|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jul 17, 2018 12:37:16 GMT
The law is completely irrelevant, there's no moral obligation for you to obey the law. Laws reflect the ethics and morality of a society. Therefore, I can safely dismiss this opinion of yours. Where are these ethics and morals? |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Jul 17, 2018 12:38:47 GMT
who cares about the law? The law is completely irrelevant, there's no moral obligation for you to obey the law. Exactly! The law is irrelevant if one isn't breaking it, because it is of no concern or consequence at that moment. If we are informed that a law is broken by an action that opposes the ideal of law, then the law is then again irrelevant because it wasn't heeded, regardless of one being aware of unaware it was law. The ideal is born out of a moral and the moral is abstract and intangible, hence is the law.
Laws can't prevent what is made illegal from happening. Wouldn't the purpose be to have a system to remedy a situation or consequences if someone doesn't abide? |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jul 17, 2018 12:40:17 GMT
because what a piece of paper says is completely irrelevant. I find it really amusing that as an atheist you would look to a piece of paper for moral guidance, remind you of anyone on this board? Hint - these people believe in the Abrahamic god. By this logic the french had no right to fight against the german imposed regime during WW2, it would be wrong to protest if protesting was made illegal etc The piece of paper is not the law. The piece of paper is the means by which 'the law' is codified and disseminated for all to see/read. " Law is a system of rules that are created and enforced through social or governmental institutions to regulate behaviour. Law is a system that regulates and ensures that individuals or a community adhere to the will of the state. State-enforced laws can be made by a collective legislature or by a single legislator, resulting in statutes, by the executive through decrees and regulations, or established by judges through precedent, normally in common law jurisdictions. Private individuals can create legally binding contracts, including arbitration agreements that may elect to accept alternative arbitration to the normal court process. The formation of laws themselves may be influenced by a constitution, written or tacit, and the rights encoded therein. The law shapes politics, economics, history and society in various ways and serves as a mediator of relations between people." What does this have to do with atheism? or otherwise? Argue for your limitations, you get to keep them goz. You put way too much faith in the law and it doesn't do a darn thing to change things, except to keep things the same way they already are. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jul 17, 2018 12:50:53 GMT
Exactly! The law is irrelevant if one isn't breaking it, because it is of no concern or consequence at that moment. If we are informed that a law is broken by an action that opposes the ideal of law, then the law is then again irrelevant because it wasn't heeded, regardless of one being aware of unaware it was law. The ideal is born out of a moral and the moral is abstract and intangible, hence is the law.
Laws can't prevent what is made illegal from happening. Wouldn't the purpose be to have a system to remedy a situation or consequences if someone doesn't abide? But who is it that is abiding or not abiding? What "exactly" is it that the system is remedying?
My purpose is my own contribution to my life, not what others tell me what my purpose should be. Appropriate behavior is always key, but we also can't control others behaviors, which are only born out of attitudes anyway. People who perform tasks based on what the ideal of law tells them they should do—like airport patdowns—are deeply, deeply asleep. No-one should have to go through that, as total bodily autonomy is our own. They have laws against this, then the law turns around and tells us we have to accept this. No-one should have to consent to this violation. A big massive double standard of hypocrisy is at play. |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Jul 17, 2018 12:55:07 GMT
Laws can't prevent what is made illegal from happening. Wouldn't the purpose be to have a system to remedy a situation or consequences if someone doesn't abide? But who is it that is abiding or not abiding? What "exactly" is it that the system is remedying?
My purpose is my own contribution to my life, not what others tell me what my purpose should be. Appropriate behavior is always key, but we also can't control others behaviors, which are only born out of attitudes anyway. People who perform tasks based on what the ideal of law tells them they should do—like airport patdowns—are deeply, deeply asleep. No-one should have to go through that, as total bodily autonomy is our own. They have laws against this, then the law turns around and tells us we have to accept this. No-one should have to consent to this violation. A big massive double standard of hypocrisy is at play. I think there are many minor crimes that the legal system shouldn't bother with. But what of murder, rape, theft, killing people because you do something so off the wall negligent? Do we just count on people not to do those things? What would you have done with those who act in that way? |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jul 17, 2018 13:18:09 GMT
But who is it that is abiding or not abiding? What "exactly" is it that the system is remedying?
My purpose is my own contribution to my life, not what others tell me what my purpose should be. Appropriate behavior is always key, but we also can't control others behaviors, which are only born out of attitudes anyway. People who perform tasks based on what the ideal of law tells them they should do—like airport patdowns—are deeply, deeply asleep. No-one should have to go through that, as total bodily autonomy is our own. They have laws against this, then the law turns around and tells us we have to accept this. No-one should have to consent to this violation. A big massive double standard of hypocrisy is at play. I think there are many minor crimes that the legal system shouldn't bother with. But what of murder, rape, theft, killing people because you do something so off the wall negligent? Do we just count on people not to do those things? What would you have done with those who act in that way? Regardless of whether or not one counts on someone doing something, it doesn't change a darn thing to what they actually do. No law is going to prevent someone else's behavior if they are going to do whatever they choose to do, for whatever reason. If a person is perceived as a dangerous threat to themselves and others, then consequences will ensue. The person will need to be detained and possibly restrained until the situation can be assessed. This ultimately though, has nothing to do with the law like it is made out to be. This is founded on morals, which are just a thought or belief of the mind. It is not tactile. This is just the process of the system though, which is seen as righteous and just. It isn't! It feeds of others suffering.
However, this is the only system we have at this stage of our human evolution. What is not getting addressed, is WHY are people behaving in this aberrant manner and what is the ROOT CAUSE of this? The system is about self-serving agendas and keeping the status quo in place. The system is phony and is uncaring and unjust, in spite of what it wants us to believe. The only option left is to play the game with the best of intentions and coming from best possible space of nobility within our lives. What is getting taught though, is about the self and the ever present 'I'. This is why we have the issues that we contend with in our societies.  |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 17, 2018 13:22:33 GMT
No law, whether religious are secular is to be taken into account, no matter the decision. Excellent news! Perhaps a decision to shoot your grandmother in the back of the head can be now taken, away from issues of law or the risk of prosecution? The law, after all, being irrelevant and all as you have decided? This could be a lot of fun. Because not all laws and circumstances are the same? If I was to criticise the faithful for doing this it would be because the laws of the bible are said to be given authority by the inspiration of a purported supernatural, rather than the due processes of men, where that source and authority remains questionable. The laws of men have been established through such quantifiable things as precedent, the weighed arguments of men, custom, debated legislative decision and the structures of working justice etc. The difference is everything. However this observation does not mean that the moral dictates of any scripture of whatever source are necessarily wrong in and of itself.
As an atheist I don't pick anything from the Bible, or any other scripture, to follow by way of a moral law. Away from this however it might contain some useful rules for living, especially in the more empathetic NT while, as already noted, some law in scripture does correspond to secular law, such as the proscription on murder. But I think you would know that.
And you still haven't told me why law, of any sort is necessarily irrelevant - at least enough for you to decide to ignore it. Is it because it would bring more advantage to society and greater justice to all? Or because crime will still be committed 'anyway', so as not to bother chasing it? Would you still take such a laissez-faire attitude if you and yours were severely wronged? I doubt it.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 17, 2018 13:50:25 GMT
I would agree with all but #2 Why would that be? It means your protest was undemocratic and thus more likely to be self-serving. (please note my edit to my last post ). to be clear I don’t think protest is an extreme measure. Didsonedience to the law is extreme to the individual though. Protests and disobedience are not based on the majority view. Really many laws are based on protecting the minority without a democratic process. Also, the Democratic process is not subject to rounding up. So just because the majority may incorrectly view my beliefs as dangerous enough to ban, that wouldn’t mean that the majority miraculously becomes right. |
|
|
|
Post by Lugh on Jul 17, 2018 13:54:04 GMT
No law, whether religious are secular is to be taken into account, no matter the decision. Excellent news! Perhaps a decision to shoot your grandmother in the back of the head can be now taken, away from issues of law or the risk of prosecution? The law, after all, being irrelevant and all as you have decided? This could be a lot of fun. Because not all laws and circumstances are the same? If I was to criticise the faithful for doing this it would be because the laws of the bible are said to be given authority by the inspiration of a purported supernatural, rather than the due processes of men, where that source and authority remains questionable. The laws of men have been established through such quantifiable things as precedent, the weighed arguments of men, custom, debated legislative decision and the structures of working justice etc. The difference is everything. However this observation does not mean that the moral dictates of any scripture of whatever source are necessarily wrong in and of itself.
As an atheist I don't pick anything from the Bible, or any other scripture, to follow by way of a moral law. Away from this however it might contain some useful rules for living, especially in the more empathetic NT while, as already noted, some law in scripture does correspond to secular law, such as the proscription on murder. But I think you would know that.
And you still haven't told me why law, of any sort is necessarily irrelevant - at least enough for you to decide to ignore it. Is it because it would bring more advantage to society and greater justice to all? Or because crime will still be committed 'anyway', so as not to bother chasing it? Would you still take such a laissez-faire attitude if you and yours were severely wronged? I doubt it.
"Perhaps a decision to shoot your grandmother in the back of the head can be now taken, away from issues of law or the risk of prosecution? The law, after all, being irrelevant and all as you have decided?" "There's no moral obligation to obey the law" is not the same as nor does it entail "Don't enforce good laws" "The laws of men have been established through such quantifiable things as precedent, the weighed arguments of men, custom, debated legislative decision and the structures of working justice etc" Yes because the human race has such a good track record of making good ethical judgements. This is just argumentum ad populum basically. "As an atheist I don't pick anything from the Bible, or any other scripture, to follow by way of a moral law. Away from this however it might contain some useful rules for living, especially in the more empathetic NT while, as already noted, some law in scripture does correspond to secular law, such as the proscription on murder. But I think you would know that." lol try reading that again. "B-b-but the law says I shouldnt" is such a juvenile attitude, equivalent to "But my mom says I shouldnt". Grow a pair and stop letting people tell you what to do. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 17, 2018 13:59:44 GMT
to be clear I don’t think protest is an extreme measure. Didsonedience to the law is extreme to the individual though. Protests and disobedience are not based on the majority view. Really many laws are based on protecting the minority without a democratic process. This is true, and I recognise there is such a thing as the tyranny of the majority. But the three principles outlined, when working together, would help ensure that law breaking was honest, democratic and responsible which is a good first measuring stick. This is also true, see my comment above. However breaking the law is certainly easier to justify when an honest majority are in favour of such an action rather than just a permanently disgruntled few with no real mandate. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 17, 2018 14:04:43 GMT
FF: "Perhaps a decision to shoot your grandmother in the back of the head can be now taken, away from issues of law or the risk of prosecution? The law, after all, being irrelevant and all as you have decided?" Lugh: "There's no moral obligation to obey the law" is not the same as nor does it entail "Don't enforce good laws" Indeed. But until now in this exchange you have not made such a fine distinction, have you? Are there any more caveats you'd like to introduce? That would be a reason to accept those laws of men, then - and so a QED.
Please highlight the part which you feel is inaccurate, and we can laugh together.
Excellent. So then: if I now call you a moronic child molesting rapist and murderer, and post your address, presumably it would be juvenile of you to look up the laws on libel, and harassment? After all, it would all be so ... irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lugh on Jul 17, 2018 14:15:10 GMT
FF: "Perhaps a decision to shoot your grandmother in the back of the head can be now taken, away from issues of law or the risk of prosecution? The law, after all, being irrelevant and all as you have decided?" Lugh: "There's no moral obligation to obey the law" is not the same as nor does it entail "Don't enforce good laws" Indeed. But until now in this exchange you have not made such a distinction, have you? That would be a reason to accept those laws of men, then - and so a QED.
Please highlight the part which you feel is inaccurate, and we can laugh together.
Excellent. So then: if I now call you a child molesting rapist and murderer, and post your address, presumably it would be juvenile of you to look up the laws on libel, and harrassment? It would all be so ... irrelevant.
"Indeed. But until now in this exchange you have not made such a distinction, have you? " I didn't know you were this illiterate. If I say "There is no moral obligation to believe what FilmFlaneur says" I am obviously not saying "You should never believe what filmflaneur says" "That would be a reason to accept those laws of men, then - and so a QED." Lol how? |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 17, 2018 14:23:19 GMT
"Indeed. But until now in this exchange you have not made such a distinction, have you? " I don't know you were this illiterate. If I say "There is no moral obligation to believe what FilmFlaneur says" I am obviously not saying "You should never believe what filmflaneur says"
When you say, as you did, "No law, whether religious are secular is to be taken into account, no matter the decision." it admits of no obvious qualification. But the current wobble is noted. I love the smell of disingenuousness in the morning..
It was a QED (a point taken as proven) since you said, in answer to the fact that I prefer secular authority for law over the religious:
"Yes because the human race has such a good track record of making good ethical judgements".
By agreeing with me and even giving a reason, you take things as said, without objection. I hope that helps. (if you are now going to say that your remark was sarcastic or ironic, then let me know how the elements which make it up that I described would make human justice less likely to reach ethical and moral decisions than humankind's inspiration from an unproved deity. Since you suddenly say now that 'good' as well as 'bad' law exists, then here we are talking about the good.)
Let me know when your granny is free, btw I really feel like taking her out with a single shot, now the law on murder is apparently irrelevant, and in any case the killer inside thinks it a 'bad' law. Or perhaps I could ravish any female relatives? Exciting times, eh? |
|
|
|
Post by Lugh on Jul 17, 2018 14:37:22 GMT
"Indeed. But until now in this exchange you have not made such a distinction, have you? " I don't know you were this illiterate. If I say "There is no moral obligation to believe what FilmFlaneur says" I am obviously not saying "You should never believe what filmflaneur says"
When you say, as you did, "No law, whether religious are secular is to be taken into account, no matter the decision." it admits of no obvious qualification. But the current wobble is noted. I love the smell of disingenuousness in the morning..
It was a QED (a point taken as proven) since you said, in answer to the fact that I prefer secular authority for law over the religious:
"Yes because the human race has such a good track record of making good ethical judgements".
By agreeing with me and even giving a reason, you take things as said, without objection. I hope that helps. (if you are now going to say that your remark was sarcastic or ironic, then let me know how the elements which make it up that I described would make human justice less likely to reach ethical and moral decisions than humankind's inspiration from an unproved deity. Since you suddenly say now that 'good' as well as 'bad' law exists, then here we are talking about the good.)
Let me know when your granny is free, btw I really feel like taking her out with a single shot, now the law on murder is apparently irrelevant. Or perhaps I could ravish any female relatives? I think all non-illiterate people out there understand that I was saying no law should be valued on the basis that it is a law. "if you are now going to say that your remark was sarcastic or ironic, then let me know how the elements which make it up that I described would make human justice less likely to reach ethical and moral decisions than humankind's inspiration from an unproved deity." Lmao. Why are you bringing up divine law? This is not a divone law vs human law situation. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 17, 2018 15:01:24 GMT
"I think all non-illiterate people out there understand that I was saying no law should be valued on the basis that it is a law. But this is another wobble which does not represent your original sentiment that "The law is completely irrelevant, there's no moral obligation for you to obey the law." There was no crafty rider back then of ".. just on the basis that it is the law". It is also arguable that one might value (or at least respect) the law as 'the law' more, too because of the force it carries with it compared to just advisements or strong recommendations. Or perhaps you don't recognise such distinctions? It was you who earlier made this exact distinction, quite out of the blue, with "It's just funny that you criticise Christians for looking to the bible for moral guidance, when you do the same, just with the legal system .. just like Christians, you pick and choose from the bible, you conveniently ignore the bible when it suits you. The sole difference being your bible is legal system." was it not? So then: going by the fact that there is 'good' and 'bad' law (as you say now), and you now not wishing to distinguish between two prime sources of moral code, then presumably overall divine law and human law can both be 'good'. i.e. either sorts have moments when they ought to be obeyed more than the bad. Er, but then: was it not you who criticised me for 'picking and choosing'? I think it was. Can you have your grandma waiting in the barn, I don't wouldn't want to get blood on the furniture. I hope you have explained the new order to her. |
|
|
|
Post by Lugh on Jul 17, 2018 18:15:45 GMT
"I think all non-illiterate people out there understand that I was saying no law should be valued on the basis that it is a law. But this is another wobble which does not represent your original sentiment that "The law is completely irrelevant, there's no moral obligation for you to obey the law." There was no crafty rider back then of ".. just on the basis that it is the law". It is also arguable that one might value (or at least respect) the law as 'the law' more, too because of the force it carries with it compared to just advisements or strong recommendations. Or perhaps you don't recognise such distinctions? It was you who earlier made this exact distinction, quite out of the blue, with "It's just funny that you criticise Christians for looking to the bible for moral guidance, when you do the same, just with the legal system .. just like Christians, you pick and choose from the bible, you conveniently ignore the bible when it suits you. The sole difference being your bible is legal system." was it not? So then: going by the fact that there is 'good' and 'bad' law (as you say now), and you now not wishing to distinguish between two prime sources of moral code, then presumably overall divine law and human law can both be 'good'. i.e. either sorts have moments when they ought to be obeyed more than the bad. Er, but then: was it not you who criticised me for 'picking and choosing'? I think it was. Can you have your grandma waiting in the barn, I don't wouldn't want to get blood on the furniture. I hope you have explained the new order to her. Everybody that can has a solid grasp of social interaction knew exactly what I was saying. Seriously wondering if you're an aspie now. I brought up the fact that humans historically have been really terrible at making laws, the implication to all of us here who speak English being that therefore there is no reason to obey a law just becuase its the law. You responded by going on about how human law is so much better then divine law. Keep up. |
|
|
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jul 17, 2018 19:00:56 GMT
Debating what laws mean vis-a-vis morality is a distraction.
Laws may or may not represent the moral sense of a community.
Who wrote the laws? What went into the crafting of the laws?
Cui bono?
When Donald Trump signs a law, does it reflect the commonly held moral sense of the people of the United States?
/rant
Can we get back to discussing morality itself?
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 17, 2018 19:04:20 GMT
Law is moral code regardless of how much sense it makes or how embraces it is by the public.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jul 17, 2018 19:21:25 GMT
Ok, folks, here's what this has all been leading up to: (emphasis added) Pope Benedict XVI, 18 May 2011 w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2011/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20110518.htmlIn the communities of Sodom and Gomorrah, the commonly held sense of what was good, right, and proper was abhorrent to the God of Abraham, which led God to destroy every last one of the inhabitants of those cities. In those cities of hundreds, if not thousands, of people, there weren't even 10 who shared Abraham's God's views of what was right. For those who insist that judgments of right and wrong must take into account the moral sensibilities of the individual community (or era), how do you explain God's treatment of Sodom and Gomorrah? |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 17, 2018 19:44:56 GMT
The explanation of why Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed is flawed.
|
|
