toldailytopic: People say: You can't legislate morality. Is that true?

[MaryContrary]

Yes, rule by law (civil law), and not by men, as contributors to the body politic by helping to elect godly representatives and influencing them once they get elected. I get nervous when people think of church leaders as "governors of men." That speaks to me of control and missing the point of the New Covenant: God dwelling within and changing a person by the power of the Holy Spirit to conform to God's way of thinking and acting without a need for external control. He who walks in the Spirit will in no wise fulfill the lusts of the flesh and laws are for the unlawful.

I'll absolutely agree with you there. :thumb:

I want governmental authorities that are good, strong and wise. I want them well grounded in Godly principles. But I do not want a theocracy. For the sake of the people. And both the theo- and the -cracy. :chuckle:

 

[john w]

Most law has a moral basis. The speed limit, for example, is directly related to the idea of safety which can be a moral concern. That being said, you can't force someone to be a moral person, as has been noted. Give a person a level of anonymity, unaccountability, and/or power (especially) not available to the majority and watch immorality flow. Perhaps, this is not true for everyone.

_
Yes. Laws are in imposition of a country's judgment/assesment of morality.

 

[Nydhogg]

Your assessment of His actions (as recorded in His Word) is slipshod and slanderous. The Hebrew Scriptures do indeed contain specific instances where He sent the armies of Israel into battle—with clear, precise instructions to completely destroy a particular enemy, leaving none alive. He is almighty God. He demonstrates mercy where it pleases Him—seeking neither permission nor approval from any of His fallen creatures. In case you missed the point, that means He is not answerable to YOU . . . in any circumstances . . . in any time . . . in any place. . . .

********! (you know what I'm trying to say)

Evil is evil, no matter who does it.

A god who commands genocide can BY NO MEANS be a good god, or even a just god. Genocide is objectively, positively evil.

Anyone, even a God, who appoints himself as a tyrant, is evil. Objectively, positively evil, because tyranny is evil.

Those actions are evil because they violate the rights of others or common human decency, not because someone decrees them to be evil.

Even if everyone, even god or the gods or the spirits or whatever, decreed evil to be good, it would STILL BE EVIL!

 

[john w]

********! (you know what I'm trying to say)

Evil is evil, no matter who does it.

A god who commands genocide can BY NO MEANS be a good god, or even a just god. Genocide is objectively, positively evil.

Anyone, even a God, who appoints himself as a tyrant, is evil. Objectively, positively evil, because tyranny is evil.

Those actions are evil because they violate the rights of others or common human decency, not because someone decrees them to be evil.

Even if everyone, even god or the gods or the spirits or whatever, decreed evil to be good, it would STILL BE EVIL!

_
Why is evil not desirable, "not good?" From what source authority did you arrive at that conclusion/assessment? Says who, or what?

"Objectively, positively evil, because tyranny is evil."-Nydhogg

Objectively? That implies a standard by which to make this assessment/judgment. Identify it.

 

[Nydhogg]

Well, any sane mind would hold life and liberty to be good things.

Thus, brutality and oppression would be bad things, simply because they're opposite to the good things every sane mind cherishes?

 

[Silent Hunter]

_
Why is evil not desirable, "not good?" From what source authority did you arrive at that conclusion/assessment? Says who, or what?

"Objectively, positively evil, because tyranny is evil."-Nydhogg

Objectively? That implies a standard by which to make this assessment/judgment. Identify it.

You might want to read up on the "source" of morality a bit. Suggested reading: "A Companion to Ethics," Peter Singer. Start with "chapter" 46.

 

[john w]

Well, any sane mind would hold life and liberty to be good things.

Thus, brutality and oppression would be bad things, simply because they're opposite to the good things every sane mind cherishes?

_
So, morality is determined by a "sane mind?" Whose? Yours? Others? Hitler's? That is your "objective" standard. Fine. I say that "any sane mind" would hold the life of a child to be a "good thing."

Eliminate abortion right now.

Where were all the "sane minds" years ago, when slavery was legal? Well?

That is not objective-that is subjective.

Identify that objective source authority.

 

[Nydhogg]

_
So, morality is determined by a "sane mind?" Whose? Yours? Others? Hitler's? That is your "objective" standard. Fine. I say that "any sane mind" would hold the life of a child to be a "good thing."

Eliminate abortion right now.

Where were all the "sane minds" years ago, when slavery was legal? Well?.

The life of the child and the liberty of the mother clash. A reasonable balance must be achieved. When is the child a full and independent human being, worthy of all the rights of being a human?

Conception? Sentience? Viability? Birth?


And those "sane minds" were actually ABOLISHING SLAVERY. There has ALWAYS been opposition to the practice. On ethical grounds, not that much on religious ones (the Bible openly condones slavery.)

 

[john w]

You might want to read up on the "source" of morality a bit. Suggested reading: "A Companion to Ethics," Peter Singer. Start with "chapter" 46.

_
You may want to "read up on the 'source' of morality a bit." Suggested reading" "The Holy Bible," author- the LORD God. Start with chapter 1, verse 1, Genesis, and end with Chapter 22, verse 21, in Revelation.

 

[Nydhogg]

Suggested Reading: Havámal 1:1.

[sarc] Because my Holy Book is better than your Holy Book (tm) [/sarc]

Just kidding. Now let me get on to the point:

How can some standard that can not be proven true and has to be taken on faith be objective? It's as objective as any standard that can be just made up and then taken on faith subjectively by some.

 

[john w]

The life of the child and the liberty of the mother clash. A reasonable balance must be achieved. When is the child a full and independent human being, worthy of all the rights of being a human?

Conception? Sentience? Viability? Birth?


"And those "sane minds" were actually ABOLISHING SLAVERY. There has ALWAYS been opposition to the practice. On ethical grounds, not that much on religious ones (the Bible openly condones slavery.)

_
"The life of the child and the liberty of the mother clash. A reasonable balance must be achieved. When is the child a full and independent human being, worthy of all the rights of being a human?Conception? Sentience? Viability? Birth?"-Nydhogg


Translation: Your "sane mind" assesses this morality. Says who?


"And those "sane minds" were actually ABOLISHING SLAVERY. There has ALWAYS been opposition to the practice. On ethical grounds, not that much on religious ones (the Bible openly condones slavery.)"-Nydhogg

You assess whose minds were "sane" re. the slavery issue? Says who? You?


I could argue that those who supported slavery had the "sane minds."

Check.

That is subjectivity. Name that objectice source authority.

 

[Nydhogg]

You've gotta take your objective standard on faith. It might be objective in the sense of "arbitrary and not subject to debate", but it is NOT objective in the sense of "self-evident to the point of admitting no reasonable dissent".

 

[john w]

Suggested Reading: Havámal 1:1.

[sarc] Because my Holy Book is better than your Holy Book (tm) [/sarc]

Just kidding. Now let me get on to the point:

How can some standard that can not be proven true and has to be taken on faith be objective? It's as objective as any standard that can be just made up and then taken on faith subjectively by some.

"How can some standard that can not be proven true and has to be taken on faith be objective? It's as objective as any standard that can be just made up and then taken on faith subjectively by some."-Nydhogg

1. You excercise faith also-every one does.

2. The above is an issue of "which objective standard." That is not your "argument." You say "sane minds." That is subjective. Now, identify your objective standard. We can assess the legitimacy of the respective standards, but that is a separate issue. The starting point is agreeing that there is an objective standard. If no, then we are rearranging the proverbial deck chairs on the SS Titanic.

 

[john w]

You've gotta take your objective standard on faith. It might be objective in the sense of "arbitrary and not subject to debate", but it is NOT objective in the sense of "self-evident to the point of admitting no reasonable dissent".

_
So does everyone, the question is-is my faith reasonable, and is yours,based upon evidence. But you are rabit trailing here. Do you, or do you not, have an objective standard upon which you assess "morality." If yes, identify it. I'm a busy man.

 

[Nydhogg]

Duh! It's like hitting a brick wall with my head.


I can't explain the "source" of my moral standards. They don't have any.
I consider self-ownership as the self-evident cornerstone of ethics and valid morality. If it's not self-evident to YOU, I don't know how I can convince you.

You have to concede that you can not get me to accept the Bible as a valid source of morals either.


It just is that way, because it is. I know it's no debate, it's tautological, and leads nowhere, but I can't explain the axioms. Axioms are supposed to be self-evident.

 

[PyramidHead]

the way i see it
we all get our morality from our lives, what we have seen that is right and wrong
we're all trying to do the best we can with what we got

 

[john w]

Duh! It's like hitting a brick wall with my head.


I can't explain the "source" of my moral standards. They don't have any.
I consider self-ownership as the self-evident cornerstone of ethics and valid morality. If it's not self-evident to YOU, I don't know how I can convince you.

You have to concede that you can not get me to accept the Bible as a valid source of morals either.


It just is that way, because it is. I know it's no debate, it's tautological, and leads nowhere, but I can't explain the axioms. Axioms are supposed to be self-evident.

_
Translation of the above: You decide what is moral, and what is not(subjectivity), and therefore any discussion of "morality", whether it be slavery, or (fill in the blank), is nonsensical w/o an objective standard by which to make this assessment.


"You have to concede that you can not get me to accept the Bible as a valid source of morals either."-Nydhogg

That is not your "argument." Know your own argument.

"I consider self-ownership as the self-evident cornerstone of ethics and valid morality. If it's not self-evident to YOU, I don't know how I can convince you."--Nydhogg

I consider the killing of a child through abortion to be evil-it is self evident.

Eliminate abortion. Abortion is "not from sane minds."


Check.

"cornerstone of ethics "

Whose ethics? Yours? Says who? Name your objective standard by which you assess whether something is "ethical."

Name it. I'm a busy man.

 

[john w]

the way i see it
we all get our morality from our lives, what we have seen that is right and wrong
we're all trying to do the best we can with what we got

_
Well, if that is your argument, what right do you have to impose your morality on me?

 

[PyramidHead]

_
Well, if that is your argument, what right do you have to impose your morality on me?

who said i was trying to do that?
you're jumping the gun here. don't try to make me out to be you

 

[john w]

Duh! It's like hitting a brick wall with my head.


I can't explain the "source" of my moral standards. They don't have any.
I consider self-ownership as the self-evident cornerstone of ethics and valid morality. If it's not self-evident to YOU, I don't know how I can convince you.

You have to concede that you can not get me to accept the Bible as a valid source of morals either.


It just is that way, because it is. I know it's no debate, it's tautological, and leads nowhere, but I can't explain the axioms. Axioms are supposed to be self-evident.

"It just is that way, because it is.."-Nydhogg

=It is, what it is.

Lovely. Translated: Be careful in the things of the physical realm, but, log in, log onto the net, and lose your mind on things of the spiritual realm.