Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > morality      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Inicia
Joined: 12/21/2007
Msg: 51
moralityPage 3 of 6    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
My morality is extremely fluid and flexible as are the changing times and my experience in them. I might be convinced in my mind that I would behave certain way given a certain set o f circumstances but I can't ever predict my response...Often I find my morality tested by the very principles and judgments I held onto radically for many years then all the sudden I was faced with that which I judged immoral or unethical. I think that is where I learn my lessons in morality. Even when I do not pass judgment openly or verbally if my mind holds what it believes to be a moral truth It will be tested by my future situations.
 ARadicalPunk
Joined: 1/27/2010
Msg: 52
view profile
History
morality
Posted: 4/3/2013 10:54:25 PM
I love hypocritical Christians, they make my work so easy for me.

The "Holy" Bible on killing:

You must kill those who worship another god (Exodus 22:20).

Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own (Deuteronomy 13:6-10).

Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you (Deuteronomy 13:12-16).

Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own (Deuteronomy 17:2-7).

Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest (Deuteronomy 17:12-13).

Kill any false prophets (Deuteronomy 18:20).

Any city that doesn’t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah (Mark 6:11).

Jude reminds us that God destroys those who don’t believe in him (Jude 5).

Lastly, Jesus, who clearly is of greater importance than Paul, said the Old Law was to remain in force until heaven and earth passed away and all is accomplished, “[f]or truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:18-19). Heaven and earth still exist and many prophecies are not yet fulfilled. How many times have you heard some lame ass Christian say “the Old testament doesn’t matter, Jesus was the lamb and abolished it?" Don’t let them get away with this shit for even the bible says that they should still be following the Old Law.

But nonetheless you will always get Christians making apologies for their bible and religion. The Christian moral compass is no moral compass. Christians cherry pick their morality, and condemn those who do not follow their dichotomous objectification.

ChristianGuy777 is what is known as indoctrinated in the intellectual circles. He believes simply based on appeals to tradition and faith. He sees agency in everything, and argues from places of ignorance and assumption. His mind is a weak one. He does not seek truth, evidence, or even to reason with the natural world around him, and will simply state existence and life is evident of "God." The Bible is all the "fact" he needs.

When an individual can not see the contradiction of mercy and justice in the same sentence is absolutely hilarious and ridiculous. As stated above, mercy is the absence of justice, and justice is the absence of mercy. A god cannot be omnibenevolent, and stand with indifference on cloud nine, when the world is tearing itself apart with murder, rape, war, corruption, and every facet of immorality and vice.

Free will is not an excuse. Giving humans two choices, and than an ultimatum, is blackmail. No one can say otherwise, and love me or burn for eternity in hell is no choice.
 ARadicalPunk
Joined: 1/27/2010
Msg: 53
view profile
History
morality
Posted: 4/3/2013 11:43:00 PM
Also, humans had morality and ethics before religion, and humans will continue to have morality and ethics when religion finally dies. Morality only exists in the presence of life, and is entirely a human concept and not a celestial one.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 54
morality
Posted: 4/4/2013 1:33:17 AM


I love how god is 100% justice and 100% merciful.

They are diametrically opposed states. Mercy is the SUSPENSION of justice in the name of understanding, so you can't be both perfectly just and perfectly merciful.


Mercy is not the suspension of justice, but the manifestation of understanding and forgiveness that is essential in any truly just system.

Mercy is an integral component of law. This is illustrated nicely by comparison of the old & new testaments of the bible. The Old Testament is law without mercy (eye for an eye)...It is the law of the ledger, of balance; the act defines the crime regardless of the state of mind. The new Testament is law WITH mercy, wherein the state of mind behind the act defines the crime (i.e. "cherché la femme").

The myth of Jesus tells of someone who came to tell the scribes & prophets that they screwed up, that they were "full of it", and that the REAL LAW incorporates mercy...always has and always will.
 ChristianGuy777
Joined: 2/26/2013
Msg: 55
view profile
History
morality
Posted: 4/4/2013 5:09:36 PM
@ Everyone

I'll make a thread with baby steps. It's clear that these are huge concepts and too much for people in general.

@ Radical

You don't understand a lot of background information.

@ Groovy girl, I meant 100% mercy in a different way. But, my bad, I should've said it better. I meant that individual people that accept forgiveness from God receive 100% mercy. Anyways, I'm going to make a thread that explains things better, baby steps.
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 56
view profile
History
morality
Posted: 4/4/2013 8:43:21 PM
OP

What is it? and care to share how you figured out yours.... and where it came from and why you hold on to it?


In just the first several posts, there are various different thoughts provided in answer to the OP’s questions.

In msg 2: IgorFrankensteen suggests that one might create a philosophy by which morality must be made accountable.

Woobytoodsdy, msg:5 does not believe we are born as a ‘blank slate’ but prefers to think that morality is a black and white issue which is encoded into our DNA.

ChristianGuy777 msg: 9
Provides the best example of what Vanaheim (msg:6) identifies as

Reason is key to being moral. If a teacher cannot explain why a student should do a thing, then that student is not being moral by following instruction… What it most definitely does not mean is doing what someone tells you is right just because they told you


Vanaheim msg: 6
Makes it clear that morals are an action/behavior. He uses a method of his own design for “negotiating problem solving”.

I would like to ask him – is it only argument or disagreement or persuasion that invokes the need for your moral behavior?

newEarthling msg: 11

For humans, morality is avoiding acts that can hurt 'other people' physically or mentally.

In this case morality seems to require a negative response (like avoiding) in order to morality to be achieved.

newEarthling, does that mean morality is avoiding inflicting unnecessary physical or psychological harm to others?

I tend to identify most with what IgorFrankensteen states in msg: 8

That is, it is not a thing that you can achieve, and then put on your mantle like an award, or a permanent title. It's an ongoing, very active way of living and growing.


My answer to the OP questions would be:

Morality is one of two things,
1. It is either the behavior that reflects the abstract ideas related to a system of values that one has developed through experience and critical self-reflection OR

2. Morality is behavior that is misguided and misdirected because the values that reflect that morality are not understood because those values were dictated to the individual who has never fully explored them.

My morality (behavior), as IgorFrankensteen suggests, is a work in progress but it’s foundations were formed when I was quite young, similarly to others in these posts. I watched my parents ‘respect’ all people and always attempted to be “fair” in their dealings with others and in all situations.

I think that beginning with those two ideas; respect and fairness, provided a great platform from which to develop a system of values for dealing with all the interactions between myself and the outside world. I continue to reflect, reassess and modify because I am not yet done learning and growing.
 DameWrite
Joined: 2/27/2010
Msg: 57
view profile
History
morality
Posted: 4/4/2013 11:22:44 PM
emotionalheat: thanks for keeping this thread on track.

I do believe that if we recognize that we are all in this together and part of a bigger picture that includes everyone, the earth, and ecosystems, we will look after ourselves and therefor be capable enough to look after our community and our earth. Sometimes it seems too much of a burden, but really it's easier and more gratifying and the moral thing to do IMO.

Expecting someone or something to do this for us is a cop out in our responsibility to ourselves, each other and all things.

and yes, it is on going.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 58
morality
Posted: 4/5/2013 2:52:48 AM


Mercy is the suspension of punishment. Justice is the administering of appropriate punishment. So by very definition mercy IS the suspension of justice.

Read up.

Mercy is a component of law, I agree, but law is concerned with more things than merely justice. There are other goals, and that is what the law addresses.

The New Testament is clearly still calling for the obedience to the Old Testament as well. In many places, so they are linked and not definied seperately as you say it is.

The myth of Jesus actually says MANY times about how "not a tittle of the law chall change until all has come to pass" and to obey the "law of the prophets" and he even once rails against the kings of Egypt for not killing their sassy children in accordance with the OT laws.

Read up.

Peace


You're taking the legal definition of mercy from a legal dictionary. You should know that the legal system is a poor analogue of real law. As Jesus might have said the legal system follows the letter of the law, not the spirit of it. I prefer the more conventional definition as might be found a regular dictionary. "Compassionate treatment of those under one's power." That comes closest to what I meant by mercy.

I don't know what "other things" the law deals with besides justice (since I define law more or less as "the manifestation of justice based on the social contract." IMO, everything about what we call law branches off from that.), so perhaps you could elaborate a bit on what you mean to clarify what you meant.

IMO compassion is ESSENTIAL for the administration of true justice. The old common law is pretty much the law of the old testament because it was administered by laity who found it much simpler to consider the act more than the circumstances. If a man murdered another man, he hanged; it was quick, simple and easy justice, eye for an eye style; not much thinking involved. There wasn't much compassion in it. It was well known that the courts of common law were too "harsh" to mete out true justice (justice tempered with mercy). In those days, since kings ruled by "divine right", the king was about the only option if one was to expect mercy. I suppose the king had to ask himself what God would do. The king was getting swamped with appeals for mercy, so he offloaded his burden to his High Chancellor, who created the Courts of Chancery (based on ecclesiastical law). These eventually became the equity courts that we know today. Since then, if a man killed another man because the other guy raped his young daughter, say, it would be taken into consideration that he must have been half out of mind with grief and rage, so obviously hanging the poor fellow might not be his just dessert for the murder.

My bringing up the bible wasn't supposed to be any sort of validation of the scripture. We all know (or should) it was the work of men (many evil ones) who had an agenda behind what they wrote, or edited over many mistranslations of what was often horrendously flawed crap to begin with, so any particular story or verse might be used as "filler" in a cow pasture. Obviously anything taken from it must be critically tested against reason and in the context of what might have been intended to be expressed before the priests & politicians screwed with it. It certainly cannot be taken literally (which the "fundies" always seem to do, considering it the "inspired Word of God"). If one reads correctly, the essence of what might have originally been intended will shine thru (which is kinda funny, since the new testament shows that morality should be based on an act's INTENT). The "law of the prophets" was apparently NOT the law recorded by the scribes & editors, so even at that point, one might say that Jesus was saying that the scripture was b@ll$hit (which the new testament also became).

I contend that very bit of scripture you quoted ("not a tittle of the law shall change until all has come to pass") is not a confirmation of the old testament scripture's validity; it was part of a message that the priests of the day were (legalistically) adhering to the letter of the law, but not the spirit (intent of compassionate fairness) of it. It was a short statement of something that changed the perception of law to follow the moral imperative wherein the heart's intent defines an act's morality, not the act itself (a la the utilitarian view). Jesus's comment was intended to drive home the point that the law had never and would never change; the only thing he was "changing" was to remind them that they screwed up in their interpretation of it (literal/utilitarian) by ignoring the moral imperative, often for self-serving, "evil" reasons ("synagogue of satan", "thou LAWYERS!", etc.)…Basically, the message was that they had screwed up and were turning the law to wrong purpose, for the wrong reasons (being as they were self-serving hypocrites) and hurting many people in their harsh administration of it.

The bible ain't too bad as a book of law or morality tales, once you eliminate the lies & b@ll$hit.
morality
Posted: 4/5/2013 4:46:13 AM
emotionalheat ^ for method of dialogue, good post.

justdukky:

The bible ain't too bad as a book of law or morality tales, once you eliminate the lies & b@ll$hit.

That's the problem with things like the bible. Anything can be not-too-bad as an elucidation of morality if you eliminate the lies and bull...but the bible is taken to be more than that by many, put on a higher pedestal. That's why there are problems concerning holy documents and morality.
 emotionalheat
Joined: 6/27/2007
Msg: 60
view profile
History
morality
Posted: 4/5/2013 8:18:01 PM
Drinkthesun… Thank you for complementing my post.

DameWrite

I do believe that if we recognize that we are all in this together and part of a bigger picture that includes everyone, the earth, and ecosystems, we will look after ourselves and therefor be capable enough to look after our community and our earth. Sometimes it seems too much of a burden, but really it's easier and more gratifying and the moral thing to do IMO.

Expecting someone or something to do this for us is a cop out in our responsibility to ourselves, each other and all things.


I agree, people should have developed a value system that includes respecting, protecting, and even nurturing the environments we live in and the natural resources that we depend on. But there are a lot of reasons why so many people never have made those connections.

In a recent get-together with some friends I brought up the issue of our overuse of plastics. I briefly explained that plastic is an unsustainable product and it is destructive to all environments on our planet. It was not surprising that everyone AGREED, but what was surprising was that I was the only one whose purchases were somewhat guided by the packaging and I was the only one who recycled, re-used and repurposed various products to any extent.

But then the fun started. I asked the question, "what did people use to do before there was plastic and how could we get away from using plastic today. We had some really funny suggestions that ended up having some possible merit and some serious suggestions that we ended up laughing over.

In the end, everyone agreed that if they had a choice they would choose to purchase products that were packaged sustainably, but they would not make changes that required a little more work and a little more research and thought input.

Is that a value system flaw, a matter of time constraint, laziness? I’m not sure yet. I know those people and they are good and caring people but ….

So while I’m working on me, I’m also trying to figure out how to get others to this place that I am at, this place where we should all respect, protect, and even nurture the environments we live in and the natural resources that we depend on. We should do that because as you said DameWrite -

it's easier and more gratifying and the moral thing to do IMO.
 Inicia
Joined: 12/21/2007
Msg: 61
morality
Posted: 4/5/2013 9:55:14 PM
In at least East Germany it is a law to recycle with recycling "bins' on street corners or public places as we have trash cans similarly distributed here, however if caught not recycling big fine... that is the law working in ethics..
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 62
morality
Posted: 4/6/2013 12:53:25 PM


Each society develops their own collective agreements on morality.


And natural law is the universal law for our species (all of human society).

Given that both statements must be true, we are left with a seeming moral paradox of an all-encomassing society bound to a universal law by their very humanity, "traditionally" doing so many seemingly immoral/unlawful things in groups we might term "sub-societies"...cannibalism and the insanity of war come to mind as good examples.

How do we resolve this moral paradox?

We have divided the species along several lines, but at the sub-societal level, it breaks down to "us" and "them" at any particular level. Since "they" are not "us", we can see justifications for war in a million ways, ranging from genuine defence for survival of the group, to coveting "their" abundant resources compared to our severe lack of same. Since "they" don't belong to "our" society, we are not bound by any social contract to respect "their" traditions (which many "laws" are) if they differ from our own. There is therefore no (or a highly modified) social contract between opposing groups.

Slavery was a long-standing tradition that was eventually abolished because it was found to be inconsistent with natural law...It had been inconsistent for quite some time before, but most often slaves were considered not to belong to the society in question and more often than not, considered "property", not human beings. In the case of western society, it was merely a matter of recognizing that living people cannot be property, as they are their own property and cannot be involuntarily "owned" by another.

Cannibalism is another ancient tradition that unfortunately still exists in some sub-societies. It appears to violate the principal of natural (universal) law that asserts that it is wrong to kill (and eat) another except by necessity (your own survival). That law is probably observed by cannibal sub-societies internally, but here again, the "us/them" perception modifies the social contract to accommodate the difference, because "we" have no allegiance to "them."

Hopefully someday people will recognize the absurdity of many of their traditions and unite with ALL of their fellows in the global village that this is fast becoming. When that happens, we will finally put an end to the rule of men and actually have the rule of law.

For my own part, I can hardly wait.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 63
view profile
History
morality
Posted: 4/6/2013 6:09:33 PM

And natural law is the universal law for our species (all of human society).


That's a dangerous door to open.

Any time some one uses the term "Natural Law," I jump into my defense of liberty against those who would set up a dictatorship of religious beliefs stance.

There is no such thing as "natural law," as the term is used by everyone I have heard or read use it so far. By my own definition of the word "natural," anything that was declared "unnatural," would require huge efforts to maintain, because all of existence would constantly go the other way. I am virulently (and morally) opposed to slavery, but I know that "nature" doesn't care about it one way or the other.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 64
morality
Posted: 4/6/2013 8:36:22 PM

Any time some one uses the term "Natural Law," I jump into my defense of liberty against those who would set up a dictatorship of religious beliefs stance.


I would think a man such as yourself, educated in human history, would have a better grasp of natural law than a simple seat-of-the-pants impression of it. Quite simply, natural law is the implied social contract for the species at the group level and evolved as the species evolved, as a series of behaviours that proved to enhance the reproduction & survival of the social group. All law must be consistent with it or the law will be unjust.
morality
Posted: 4/6/2013 9:31:04 PM
^ But are confusing the concepts of a "tendency", or emergent phenomena...with something that's intrinsic, or "law" as in like a natural law of physics?
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 66
morality
Posted: 4/7/2013 2:44:42 AM


But are confusing the concepts of a "tendency", or emergent phenomena...with something that's intrinsic, or "law" as in like a natural law of physics?


I'd say the behavioural predisposition itself is intrinsic and a very natural consequence of our genetic/social evolution. I therefore consider the term "natural law" quite appropriate in that our seemingly innate sense of fairness (justice) and empathy (which invokes mercy), which we credit to human reason might be crediting the cart for pulling the horse. Perhaps human reason (logical capacity) is itself the evolved result of the successful "behavioural survival strategies" that predated its development in the human animal. I think it more likely though, that law and logic evolved together in a sort of symbiosis wherein the evolution of each provided fuel to the genetic fire of the other.

The result so far is not perfect in the sense that we don't apply our evolved propensity to those outside our social group (our "society"), but I'm very much encouraged to see social groups unite for the common good. As the world moves to become a true "global village", we will find eventually that there are really no "outsiders" to fear, hate & kill. When that happens, I suspect we will have reached a point in our social evolution that I like to think of as an egalitarian "heaven" on earth that will permanently replace the hierarchal "hell" we have lived in since time immemorial. This will be a quantum leap that goes beyond any prior "golden age." I believe it will be the next logical and very natural step in our social/genetic evolution that we might term the "Platinum Age."

We stand at a crisis point (of our own making) in human history and evolution. This again seems to appear as a very natural development that can serve as the prelude to either our extinction or our next step as a species. It seems the human is a lazy animal that will only move forward when its back is to the wall. Our backs are now to the wall and we find ourselves forced to step forward into our uncertain future. That Step will be a Lulu! It will either be off a cliff or two rungs up on "Jacob's Ladder."

As an aside, I find it kind of funny that my scriptural references & allusions, intended to persuade theists to unite with those who believe differently, are taken as a sort of "treason" by my atheist friends, who also miss the boat in disbelieving in their own Godhood. I once referred to the atheist as "a man who doesn't believe in Himself." I guess I can now refer to the theist as a man who doesn't know who He is. If anyone is gonna pull Man out of the ditch it is God, and nobody's coming down from the sky to do it for us, so We now must "become" our own God, or God will soon be dead. We spent a long time creating and worshipping the fictional concept. It would be a shame to waste a good concept by not actualizing it (see Maslow's hierarchy).
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 67
view profile
History
morality
Posted: 4/7/2013 5:00:34 AM

I would think a man such as yourself, educated in human history, would have a better grasp of natural law than a simple seat-of-the-pants impression of it. Quite simply, natural law is the implied social contract for the species at the group level and evolved as the species evolved, as a series of behaviours that proved to enhance the reproduction & survival of the social group. All law must be consistent with it or the law will be unjust.


My "grasp of natural law" is not a "seat-of-the-pants impression." As 'drinks' says, the claim that "natural law" exists at all, is not made by modern science. Even your own definition given here, is that it is a set of IMPLIED SOCIAL CONTRACTS.

Referring to organically evolved social constructs as "laws," gives the 100% false impression that those social constructs were designed and guided by something other than moment to moment choices made by the participants.

There IS NO SUCH THING as "Natural Law," in the sense that you describe. An "implied social contract" is identical with "habits developed over time, mimicked by new members to the group." Taking slavery as a prime example, it is very much in tune with "natural law" in the way you talk about it, because it DID develop over time, as part of an "implied social contract" which declared that "everyone just KNOWS that THOSE people are lesser beings, best used as crude beasts of burden."

Further, by your definition, any time someone wants us to behave differently, if the force of human habit and socialization means that lots of people are uncomfortable with the change, you would have it that no such change would be permitted to occur. By that kind of thinking, we would still live in a world where women and non-whites were held to be inherently defective; where having been born to wealth, would mean born to rule; and where being bigger and less inclined to reason and to restrain violent tendencies, would make one a king.

There is no such REAL thing as "natural law."

A large part of the problem lies in the use of the word LAW, because it is commonly used to mean very very very different things. Laws passed by a legislature are not at all related to recognized Laws of Physics, and Laws of social interaction are part of yet another separate meaning of the word.
morality
Posted: 4/7/2013 11:20:44 AM
Hhmm...I agree and disagree with a mix of both the last two posts from justdukky and igorfrankensteen, such that I feel too lazy to pick them apart and reassemble for a critique...but this gives me a hunch that both posts are "getting warm" in a few ways.
 Eccentricman1
Joined: 3/29/2013
Msg: 69
morality
Posted: 4/7/2013 1:56:57 PM
My morality came from true love ironically. I have never had a true love, or ever been truly in love that hasn't had flaws or ended in failure. It's come from being a hopeless romantic and I just made an article partly on it.
morality
Posted: 4/7/2013 2:25:42 PM
^ I relate to this a lot actually. I have a philosophy that may be very similar to this.
 DameWrite
Joined: 2/27/2010
Msg: 71
view profile
History
morality
Posted: 4/7/2013 2:36:11 PM
I'm not a fan of the word law. I like co operation with all.

It's our moment to moment choices of how to behave that it good for us, doesn't hurt others, helps others and leaves the softest imprint on our ecosystems.

We don't have to go back to the cave days, we just have to invest in ways that don't screw everything up.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 72
morality
Posted: 4/7/2013 9:35:00 PM

Referring to organically evolved social constructs as "laws," gives the 100% false impression that those social constructs were designed and guided by something other than moment to moment choices made by the participants.


Probably true, but that is probably because of the social conditioning of our societies, which by and large have come to think of law as dictated rules carved in stone or on paper, rather than as a reasoned moral philosophy based on a genetic behavioural predisposition.



There IS NO SUCH THING as "Natural Law," in the sense that you describe. An "implied social contract" is identical with "habits developed over time, mimicked by new members to the group." Taking slavery as a prime example, it is very much in tune with "natural law" in the way you talk about it, because it DID develop over time, as part of an "implied social contract" which declared that "everyone just KNOWS that THOSE people are lesser beings, best used as crude beasts of burden."


I have to disagree with that. As I have described natural law, it is on no way identical to "monkey see monkey do" parroted behaviours of a social group. Above all else, the law must be REASONABLE. The implied social contract from which we get our natural rights and duties depends on reason to improve the state of human society.

Slavery, was never really lawful, and neither was the Spanish law of conquest, or feudalism, or for that matter, capitalism (a neo-feudalistic system of economic hegemony…rule by bankers). All these things and many more so-called laws were never and never will be lawful. They come from old traditions of hierarchy and elitism that no longer apply in a truly just society.

The only thing wrong with law has been our continuing with unlawful traditions AS THOUGH they were still lawful and disagreement between groups of humans over some of those traditions. The law, as implemented still has a long way to go, but as our reasoning improves, as we drop our old fallacious assumptions, we find ourselves moving in the proper direction and closer to the universal ideal (the platonic form) that is natural law.



Further, by your definition, any time someone wants us to behave differently, if the force of human habit and socialization means that lots of people are uncomfortable with the change, you would have it that no such change would be permitted to occur.


Correct. A change in behaviour cannot be imposed on people…Stuff like that has gotten a lot of kings, dictators and missionaries killed in the past.



By that kind of thinking, we would still live in a world where women and non-whites were held to be inherently defective; where having been born to wealth, would mean born to rule; and where being bigger and less inclined to reason and to restrain violent tendencies, would make one a king.


I disagree, for the simple reason that the trend has been to reason that the absurdities of the past were unlawful and therefore to correct the errors of unlawful traditions.



There is no such REAL thing as "natural law."


Of course things like natural law don't have a REAL existence…They "live" in the world of ideas as ideals, not unlike Plato's forms.



A large part of the problem lies in the use of the word LAW, because it is commonly used to mean very very very different things. Laws passed by a legislature are not at all related to recognized Laws of Physics, and Laws of social interaction are part of yet another separate meaning of the word.


I agree…most people have little or no idea what the law is, owing to an ongoing deception that almost all have fallen for. I'll say this for the umpteenth time…legislated statutory "law" ISN"T law. A statute is a set of behavioural/regulatory rules given the FORCE of law within the jurisdiction of the legislative body that writes them. Unlike actual law (based on natural law), they are not binding upon you without your consent.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 73
morality
Posted: 4/8/2013 7:03:36 PM
@ swampdude


Outside of the natural tendancy of humanity to cooperate. It is only a tendancy and far from a law.


Evolution defined our tendencies toward moral behaviour. It is our reasoning about morality that makes the law.

@bhawk01


…while some definitions claim statutes to be given "force of law" it means they are law.


…only within the jurisdiction.


…reminds me of the freeman movement


There is much information to be gleaned from the freemen, but only as a jumping off point to further research. The greatest problem with many in the freeman movement is that most of them believe in fighting for their rights and come from a perspective of resentment and anger. These are the ones who usually wind up dishonouring themselves in court and consequently suffer greatly for it. Others are only in it to get "something for nothing" and wind up losing everything. These are the ones who spend their hard-earned money looking for cookie-cutter legal processes they can use to their advantage. Not doing their due diligence usually gets them crucified.

The freeman movement is very much a work in progress that doesn't have all the answers. Anyone who thinks it does is in for a rough time.


There is no such thing as "natural law" in the UK


ROTFLMAO!…Read some of Lord Coke's work…PLEASE.


if you think the doctrine of stare decisis is in any way natural law, you are severely mistaken.


Don't worry; I don't, so I'm not.


Funny fact for you, there is no act of parliament making murder a law, its purely a common law offence


I'm thankful they didn't legalize murder the way they legalized fraud!

Funny fact for you: In Canada, the only common law offence still on the books is contempt of court. Murder is no longer a common law offence and has been commercialized in the Criminal Code.
 Tah,
Joined: 11/18/2008
Msg: 74
morality
Posted: 4/8/2013 8:04:45 PM

Also, humans had morality and ethics before religion,


Religion is older than prostitution...

The ancient Greeks taught their morality threw fairytales about the sins and antics of their gods..You knew what would happen if you did various stuff, its impact on the community and what you can expect in return..
 timeforall
Joined: 8/26/2012
Msg: 75
morality
Posted: 4/8/2013 8:28:41 PM
No Natural Law? Long time ago, I had a class on this very topic. My professor would have been surprised that he was teaching about something that did not exist. The natural law, for all intents and purposes, is superior to and preempts man made law, giving to all human beings certain unalienable rights (much like the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). Nazi Germany may have passe laws allowing for stripping Jews of all of their rights and their deportations, and those laws may have been enforced by the spineless German Courts . . . but they were in violation of the Natural Law. I think Nuremberg recognized this, just as some Courts might think GWB guilty of war crimes.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > morality