judge not moving 10 commandments statue from u.s.a. gov. property

[TM_Direct]

Axe:

I don;t think we are too far away from each other here and my point in PROVING is exactly what you brought up...without something to measure it against (ie. laws of man or god)...but then to me the bigger question is where did man get the laws???

As far as experts on law, i do understand your point however, the supreme court is NOT nor has it EVER been chosen due to ones intellect and understanding of the law...in the decision of 2000 te court was split right down the middle depending on party correct??? and you cannot tell me the ginsberg, souter and thomas are the best we have to offer in this country for knowledge and intellect LOL....excellent points and discussion though.

 

[axeman]

Agreed,

Yup... the bigger question truly is, where did man get the laws?
Or to be more precise, WHAT is the proper method of
formulating laws for man?

Gets very deep very fast

It has much to do with the context of living in a society.
Ponder on this... if you were the only human on earth,
what would or would not be moral???

When you figure this out, insert SOCIETY, and then ask yourself,
do these rules apply/work in a society too?
Is there any reason to change them?


Aaaaahhh... a civil discussion on ET??? Amazing!
Refreshing too


peace

axeman

Quote from TM_Direct:

Axe:

I don;t think we are too far away from each other here and my point in PROVING is exactly what you brought up...without something to measure it against (ie. laws of man or god)...but then to me the bigger question is where did man get the laws???

As far as experts on law, i do understand your point however, the supreme court is NOT nor has it EVER been chosen due to ones intellect and understanding of the law...in the decision of 2000 te court was split right down the middle depending on party correct??? and you cannot tell me the ginsberg, souter and thomas are the best we have to offer in this country for knowledge and intellect LOL....excellent points and discussion though.

 

[TM_Direct]

Quote from axeman:

Agreed,

Yup...
It has much to do with the context of living in a society.
Ponder on this... if you were the only human on earth,
what would or would not be moral???

When you figure this out, insert SOCIETY, and then ask yourself,
do these rules apply/work in a society too?
Is there any reason to change them?


Aaaaahhh... a civil discussion on ET??? Amazing!
Refreshing too


peace

axeman


Easy!!! Drinking beer in excess at 9:00 in the morning would be a virtue...every day would be sunday ( so there would be football on) and there would be an endless loop of that KISS fromBrittney playing in slow motion on every tv.

 

[Doubter]

I want someone to prove to me that computer desk is exactly 32.6" long,without citing a standard of measure (you cant use a ruler!)

WHAT is the proper method of
formulating laws for man?

axe
________________________________________
Then what is the standard of measure for the law?

 

[stu]

Quote from TM_Direct:

Stu:

I again ask you , please explain to me why stealing, cheating, clinging is wrong without citing statutes? MY original point was that you can look at ANY discussion and break it down to the point where there is no longer any reason involved...I am not brainwashing my children by teaching them to be honest, trustworthy and charitable......but I challenge the laws of nature to explain to me what is wrong with lying , staling and cheating without using legal or religious arguments?? As far as the "voices" in my head....every person , everyday hears the same voices....when you come to a red light do you stop? do you run it? what goes through your mind?...you follow the law most likely...take it one step further....when you see a downtrodden homeless person asking you for money.....what goes through your mind? are those insane voices you are hearing debating whether to give him a 1.00 or 10.00?? and the voice I hear from my god is never evil...and never wants me to hurt someone...on the contrary....its my God that is instructing me to know better and to stop wishing ill on people like Alfonso and makes me apologize ....as for the tree in the forest....I think we both can finally agree on something!!!

TM_Direct

I read back through the last few posts just to be as sure as I can that I understood the question you posed to me..

I am not sure "clinging" is wrong but ....

I answered your question. My answer to you suggested these things are demonstrable as wrong without calling upon statutes as reason for their 'wrongness'. To recap, I replied (in context to your question) ".... explain to your kids the consequences [of] their actions will have on others? That it is better for them not to do anything which might unfairly impact another's life" whether covered under law or not.

Just in case it is not clear, I am also saying to you, which I intended to be implied by the answer, it is evident day by day that standards of morality ARE available to and arrived at by man and NOT by God. Furthermore, it is eminently more just, practical and reasonable to set moral value from a continuous reappraisal by humanity of the reasonableness of such moral standards.

That there are - or are not - fixed or minimum basic sets of moral values set down by some law of nature or of the universe which humans should be obliged to adhere to, is extremely questionable. But if you strip away any preconceived emotional overtones, it appears there are NO intrinsic morals available. That someone kills another person apparently has no effect on or to the universe. If the whole human population of the planet were to be wiped out, it seems it can't impact or doesn't harm the total of everything. So if God created the universe it seems he left out morality. It is also apparent the question of morality has no or little credibility when based upon principles set out by the god of the bible.

That is why I gave my answer in the way I did. Because your children or another person can impact another’s life and moreover, do so in an unfair way which may or does cause harm, then this reason alone means there is now a basis for setting down moral standards, regardless of the obvious ommision of them by any God idea.

There is no evidence to support the notion morality is set down by anything other than mankind itself. If you want to fit a God in somewhere then my argument is... you do so for no good reason. As I pointed out above, morals and moral standards are defined and are definable by humanity, so why go look for an abstract metaphysical reason ?

I think I have answered the point you raised here. I suggest challenging the laws of nature may not make clear or define what is right and wrong, but you can define what is wrong by a simple expedient ... anything which might unfairly impact another's life?. Stealing may not be 'wrong' where there is no such thing as wrong or right intrinsic within a universe , but that is no reason to leave wrong in the realm of wonder or superstitious behaviour because there might appear at first glance to be no other rubric which you can use.

I am suggesting that on reflection, basic concepts as the one I put forward are the only means capable of giving reliable evaluation by themselves for establishing morality because of the lack of any other.

You say the voice you hear from your god is never evil. But if your god is the bible god, then you have a problem with evil, should you care to like that or not. No cherry picking now . If this is not your God then.....btw have I ever intoduced you to my invisible friend Gilbert ?

More seriously, I cannot see where you have answered my question to you. If by 'speaking to God' a world leader is 'told' by the voice of God genocide is to be carried out, who or what will say the voice of God is morally wrong. Would it be another "the voice of God" speaking again ????.... or a simple benchmark that states it (morally) wrong to unfairly impact another's life?

This I would imagine is preferential to the absurd situation you have illustrated, which requires an extra and superfluous need to differentiate between peoples' thoughts telling them the traffic lights are red, against some of them considering the voices in their heads are not thoughts, but are the consequence of speaking with God. I suppose when up before the Judge, this approach offers mitigation on the lines it is morally indefensible to prosecute, as God occasionaly commands that running red is ok?!?

 

[Doubter]

Furthermore, it is eminently more just, practical and reasonable to set moral value from a continuous reappraisal by humanity of the reasonableness of such moral standards.
stu
________________________________________
Is this not "defining deviancy down"?

 

[Doubter]

explain to your kids the consequences [of] their actions will have on others? That it is better for them not to do anything which might unfairly impact another's life"

stu
__________________________________________
Is this only for our culture or does it apply to other cultures as well?

I have lived (for many years) among other ethnic peoples who taught their kids to steal from their peers so that the others wouldn't get too far ahead and appear successful so it was actually helping the one stolen from. Even as toddlers the little girls were taught to beat up on the little boys so that when they got older the boys would fear the girls.

Subjectivity?

 

[stu]

Quote from Doubter:

Furthermore, it is eminently more just, practical and reasonable to set moral value from a continuous reappraisal by humanity of the reasonableness of such moral standards.
stu
________________________________________
Is this not "defining deviancy down"?

Doubter,
I am intrigued by this phrase. If you think it is dumbing down deviancy to bring an end the immorality of being given excuse for murdering someone you don't like, because it says in the bible witches must be put to death, then more power to "defining deviency down", as you put it.

Is this only for our culture or does it apply to other cultures as well?

I have lived (for many years) among other ethnic peoples who taught their kids to steal from their peers so that the others wouldn't get too far ahead and appear successful so it was actually helping the one stolen from. Even as toddlers the little girls were taught to beat up on the little boys so that when they got older the boys would fear the girls.

Subjectivity?

Many countries may have decided on 'moral values' which in many other countries would be considered immoral. There still remains in my view, no other mechanism other than applying standards worked out by humanity itself to evaluate the reasonableness in which moral standards discern between what is considered good and evil.

History shows religion can't do the job. All are riddled with enough subjectivity to leave any definition of morality forever in the twilight zone.

If your country considers the moral standards of another need reform, then your country might encourage the other to evaluate the reasonableness of their actions.
The imperative or natural law to fall on the side of what might be considered overall to be 'morally good', I believe occurs because of self interest - as individuals, as societies, as cultures, as humanity - and the balance toward morally good is defined in the end as conducive within the instinct for living things to survive. ie: simplistically, anything which impacts against this is 'wrong'.

On little girls beating up on little boys, that's the same everywhere. It's also called being married.

 

[Doubter]

I am intrigued by this phrase. If you think it is dumbing down deviancy to bring an end the immorality of being given excuse for murdering someone you don't like, because it says in the bible witches must be put to death, then more power to "defining deviency down", as you put it.

Furthermore, it is eminently more just, practical and reasonable to set moral value from a continuous reappraisal by humanity of the reasonableness of such moral standards.

stu
___________________________________________

When Sen. Moynihan declared "defining deviancy down" he meant "a continuous reappraisal by humanity" in a continuous downward trend. In other words a democratic process of lowering the moral standards. Where have I stated that any excuse for murdering someone you don't like is okay? What if the "continuous appraisal by humanity" approved that practice as in abortion? There are probably many more aborted babies than killed witches and I'll bet the babies are more innocent. Since the witches were thought to cast murderous spells on their opponents.
______________________________________

The imperative or natural law

stu
___________________________________

What is this imperative or natural law?

_______________________________

the balance toward morally good is defined in the end as conducive within the instinct for living things to survive. ie: simplistically, anything which impacts against this is 'wrong'.

stu
________________________________________

Abortion again? Deciding as a group who should survive?
If this is the standard then are we progressing in the case of abortion?

________________________________________

On little girls beating up on little boys, that's the same everywhere. It's also called being married.

stu
_________________________________

Right! But in that culture the purpose was to continue a matriarchal culture which led to excessive alcoholism in the men who beat up on and often killed the women who had dominated them. The more I think about it maybe it wasn't confined to that culture.

 

[stu]

Doubter,

When Sen. Moynihan declared "defining deviancy down" he meant "a continuous reappraisal by humanity" in a continuous downward trend. In other words a democratic process of lowering the moral standards.

As I understand, the discussion was not about the measure of morals or morality, but where morality itself comes from

But in any event there is nothing to suggest Sen. Moynihan meant anything of the kind. Where is the justification for the idea that a continuous reappraisal by humanity, produces results in a continuous downward trend??

Where have I stated that any excuse for murdering someone you don't like is okay?

I didn't intend to convey you did. In context the sentence does not suggest the second person pronoun, for that partucular "you" I thought it was clear that I meant...it says it's ok in the bible essentially the same if I now asked you..."where did I say I don't like someone?"...

What if the "continuous appraisal by humanity" approved that practice as in abortion?

This was not a discussion about which morals or "reappraisals" are good or bad it was a question of who, which(nearly a pun), or what is a method for establishing them in the first place.

You may however care to consider that continuous reappraisal would allow for the practice of abortion to be halted too.

There are probably many more aborted babies than killed witches and I'll bet the babies are more innocent.

I see, so the morality for this comes from where exactly???.....from the amount of abortion versus the amount of murder equals the assessment of what is moral???

As matter of interest... why would an innocent baby be "more innocent" than a hard working, god fearing person who never did any harm to anyone or anything, but was persecuted because a clergyman or his agent wanted to teach people a lesson? Did the Church create its own self appointed set of so called "moral values" when it ordered every land to be freed of all witches?

Since the witches were thought to cast murderous spells on their opponents.

Simply thinking such things creates a moral justification for murder??? The 'word of god' should not be reappraised for this reason.... or should it.??

btw who were these 'opponents' of a witch...oh let me guess, would it be the christian church - or the Pope. Or maybe there was no opponent at all and the witch was nothing more than a convenient scapegoat??

Who or what, other than a continuous reappraisal by humanity would halt the christian church victimising ordinary people for hundreds of years, torturing and murdering millions they chose to label witch. This christian church found they could conveniently blame witchcraft and witches for the intense poverty, death and disease rampant throughout the middle ages, whilst making a good deal of money out of the scam. There was after all, an embarrassingly obvious and niggling contradiction - even to the gullible - as to just what the hell type of God would make or need people to suffer that way. Today they cannot get away with such genocidal attrition. Now they would blame those who they demand don't blindly acquiesce ...the non believer, or anyone for not understanding the multitudinous and variable definitions of what their morality is or might be... or for being born sinful. Their ideas of morality remain as unworthy and unreliable as on witches.

What is this imperative or natural law?

I gave you a description of what might be regarded as such...

Abortion again? Deciding as a group who should survive?
If this is the standard then are we progressing in the case of abortion?

Doubter, I understood this was not a discussion on whether certain moral standards are right or wrong, but was about - where would morality itself come from.

It's all very well to command "thou shalt not kill", the problem is that such a "moral" standard is not immutable. Remember this immutable concept? Shall you never kill ever???.. and what about in war for instance....or to protect your family or yourself if circumstances demand no other alternative?? Would you just stand there and let your innocent child be unlawfully killed if the only recourse open to you was to stop a murderous lunatic, by killing the lunatic yourself??

Since the main purpose of all religion is to displace the meaning of what moral might be by emphatically declaring that ONLY itself can say what is good bad etc because they say morality comes from God. If morality was determinable by the word of some ‘Almighty God’ or Allah or such like, one would have thought morality should at the very least not be susceptible to interpretation, variation or change in its quality or nature. You could say it is immoral for any 'Almighty God' not to make it so.

There is no real reason I can see to trust anything religion might put forward as basis for morality, which can't be better arrived at without its interference.