Originally posted by lucifershammerI know that people who transgress the laws are liable to be punished. Some of the laws may be unjust. Law is not immutable. A person may rebel against the law. These things are a matter of conscience. People usually behave so as to avoid trouble.
Do you believe that the laws of Congress are binding on residents of the US and its territories? Do you believe that people who violate these laws should be punished? Why or why not?
What is the answer you're looking for?
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThe answer that addresses my questions. I'll repeat it:
I know that people who transgress the laws are liable to be punished. Some of the laws may be unjust. Law is not immutable. A person may rebel against the law. These things are a matter of conscience. People usually behave so as to avoid trouble.
What is the answer you're looking for?
Do you believe that people who violate these laws should (emphasis on the "should" ) be punished? Why or why not?
You say that some laws may be unjust. What does that mean? What makes a law "unjust"?
Originally posted by lucifershammerYes, they should. However, there are many a slip between the cup and the lip. First, the alledged offender must be arrested, read his rights, and brought up on charges. Then he must be assigned a defendant. A variety of things can happen at this point, I believe. The man can be released due to lack of evidence--the not-guilty verdict. The law itself can be examined and re-examined and put before panels of judges to determine if the law is fair and it does not contradict a different law. Even if this stuff fails and the defendant is called guilty of a crime, that decidision can be appealed, in some cases several times. And after the appeals run out and the person labeled by peers as guilty goes to jail or is forced to pay a fine, the freedom of speech allows him and those sympathetic to him to hold rallies, make speeches, elect new officials, and change the law. And then the law can be changed again. Then perhaps there is a millitary coup at the law is changed again. hen the coup is overturned but the law is in such shambles that it has to be rewritten and turns out significantly different. Time flows, the laws change.
The answer that addresses my questions. I'll repeat it:
Do you believe that people who violate these laws [b]should (emphasis on the "should" ) be punished? Why or why not?
You say that some laws may be unjust. What does that mean? What makes a law "unjust"?[/b]
Yes, for preservation of order those who are judged through due process to be guilty of a crime should be punished within the bounds stated in that law. However, laws should always be questioned, and laws should always have the capacity to be changed. "Arbitrary" means decided by those affected by the decision--what those arbitrary choices are don't ultimately matter as long as those choices are made.
Now, how exactly does this compare to so-called non-temporal non-arbitrary laws that are inflexible and curse all offenders to the same eternal punishment?
Originally posted by lucifershammerPlease see thesonofsaul's post, which is sopt on.
If nothing makes them "automatically" valid, then are they valid at all? If so why?
You say the validity of these authorities is not at issue. I'm not sure Pkh would see things your way.
In any case, if one were to assume your framework, one could just as easily say that divinely commanded/mandated/originated morality is simply the condition for living free within the universe (or anywhere, for that matter).
TheSkipper
1 edit
Originally posted by thesonofsaulYes, they should.
Yes, they should. However, there are many a slip between the cup and the lip. First, the alledged offender must be arrested, read his rights, and brought up on charges. Then he must be assigned a defendant. A variety of things can happen at this point, I believe. The man can be released due to lack of evidence--the not-guilty verdict. The law itse on-arbitrary laws that are inflexible and curse all offenders to the same eternal punishment?
Okay. Why?
However, there are many a slip ... Time flows, the laws change.
You're describing what does happen, not what should happen. What does happen is a matter of empirical fact, of history. What should happen is a matter of moral judgment -- of right and wrong.
Yes, for preservation of order (finally!) those who are judged through due process to be guilty of a crime should be punished ...
Why must order be preserved? Is it a good in itself? If not, what more basic good does it serve?
However, laws should always be questioned...
Why?
... laws should always have the capacity to be changed ...
Why?
"Arbitrary" means decided by those affected by the decision
Huh? Is this a legal definition of "arbitrary"?
Now, how exactly does this compare to so-called non-temporal non-arbitrary laws that are inflexible and curse all offenders to the same eternal punishment?
I'll get to that presently.
EDIT: My point is that when we speak of morality we are all making reference to "non-temporal non-arbitrary(LH: ??) laws that are inflexible" at some level.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI find your question somewhat meaningless, I'm afraid. Or perhaps useless [/i](emphasis on "useless" )[/i]. There's a law; there's an arm; there's a hand...I have no business telling people what they should do. The law is an ass, a tangible ass, no less real than a donkey, often just as intransigent. I have no particular esteem for this set of rules and regulations. Maybe need would be a more useful word for you to fixate on that should. Do people need to be punished for transgressing for law? Perhaps an analysis of the system--what it is (the set-up, how it functions and why--would shed more light on what is really going on than abstract ratiocination.
The answer that addresses my questions. I'll repeat it:
Do you believe that people who violate these laws [b]should (emphasis on the "should" )[i] be punished? [/b]
People should do be aware of the law and treat it with respect (just as you would scorpions in your underpants). As regards punishment--I don't think anyone should be punished; I think people should govern themselves and embrace the freedom that comes with anarchy...but who cares what I think?!
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThere can't be anarchy as long as we have the impossibility of having chaos.
I find your question somewhat meaningless, I'm afraid. Or perhaps [b]useless [/i](emphasis on "useless" )[/i]. There's a law; there's an arm; there's a hand...I have no business telling people what they should do. The law is an ass, a tangible ass, no less real than a donkey, often just as intransigent. I have no particular esteem for this set of r ...[text shortened]... themselves and embrace the freedom that comes with anarchy...but who cares what I think?![/b]
If the universe is ruled by laws (natural or divine, irrelevant for my point) anarchy is a chimera that can never be achieved. The universe's complexity may indeed provide the illusion of chaos, but it is merely an extremely complexly ordered set.
Originally posted by PalynkaAnarchy just means "no ruler". Yes the idea that people will all act like human beings one day is a chimera. To everyone xyr chimera.
There can't be anarchy as long as we have the impossibility of having chaos.
If the universe is ruled by laws (natural or divine, irrelevant for my point) anarchy is a chimera that can never be achieved. The universe's complexity may indeed provide the illusion of chaos, but it is merely an extremely complexly ordered set.
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageMy point was that if you follow my reasoning then there MUST be an order even for the governing of human beings. I don't deny that that order may be also evolving in an ordered fashion, but I find it nonetheless an interesting thought.
Anarchy just means "no ruler". Yes the idea that people will all act like human beings one day is a chimera. To everyone xyr chimera.
Edit - It might be anarchy, as defined by your previous post or not.
Originally posted by PalynkaYeah, anarchy leads to order. Law brings disorder, distortion...It's a topsy-turvy world.
My point was that if you follow my reasoning then there MUST be an order even for the governing of human beings. I don't deny that that order may be also evolving in an ordered fashion, but I find it nonetheless an interesting thought.
Edit - It might be anarchy, as defined by your previous post or not.
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou're like an obnoxious child with all your "why"s. Here's an answer for all of them: Because we are human, we are flawed, and we are more often than not flat out wrong. We are full of ourselves and always think that we have all the answers when we don't. Our knowledge of good and evil, of right and wrong, is an illusion. We are experts at nothing but making mistakes and then denying responsibility for those mistakes. We need to follow what others tell us to do (laws) because otherwise we'll do nothing but make mistakes. However, an open forum and ability for non law makers to effect and change laws is necessary because the law makers themselves are human, and are experts at making mistakes.
[b]Yes, they should.
Okay. Why?
However, there are many a slip ... Time flows, the laws change.
You're describing what does happen, not what should happen. What does happen is a matter of empirical fact, of history. What should happen is a matter of moral judgment -- of right and wrong.
Yes, for preservation ...[text shortened]... rence to "non-temporal non-arbitrary(LH: ??) laws that are inflexible" at some level.[/b]
This tendency of humans to make mistakes is also one of the reasons people run to religion. Religion will tell you what to do, and it must be the right thing because religion comes from God, not just a bunch of flawed humans who are experts at making mistakes. This is what people crave. Unfortunately for these people religion was created and is run by a bunch of flawed humans who are experts at making mistakes.
I'm not saying that an untimate morality does not exist. I'm not saying that it exists, either. All I'm saying is that you are a human, too, and anything that comes out of your intuition is automatically suspect and must be examined from every angle and every direction. Much of it is quite possibly right. But to be so sure of yourself based on what you feel in your heart is typically human and therefore ultimately untrustworthy.
A moral code in a human mind, therefore, must be exposed to the same sort of system that runs secular laws. Much of it is possibly wrong, and every so often every human encounters situations that expose these problems within the system. When this happens the code must be examined and re-examined, and most likely shifted around and changed. This happens on a fairly regular basis. Are you truly willing to announce to the world that you solved that last problem and have found the ultimate moral code that is true for all? If this is so please share. I'm tired of being wrong same as everyone else.
However, if you are just trying to claim that there exists an ultimate morality (without knowing exactly what it is) just because you strongly feel that there are a few moral issues that seem to be probably true and good for everyone, then you are simply blowing hot air and I suggest that you get in touch with your flawed nature as a human and try to understand that God loves you and accepts you despite you not knowing anything and you making mistake after mistake after mistake.
Edit: fixing an italics runover from the quote.
Edit 2: not fixing a bold runover from the quote. Sheesh. The quote really should be seperate from the new text. Something to bring up in site ideas, I guess.