Illegal=Immoral

[qfnol31]

Yes, the hour is getting late.

I agree about CPS.

However, I do still believe that our government is legit and just.

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Dec 10 2004, 06:07 PM'] Not arguing natural law, here.  I don't agree with the concept. [/quote]
Do you mean to say that you're only subjectively against murder? What makes you any more correct than those who don't have a problem with it, and what is your justification for imposing your view that murder is wrong on others?

And do you mean to say that you wouldn't have opposed racial slavery had you been alive in the 19th century? After all, if you don't believe in the natural moral law, then it'd follow that you don't believe in objective morality. Had you opposed racial slavery, your reasons for doing so would have been both subjective and arbitrary (i.e., according to your logic). Do you really want to believe that your right to life and your equality under the law is subjective, and do you really want to believe that someone could rightly take your life if they arbitrarily willed to do so?

God bless,

Jennifer

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Dec 10 2004, 06:14 PM'] You can't avoid relativism when you have people of different faiths living together.  Even different sects of christianity disagree on many, many things and just because you hold one above the others doesn't mean that everyone else does.  This kind of thinking is the height of egocentrism.  Frankly, I can handle the cognitive dissonance of saying that there are no absolutes.  Then again, I don't say that -- the only constant is change, the eternal absolute. [/quote]
You make the erroneous assumption that varying views automatically make the case for relativism. This is false because it assumes too much. How do you know that one religion couldn't be absolutely true? If one religion's absolutely true, all other religions would be partially false. You cannot logically make the case for relativism; to do so, you'd have to insist upon it absolutely. Obviously, that's an illogical contradiction. The idea that change is an absolute truth is equally erroneous, and it's equally erroneous because it relies on the premise that truth is relative. After all, if truth is relative, it can change. If, for the sake of argument, I conceded that change is an absolute truth, how would you know that it's the only absolute truth? Why must the buck stop there? If absolute truth exists at all, then it'd follow that other things, including issues pertaining to morality, could be objectively true. What you haven't accounted for is why you think that morality and religion are relative. With science, there are often differing theories, but the mere existence of differing theories does not mean that all theories are therefore relative. No, there's always a chance that one theory is correct. And so it is with religion and morality, I'd say.

[quote]Our laws should not be influence by any particular religion or the rest of the religions, and the followers thereof, suffer.
[/quote]

I agree, which is why I think the natural moral law is important. Either way, you will saw off the branch you sit on if you argue against the natural moral law. Some group will suffer because of the mere fact that laws exist. Don't you think murderers suffer because of our laws against murder? Would you then argue against laws prohibiting murder on the basis that those with the proclivity to murder suffer?

To be perfectly fair, nonreligious philosophies are no different than religious philosophies when it comes to their application in law. There will always be groups who dislike laws stopping them from doing what they want to do.

[quote]So you are free to believe, when you can offer concrete proof of such, let me know. [/quote]

Well, for starters, if God doesn't exist, everything would be permissible. Are you comfortable with that? Are you comfortable with the fact that someone could justly kill your loved ones if God doesn't exist? Are you comfortable with the fact that there'd be nothing wrong with genocide if God doesn't exist? If God doesn't exist, then the fact of the matter is that things are wrong only because we [b]think[/b] they are. In actuality, however, they wouldn't [i]really[/i] be wrong.

The fact that consequence exists offers a proof. If someone commits murder, they (usually) go to jail. It's just an ontological fact. How can you argue against moral consequences when there are moral consequences all around us?

You know, it's slightly amusing that you're arguing for relative truth and the absense of proof. I mean, what's the point of arguing if our opinions are no more or less true than yours? And what good would proof be in a world where absolute truth doesn't exist?

God bless,

Jennifer

[Winchester]

I must take exception in giving a blanket "just" description of a country that is violating the rights of the most defensless of our society.

We do many good things in this country and many bad as well. We are better in many areas than most and worse than very few in very few areas. We have much work to do and our ponderous system is a hindrance to the accomplishment of that work.

CPS is a good idea if it is well thought out; sadly it is not. Most of the people I've met working with it really do want to do good. It is not a job for those with soft hearts, though. Those who are able to remain functionally "cold" to stressful situations should be employed in defending children, not those who worry if the little darlings will become serial killers because Daddy put a controlled switch to their backside.

[qfnol31]

Winchester,

I wouldn't say that every action of our government is just. In fact, quite often it's not. However, I do think that we have a governmnet that is justly in place. It would be different if the government was forcing the abortions on women (as in China), but since they do not, though they're doing a poor job of not having the law, they are still a government with a just right to rule the country.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]they are still a government with a just right to rule the country. [/quote]


Prove it. Prove that they are a just government with a "right" to rule.

[qfnol31]

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02137c.htm"]New Advent on Government Authority[/url]

If you read that, it shows that a government cannot be arbitrary, nor can it be a tyrany. Our government is not arbitrary, but rather it came from the elected representatives of the states. These people did not merely just assume control when founding our government, and the government today (even if all the original candidates had assumed leadership) is elected by us.

[Don John of Austria]

I'm writing a final I'll respond to this when I have time to do so completly.

[qfnol31]

Okay, I too may have a difficult time responding in full myself, as I still have 4.5 finals to go this week.

[Don John of Austria]

Yeah I am just giving them and Checking them.

Thank God I don't have to take them this time.

Edited December 13, 2004 by Don John of Austria

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='BeenaBobba' date='Dec 12 2004, 06:39 AM'] Do you mean to say that you're only subjectively against murder? What makes you any more correct than those who don't have a problem with it, and what is your justification for imposing your view that murder is wrong on others?

And do you mean to say that you wouldn't have opposed racial slavery had you been alive in the 19th century? After all, if you don't believe in the natural moral law, then it'd follow that you don't believe in objective morality. Had you opposed racial slavery, your reasons for doing so would have been both subjective and arbitrary (i.e., according to your logic). Do you really want to believe that your right to life and your equality under the law is subjective, and do you really want to believe that someone could rightly take your life if they arbitrarily willed to do so?

God bless,

Jennifer [/quote]
I believe all laws can be based on a concept of harm. If an action harms another then that action is illegal. Stealing, murder, rape, slavery etc. are all forms of harm to another person.

[Don John of Austria]

qfnol31--- I think you need to reread the Article because you are misunderstanding it, It does not support your position at all---


[quote]Obedience, being a practical thing and not a speculation, cannot abstract from the concrete facts of the case; it is paid to the powers that be, to the authority actually in possession. Obedience is as disobedience; men are never disobedient except to the government of the day. But there are limits to civil obedience, and to the competence of civil authority[color=blue]. As domestic obedience is not to be carried to the extent of rebellion against the civil government, so neither is the State to be obeyed as against God. It is not within the competence of the State to command anything and everything. The State cannot command what God could not command, for instance, idolatry. The authority of the State is absolute, that is to say, full and complete in its own sphere, and subordinate to no other authority within that sphere. But the authority of the State is not arbitrary; it is not available for the carrying out of every whim and caprice. Arbitrary government is irrational government; now no government is licensed to set reason aside. The government of God Himself is not arbitrary; as St. Thomas says: "God is not offended by us except at what we do against our own good" (Contra Gentiles, III, 122). The arbitrary use of authority is called tyranny. Such is the tyranny of an absolute monarch, of a council, of a class, [/color] [color=red]or of a majority[/color]. The liberty of the subject is based on the doctrine that the State is not omnipotent. Legally omnipotent every State must be, but not morally. A legal enactment may be immoral, and then it cannot in conscience be obeyed; or it may be ultra vires, beyond the competence of the authority that enacts it, in which case compliance with the law is not a matter of obedience, but of prudence. In either case the law is tyrannical, and "a tyrannical law, not being according to reason, is not, absolutely speaking, a law, but rather a perversion of law" (St. Thomas, Summa Theol., la, 2ae, q. 92, art. 1, ad 4). Man is not all citizen. He is a member, a part of the State, and something else besides. "Man is not subservient to the civil community to the extent of his whole self, all that he is and all that he has" (St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 1a 2ae, q. 21, art. 4, ad 3). To say nothing of his eternal interests in his relations with his Maker, man has even in this life his domestic interests in the bosom of his family, his intellectual and artistic interests, none of which can be called political interests. Social and political life is not the whole of human life. Man is not the servant of the State in his every action. The State, the majority, or the despot, may demand of the individual more than he is bound to give. Were human society a conventional arrangement, were man, being perfectly well off in isolation from his fellows, to agree by way of freak to live in community with them, then we could assign no antecedent limits to civil authority. Civil authority would be simply what was bargained for and prescribed in the arbitrary compact which made civil society. As it is, civil authority is a natural means to a natural end and is checked by that end, in accordance with the Aristotelean principle that "the end in view sets limits to the means" (Aristotle, Politics, I, 9). The immediate end of civil authority is well set forth by Suarez (De legibus, LII, xi, 7) as "the natural happiness of the perfect, or self-sufficient, human community, and the happiness of individuals as they are members of such a community, that they may live therein peaceably and justly, with a sufficiency of goods for the preservation and comfort of their bodily life, and with so much moral rectitude as is necessary for this external peace and happiness". Happiness is an attribute of individuals. Individuals are not made happy by authority, but authority secures to them that tranquillity, that free hand for helping themselves, that restful enjoyment of their own just winnings, which is one of the conditions of happiness. Nor does authority make men virtuous, except according to that rough-hewn, outline virtue, which is called "social virtue", and consists mainly of justice. When the ancients spoke of "virtue" being the concern of the State, they meant justice and efficiency. Neither the virtue nor the happiness of individuals is cared for by the State except "as they are members of the civil community". In this respect, civil differs from domestic, or paternal, authority. The father cares for the members of his household one by one, singly and individually. The State cares for its members collectively, and for the individual only in his collective aspect. Hence it follows that the power of life and death is inherent in the State, not in the family. A man is hanged for the common good of the rest, never for his own good.

[/quote]


The Fact that we elect our own Rulers in no way rejects the notion of tyranny, I would contendthat infact tyranny is much more common in the area of democracy than in any other area, becuase as people feel their position was heard they are less likely to protest, or rebel. One is not abliged to obey tyrannical governments.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='BeenaBobba' date='Dec 12 2004, 07:16 AM'] You make the erroneous assumption that varying views automatically make the case for relativism.  This is false because it assumes too much.  How do you know that one religion couldn't be absolutely true?  If one religion's absolutely true, all other religions would be partially false. [/quote]
And that is precisely the point. Any one religion could be the absolute truth, but we don't know which one. That's why relativism must exist when dealing with many religions together. Especially among christian sects that each claim to have the absolute truth.

[quote]You cannot logically make the case for relativism; to do so, you'd have to insist upon it absolutely.  Obviously, that's an illogical contradiction.[/quote]

I make no such insistence. Relativism does exist and is recognized by those of us who do not make a claim to have absolute truth.

[quote]The idea that change is an absolute truth is equally erroneous, and it's equally erroneous because it relies on the premise that truth is relative.  After all, if truth is relative, it can change.  If, for the sake of argument, I conceded that change is an absolute truth, how would you know that it's the only absolute truth?[/quote]

Ask any five people who witness a crime what they saw. You'll get five different stories and yet each person will be telling the truth. Ask them again a year later and you'll get still different true stories. It matters not whether truth is relative or absolute. And, why does change need to be the only one? I simply mean that all things change and that I (for example) am not the same person I was 2 minutes ago nor the same person I will be in 20 years.

[quote]Why must the buck stop there?  If absolute truth exists at all, then it'd follow that other things, including issues pertaining to morality, could be objectively true.[/quote]

Which is why it's impossible to identify absolute truth.

[quote]What you haven't accounted for is why you think that morality and religion are relative.  With science, there are often differing theories, but the mere existence of differing theories does not mean that all theories are therefore relative.  No, there's always a chance that one theory is correct.  And so it is with religion and morality, I'd say.[/quote]

They are relative because people believe different things.  Science is a good example here, because, for the most part, science is always changing.  What was scientific truth several years ago is questioned today (for example relativity).  Even gravity is only a theory.  However, at least the scientific community recognizes this and allows for other options.

[quote]I agree, which is why I think the natural moral law is important.  Either way, you will saw off the branch you sit on if you argue against the natural moral law.  Some group will suffer because of the mere fact that laws exist.  Don't you think murderers suffer because of our laws against murder?  Would you then argue against laws prohibiting murder on the basis that those with the proclivity to murder suffer?[/quote]

"Natural moral law" is, in essence, christian. It was created by christians and is being upheld by christians. There are other religions that feel that 'natural law' is wrong. Just because you don't agree with the practices of these religions doesn't mean that you can compare them to murderers.



[quote]Well, for starters, if God doesn't exist, everything would be permissible.[/quote]

Do you seriously believe that? Have you ever studied pre-christian societies? That statement is simply false, though I'm sure it would be comforting to you if it weren't.

[quote]If God doesn't exist, then the fact of the matter is that things are wrong only because we [b]think[/b] they are.  In actuality, however, they wouldn't [i]really[/i] be wrong.[/quote]

*laugh* Uh-huh. And why is that?

[quote]The fact that consequence exists offers a proof.  If someone commits murder, they (usually) go to jail.  It's just an ontological fact.  How can you argue against moral consequences when there are moral consequences all around us?[/quote]

First, going to jail is a physical consequence, not a moral one. Second, how do you explain those that commit acts of violence who go unpunished?

[quote]You know, it's slightly amusing that you're arguing for relative truth and the absense of proof.  I mean, what's the point of arguing if our opinions are no more or less true than yours?  And what good would proof be in a world where absolute truth doesn't exist?[/quote]

The point of discussion (and that's what were doing, not arguing) is to teach, to learn and to have fun. I don't know where I've argued for the absence of proof...in fact I've pointed out examples of concrete proof. Gravity is not absolute truth, yet we have little choice but to recognize it.

Edited December 13, 2004 by burnsspivey

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Dec 13 2004, 10:15 AM'] The Fact that we elect our own Rulers in no way rejects the notion of tyranny, I would contendthat infact tyranny is much more common in the area of democracy than in any other area, becuase as people feel their position was heard they are less likely to protest, or rebel. One is not abliged to obey tyrannical governments. [/quote]
Two questions for you:

1) What do you propose?
2) Are you ready to fight a war because that's what we have to do if our government is unjust, either leave the union or fight to get rid of the government.

Also, are you sure you're not mixing oligarchy with tyranny here?

Plus, our Constitution seems founded on the Natural Law. If it is, and it's followed (not really true now, but yeah, it still can be) then why should we rebel?

Our government is pretty hard to be a tyranny because there are many ways to remove those in charge.

[qfnol31]

[quote] The arbitrary use of authority is called tyranny. Such is the tyranny of an absolute monarch, of a council, of a class, or of a majority.[/quote]

Is our government arbitrary? You'll have to prove it is.