"I believe that legislation of morality is wrong!"

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: preslove
Laws in a democratic, secular state DO NOT STEM FROM MORALITY. Morality is set of traditional regulations that evolved within a closed religion, society, or any other large group. Secular nation states base their laws on ETHICS, which are seen as universally applicable across social, religious, and ethnic boundaries. Morality semi-regularly conflicts with ethics. To some muslims it is completely MORAL to kill your daughter for having sex with some dude, but it is NEVER ethical. Morality is inferior to Ethics.

What, we shouldn't read a Nietzsche book anymore?

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: preslove
Laws in a democratic, secular state DO NOT STEM FROM MORALITY. Morality is set of traditional regulations that evolved within a closed religion, society, or any other large group. Secular nation states base their laws on ETHICS, which are seen as universally applicable across social, religious, and ethnic boundaries. Morality semi-regularly conflicts with ethics. To some muslims it is completely MORAL to kill your daughter for having sex with some dude, but it is NEVER ethical. Morality is inferior to Ethics. God, you guys need to lose some ignorance and read a freakin nietzsche book or two.

I read Nietzsche all the time. It is funny how he believed them totally different and that you could control you impulses and moderate them, yet he himself died of Syphillis by sleeping with too many hookers. Died a drunk with STDs. You could blame that on the fact that society rejected him, but that is a cop-out. In reality he couldn't follow his own precepts because they are fundementally flawed. What it boiled down to was that Nietzsche was a brilliant, but hurt individual due to his own personal experiences with religion and his parents. 🙁 Some of his philosophy is right on the money though so I don't totally discount him, and I read his books when I can.

I do agree that his overall point of religious morality can sometimes be illogical. It is called zealousness. Stupid fundies and zealots screw it up for other people. They should realize that the pursuit of pushing their own values on others should not be forced. Morality/Ethics, I don't care what you call it, needs to be enforced, but laws such as the no beer before 12 on Sunday is ridiculous. I think Jesus himself would rebuke the "Christian" fundies for being so legalistic and judgemental if he were on Earth today.

 

[boggsie]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby
The moral code of that each individual should be free from oppression from another individual.

Example. Murder. That's violating the freedom of another person.

An extreme, absolute but fair example - no objection from me. I wonder if you wouldn't mind telling me; In your experience, are the conflicts in life, primarily comprised of extreme situations like the example you have described?

In my experience, I do not find myself exposed to such extreme situations. I have to deal with things like:

a) A neighbor decides to burn a bunch of leaves and wood in a barrel on laundry day. The burning starts after the laundry is out and by the time we figure out what is going on, everything smells like soot.

b) A neighbor works as a mechanic and does some free-lance work in his driveway. The weekends are filled with three or four extra cars on the street that get dropped off on Friday, worked on througout the weekend and picked up Sunday afternoon.

c) A neighbor works a day job and also enjoys being in a band. Weekday evenings are filled with practice which brings the gear truck and the cars of all of the band members, as well as ... the music.

Arguably, each one of these incidents meets the criteria you have defined as the acceptable moral code. Unfortunately, each of these guys could pretty much care less that they infringed upon the rights of their neighbors ... until the local Police/Sherrif shows up to enforce that moral code that happened to have been legislated.

Originally posted by: JLGatsby
But there is no justification for laws that do not violate that one single moral code. So leave your religious "moral code" out of it.

The moral code of freedom is the only moral code justified in creating laws.

In all honesty, I wasn't considering religion.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: boggsie

Originally posted by: preslove
The OP just doesn't understand the difference between morality and ETHICS. You suck at the abstract thinking, dude.

My apoligies. Allow me to link to some definitions of ethics.

The philosophical study of moral values and rules.

Ethics is a general term for what is often described as the "science (study) of morality".

The study of fundamental principles that defines values and determines moral duty and obligation.

a System or code of morals of a particular religion, group, or profession.

It is still entirely possible that I am not capable of distinguishing between morals and ethics and I am open to being educated.

Thank you

The difference is that a MORALITY is received wisdom from on high. You get morality from reading some mythical book. It is a passive system that only looks within itself.

ETHICS, however, are FOUND, as in one evaluates different moral systems, determining the cause and effect of each rule, discovering what is helpful for right government and justice, and what is silly tradition. This is why some would call it a "science of morality." It is over and above morality, because it tries to go beyond it and discover a better way of social organization.

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: DaShen
Hahahaha... 😉 Seriously? Explain why that is. JLGatsby, since you seem to knwo so much about him. And I will know if you just looked him up online.

Ayn Rand once made a speach about him.

http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2006/02/david-kelley-versus-ayn-rand-on-kant.html

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: DaShen
But legislating morality is the only way for a modern society to function properly. It is ridiculous to think otherwise, and to think otherwise just means that you haven't thought about the issues enough and are ignorant.

/thread

So laws preventing oral/anal intercourse are beneficial to society in what way?

They are not beneficial, but forcing individuals to follow your own individual beliefs is un-Christian and un-Biblical. We are not allowed to judge others who are not believers since they are not tied to the salvation or the law. We can only rebuke and correct believers.

Rather issues of religious morality can only be done on an indivual basis and must be done by first convincing the person that your own religious beliefs are correct (whether you believe that is just a "heart" change or a logics change or both is your own opinion).

 

[boggsie]

Originally posted by: preslove

The difference is that a MORALITY is received wisdom from on high. You get morality from reading some mythical book. It is a passive system that only looks within itself.

ETHICS, however, are FOUND, as in one evaluates different moral systems, determining the cause and effect of each rule, discovering what is helpful for right government and justice, and what is silly tradition. This is why some would call it a "science of morality." It is over and above morality, because it tries to go beyond it and discover a better way of social organization.

As I read your message, I happened to recall a scene from The West Wing:

"My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police?"

Exodus 35:2 - "On six days work may be done, but the seventh day shall be sacred to you as the sabbath of complete rest to the LORD. Anyone who does work on that day shall be put to death."


"Here's one that's really important cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7 If they promise to wear gloves can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?

Leviticus 11 and the pig, which does indeed have hoofs and is cloven-footed, but does not chew the cud and is therefore unclean for you. Their flesh you shall not eat, and their dead bodies you shall not touch; they are unclean for you."

Thank you. I appreciate your thoughtful reply.

<edit> I love you sig. What is it from?

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: boggsie
An extreme, absolute but fair example - no objection from me. I wonder if you wouldn't mind telling me; In your experience, are the conflicts in life, primarily comprised of extreme situations like the example you have described?

In my experience, I do not find myself exposed to such extreme situations. I have to deal with things like:

a) A neighbor decides to burn a bunch of leaves and wood in a barrel on laundry day. The burning starts after the laundry is out and by the time we figure out what is going on, everything smells like soot.

b) A neighbor works as a mechanic and does some free-lance work in his driveway. The weekends are filled with three or four extra cars on the street that get dropped off on Friday, worked on througout the weekend and picked up Sunday afternoon.

c) A neighbor works a day job and also enjoys being in a band. Weekday evenings are filled with practice which brings the gear truck and the cars of all of the band members, as well as ... the music.

Arguably, each one of these incidents meets the criteria you have defined as the acceptable moral code. Unfortunately, each of these guys could pretty much care less that they infringed upon the rights of their neighbors ... until the local Police/Sherrif shows up to enforce that moral code that happened to have been legislated.

Very very simply solution to that.

Before you moved into that neighborhood, you and your neighbor agreed upon a set of neighborhood rules. If the rules say that he is not allowed to burn leaves, then he is at fault and some disciplinary action should be taken against him.

If the neighborhood does not have any rules, you should have known better before you moved in.

It's all very simple.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby
The moral code of that each individual should be free from oppression from another individual.

Example. Murder. That's violating the freedom of another person.

Interesting philosophy. The only flaw is, that it is too short sighted. If you do not restrict certain "freedoms" because of ethics/morality some social order can crumble and freedom in the future will be hard to maintain.

For instance, China restricted families to one kid in most cases. Although this was a little overly harsh, it guaranteed "freedom" for the future of China's society. It restricted some freedom for overall gain in the future by limiting overpopulation. If they allowed families to have all the kids they wanted, their social order and eventually the "freedom" (if China really has that) would have crumbled.

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: DaShen
Interesting philosophy. The only flaw is, that it is too short sighted. If you do not restrict certain "freedoms" because of ethics/morality some social order can crumble and freedom in the future will be hard to maintain.

For instance, China restricted families to one kid in most cases. Although this was a little overly harsh, it guaranteed "freedom" for the future of China's society. It restricted some freedom for overall gain in the future by limiting overpopulation. If they allowed families to have all the kids they wanted, their social order and eventually the "freedom" (if China really has that) would have crumbled.

Just as you said about mine, I will say about yours. It's too simple and short sighted.

The problem is, where do you draw the line?

When you have a moral code where the line has yet to be drawn, that's when you get the most problems.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: BigJ


What, we shouldn't read a Nietzsche book anymore?

I reconsidered the statement and feel that bringing Nietzsche up would make things messy. His Geneology of Morals talked about the origins of morality, but doesn't really back up my point about ethics.

Originally posted by: DaShen

I read Nietzsche all the time. It is funny how he believed them totally different and that you could control you impulses and moderate them, yet he himself died of Syphillis by sleeping with too many hookers. Died a drunk with STDs. You could blame that on the fact that society rejected him, but that is a cop-out. In reality he couldn't follow his own precepts because they are fundementally flawed. What it boiled down to was that Nietzsche was a brilliant, but hurt individual due to his own personal experiences with religion and his parents. 🙁 Some of his philosophy is right on the money though so I don't totally discount him, and I read his books when I can.

I do agree that his overall point of religious morality can sometimes be illogical. It is called zealousness. Stupid fundies and zealots screw it up for other people. They should realize that the pursuit of pushing their own values on others should not be forced. Morality/Ethics, I don't care what you call it, needs to be enforced, but laws such as the no beer before 12 on Sunday is ridiculous. I think Jesus himself would rebuke the "Christian" fundies for being so legalistic and judgemental if he were on Earth today.

He was a mad genius with all the flaws of any great man. He, Freud, Darwin and Marx are the considered to be the pillars of modern thought, but all had deep flaws in their philosophies. The point, though, is that they made critical observations upon which scholars have been building since their time. Your second paragraph reinforces this.

 

[boggsie]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

If the neighborhood does not have any rules, you should have known better before you moved in.

It's all very simple.

Isn't this where the philosophy of living by "The moral code of that each individual should be free from oppression from another individual" breaks down. Doesn't it presume that all of the participants in a society/culture are motivated by the same philosophy?

The neighbors in the examples I provided live by their own personal code which permits them to do whatever they choose, until an authority steps in and pushes them back over the line.

Admittedly, I have probably lost focus and gone off topic. Apologies in advance for that.

It is a stimulating conversation, but I have to cut my participation short and tend to other obligations.

Best regards,
-boggsie

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: DaShen
Hahahaha... 😉 Seriously? Explain why that is. JLGatsby, since you seem to knwo so much about him. And I will know if you just looked him up online.

Ayn Rand once made a speach about him.

http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2006/02/david-kelley-versus-ayn-rand-on-kant.html

Ann Raynd is a philosopher for shallow people without the requisite intelligence to follow western thought's progression. You might want to check out Mises for economics, or Strauss for Poly Sci. Not that I like these guys, but you just won't come across as such a moron when you bring them up. Seriously, dude, most educated people give Rand up around high school.

 

[DainBramaged]

Originally posted by: dighn
take it to p/n