- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 10,033
- Reaction score
- 3,905
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Now you're just lecturing - good job!Societies morality does not interest me and nor does individual morality. It's a matter of reason. The example you gave defies the very foundation of morality and replaces it with pity and abuse.
I don't recall having a problem with gays. Perhaps because I'm consistent and god is not.
I think the philosophy was from reason alone - but I have no doubt there was personal bias thrown in there. How could there not be?The philosophy you reference is both from reason and morality.
Basic moral standards according to whom? You are now in three posts relaying different information. If you can't even keep tabs on your moral decisions in three posts how will you get a moral consensus with a multitude of people. Does everyone know the difference between right and wrong? A Sociopath, does such a person as this know the difference. Yes and morality is individually governed by what said person can get away with. Does what is perceived as right and wrong matter. I cherry picked nothing but used your own statements against your argument. You have created the doubt in the dependability of such moral efficiency as a premise for creating Law.There can be basic moral standards and individual interpretations in the implementation of those standards. Everyone knows right from wrong, yet the question is largely what one can get away with (personally and otherwise). As far as your nonsense, above, you'll have to file the false dichotomy founded in ignorantly cherry-picked absolutism elsewhere.
Now you're just lecturing - good job!
Basic moral standards according to whom? You are now in three posts relaying different information. If you can't even keep tabs on your moral decisions in three posts how will you get a moral consensus with a multitude of people. Does everyone know the difference between right and wrong? A Sociopath, does such a person as this know the difference. Yes and morality is individually governed by what said person can get away with. Does what is perceived as right and wrong matter. I cherry picked nothing but used your own statements against your argument. You have created the doubt in the dependability of such moral efficiency as a premise for creating Law.
I don't believe so but ecoform seems to think so.Can you use a sociopath to decide on the morality of the average person?
I don't think it is an abandonment of morality. Again, you continue to provide evidence of my point.Is it not just pity and abuse? The people you reference pity the poor man due to his need and excuse his abuses towards others. I don't believe it can be anything else. Is it not reasonable to say that abandoning your morality for an exception is not holding to it?
I don't think it is an abandonment of morality. Again, you continue to provide evidence of my point.
>" National law is more a moral than a legal science. Law is a rule of action prescribed by competent authority. Moreover, all Law implies some sanction to enforce it. Now National law is that which defines and regulates the social duties of Nation to Nation. Where then is the authority that prescribes such duties, and where the sanction that enforces them?
To find these we must go back to the individual Man, and see whether such duties appertain to him; by what authority, and with what sanctions.
We assume the maxim "cuivis Natura convenienter vivere opportet."
If then we can show that the nature of Man is such as to make society one of the conditions of his existence, we may thence infer his social duties.
Now, out of Society the Human Race could not exist, for
1. The infant would presently perish if not supplied with food and warmth.
2. The human mother, unlike other animals is hardly less helpless than her new-born babe, and she too would perish without aid.
3. The husband and father gives the needed aid only because he knows himself to be so; and this knowledge he must owe to social regulation, unless we suppose him and his family disconnected entirely from all others.
4. On that supposition it would be impossible for him at once to feed and defend his wife and child. While he hunts the deer, the tiger devours them.
This infirmity of the individual man is the strength of the Race. It binds men together, and makes the strength the knowledge and resources of the whole, the strength, knowledge and resources of each.
From this social nature we infer social duties: prescribed by the author of that Nature.
The sanction is the destruction which a neglect of them would bring on the race.
The universal law which binds all things "Natura convenienter vivere," is faithfully obeyed by all things but man. Why not by him?
He has a will wayward and perverse, passions that mislead, and a reason too short-sighted to keep him always in the path of duty.
To reform this will; to regulate these passions and enlighten this reason is the business of all Education from the cradle to the death-bed.
Even while man resists the teachings of Wisdom and Virtue, he acknowledges, in general terms, the social duties arising from his social nature.
This admission is the basis Natural Law; which teaches the duties of Man to Man.
Can he lawfully refuse to perform them?
Can he, by his own act, shake off the obligation to perform them?
Can he lawfully disable himself to perform them?
They are due to all. Can he, by leaguing with a few, free himself from his duties to the rest?
To all these questions reason answers "no."
Then a community so knit together that the performance of the duties of its members to strangers is made impracticable, must assume them.
Communities are thus bound to fulfil to other communities the duties which the members of the one owe to the members of the other as natural men.
Thus the Law of Nature becomes the Law of Nations.
It is the same code whose maxims are summed up in the rule, "Whatsoever ye would that others should do unto you, the same do ye also unto them."
Its sanction is the same that denounces "tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that doeth evil." What is all this but Morality. "<
Basic moral standards according to whom?
I do not have a problem with this at all but a pedophile may well disagree with you. So no there is not a universal moral consensuses. You can even look at murder or killing. There are those who can even justify this. So you cannot base Law on moral thoughts based on individuals.Everyone. For example: no raping children. Do you have a problem with that? Do you think anyone does?
Everyone. For example: no raping children. Do you have a problem with that? Do you think anyone does?
You continue to repeat yourself, so I am forced to do the same: Each of us has our own set of morals and obviously some people disagree with you. You continue to make a false representation of other people's morals. Since you don't believe in those morals, you can't understand them.It is an abandonment of morality. If the moral position is against theft then morality dedicates that the rich man nor the poor can steal and be morally in the right. Be that for their survival, their desire, or otherwise. As I said, this position that they hold is not a moral position, but a position based on pity and abuse.
You continue to repeat yourself, so I am forced to do the same:
Each of us has our own set of morals and obviously some people disagree with you.
I do not have a problem with this at all but a pedophile may well disagree with you.
Then it should be known by now that the example you have given does not express this.
Express what? That other people have different morals than you? At this point it's obviously true.Then it should be known by now that the example you have given does not express this.
I really don't think you should go with everyone. There are those that lack certain functions which makes any "everyone" argument go out the window. I think your argument holds up for the normally functioning person though.
Express what? That other people have different morals than you? At this point it's obviously true.
I think you're mixing up the residue of prehistoric Germanic tribal thinking with the babblings of rabbinical students from 3,000 BC...............How you connect point A to point Z escapes me......................
My "god" is not your "god"......................
I feel pain from hunger so I steal your food.
I fear you so I kill you.
I'm lonely* so I enslave you.
I don't have a god. You?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?