Freedom cannot make it long without morality. Freedom without morality results in anarchy which leads to loss of freedom.
|
Freedom cannot make it long without morality. Freedom without morality results in anarchy which leads to loss of freedom.
There is a difference between freedom and liberty
Not sure I agree with that. How do you view them as different?
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Benjamin Franklin
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim tribute to patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles."
George Washington
"Human rights can only be assured among a virtuous people. The general government . . . can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, an oligarchy, an aristocracy, or any despotic or [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=4][COLOR=#000000]oppressive[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT] form so long as there is any virtue in the body of the people."
George Washington
You offered it as a possible example that it would evolve into a minor inconvenience without a fixed morality. It's ok to say you believe morality is fixed, but you did not answer my question re your own example. If you don't want to answer your own hypothetical, then let's drop it. I don't want to go round and round with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
In order to establish ANYTHING, there must be a process before it's established. How do you determine what they are before discussing same? Your corral....ponies stretches the metaphor where it doesn't go.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
This has a familiar ring to it, so instead of another round and round, I suggest this be dropped also.
Jl, I don't know how you can discuss morality, you have a fixed view and yet you duck and dive, blown in the winds of opinion when it suits you. Am I calling you a hypocrite? of course I am. You say what suits you just to invite an argument and then quote slave holders, the most immoral of persons
Just a complete aussie lie, pure and simple. Either show me where I have been "blown in the winds of opinion" and "duck and dive", or keep your stupid opinions to yourself.Quote:
Jl, I don't know how you can discuss morality, you have a fixed view and yet you duck and dive, blown in the winds of opinion when it suits you.
To say the founding fathers, geniuses every one, are "the most immoral of persons" is to put your ignorance on full display. Progress comes through imperfect people.Quote:
Am I calling you a hypocrite? of course I am. You say what suits you just to invite an argument and then quote slave holders, the most immoral of persons
Exactly correct. I'm glad you see that.Quote:
You offered it as a possible example that it would evolve into a minor inconvenience without a fixed morality.
Not sure I know what you mean. If you are speaking of this question (Why do you think rape might evolve over time to be merely inconvenient?), I thought I answered it by saying I don't believe it should since I don't believe true moral change is "inevitable" or even possible. If you mean do I think it could evolve in such a way, then good grief yes it could. History is filled with examples of large groups who viewed rape as no big deal. Read about the taking of Berlin by the Russians if you want to see an example. Practically any war that has happened was filled with incidents of rape. Raping the women of subjugated peoples remains a common practice even in recent times.Quote:
It's ok to say you believe morality is fixed, but you did not answer my question re your own example. If you don't want to answer your own hypothetical, then let's drop it. I don't want to go round and round with it.
But if you don't want to continue the discussion, then that's fine with me. We hardly ever arrive at any consensus anyway.
Geniuses, seems the colonies had a surplus of them, they tried to export Franklin many times but like the bad penny he kept coming back, no they weren't geniuses, just men caught in difficult times, rebels in fact. As an Aussie I have no reason to lie, as a Christian I have no reason to lie, they were slave owners, immoral to the core. Franklin had a change of heart and they tried to get rid of him.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
They plagiarised earlier documents but then they had many decades to ferment revolt. What is remarkable is you cling to this fiction. You still live the chaos that is the result of their so called genius
I'll just repeat this. Your comment was a complete lie. "Just a complete aussie lie, pure and simple. Either show me where I have been "blown in the winds of opinion" and "duck and dive", or keep your stupid opinions to yourself.."
I was referring to this. "Jl, I don't know how you can discuss morality, you have a fixed view and yet you duck and dive, blown in the winds of opinion when it suits you. Am I calling you a hypocrite? of course I am."
That "chaos" has produced the most powerful economy on the planet and a largely free society. Now we are losing much of that due to, not the Constitution, but ignoring the Constitution. So your comment is wildly inaccurate. The only person clinging to fiction is you.Quote:
the chaos that is the result of their so called genius
Ridiculous. You claimed the morality of rape would become merely inconvenient. I asked for an example. You provide armies raping. Criminal actions do NOT change the morality of an action.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You should have quit when I suggested it.Quote:
But if you don't want to continue the discussion, then that's fine with me.
Yes, and I know why - because you go round and round repeating the same points.Quote:
We hardly ever arrive at any consensus anyway.
BTW, paraclete is right, although hypocrite is a bit too strong.
Jl, I don't know how you can discuss morality, you have a fixed view and yet you duck and dive, blown in the winds of opinion when it suits you. Am I calling you a hypocrite? of course I am. You say what suits you just to invite an argument and then quote slave holders, the most immoral of persons
The point is that they would not have considered it to be either criminal or immoral. They would view the force they had to exert as inconvenient but certainly not, to them, immoral. It's what happens when an appeal to morality is based on the opinion of the majority.Quote:
Ridiculous. You claimed the morality of rape would become merely inconvenient. I asked for an example. You provide armies raping. Criminal actions do NOT change the morality of an action.
Clete lied. I called him out on it and he disappeared. Case closed.
If you want to drop it then drop it. No one is stopping you. To say that change is inevitable is true in many ways, but it is not true in genuine morality. The example of rape I used is perfect. It is always wrong even if groups of people, as in war or in the subjugation of neighboring nations, decide that it's OK. It is not subject to change. I have to think that you agree with that. I would certainly hope so. But to say it is immoral because you and I say so would be useless. We must be able to appeal to some authority above mere human opinion.
Here's where you go wrong. You are assuming morality that is based on the "opinion of the majority" makes it immoral. Only you have made that assumption. Facts are not based on the opinion of the majority. Science is not based on the opinion of the majority. Reality itself is not based on opinion. They all exist independently of opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
It is not even close to perfect. Who says rape has been decided to be ok? What groups of people have decided that? Don't tell me rapists have decided that it's ok (that's essentially what you've been saying).Quote:
The example of rape I used is perfect. It is always wrong even if groups of people, as in war or in the subjugation of neighboring nations, decide that it's OK.
Not at all. Morality is subject to change. Depends on what is accepted as morality. Divorce was once considered immoral. Now it's accepted as moral - even as a good in many cases.Quote:
It is not subject to change. I have to think that you agree with that.
Nobody but you has claimed the appeal is to human opinion. (See my reply above).Quote:
We must be able to appeal to some authority above mere human opinion.
I have never made that assumption.Quote:
Here's where you go wrong. You are assuming morality that is based on the "opinion of the majority" makes it immoral.
The groups of people who do it plainly think it is OK, just like murderers often decide murder is OK, and thieves decide theft is OK, or the rioters in Minneapolis decide that the destruction of someone else's property is OK. It is widespread.Quote:
It is not even close to perfect. Who says rape has been decided to be ok? What groups of people have decided that? Don't tell me rapists have decided that it's ok (that's essentially what you've been saying).
So you are back to adopting a philosophy that allows for moral standards about rape to someday, being subject to change as you have just said they are, be changed and rape become morally acceptable. Sorry, but I don't accept that.Quote:
Not at all. Morality is subject to change.
You just did. "Divorce was once considered immoral. Now it's accepted as moral - even as a good in many cases." That is strictly an appeal to an acceptance by the majority, which is to say human opinion.Quote:
Nobody but you has claimed the appeal is to human opinion.
You have totally, completely, utterly missed the point. I'm going to try one last time. - CRIMINALS DO NOT ESTABLISH MORALITY!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I'm not back to any philosophy. Dear Lord! Why can't you read and understand what I write? It's really not that difficult.Quote:
So you are back to adopting a philosophy that allows for moral standards about rape to someday, being subject to change as you have just said they are, be changed and rape become morally acceptable.
The human majority once believed the earth was flat. Now it believes the earth is a sphere. Is the earth a sphere because of a human majority having an opinion that it is?Quote:
"Divorce was once considered immoral. Now it's accepted as moral - even as a good in many cases." That is strictly an appeal to an acceptance by the majority, which is to say human opinion.
Why do you say they are criminals? You say they are wrong, and they say they are right. Who casts the deciding vote?Quote:
You have totally, completely, utterly missed the point. I'm going to try one last time. - CRIMINALS DO NOT ESTABLISH MORALITY!!!!!
You're the one who says morals change. If they change, then why can't moral standards about rape change? Are you now saying that only SOME morals change, but not all?Quote:
I'm not back to any philosophy. Dear Lord! Why can't you read and understand what I write? It's really not that difficult.
Ask yourself that since it is YOU who is making an appeal to opinion. I have no regard at all for morals being established by the majority.Quote:
The human majority once believed the earth was flat. Now it believes the earth is a sphere. Is the earth a sphere because of a human majority having an opinion that it is?
I say they are criminals. The law says they are criminals.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Yes.Quote:
You're the one who says morals change.
Because rape is bad.Quote:
If they change, then why can't moral standards about rape change?
I thought it was obvious I was ALWAYS saying that.Quote:
Are you now saying that only SOME morals change, but not all?
No, I'm asking you because you clearly have a mistaken idea of what a majority of humanity can or cannot do. I hoped my example would open your eyes a bit. I have NEVER made an appeal to opinion here. You have put opinion opposing God, not I.Quote:
Ask yourself that since it is YOU who is making an appeal to opinion.
Not all laws and not all people. Who wins?Quote:
I say they are criminals. The law says they are criminals.
Quote:
If they change, then why can't moral standards about rape change?
So morals about rape can't change? Why?Quote:
Because rape is bad.
Yes you did. Your appeal about divorce was plainly an appeal to public opinion.Quote:
No, I'm asking you because you clearly have a mistaken idea of what a majority of humanity can or cannot do. I hoped my example would open your eyes a bit. I have NEVER made an appeal to opinion here. You have put opinion opposing God, not I.
The laws I follow win. As far as I know, all laws say rape is bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Because rape is bad.Quote:
So morals about rape can't change? Why?
Only in your fevered imagination was it plainly an appeal to public opinion.Quote:
Your appeal about divorce was plainly an appeal to public opinion.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness didn't apply to slaves, Indians, and women. Not sure inalienable right from the Creator did either. Yeah the founders were great moral leaders.
So if laws change to allow for rape, then rape becomes moral? When slavery was legal, was slavery moral? I'm just trying to determine what standard you use to determine what is or isn't moral. You say it's not public opinion, so is it law?Quote:
The laws I follow win. As far as I know, all laws say rape is bad.
You are appealing only to your opinion. I certainly agree with you, but many people do not. So for them, is rape NOT bad?Quote:
Because rape is bad.
Then what was your divorce example an appeal to?Quote:
Only in your fevered imagination was it plainly an appeal to public opinion.
No they weren't included in "all men" were they? they certainly weren't equal in those days which brings into question every thing they saidQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
What the founding fathers accomplished was an enormous step forward as opposed to being dominated by a king. And they established a Constitutional framework that enabled the rights they advocated for to be extended to all people. I would just say to all of you moralizers that when you have exhibited 1% of the courage and wisdom they did, or when you have accomplished 1% of what they did, then you will be more believable. They must be seen within the times they lived in.
Where in the world are you getting this from? Not from anything I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I do not think it was, but others did think it was moral. They base this on the law at the time (and the Bible!). That shoots down your opinion that morality reverts to public opinion when not from God.Quote:
When slavery was legal, was slavery moral?
It can be law and usually is. But as we have just seen re slavery, not always. And law itself has a source. Regardless of the source, morality (or law) does not spring full-blown from the mind of man. It takes time for something to be deemed moral or immoral.Quote:
I'm just trying to determine what standard you use to determine what is or isn't moral. You say it's not public opinion, so is it law?
The simplest way to express the source is a code of conduct that works and that originates in a shared culture. Is it the same for everybody? On the whole, yes. (There are always exceptions to everything.) It takes time to develop, like any other organizing principle of humanity.
You say this frequently, but what else can anyone appeal to if not his own mind and how he understands things?Quote:
You are appealing only to your opinion.
Who does NOT believe rape is bad? Please don't say a rapist.Quote:
I certainly agree with you, but many people do not.
The only ones who fall into this category are those of unsound mind - mentally unbalanced people.Quote:
So for them, is rape NOT bad?
It was not an appeal to anything. It was an example of how morality changes.Quote:
Then what was your divorce example an appeal to?
So morality is not universal. It only applies to the "shared culture" in which it originates?Quote:
The simplest way to express the source is a code of conduct that works and that originates in a shared culture. Is it the same for everybody? On the whole, yes. (There are always exceptions to everything.) It takes time to develop, like any other organizing principle of humanity.
There have been entire cultures who accepted that raping the women of conquered peoples was acceptable. Rome comes to mind. Rome would unhesitatingly kill, rape, and sell into slavery a conquered nation. They would have said YOU are the mentally unbalanced one for not agreeing with them. So I don't think your view of how moral values are established is particularly compelling.Quote:
Who does NOT believe rape is bad? Please don't say a rapist.
The only ones who fall into this category are those of unsound mind - mentally unbalanced people.
Based on changes in public opinions.Quote:
It was not an appeal to anything. It was an example of how morality changes.
When you learn better and do better that's called evolutionary progress. It's okay if you're still stuck in the past just please get the freak out of the way.
PS
Keep your crap in your own yard unless INVITED!
There's a rather large crowd of people in Minneapolis (peaceful protestors according to some on this site) who have a shared cultural belief that breaking into stores and stealing the contents is a perfectly moral thing to do. Does that make them right?
That large crowd (I heard it's around 1,000 people -- thinning out now) are peaceful protesters. The smashers and grabbers are opportunists, not protesters. No shared values.
How do you know that?Quote:
That large crowd (I heard it's around 1,000 people -- thinning out now) are peaceful protesters. The smashers and grabbers are opportunists, not protesters. No shared values.
Protests and rioting seems to go hand in hand with cop killings. Wonder why?
Because the protesters are totally pissed that the opportunists take away the impact of the protest and turn it into something vile.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
OK. First of all, that doesn't tell me how you know "That large crowd...are peaceful protesters. The smashers and grabbers are opportunists, not protesters. No shared values."Quote:
Because the protesters are totally pissed that the opportunists take away the impact of the protest and turn it into something vile.
But even at that, how do you know that, " the protesters are totally pissed that the opportunists take away the impact of the protest and turn it into something vile." I think we are back to broken chromosomes, which is to say simple speculation in an effort to support your narrative.
Since 1963, I've lived in a large metropolitan area that's very multicultural and multiracial. My Black (and white) friends are well educated, well spoken, and very familiar with what's going on in the world. That's how I know.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You don't "know" any such thing. You are just making assumptions. But the ones (hundreds of them) looting and destroying certainly have a shared cultural belief, so I guess that, for them, it is a moral undertaking???Quote:
Since 1963, I've lived in a large metropolitan area that's very multicultural and multiracial. My Black (and white) friends are well educated, well spoken, and very familiar with what's going on in the world. That's how I know.
Looting, smashing, raising havoc, destroying property, injuring people...those are cultural (Black?) values?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
That's is a very reasonable assumption based on experience and interactions and no doubt the willingness to listen closely WG with no bias(?), or judgement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Unlike others! That's always been the problem in America, judgement without listening and NO empathy whatsoever, so it's no wonder the protests and complaints getter louder and more dramatic.
That's the biggest, most loving gift my wonderful dad blessed me with. From early childhood on, I was taught, mostly by his example, to be kind, caring, a good listener, both sympathetic AND empathetic. The libraries I worked at for 30 years had patrons of every culture, race, ethnic group, and they each added wonderful dimensions to my life.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
All of which is wonderful, but none of which gives you even a clue as to the crowd tearing up the town in Minneapolis. Pretty sure you'd have to actually go up there and observe/interact to know what you claimed to know.Quote:
That's the biggest, most loving gift my wonderful dad blessed me with. From early childhood on, I was taught, mostly by his example, to be kind, caring, a good listener, both sympathetic AND empathetic. The libraries I worked at for 30 years had patrons of every culture, race, ethnic group, and they each added wonderful dimensions to my life.
The same could be said of you and maybe you could separate the peaceful message from the more volatile ones and the troublemakers from down right criminals. Maybe then you could listen to reason and understand the cause and effects circumstances of events better. Just saying!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:18 AM. |