Originally posted by hoven5thVery nice subject, indeed.
Is there a such thing as "correct" morals or values? Can one culture legitimatly lay claim to any one, much less an entire set of values?
Without stepping into the religious field (which is unnecessary) in Law
Theory this point is the very old, unsolved debate between ius
naturalists and ius positivists.
On one hand, the ius naturalists claim there are atemporal,
universal, and fixed natural rights which a legal system at a certain
space and time may or may not recognize, while ius positivists
claim the only norms are those who are recognized by the State in
a certain space and time (those who go successfully through the
legislative process), and there is no such thing as universality.
The problem is: Who dictates those 'atemporal, universal' rights?
Take the human rights, for example. They are nowadays stated and
enforced in most developed countries, yet their 'popularity' arises from
a recognition given by the majority of the international community.
They are perceived as the 'ultimate thing', the real deal. However,
who says they won't change in the next generations? (they did in the
last 5 gens!)
It is very hard to get into ius naturalism without getting
fundamentalist at some point.
IMO (very personal) I rather think that there the each individual's
conception of what is eternal shall remain indiidual, and the State
as a whole, from a democratic process, shall decide which values
are to be recognized and enforced in a certain given time and space,
provided the respect for the juridical space of each is respected.
Anyway, the debate's old... and won't end in this generation. Perhaps
never.
Originally posted by whodeyReligion is kinda oppressive, wouldn't you say? The creation of ideas of right and wrong over many areas of life can only serve to restrict people's freedoms, in societies where those religious ideas are put into practice.
Yes I did write it myself. Thanks for asking. You are right about totalitarian type of cultures. They tend to be less forgiving of opposing views and insist more so on the "mob rule" or "state rule" model. I have found, however, that the more oppressive these types of rule becomes, however, the more we tend to struggle against such rule. You see we have ...[text shortened]... t of their oppressors is often adopted as a backlash to such oppression. Sharia law anyone?
1 edit
Originally posted by wedgehead2I think you will find that many religious laws are needed for a society to function properly. For example, do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness etc. are all vital componenets of a society to function peacefully. So the question really is do we need laws of any kind keep us in check? Many anarchists would say no, however, I would not be so bold.
So you NEED religion to keep you in check, if you didn't have it, would you be less morally right?
Originally posted by whodeyI'm not religious and I don't kill people. 😀
I think you will find that many religious laws are needed for a society to function properly. For example, do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness etc. are all vital componenets of a society to function peacefully. So the question really is do we need such laws to keep us in check? Many anarchists would say no, however, I would not be so bold.
I don't think that don't steal and don't kill are religious laws. They just seem sensible to most people, so most people follow them.
Originally posted by wedgehead2You are correct, religion can be oppressive. For example, try going to Mecca and opening a Christian church. If you try, I will be sure and send flowers for you to lay on your casket.
Religion is kinda oppressive, wouldn't you say? The creation of ideas of right and wrong over many areas of life can only serve to restrict people's freedoms, in societies where those religious ideas are put into practice.
Here is another problem to consider. As I said before God's laws are absolute as where the laws of men are relative. So what happens if man speaks for God by saying that certain laws are absolute when, in fact, they were merely constructs of men thus making them relative in nature? In reality, such morality is merely relative morality instead of absolute morality disguised as absolute morality in order to accomplish the biddings of power hungry men? This is why I think theocracies are inherently flawed. The world of Christiandom has learned this painful lesson via its turbulent theocratic history, however, the world of Islam does not appear to have learned this lesson.
Originally posted by jammerWrong again jammer, but much better. Some points almost made sense.
nicely put ...
did you write that yourself?
edit ..
The distinction between personal morals and that of the society/culture one lives in is an important one.
That's how Western cultures manage to get along with each other IMO.
Unfortunately, that's also the reason we don't get on as well with Totalitarian type cultures.
A strick Christian and a Agn ...[text shortened]... W. Europe or America, never imposing themselves on each other.
Can that happen in N. Korea?
The reason we cannot get along with totalitarian regimes is because we keep trying to IMPOSE ourselves on them.
The natural progression of a state is towards an open and tolerant system. This is because with centralised regulation and beurocracy the state become inefficient and fails to compete economically and collapses. (In this sense I am scared that I might actually be in agreement with you)
Unfortunately, our stupid foreign aid system creates centralisation and corrupt regimes.
The US has a special gift towards creating totalitarism. Sending arms and military advisors to help suppress the Chinese people led to Mao's paranoia. The Korea war, Vietnam, the Shah of Iran and numerous S. American juntas have all been produced by the good old US of A interferring. Still you don't learn. O.K. we Brits were responsible for Stalin fearing the west but we come a distant second.
IT IS THE FEAR OF AN OUTSIDE ENEMY that keeps many of these loonies in power. Worse still it now pushes them down the path of nuclear weapons.
4 edits
Originally posted by whodeyI would say all religions are merely constructs of men, and therefore there is no absolute morality, as you say. Christianity isn't so far ahead of Islam, as you seem to be saying- particularly in the US, the influence of religion in state affairs has, as in Iran, not had particulary good results.
You are correct, religion can be oppressive. For example, try going to Mecca and opening a Christian church. If you try, I will be sure and send flowers for you to lay on your casket.
Here is another problem to consider. As I said before God's laws are absolute as where the laws of men are relative. So what happens if man speaks for God by saying that ...[text shortened]... nt theocratic history, however, the world of Islam does not appear to have learned this lesson.
Originally posted by wedgehead2In my religion which is Christianity, the Bible teaches that we have an innate sense of right and wrong called a conscience. Thus most societies view murder with disdain. However, because we are a fallen race, we at some point will go against such innate tendencies. There are times, however, when such indescretions of sinful nature can be adopted by a group of people. For example, I believe in Indonesia there used to be tribes that taught that if you kill someone and eat them that they will then live inside of you. Therefore, such barbaric activity was viewed in a different light in order to evade our inner checks and balances which scream at us to change our wicked ways. Another example is abortion. The unborn child is referred to as a fetus. They are then dehumanized in order to evade our inner moral voice that screams at us that we are destroying our future offspring. In Nazi Germany, the Jews were referred to as Vermon thus rathionalizing their destruction and silencing their inner voices and enabling them to continue with their Holocaust. You see we can evade our inner voice, however, at our own peril. In fact, the more you sileince your inner voice the quiter it becomes until it remains silent. This is what is referred to as a "seared conscience".
I'm not religious and I don't kill people. 😀
I don't think that don't steal and don't kill are religious laws. They just seem sensible to most people, so most people follow them.
1 edit
Originally posted by wedgehead2You are entitled to your opinion. However, I would argue that if the Bible be true, then ALL men have fallen and have a sin nauture. Thus to put such men in positions of power over other men is inherently flawed thinking which is why in the Bible when the Israelite people demanded a king to reign over them that God objected. You can read it for yourself in 1 Samuel chapter 8 if you so desire. The gist of it was that whoever rules over you will abuse you in certain ways. There is no getting around it no matter the form of government.
I would say all religions are merely constructs of men, and therefore there is no absolute morality, as you say. Christianity isn't so far ahead of Islam, as you seem to be saying- particularly in the US, the influence of religion in state affairs has, as in Iran, not had particulary good results.
Originally posted by whodeyYou see there as being a definite right and wrong or good and evil. I, on the other hand don't- partly because I don't believe in God.
In my religion which is Christianity, the Bible teaches that we have an innate sense of right and wrong called a conscience. Thus most societies view murder with disdain. However, because we are a fallen race, we at some point will go against such innate tendencies. There are times, however, when such indescretions of sinful nature can be adopted by a grou ...[text shortened]... ter it becomes until it remains silent. This is what is referred to as a "seared conscience".
Do you see the Holocaust as on the same sin level as abortion and cannabalism?
Originally posted by whodeySo the Bible is anarchist?
You are entitled to your opinion. However, I would argue that if the Bible be true, then ALL men have fallen and have a sin nauture. Thus to put such men in positions of power over other men is inherently flawed thinking which is why in the Bible when the Israelite people demanded a king to reign over them that God objected. You can read it for yourself in ...[text shortened]... will abuse you in certain ways. There is no getting around it no matter the form of government.
Originally posted by wedgehead2I say that man's nature is fallen and, therefore, when man acts in accordance to his own selfish whims that God not get the bad wrap for such behavoir. This is why I view theocracies with disdain. Having said that, however, I would say that I do not pass up my chance to speak my mind come election time and vote my conscience to sway the society that I live in to go in the direction that I view as the moral direction just as those who are not religious do as well.
Christianity isn't so far ahead of Islam, as you seem to be saying- particularly in the US, the influence of religion in state affairs has, as in Iran, not had particulary good results.[/b]
In regards to Islam, however, Muslims do not view themselves us as a "fallen race" with a sin nature, rather, they view us as perfect until we decide to sin as Adam and Eve in the garden. This is noteworthy in that they can then justify putting "holy men" in positions of authority over us and instituting sharia law with a good consceince.
1 edit
Originally posted by wedgehead2Not at all, rather, they had judges to judge disputes among the people and had what is called the Mosaic law such as an eye for an eye type of justice. God himself was to reign over them as their king. The power of the judges, on the other hand, was limited only to that of the dispute brought before them. Crazy huh?
So the Bible is anarchist?
Originally posted by wedgehead2Sin is sin and killing is killing. You can dress it up anyway you desire to make it more palatable but in the end it accomplishes the same results.
You see there as being a definite right and wrong or good and evil. I, on the other hand don't- partly because I don't believe in God.
Do you see the Holocaust as on the same sin level as abortion and cannabalism?