[jlisenbe]

Freedom cannot make it long without morality. Freedom without morality results in anarchy which leads to loss of freedom.

[paraclete]

There is a difference between freedom and liberty

[jlisenbe]

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

[Athos]

Since I don’t believe change in true morality is “inevitable”, then I don’t think rape should subject to change.

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.

[Athos]

Absolutely not. Accepting that morality is fixed must be established before deciding what that involves. The corral must be built before buying the ponies.

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.

This has a familiar ring to it, so instead of another round and round, I suggest this be dropped also.

[paraclete]

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

[jlisenbe]

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.

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.

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

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.

[jlisenbe]

You offered it as a possible example that it would evolve into a minor inconvenience without a fixed morality.

Exactly correct. I'm glad you see that.

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.

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.

But if you don't want to continue the discussion, then that's fine with me. We hardly ever arrive at any consensus anyway.

[paraclete]

Just a complete aussie lie, pure and simple. Either show me where I have been "blown in the winds of opinion" or keep your stupid opinions to yourself. To say the founding fathers, geniuses every one, are "the most immoral of persons" is to put your ignorance on full display.

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.

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

[jlisenbe]

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."

[jlisenbe]

the chaos that is the result of their so called genius

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.

[Athos]

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.

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.

But if you don't want to continue the discussion, then that's fine with me.

You should have quit when I suggested it.

We hardly ever arrive at any consensus anyway.

Yes, and I know why - because you go round and round repeating the same points.

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

[jlisenbe]

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.

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.

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.

[Athos]

It's what happens when an appeal to morality is based on the opinion of the majority.

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.

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 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).

It is not subject to change. I have to think that you agree with that.

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.

We must be able to appeal to some authority above mere human opinion.

Nobody but you has claimed the appeal is to human opinion. (See my reply above).

[jlisenbe]

Here's where you go wrong. You are assuming morality that is based on the "opinion of the majority" makes it immoral.

I have never made that assumption.

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).

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.

Not at all. Morality is subject to change.

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.

Nobody but you has claimed the appeal is to human opinion.

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.

[Athos]

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.

You have totally, completely, utterly missed the point. I'm going to try one last time. - CRIMINALS DO NOT ESTABLISH MORALITY!!!!!

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.

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.

"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.

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?

[jlisenbe]

You have totally, completely, utterly missed the point. I'm going to try one last time. - CRIMINALS DO NOT ESTABLISH MORALITY!!!!!

Why do you say they are criminals? You say they are wrong, and they say they are right. Who casts the deciding vote?

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.

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?

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?

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.

[Athos]

Why do you say they are criminals? You say they are wrong, and they say they are right.

I say they are criminals. The law says they are criminals.

You're the one who says morals change.

Yes.

If they change, then why can't moral standards about rape change?

Because rape is bad.

Are you now saying that only SOME morals change, but not all?

I thought it was obvious I was ALWAYS saying that.

Ask yourself that since it is YOU who is making an appeal to opinion.

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.

[jlisenbe]

I say they are criminals. The law says they are criminals.

Not all laws and not all people. Who wins?

If they change, then why can't moral standards about rape change?

Because rape is bad.

So morals about rape can't change? Why?

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.

Yes you did. Your appeal about divorce was plainly an appeal to public opinion.

[Athos]

Not all laws and not all people. Who wins?

The laws I follow win. As far as I know, all laws say rape is bad.

So morals about rape can't change? Why?

Because rape is bad.

Your appeal about divorce was plainly an appeal to public opinion.

Only in your fevered imagination was it plainly an appeal to public opinion.