Catholic And Gay

[Ice_nine]

I think I should note that these consensus rules (don't murder, don't rape, don't steal) have in course of history, and in some places today, been applied to only one's respective villagers/community. In other words it was ok, maybe even laudable, to rape, pillage, and murder a rival tribe. In fact many atheists call a foul when stories in the Old Testament illustrate the Israelites doing the same thing.

And stevil, why you don't look at such situations to label them right or wrong, moral or immoral, you can see how fickle, volatile, and dangerous this "morality by consensus" (I know you don't use that word, bear with me) can become.

There were times when the bulk of a given society thought it was okie dokie to put Africans into hard labor, beat them into compliance, kill them, and rape their women. All because Africans weren't considered "one of their own."

[Amppax]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1323713284' post='2349814']
Humans [b]are [/b]animals, we have developed some social rules to suggest that we shouldn't kill each other for the right to impregnate a woman.
Although our rules make sense, I don't see how they are objective.
[/quote]

I think there is a large difference between human's and the rest of animals. For one we are self aware, and they aren't. That is one HUGE difference, there are many more. So your example is invalid because it literally has no bearing on this discussion whatsoever.

[stevil]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1323716160' post='2349836']
And stevil, why you don't look at such situations to label them right or wrong, moral or immoral, you can see how fickle, volatile, and dangerous this "morality by consensus" (I know you don't use that word, bear with me) can become.
[/quote]
As an Atheist with no belief in an intelligent creator of existence and morality, how can I agree to an objective morality, objective right, objective wrong?
Unless I define the highest tangible authority of the land as the moritly rule maker/ rights definer(the government), if I do this then how to I complain about the government infringing on my rights?

I feel the only approach that is left to me is to declare all things that are physically possible to be my right. Basically the laws of the cosmos, modelled by the human authored laws of physics, these define the rules by which we exist. We cannot break these rules, but existing within these rules we are able to perform many actions. I am forced to classify all these possible actions as our rights as I don't know a better term for this.
As a society we then have social, cultural, (some people have religious), superstitious (some people believe in Karma), habbitual and legal rules. In democratic societies we bestow responsibility for creation and enforcement of our legal rules to an elected government. I do feel it is extremely necessary for our society to have some rules in order to be functional. How we come to the consensus of what defines functional is difficult. There is no objective functional society definition.
However, if we are to take an inclusive view (and with globalisation this path has become extremely important), one that looks to respect all people and to provide not equality, but equal opportunity. Possibly taking as a guidline "the golden rule" as oppression or unfair treatment of people often leads to social conflict then I feel we have a platform where we can intelligently come up with a well considered set of rules that define the minimum of what is required to create a functional society, leaving other actions available for individuals of society to chose for themselves what path to take.

[stevil]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1323721218' post='2349875']

I think there is a large difference between human's and the rest of animals. For one we are self aware, and they aren't. That is one HUGE difference, there are many more. So your example is invalid because it literally has no bearing on this discussion whatsoever.
[/quote]
It doesn't matter that there is a difference between us and the rest of the animals.
Papist stated "Animals|Humans => Apples|Oranges"
But if his statement were accurate he would have had to say "Animals|Humans => Fruit|Oranges"
We are animals, there is simply no denying it.
I am yet to find an Atheist that believes humans were created as humans. The vast majority of us go with the theory of evolution. Given this stance, at what point did we discover self awareness? Supposedly before this point, we were merely the type of animal incapable of commiting bad, evil, immoral acts. So why does an intelligence that includes self awareness necessarily simultaneously create objective bad, evil, immoral?

Edited December 12, 2011 by stevil

[stevil]

I have just had a discussion with people on an Atheist forum with regards to this topic. I presented my idea and a fellow Atheist kindly reworded for me into a much more consice phrase.

"Nature is governed by amoral power which permits whatever power can accomplish, so every living creature has the natural right to do whatever it can, and every law is an infringment, sometimes reasonable, never unquestionable"

[Ice_nine]

I'd like to know what this "amoral power" is and its specific attributes. Also the basis for believing, yes [i]believing[/i], in such a power.

Essentially this person is saying might = right. It is a "natural right" to exert your power, dare I say your will, onto any weaker party. And laws are made precisely to infringe upon these rights for the well-being of society.

This is such a distorted understanding of what rights are, I don't even know where to begin. But the underpinnings of this philosophy seem based on the supreme authority and autonomy of self, while simultaneously realizing this philosophy is not really conducive to fostering a civil society. I don't know how that dissonance can be reconciled.

But I will say it's sort of natural, or worldly, to believe that power is a right in some sense. Jesus said the meek will inherit the earth, the first shall be last, and all these other crazy paradoxes that most people found and still find absurd.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1323818131' post='2350678']
I have just had a discussion with people on an Atheist forum with regards to this topic. I presented my idea and a fellow Atheist kindly reworded for me into a much more consice phrase.

"Nature is governed by amoral power which permits whatever power can accomplish, so every living creature has the natural right to do whatever it can, and every law is an infringment, sometimes reasonable, never unquestionable"
[/quote]
Very Nietzchean. If I were atheist I would probably agree.

[stevil]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1323841498' post='2351043']
I'd like to know what this "amoral power" is and its specific attributes. Also the basis for believing, yes [i]believing[/i], in such a power.

Essentially this person is saying might = right. It is a "natural right" to exert your power, dare I say your will, onto any weaker party. And laws are made precisely to infringe upon these rights for the well-being of society.

This is such a distorted understanding of what rights are, I don't even know where to begin. But the underpinnings of this philosophy seem based on the supreme authority and autonomy of self, while simultaneously realizing this philosophy is not really conducive to fostering a civil society. I don't know how that dissonance can be reconciled.

But I will say it's sort of natural, or worldly, to believe that power is a right in some sense. Jesus said the meek will inherit the earth, the first shall be last, and all these other crazy paradoxes that most people found and still find absurd.
[/quote]
I will post a part of the discussion between myself and this other atheist, hopefully it clarifies all of your questions with regards to understanding my thoughts on this.
[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1323843300' post='2351064']
Very Nietzchean. If I were atheist I would probably agree.
[/quote]
I will look this person up, seems interesting.




[url="http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8807.msg139458#msg139458"]Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on [b]Yesterday[/b] at 12:17:16 PM[/url]
The default rules of space (the laws of physics) allow me to club you in the head and then, as you lie on the floor unconscious, the default rules of space allow me to cut off your limbs with a chainsaw. Apparently that means I have the right to do those things. Do I? Why or why not?
[url="http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8807.msg139520#msg139520"]Quote from: Stevil on [b]Yesterday[/b] at 04:03:05 PM[/url]
Yes, the laws of physics give you the right to do that to me.
[url="http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8807.msg139458#msg139458"]Quote from: Pharaoh Cat[/url]
I like it. Logically consistent. Good.

[url="http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8807.msg139458#msg139458"]Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on [b]Yesterday[/b] at 12:17:16 PM[/url]
I'll assume, until you tell me otherwise, that in the wild my rights are open-ended. What I can, I may. Might is right.
[url="http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8807.msg139520#msg139520"]Quote from: Stevil on [b]Yesterday[/b] at 04:03:05 PM[/url]
Here you are using a different definition of the word "right". In this sentence it is more along the lines of right and wrong. Previously we were using the word with regards to whether we are allowed to do something. If we exist in material reality and as long as the rules of material reality are not compromised then we are allowed to do what ever.
[url="http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8807.msg139458#msg139458"]Quote from: Pharaoh Cat[/url]
Hmm. OK. I guess we're retaining our amoral universe, which I like, since a universe with no God has to be amoral at least until sapients emerge. So when we speak of rights in your line of reasoning, we're speaking of permission, which, if it isn't a morality concept, must be a power concept. I agree that amoral power can permit. Interesting, Stevil. You've been saying this all along, of course. I had a blind spot. Amoral power can permit! razzle dazzle! [img]http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/Smileys/default/razzle%20dazzle.gif[/img]


[url="http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8807.msg139458#msg139458"]Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on [b]Yesterday[/b] at 12:17:16 PM[/url]
Yet presumably I don't have the right to complain if the government won't allow me to dismember you with a chainsaw. How did I lose that right to complain? What force or fact took it away from me?
[url="http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8807.msg139520#msg139520"]Quote from: Stevil on [b]Yesterday[/b] at 04:03:05 PM[/url]
You certainly have the right to complain. The government is infringing on your rights.
[url="http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8807.msg139458#msg139458"]Quote from: Pharaoh Cat[/url]
Magnificent! Truly. Your logical consistency is really, really good.


[url="http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8807.msg139520#msg139520"]Quote from: Stevil on [b]Yesterday[/b] at 04:03:05 PM[/url]
You should expect the government to justify why they are infringing on your rights. The government cannot answer that it is not your right to perform these acts, they must explain their infringement.
[url="http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8807.msg139458#msg139458"]Quote from: Pharaoh Cat[/url]
razzle dazzle! [img]http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/Smileys/default/razzle%20dazzle.gif[/img]


[url="http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8807.msg139520#msg139520"]Quote from: Stevil on [b]Yesterday[/b] at 04:03:05 PM[/url]
All laws infringe our rights and ought to come with a strong justification.
[url="http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8807.msg139458#msg139458"]Quote from: Pharaoh Cat[/url]
razzle dazzle! [img]http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/Smileys/default/razzle%20dazzle.gif[/img]


[url="http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8807.msg139520#msg139520"]Quote from: Stevil on [b]Yesterday[/b] at 04:03:05 PM[/url]
I am not of the opinion that our rights are beyond justified infringement.
[url="http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8807.msg139458#msg139458"]Quote from: Pharaoh Cat[/url]
Neat. Really, really good.

[i]"Nature is governed by amoral power which permits whatever power can accomplish, so every living creature has the natural right to do whatever it can, and every law is an infringement, sometimes reasonable, never unquestionable."[/i]

Sig-worthy! [img]http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/Smileys/default/wink.gif[/img]

Edited December 14, 2011 by stevil

[Papist]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1323818131' post='2350678']
I have just had a discussion with people on an Atheist forum with regards to this topic. I presented my idea and a fellow Atheist kindly reworded for me into a much more consice phrase.

"Nature is governed by amoral power which permits whatever power can accomplish, so every living creature has the natural right to do whatever it can, and every law is an infringment, sometimes reasonable, never unquestionable"
[/quote]
There were a few people in 20th century history that took this "amoral power" philosophy to its natural conclusion and millions and millions of innocent people were murdered.

Edited December 14, 2011 by Papist

[stevil]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1323864681' post='2351115']
There were a few people in 20th century history that took this "amoral power" philosophy to its natural conclusion and millions and millions of innocent people were murdered.
[/quote]
I've never argued that people in society shouldn't be bound to rules. Just that the rules need to be justified. A rule against most forms of murder seems to be a justified rule, meaning that it seems necessary to provide a functioning society.

[stevil]

I am just now reading about the concept of Natural Law, it seems to suggest that each species comes with a set of objective rules and rights.
I disagree with the concept of "objective" but I do recognise that people and societies have unwritten rules and rights beyond legal rules and rights, seemingly to me to be derived from a complex mix of human physicallity, culture, environment, teachings etc.

I recognise that in some circumstances that people will become aggressive and risk their own lives if certain natural human rights are violated.

To me this highlights that we require reasonable violation of our physical rights to be defined by legal laws in order to protect our natural human rights. This also means that legal laws should not encrouch on our natural human rights. If legal law covers these then we will have a functional society.

Now for the difficult part, to document and define our natural human rights.

[Papist]

The first one would be the right to life.

[stevil]

"To me this highlights that we require reasonable violation of our physical rights to be defined by legal laws in order to protect our natural human rights. This also means that legal laws should not encrouch on our natural human rights. If legal law covers these then we will have a functional society."

But, what my major point is, is that I don't think government should go above and beyond (in relation to violating our physical rights) my statement above which outlines the bear minimum of what is needed for a functional society.
Government should not create laws and thus restriction on human behaviour if that human behaviour does not result in the common situation where people will feel their natural human rights have been violated and thus resort to unorganised violence.
e.g. government should not make laws to restrict peoples' physical right to gay sex or gay marriage.

[stevil]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1323841498' post='2351043']
This is such a distorted understanding of what rights are, I don't even know where to begin.
[/quote]
It comes down to the definition of "rights".
I presume as a Catholic you qualify "rights" as an Ethical or Moral set of rights possibly even calling it Natural rights, defined somewhat as:
1. Allowed actions/thoughts
2. Actions/thoughts which are moral as opposed to actions/thoughts which are immoral

For thousands of years people have had the concept of theism and hence our language and use of terms/words are defined with this in mind. However for a person like myself whom does not believe in gods and hence morality, this definition is meaningless. I can only refer to "rights" as being 1. Allowed actions/thoughts.

However this stance does not stop me coming to the conclusion that a government must infringe on some of our physical rights to create or maintain peace and order in a functioning society.

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1323841498' post='2351043']
But the underpinnings of this philosophy seem based on the supreme authority and autonomy of self, while simultaneously realizing this philosophy is not really conducive to fostering a civil society. I don't know how that dissonance can be reconciled.
[/quote]
This is how most secular democratic governments operate. It is not their responsibility to define or understand morality, it is however their place to understand the members of society and to know what rights infringements could cause them to act aggressively. By and large most of our needs come from our survival instincts. If our lives and well beings are threatened then we are likely to protect ourselves via force despite what any Law may state. It is a difficult balance for government to understand which physical rights must be violated as these are opposing forces e.g. a person's physical rights vs the rules required to provide a functional society.
Each culture/society is different, but with growing globalisation the infringing laws are becoming more inclusive and less prescriptive, laws are gradually getting to the point where we only have the minimal set required for a functional society. This is what I mean when I say society is maturing, at least it seems to be this way in my country.

[MithLuin]

A starting point might be the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as enumerated by the United Nations:

[url=http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/]HERE[/url]

Article 3: [color=#300906][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.[/size][/font][/color]

[color=#300906][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]4: [/size][/font][/color][color=#300906][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.[/size][/font][/color]

[color=#300906][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]5: [/size][/font][/color][color=#300906][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.[/size][/font][/color]

[color=#300906][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]6: Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.[/size][/font][/color]

[color=#300906][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]Etc.[/size][/font][/color]

[color=#300906][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]For the purposes of this thread, the significant part is:[/size][/font][/color]

[b] Article 16.[/b]
[list]
[*](1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
[*](2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
[*](3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
[/list]
[color=#300906][font=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3] [/size][/font][/color]