Political values...an oxymoron?

chrysostom

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
I still don't know if you accept natural law
and
it should be obvious that I do
or
I wouldn't have mentioned it
 
Morpheus

Morpheus

New member
Jose Fly said:
Because I don't know which version you're asking about.


Which version?
Click to expand...

I apologize. I considered a warning when I posted my link, but left it out. It can be confusing, but the versions are related. They are all looking at the same concept from different perspectives. The variances are due to the different points of origin the philosophers chose to view it from.
 
chrysostom

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Morpheus said:
I apologize. I considered a warning when I posted my link, but left it out. It can be confusing, but the versions are related. They are all looking at the same concept from different perspectives. The variances are due to the different points of origin the philosophers chose to view it from.
Click to expand...

you should have warned me about the fly
 
Jose Fly

Jose Fly

New member
I guess I'd have to read up on it (natural law) a bit because it's not something I've never really considered.

But back to the OP, I think human history shows that "morals" are always subjective and generally reflect a society's history, values, and functionality. As such, they are constantly evolving.

So no, we don't need any sort of church or religious authority to have a moral/legal code.
 
Jose Fly

Jose Fly

New member
After perusing the link Morpheus provided, I'd have to say I don't think "natural law" is real. That's mainly because it seems to center on the idea that there is some sort of objective morality out there, yet I've seen nothing to indicate such a thing exists. Instead, it seems extremely clear to me that "morality" is what I described earlier....a framework for a society that reflects its history, values, and functionality, that evolves over time and varies between societies.
 
chrysostom

chrysostom

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
we actually have a couple of judges on the supreme court who believe in natural law

how about that?
 
nikolai_42

nikolai_42

Well-known member
The Barbarian said:
Slavery is gone, and women tend to have equal rights. But I don't think that people are generally any more virtuous now than they were several hundred years ago.



Jefferson and Madison, who convinced their fellow founders to accept the Bill of Rights, argued that the moral grounding included Jewish, "Mohammedan" and "Hindoo" people, among others.



All of those seem to value honesty, charity, hard work, and love of God. Seems to me, the golden rule, and that common thread of "natural law" given to all men, is what our common moral grounding has always been.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree - and I recall Ravi Zacharias making a similar point. The Founding Fathers were largely Christian, but weren't setting out to create a Theocracy or a state that required adherence to the specific tenets of a single religion. So defining the gospel wasn't what they were talking about. They were recognizing that there is really only one way to have a moral standard - and that is to recognize God as the source of it and take all the rules that govern human interaction therefrom.

However, the conclusion generally was that the Christian religion was the only one that formed the most complete scheme to govern the affairs of men - regardless of faith. So the bible and its morality was lifted up. There was certainly overlap (the Golden Rule being a prime example) but I think they had an eye to something between enforcing the Gospel on everyone and simply saying "Live and Let Live".
 
nikolai_42

nikolai_42

Well-known member
Jose Fly said:
Um....yeah. I'm astounded by all the people who look back on the days of institutional slavery, genocide of Native Americans, institutional oppression of minorities, and institutional oppression of women as "the good ol' days".

The American Taliban indeed.
Click to expand...

You are missing the point. Do you not agree that we still have slavery today? Just in different forms? And the idea that the Indians were systematically sought out and eradicated just isn't true. When you start talking "oppression", you are dealing only in relative terms. You have taken a modern idea and foisted it on an older ideal. Liberty doesn't mean license, it is freedom that is dependent on self-control and a law-abiding public.
 
nikolai_42

nikolai_42

Well-known member
Jose Fly said:
I guess I'd have to read up on it (natural law) a bit because it's not something I've never really considered.

But back to the OP, I think human history shows that "morals" are always subjective and generally reflect a society's history, values, and functionality. As such, they are constantly evolving.

So no, we don't need any sort of church or religious authority to have a moral/legal code.
Click to expand...

In one of your first responses, you were saying that slavery and "oppression" of women and minorities was morally bad. But if subjective, then how can you make such a judgment? Doesn't that preclude you from saying what they did 250 years ago was wrong?
 
nikolai_42

nikolai_42

Well-known member
chrysostom said:
by using
reason, logic, meaning, purpose, and the greater good of man
Click to expand...

That's the problem with that kind of "objective" standard. It is objective because it (in theory) is outside of "me". But it is subjective because you can always use some degree of reason and logic etc... to justify pretty much anything (the Nazis did...). And when the masses agree on one thing, generally speaking (today we might say that part of that agreement is political correctness), then it's the majority that decides what is right. A moving target. Slowly moving, maybe, but moving nonetheless.

I think Jose Fly illustrated that by first saying that the "good old days" weren't as good as today - and citing slavery, genocide (which is a canard, largely) and oppression of women and minorities. Sometime after that he called moral values and standards "relative" to the age in which someone lives. That is exactly where reason, logic etc... get you. That's what drives the slowly moving standard.

With God and the scriptures, there is no change. The principles are the same as they were 2000 years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top