony.
Examples: Taking a bag of groceries that the robber forced the victim to set on the sidewalk.
A Thief snatches a purse or briefcase, the victim resists, and the robbery overcomes the resistance by pulling the briefcase away or threatning to hurt the victim.
However Common Law Robbery is NOT committed if the only force is to obtain possession of the property (IE: Snatching a purse from the victim's shoulder.)
Armed Robbery:
Statute: G.S. 14-87 Robbery with firearms or other dangerous weapons.
(a) Any person or persons who, having in possession or with the use or threatened use of any firearms or other dangerous weapon, implement or means, whereby the life of a person is endangered or threatened, unlawfully takes or attempts to take personal property from another or from any place of business, residence or banking institution or any other place where there is a person or persons in attendance, at any time, either day or night, or who aids or abets any such person or persons in the commission of such crime, shall be guilty of a Class D felony.
Elements: A person guilty of this offense
(1) Commits or attempts to commit larceny
(2) from the person or from the person's presence
(3) by the possession, use, or threatened use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon
(4) which endangers or threatens the life of a person
Element (3) distinguishes armed robbery from common-law robbery. Mere possession of a firearm or dangerous weapon does not satisfy the elements of this offense. The defendent must use the weapon in a way that endangerous the victims life.
In one case a defendent confronted the victim with a pocketknife, threatened to cut his head off with it if the victim did not give the defendent his billfold, and struck at the victim as he tried to escape. The Court found the pocketknife to be a deadly weapon whereby the victim's life was endangered.
On the other hand, when a defendent testified that he used the butt of a shotgun to break through a robbery victim's door and then rested the shotgun against the wall during the robbery the court found insufficient evidence of this element.
If robbery includes a weapon, then it falls under the statute.
As I demonstrated above, not quite.
Good luck subjecting most Americans to violence or fear without a weapon.
You over-estimate the courage of most Americans. You are talking about the same people who let 5 hijackers take a plane of over 40 people with boxcutters? You are talking about the same soccer mommies who believe all violence must be avoided?
Yes, but YOU didn’t, nor did the statute. Which is exactly what I said. Furthermore, since the courts defined “crime against nature,” then doesn’t that qualify as “judicial activism” and “legislating from the bench?” If your “crimes against nature” offense was so important to the Founders, we wouldn’t need to have judges define the crime. But obviously, in this case, the courts have usurped the will of the people. There is no other way to explain this.
The crime against nature statute goes back before the founding of our nation. Our founders were smart enough to know what the crime against nature is. Unnatural sexual intercourse is the crime against nature. The history of the law can be traced back to old english law:
"Forasmuch as there is not yet sufficient and condign punishment appointed and limited by the due course of the Laws of this Realm for the detestable and abominable Vice of Buggery committed with mankind of beast: It may therefore please the King's Highness with the assent of the Lords Spiritual and the Commons of this present parliament assembled, that it may be enacted by the authority of the same, that the same offence be from henceforth ajudged Felony and that such an order and form of process therein to be used against the offenders as in cases of felony at the Common law. And that the offenders being herof convict by verdict confession or outlawry shall suffer such pains of death and losses and penalties of their good chattels debts lands tenements and hereditaments as felons do according to the Common Laws of this Realme. And that no person offending in any such offence shall be admitted to his Clergy, And that Justices of the Peace shall have power and authority within the limits of their commissions and Jurisdictions to hear and determine the said offence, as they do in the cases of other felonies. This Act to endure till the last day. of the next Parliament" Buggery act of England 1553
Britton, i.10: "Let enquiry also be made of those who feloniously in time of peace have burnt other's corn or houses, and those who are attainted thereof shall be burnt, so that they might be punished in like manner as they have offended. The same sentence shall be passed upon sorcerers, sorceresses, renegades, sodomists, and heretics publicly convicted" English law forbidding sodomy dating back to 1300AD.
I haven’t identified myself as a libertarian, “Officer.” That’s shoddy police work. Confine yourself to the statements I have made, not the statements you wish I had made. Just the facts, please.
Your statements give you away as a libertarian.
I certainly don’t want YOU selectively enforcing laws. But more to the point, I don’t think police officers should ignore an MVA in order to write someone a ticket for a broken taillight. And I don’t think LEOs should ignore a robbery call in order to stop some guy from having a good time with his wife.
This is another red herring from you. #1 the Crimes against nature statute applies ONLY to unmarried couples. A guy and his wife would not be at issue. #2 no officer is going to ignore an MVA to write a ticket for a taillight. No I, nor any other officer I know. No officer is going to ignore a robbery call to get a CAN.
Oh, PLEASE. LEOs use their judgment every day, which amounts to “enforcing it the way they want.” Besides, YOU already said that YOU selectively enforce the law. You SPECIFICALLY said that when you encounter couples parking, you CHOOSE to haul them in under the “crimes against nature” statute.
Guess what, I am following the law, not selectivley enforcing it. Selective enforcement would be letting the couples go under a lesser offense.
No, I don’t believe I’ve said that. I have exercised my First Amendment right to free speech in order to argue against a specific law that I find foolish and unjust. Your response to that is “too bad, it’s the law.” Well, “Officer,” unless and until you can repeal my right to free speech, too bad for YOU. What you seem to have missed here is that we are gathered here, free citizens all, to discuss a topic of public interest. We are not arguing the enforcement of the law, but rather the shape the law should take. And in our capacity as free citizens, we are totally free to do so. You are also free to be part of the discussion, but the part you appear to have missed here is that your alleged status as an NC LEO does not grant you the ability to silence the discussion.
Another red herring. I never said anything about your 1st Amendment rights. You have a right to hate the law all you want. You have a right to protest against it, you have a right to work to change it, but until it is changed I have a duty to enforce the law, and I have just as much right as any to work against the law being repealed. I never once tried to silence the discussion.
As free American citizens, we can discuss matters of public interest, elect our representatives, and if we wish, we can CHANGE LAWS. Once that’s done, you’d have to enforce the new law. See how this works, “Officer?”
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID TO YOU in post #179. I am sorry if you cannot read.
And when the laws get changed, you don’t get to enforce the old ones that you wish were still on the books.
Ditto to the above comment.
Let me ask you this, “Officer” - have you ever made up or planted evidence on a suspect that you just “knew” was guilty? Let me say it once more, Officer Red Herring - I haven’t identified myself as a Libertarian. If you claim I am one, that’s just your opinion, and not worth a plugged nickel.
You statements give you away to being a libertarian. You may or may not be a member of the libertarian party, but you are libertarian in your belief. As for planting evidence. Never, and I wouldn't even think of doing it. Your insult is below a further response.
And if you find a fully clothed man and woman inside, what then? If they’re of different races, what then? If they’re not married, what then? If you receive a call regarding a robbery in progress at Golden Gallon, are you going to check out the car first, or will you head for the robbery?“
If they are fully clothed, leave. As for the different race thing, I don't even know why you are bringing that up, I have no problem with people of different races being together, it is not against the law either. I wonder who is bring up herring now? As for the robbery in progress call, I, just like any other officer, would go to the more serious call. Common sense.
Secondly, DNA studies suggest a rather strong genetic relation between the two branches of the family.
NO DNA has proven anything yet.
And you can cry all you want about your favorite laws getting changed by the free and unfettered will of the people.
Well when Ellie Kinnard (D) tried to get the law changed, she was flooded with letters, e-mails and calls at people upset with her. So the people of North Carolina apparently do not want the law to go away.
You apparently do not understand NC Law very well. I don't blame you for that, NC Law is very complicated. If you would allow me to demonstrate, Please answer the follow questions:
1. A man breaks into a house at 12:00 PM and steals a CD Player. No one is home. What is the Charge?
2. A man breaks into the same house at 12:00 AM And steals a CD Player, the residents are asleep upstairs. What is the charge?
3. A man breaks into a shed outside a house at 5:00 PM. What is the charge?
4. A man burns a house with someone inside, they get out, but the house is destroyed. What is the Charge?
5. A man burns a church with no one inside, what is the charge?
6. A man forces a woman to perform oral sex on him what is the charge?
7. A man forces a woman to have vaginal intercourse, what is the charge?
This should demonstrate my point.
I Simply stated following the law. Read my post above. I answer you objection there.
#2 Dura lex sed lex
I just couldn't bring myself to read the entire thread. Please, tell me how in hades such a case ever reached court? [Oh, and ask Hal to remove that annoying woman's grin from the thread, please? She isn't worthy to be included in such a thread as this one ... she couldn't even figure out how to remove he degenerate hubby's batteries while in the oral office.]
But you stated that you are a LEO. As a sworn officer, you are required by law to arrest persons that break the law.
The question is, then, whether you would stop and hassle teenagers or move on to investigate real crimes.
Also, sworn LEO, it was once against the law to keep people of color from voting in various southern states, and in Germany it was once required by law to turn in your neighbors to the SS if you suspected that they were Jewish. The WWII war crimes trials demonstrated that you can't use the law as a shield for your own immoral behavior.
Intruding in people's business when said business has no impact on other people is immoral, disgusting and stupid.
Your arguments in favor of laws that are thusly intrusive demonstrate my earlier observation that LEOs are notorious busybodies while often demonstrating their own immoral and illegal behaviors.
Your sneering comments about how wonderfully masterful drug raids have been to date only reinforce my thoughts on the matter. That is, most drug dealers are stupid. It doesn't take a smart cop to surprise one. The day will come when a SWAT team will blunder their way into a group of smart dealers that are waiting for them and the cop body count will be high. It's only a matter of time before a drug raid goes horribly wrong. The newspapers are replete with stories about stupid cops getting their butts handed to them by criminals. This is generally because most cops aren't very smart. Police departments have been sued for rejecting applicants because they were smart. Police departments want people that will follow orders and laws (even bad ones) without questioning them.
And here you are.
Glad you mentioned the 10th amendment, which states "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Therein lies my argument that this sex toy ban, silly though it is, lies in the domain of powers reserved to the states.
The Problem with that is simple. Our nation is not an anarchy, it is a REPUBLIC! In a Republic the ELECTED Legislators make law, not every libertarian on the street. It becomes the DUTY of LEO's to enforce that law.
If you honestly can say that you want LEO's to start dishonoring their oath and only enforce laws that they like, then you really are on the fringe.
If you don't like the law, then the system is in place to work on having the law changed. LEO's don't get to pick and choose what laws they are going to enforce.
As for immorality not affecting others, just look at the nation around us. Why is it when the 60's hit with this new "Enlightenment" that the libertarians preach as gospel, our nation started down the sewer? What did Sex, Drugs, and Rock and Roll give us?
High Crime, Divorce, Abortion, Homosexuality, wrecked education system ect...
Our founders were much smarter than that. They understood that morality is the building block of society.
Can you even understand what the founders were saying?
"Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. John Adams
"The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure, than they have it now, they may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty." John Adams
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams
"Religion and virtue are the only foundations, not only of all free government, but of social felicity under all governments and in all the combinations of human society." John Adams
"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity. John Quincy Adams
"From the day of the Declaration...they (the American people) were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of The Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledge as the rules of their conduct." John Quincy Adams
"Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator, for he is entirely a dependent being....And, consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his Maker's will...this will of his Maker is called the law of nature. These laws laid down by God are the eternal immutable laws of good and evil...This law of nature dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this... Sir William Blackstone
"Blasphemy against the Almighty is denying his being or providence, or uttering contumelious reproaches on our Savior Christ. It is punished, at common law by fine and imprisonment, for Christianity is part of the laws of the land. Sir William Blackstone
"The preservation of Christianity as a national religion is abstracted from its own intrinsic truth, of the utmost consequence to the civil state, which a single instance will sufficiently demonstrate. Sir William Blackstone
"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man. Alexander Hamilton
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here." Patrick Henry
"The Bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed." Patrick Henry
"Bad men cannot make good citizens. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience are incompatible with freedom." Patrick Henry
"It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains." Patrick Henry
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. John Jay
"Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man toward God." Gouverneur Morris
"If thou wouldst rule well, thou must rule for God, and to do that, thou must be ruled by him....Those who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants." William Penn
"By removing the Bible from schools we would be wasting so much time and money in punishing criminals and so little pains to prevent crime. Take the Bible out of our schools and there would be an explosion in crime." Benjamin Rush
As we can see here, our founders did not endorse or embrace libertarianism in the least. Our Founders understood that laws must reflect Almighty God's Moral Precepts.
Libertarianism is a religion of self indulgence and hedonism. It teaches that the person can decide for himself what is right and wrong, and has to answer to no one.
You can cry about the law all you want, but The law is on the side of the people who wrote the Consitution.
If you really want to say that 60's radicals are better informed than Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Henry and the others, then so be it, nothing you can say will convince me of that.
Well, first of all, I'm a registered Republican.
And secondly, I don't hate law and order. I hate authoritarian thugs masquerading as law and order types.
It becomes the DUTY of LEO's to enforce that law.
Hitler's SS men tried that defense. A lot of them ended up swinging from a rope.
As I said, police departments don't want officers to think for themselves, so they hire dumb people that won't question orders. You seem to be a poster child for low IQ LEOs.
You do a real good job of parroting quotes from other people, but none of those people are gods. They are just people.
Why am I not surprised that you can't make an informed arguement?
That's why so many cops wear body armor but not helmets. There isn't anything important above their shoulders to worry about.
There is a world of difference between enforcing a law that has been law in this nation since it's founding. And blindly following orders to murder Jews.
You may be a registered republican, but you are still a libertarian, You may not be a member of the libertarian party, but you are espousing libertarian views.
You claim the Consitution gives teens the "right" to have oral sex in a car. I quote the founders for a simple reason. The same men that WROTE the Constitution did not believe that teens had a "right" to have oral sex in a car. They did not believe in a "right" to pornography, a "right" to blasphemy, a "right" to fornication, a "right" to adultery, or a "right" to homosexuality.
These were things that they wrote laws against. Now let me ask you, who knows more about the Constitution. The men who wrote it, or Knitebane? The men who wrote it, or 1960's hippies.
Enforcing a law that protects morality is a far cry from enforcing a law that said to murder jews.
Your comparison is insane, and if you have any objectivity whatsoever you would admit it.
Problem is people who hold moral relativist/libertarian views cannot see anything objectivly.
People such as yourself fail to realize that ALL LAWS enforce morality. What you are espousing is moral relativism.
There are Several Fatal Flaws with your relativist position, I would kindly like to point them out for you.
1. Relativists can't accuse others of wrongdoing. Relativism makes it impossible to criticize the behavior of others, because ultimatly it denies such a thing as wrongdoing. If you believe that morality is a matter of personal definition, then you surrender the possibility of making Moral Judgements about other's actions, no matter how offensive they are to your intuitive sense of right or wrong.
2. Relativists can't complain about the problem of evil. Evil cannot be real if morals are relative. Think of this. If there is nothing in the universe that is higher than human beings, then what is morality? Well it is a matter of opinion. I like milk, you like meat. Hitler likes to kill people, I like to save them.
3. Relativists can't place blame or accept praise. Relativism renders the concepts of praise and blaims meaningless, because no external standard of measurement defines what should be applauded or condemned. Without absolutes nothing is really Good or Bad.
4. Relativists can't make charges or unfairness or injustice. Justice and fairness are 2 more concepts that don't make sense in a world of moral Relativism. Under Relativism these notions are incoherant for 2 reasons. First, the words themselves have no meanings. Both concepts requires that people recieve equal treatment based on an outside standard of right and wrong. Moral Relativists say that this outside standard does not exsist, The only standard is each person's ethical standard. Second, there is no possibility of true moral guilt. Justice entails among other things, punishing people who are Guilty. Guilt Depends on blame, which cannot exist in the Moral Relativist's world.
5. Relativists cannot Improve their morality. If everything is equally valid, and all views must be accepted. There is no improvment in Morality. How can you get better? Moral Relativism states that All views are equally valid, how can you get a better view?
6. Relativists can't hold meaningful moral discussions. Relativism makes it impossible to discuss morality. If all views are valid, then what can you talk about. Meaningful ethical Dialogue can only occur when there is an outside standard on which to judge the different views.
7. Relativists cannot promote the obligation of Tolerance. There cannot be no Tolerance to Relativism because the Relativists moral obligation to be tolerant is Self-Refuting. To Relativists Tolerance means, "I (morally) out to tolerate the moral opinions of others who disagree with me." I (morally) should not try to interfere with their opinions or behavior." If there are no moral rules, then there cannot be a rule that states tolerance is a moral principle that applies equally to all. If all views are valid, then who is the relativist to say that I cannot force my morality on others if it is my view to do so?
In Contrast Moral Absolutism holds that moral rule is true regardless of whether anyone believes it. It can't be created by Personal Conviction; nor does it disappear when an individual or culture rejects it. Even if ignored, moral objective rules still maintained their ethical force, and are universally binding in all similar cases.
Moral relativism says two far different things:
(1. Moral standards are primarily grounded in social custom.
2. Moral values vary from culture to culture. )
Further breaking it down, there are 3 types of Relativism.
1. Society Does Relativism.
Many people try to justify moral relativism by making the observation that cultures seem to differ regarding basic moral values. Anthropologists record that apparently each society has different ethical standards when it comes to morals. This brand of ethics is what we call Society Does Relativism. It is also known as Cultural or Descriptive Relativism.
2. Society Says Relativism.
The second type of relativism is different from the first in a very important way. Society Does relativism is descriptive only, merely reporting on the way cultures appear to act. It is not prescriptive or normative because it makes no judgement on behavior and offers no guidlines for conduct. It does not tell how things Ought to be. The second type of Relativism however goes beyond anthropology - mere cultural observations- into the area of genuine morality. In contrast to the first it prescribes how one should act. Society Says Relativism, also known as conventionalism or normal ethical relativism, teaches that all people ought to act in keeping with their own society's code. What is right for one society isn't necissarily right for another. People ought to do whatever their society says to do. Trekkers will recognize Society Says Relativism with the Federation's Prime Directive.
In Society Says Relativism, moral standards are set by one's culture.
3. I Say Relativism. (The view of most liberals/liberatarians)
In the final Form of Relativism, The most Radical, also known as individual ethical relativism or ethical subjectivism, individual preferences offer the only guide lines to behavior. What is right for one person isn't necessarily right for another person. Regardless of what society they live in. Each person acts as his conscience dictates, in keeping with his own personal moral code. Though this code may change as time goes on, and preferences vary, morality remains personal and subjective. I say Relativism is often Characterized by the response, "Who are you to say who I should live?" Lets examine these types of Relativism, one by one, and I can show you the Problems with each.
Society Does Relativism.
In Folkways, a classic presentation of cultural or Society Does Relativism, anthropologist William Graham Sumner argues that All morality can be explained in naturalistic, cultural terms. Morality he claims, is not objective in any sense. Instead it finds its genesis in the subjective conventions of culture known as folkways and mores. Sumner makes 3 observations to support his view.
1. He observes that each culture has a unique set of moral values.
2. He claims these morals are generated by the natural influences of pain and pleasure as people seek to satisfy their base wants and desires. The values create a complex system of customs that reflect notions of decency, duty, propriety, rights, respect, reverence, and so on, and regulate the culture for the general welfare. Laws are Enacted as mechanical, utilitarian devices to enforce the most vital mores.
3. He claims that each group thinks its moral values are right and others are wrong. Sumners entire thesis hinges on the first claim, that each culture has a unique set of moral values. That societies do, in fact, differ much in their code of moral convictions. This however is not obviously true.
At first glance the wide variations in moral pratices of cultures seem to indicate a broad diversity of basic moral values. Conduct appropriate in one culture is loathed in another. Early Hudson Bay Tribes thought patricide was noble. In India before the British came, Hindu widows in a pratice called suttee threw themselves alive on the funeral prye of their dead husbands. In European cultures, both pratices are considered immoral. A closer look however reveals another picture. Apparant moral differences often represent differences only in the perception of the facts or cirumstances, and are not differences of the values themselves.
Facts are descriptive answering the question, What is the Case? A fetus is or isn't Human. Euthanasia is or isn't an example of murder. Values on the other hand, are perscriptive, answering the question, What ought to be the case? One ought not to murder. Life out to be more important than choice.
Unjustified killing of human beings has been wrong in every culture at every time in history; what has changed is the concept of justification. Hitler Justified killing the jews, because he considered them subhuman. In the Hudson Bay tribes the children strangled their parents in what they called an act of kindness, instead of letting them live to an unproductive senile life. The underlying moral view that it is noble to die for the welfare of many is one all cultures share. Indeed this is what soldiers do.
In India cows roam free because Hindus consider them sacred. In America we eat beef. At first Glance it appears we have conflicting values, but both cultures hold that it is wrong to eat other human beings. We don't eat Grandma, Hindus don't eat cattle because they think it may BE Grandma in another reincarnated form.
In each of these cases, the apparant moral differences arise not because of conflicting values, but because of facts pertaining to common values. Genuine Disputes between cultures are rare. To Test for value differences, cite the foundational moral rule one culture affirms and the other denies. True moral conflicts are those that remain when all factual differences are eliminated.
Thus the first problem with Society does relativism is that its underlying assumption is false. In many cases, apparant moral discrepancies between cultures represent only a difference in the perception of the facts of a circumstance, not a conflict in the values themselves.
Society Does Relativism fails on all 3 counts. First It wrongly assumes that each culture has a unique set of moral values. Second even if cultures differ radically in their basic moral beliefs, it one shows that their are differing opinions, not that no opinion is correct. It proves nothing about the nature of morality. Third it denies that objectivity is possible. But the only way to know that our cultural biases blind us to the truth is to have an objective and unbiased point of view.
The Second type of Relativism, Society Says, has many serious moral problems. If culture is both the genesis and the justification for morality, and odd condition results. If there were no cultures, There could be no morals.
Thus if 2 people lived on opposite ends of a desert island with no culture between them, One could kill the other without violating any moral rule. This seems counterinitutive, but that is the least of the problems.
Conventionalism makes it impossible to critize another society's practices, no matter how bizarre or morally repugnant they may seem.
The torture of prisoners by military regimes, the injustice of totalitarian governments, and the apartheid of racist administrations, would all be morally benign in this view. Indeed Society Says Relativism was part of the Nazi's defense at Nuremberg.
In Society Says Relativism, there can be no such thing as an immoral law. As long as a law is the law, then it would be right. Thus a law permitting blacks to be held as slaves would be just as moral as a law against rape.
Now on to the last form of Relativism, I say Relativism or Ethical Relativism. I already pointed out the 7 fatal flaws of Ethical Relativism. I don't feel a need to go over them again, Scroll back and read them. However I will go over the main arugment used to support Ethical Relativism, Tolerance.
Since ethical relativism promotes tolerance of certain cultural practices that members of Western civilization may think are strange, ethical relativism is a good thing. However, although tolerance often is a virtue, ethical relativists simply cannot justify their own position by appealing to it in this way. First, the value of tolerance presupposes the existence of at least one real objective (or absolute) value: tolerance. Bioethicist Tom Beauchamp makes this observation:
If we interpret normative relativism as requiring tolerance of other views, the whole theory is imperiled by inconsistency. The proposition that we ought to tolerate the views of others, or that it is right not to interfere with others, is precluded by the very strictures of the theory. Such a proposition bears all the marks of a non-relative account of moral rightness, one based on, but not reducible to, the cross-cultural findings of anthropologists...But if this moral principle [of tolerance] is recognized as valid, it can of course be employed as an instrument for criticizing such cultural practices as the denial of human rights to minorities and such beliefs as that of racial superiority. A moral commitment to tolerance of other practices and beliefs thus leads inexorably to the abandonment of normative relativism.
Second, tolerance can only be a virtue if we think the other person, whose viewpoint we're supposed to tolerate, is mistaken. That is to say, if we do not believe one viewpoint is better than another, then to ask us to be tolerant of other viewpoints makes no sense. For to tolerate another's viewpoint implies that this other person has a right to his or her viewpoint despite the fact that others may think it is wrong. To be tolerant of differing viewpoints involves just that — differing viewpoints, all of which cannot be equally correct at the same time. The man who supposes himself tolerant while at the same time he believes nobody is either right or wrong about any moral value is actually no more virtuous than the man who supposes his virginity is chastity even though he was born with no sexual organs. Consequently, real tolerance presupposes someone is right and someone is wrong, which implicitly denies moral relativism.
It must be acknowledged, however, that there is a noble motive behind the relativists' appeal to tolerance. They believe their view of tolerance will help us to better understand other cultures and people without being hypercritical about their practices. This in turn will keep us from using such criticism to justify the forced imposition of our own cultural practices on them, such as putting blouses on the bare-breasted women of the South Seas or forcing polygamous families to divide and become monogamous. I can sympathize with this view of transcultural tolerance. As I stated earlier, however, a cultural practice is different from a cultural value. It does not follow from different practices that people have different values.
The local controversies surrounding the elimination of certain books from public school curricula and libraries is an example of how people can agree on values and yet disagree on practice. Those who favor more conservative guidelines, and who are often referred to as advocating censorship, usually propose that certain materials are not suitable for certain age groups. They argue that parents, not educational administrators, are best suited to know what is good for their children. On the other hand, their opponents, who are often referred to as advocating freedom of expression, usually propose that it should be up to the teacher and the educational administrators to choose what is suitable material, although they do believe that a line should be drawn somewhere. For example, none of these defenders of freedom of expression defend the placing of hard-core pornography in the hands of fourth graders.
This, of course, makes the debate all the more interesting, since it means that both sides agree on the following general principles: a line must be drawn, certain materials are suitable for certain age groups, and education is important. Both advocate some kind of "censorship." They just disagree on who should be the censors, what should be censored, and on what basis the decision should be made. Therefore, they both hold to many of the same values, but they disagree as to the application of these values, and the acceptability of certain factual claims.
Although this distinction between practice and value helps us to be tolerant of unusual cultural practices, we are still able to make valuable moral judgments about others and ourselves.
First, we are free to criticize those intolerable cultural practices that do conflict with basic human values, such as in the cases of genocide in Nazi Germany and apartheid in South Africa. Second, we are able to admit to real moral progress, such as in the case of the abolition of slavery. And third, there can exist real moral reformers, such as Martin Luther King, Jr., and the prophets of the Old Testament, who served as prophetic voices to reprimand their cultures for having drifted far from a true moral practice based on basic human values.
The above three points — each of which follow from a belief in objective transcultural values — do not follow from a belief in ethical relativism. That is to say, to remain consistent the ethical relativist cannot criticize intolerable moral practices, believe in real moral progress, or acknowledge the existence of real moral reformers. For these three forms of moral judgment presuppose the existence of real objective transcultural values.
Although much more can be said about the justification and existence of certain values, the above is sufficient to demonstrate that ethical relativism is enormously problematic. It shows that we can rationally discuss and argue with each other about right and wrong without resorting to the claim that ethical judgments are merely subjective or relative and that all such judgments have equal validity. For to claim the latter logically leads one to the bizarre judgment that Mother Teresa is no more and no less virtuous than Adolf Hitler. I believe this is sufficient to show ethical relativism to be bankrupt.
Moral relativism has been rejected by a near unanimous number of both secular and theistic ethicists and philosophers. Yet it is still popular to espouse this view in many of our secularized cultural institutions. It is thought to be more tolerant, more open, and more intellectually respectable than the old-fashioned "absolutism." As we have seen, however, moral relativism is inconsistent with tolerance, closed off to the possibility of moral truth, and an intellectual failure.
The Moral Relativist cannot say that Hitlers actions were immoral or wrong. If all views are morally correct and each society chooses for itself what is right and wrong, then Adolf Hitlers morals were the same as mother teresa. This person is making a moral judgment on Adolf Hitler in one breath, while espousing that they believe all views are valid and moral. This is Self-Refuting, and when you think about it quite funny .
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.