Is the following reasonable? If so/not, why?
Source: Morality is inherent only among non-innocent creatures--that is those with full self-awareness.
Authority: If (since) a necessarily laissez-faire, or non-existent, God will not hand us a moral code on a platter in order to enable the exercise of our moral free will with complete autonomy, any moral code must be its own universal authority. From prehistory forward, moral authority has progressed from the family/clan, through religious taboo and finally to government law. We can use government corruption as an excuse to undermine that law and regress back to a more local chaotic anarchy where might makes right; or we can rationally determine a universal simple/limited moral code that governs human interactions alone.
Enforcement: From there, enforcement of such a limited code is much simpler than the irrational, chaotic, double standard, ever changing tentacles of the corrupt legal behemoths we have now. And enforcement must have justice as it's ultimate goal if that comes in conflict with protecting the sanctity of the law--which its self-serving practitioners tend to protect beyond reason.
Morality: Its source/authority/enforcement
Moderator: Moderators
-
ThePainefulTruth
- Sage
- Posts: 841
- Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
- Location: Arizona
Post #41
[Replying to ThePainefulTruth]
Here's what you wrote in Post 26;
Your seeing the spread of a global free market economy which enriches the people everywhere it goes, increasing their economies and individual prosperity everywhere. Yes it's less than what they'd get payed here, but our spreading of the free market off shore helps prosperity progress faster. If we forced corporations to pay them the same, they'd bring their production back home to eventual failure--bringing us down to their level, and below, as capital accrued overseas into competition anyway. Remember Japan. They're on a par with us now as the free market spreads throughout Asia. China and the USSR have succumbed to the necessity to protect private property. Other freedoms follow inevitably.
They're not "spreading the free market". The free market still only exists in "Free market economies". China is not one, Bangladesh is not one, Vietnam is not one
Creating jobs in the process? Enriches the people everywhere it goes? Maybe, if 7 year olds count.
I can't help but cry out "Hypocrisy!!!!" Am I to believe that these companies are leaving the United States of America to do business in a country that truly understand LIBERTARIANS.... like China.... Like Bangladesh... Like Vietnam... Like Mexico.
Libertarians like to portray the world as a huge Monopoly game, as though we all start off equally and we all have an equal chance. But that's incorrect. No company that sells products in a Democratic country should be allowed to produce them in a totalitarian country.
Safety of the worker should be the first and foremost concern.
Safety and environmental issues cost money. I have a buddy that went to China to work on a tool my company produced, and the factory didn't have a bathroom!! If you had to go to the washroom, you went outside.
I work with a guy who worked in a factory in Mexico, and the company wouldn't buy batteries to power the welder's mask. That's the reality. They save money that way.
Clean air costs money. Clean water costs money. Health costs money. Protecting children costs money. Producing products in countries where clean air, clean water, health and child labour aren't a concern helps no one except the rich people who make money off polluting the air, polluting the water and exploiting children.
The funny thing is, after you lay everyone off, and they have no other choice but to join the service industry, they can afford to shop nowhere other than Walmart, which makes the greatest profit from products produced in Totalitarian countries.
Japan is Democratic!!! That is why they are successful. Democracy is a form of.... GOVERNMENT!! Therefore, by your own standard, Government is what brings a country out of poverty.
Here's what you wrote in Post 26;
Your seeing the spread of a global free market economy which enriches the people everywhere it goes, increasing their economies and individual prosperity everywhere. Yes it's less than what they'd get payed here, but our spreading of the free market off shore helps prosperity progress faster. If we forced corporations to pay them the same, they'd bring their production back home to eventual failure--bringing us down to their level, and below, as capital accrued overseas into competition anyway. Remember Japan. They're on a par with us now as the free market spreads throughout Asia. China and the USSR have succumbed to the necessity to protect private property. Other freedoms follow inevitably.
They're not "spreading the free market". The free market still only exists in "Free market economies". China is not one, Bangladesh is not one, Vietnam is not one
Creating jobs in the process? Enriches the people everywhere it goes? Maybe, if 7 year olds count.
I can't help but cry out "Hypocrisy!!!!" Am I to believe that these companies are leaving the United States of America to do business in a country that truly understand LIBERTARIANS.... like China.... Like Bangladesh... Like Vietnam... Like Mexico.
Libertarians like to portray the world as a huge Monopoly game, as though we all start off equally and we all have an equal chance. But that's incorrect. No company that sells products in a Democratic country should be allowed to produce them in a totalitarian country.
Safety of the worker should be the first and foremost concern.
Safety and environmental issues cost money. I have a buddy that went to China to work on a tool my company produced, and the factory didn't have a bathroom!! If you had to go to the washroom, you went outside.
I work with a guy who worked in a factory in Mexico, and the company wouldn't buy batteries to power the welder's mask. That's the reality. They save money that way.
Clean air costs money. Clean water costs money. Health costs money. Protecting children costs money. Producing products in countries where clean air, clean water, health and child labour aren't a concern helps no one except the rich people who make money off polluting the air, polluting the water and exploiting children.
The funny thing is, after you lay everyone off, and they have no other choice but to join the service industry, they can afford to shop nowhere other than Walmart, which makes the greatest profit from products produced in Totalitarian countries.
Japan is Democratic!!! That is why they are successful. Democracy is a form of.... GOVERNMENT!! Therefore, by your own standard, Government is what brings a country out of poverty.
Post #42
[Replying to post 39 by ThePainefulTruth]
Here's a tactic I've found with Libertarians; Their focus.
If I want to talk about wages, and the widening gap between managers/owners and workers, they'll mention the difference in wages between workers in the first world and third world countries. But that's wrong. The focus should be on the difference between workers and Owners/managers, be it first world or third world.
A Canadian being paid $18.22/hr is the same as an American being paid $15.00/hr on account of the currency difference. A 7 year old in Bangladesh being paid $.22/hr is NOT the same.... it's immoral... regardless of the currency difference.
Morality is about focus. You can focus in or out. Morality for one may not be the same as morality for all. Short term and long term goals may conflict. Why?
Freedom is a word that means a lot of different things, so you can use it in a lot of different ways. Am I free to let people dump all their used oil on my property for a fee? No? Than I am not free.
Let's start with something correct and something obvious, and work our way out from there.
You are not free to let people dump used oil on your property.
Why?
Here's a tactic I've found with Libertarians; Their focus.
If I want to talk about wages, and the widening gap between managers/owners and workers, they'll mention the difference in wages between workers in the first world and third world countries. But that's wrong. The focus should be on the difference between workers and Owners/managers, be it first world or third world.
A Canadian being paid $18.22/hr is the same as an American being paid $15.00/hr on account of the currency difference. A 7 year old in Bangladesh being paid $.22/hr is NOT the same.... it's immoral... regardless of the currency difference.
Morality is about focus. You can focus in or out. Morality for one may not be the same as morality for all. Short term and long term goals may conflict. Why?
Freedom is a word that means a lot of different things, so you can use it in a lot of different ways. Am I free to let people dump all their used oil on my property for a fee? No? Than I am not free.
Let's start with something correct and something obvious, and work our way out from there.
You are not free to let people dump used oil on your property.
Why?
-
ThePainefulTruth
- Sage
- Posts: 841
- Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
- Location: Arizona
Post #43
First off, it's a gradual process, which is the way it happened here, then in other countries like post war Japan. And it's having its effect in countries like China where wages gradually increase, and the right to private property is recognized which is the foot in the door for other rights. The alternative is to watch them starve. Yes, child labor it wrong, but what do you suggest, and how prevalent is it in the first place? I suspect a lot of exaggeration and emphasis on uncommon examples. Look at all the public service ads about hunger here in the US. Everybody "experiences hunger"...several times a day. The fattest group of people here are the so called poor. It's total disingenuous socialist propaganda.Mr.Badham wrote: [Replying to ThePainefulTruth]
Here's what you wrote in Post 26;
Your seeing the spread of a global free market economy which enriches the people everywhere it goes, increasing their economies and individual prosperity everywhere. Yes it's less than what they'd get payed here, but our spreading of the free market off shore helps prosperity progress faster. If we forced corporations to pay them the same, they'd bring their production back home to eventual failure--bringing us down to their level, and below, as capital accrued overseas into competition anyway. Remember Japan. They're on a par with us now as the free market spreads throughout Asia. China and the USSR have succumbed to the necessity to protect private property. Other freedoms follow inevitably.
They're not "spreading the free market". The free market still only exists in "Free market economies". China is not one, Bangladesh is not one, Vietnam is not one
Creating jobs in the process? Enriches the people everywhere it goes? Maybe, if 7 year olds count.
What, let 'em starve? Not that that's the primary reason companies go in there, but it's the effect it has. It's the principle of enlightened self-interest at work first hand. And we don't start off equally. Life isn't fair. We all are different intellectually, motivationally, and economidally. When you try to force equality, it's like playing whack-a-mole.I can't help but cry out "Hypocrisy!!!!" Am I to believe that these companies are leaving the United States of America to do business in a country that truly understand LIBERTARIANS.... like China.... Like Bangladesh... Like Vietnam... Like Mexico.
Libertarians like to portray the world as a huge Monopoly game, as though we all start off equally and we all have an equal chance. But that's incorrect. No company that sells products in a Democratic country should be allowed to produce them in a totalitarian country.
Safety of the worker should be the first and foremost concern.
Change that to survival, and I'd agree. But again, what's your alternative? Dictators would rather let them starve than let you tell them what they must do. Many times in life the only choices are between two evils. It's like war, it's horrible, but the alternative is worse, and all the do-gooders say is "there's got to be a better way", but they never say what it is. Children pay a terrible toll in war as well.
I agree, those examples are horrible. What do you suggest?Safety and environmental issues cost money. I have a buddy that went to China to work on a tool my company produced, and the factory didn't have a bathroom!! If you had to go to the washroom, you went outside.
I work with a guy who worked in a factory in Mexico, and the company wouldn't buy batteries to power the welder's mask. That's the reality. They save money that way.
Clean air costs money. Clean water costs money. Health costs money. Protecting children costs money. Producing products in countries where clean air, clean water, health and child labour aren't a concern helps no one except the rich people who make money off polluting the air, polluting the water and exploiting children.
Government promotes (or should promote) prosperity and human welfare by protecting human rights, and otherwise getting out of the way. We can only afford all the safety and pollution controls because of our success. The lack of pollution control in China, India and Iran is because those governments aren't protecting the rights of the people as soon as they can afford it, which China certainly can now. But again what can we do, go to war and force them to do better? Pull our business and technology acumen and watch them regress, or worse.Japan is Democratic!!! That is why they are successful. Democracy is a form of.... GOVERNMENT!! Therefore, by your own standard, Government is what brings a country out of poverty.
-
ThePainefulTruth
- Sage
- Posts: 841
- Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
- Location: Arizona
Post #44
Why, because socialists say so? The problem comes first off when we try to decide who dictates the "wage gap", wealthy redistribution or the minimum wage. How much is too much, who decides, and what's the price we're willing to pay for motivation or ingenuity? Ignoring those aspects is so easy when emotions are all that figure into one's thinking.Mr.Badham wrote: [Replying to post 39 by ThePainefulTruth]
Here's a tactic I've found with Libertarians; Their focus.
If I want to talk about wages, and the widening gap between managers/owners and workers, they'll mention the difference in wages between workers in the first world and third world countries. But that's wrong. The focus should be on the difference between workers and Owners/managers, be it first world or third world.
Re: my previous post. What do you suggest?A Canadian being paid $18.22/hr is the same as an American being paid $15.00/hr on account of the currency difference. A 7 year old in Bangladesh being paid $.22/hr is NOT the same.... it's immoral... regardless of the currency difference.
Your morality, his morality, or a universal morality?Morality is about focus. You can focus in or out. Morality for one may not be the same as morality for all. Short term and long term goals may conflict. Why?
Excellent. My definition of freedom is the right to be as dumb as you want, on your own dime?Freedom is a word that means a lot of different things, so you can use it in a lot of different ways. Am I free to let people dump all their used oil on my property for a fee? No? Than I am not free.
Let's start with something correct and something obvious, and work our way out from there.
Because it (which is a bad example) causes other people direct harm. It get's stickier when the harm is minimal, or exaggerated, or only imagined, or beyond human control.You are not free to let people dump used oil on your property.
Why?
-
Eternity
Seven Commandments?
Post #45If one believes that the Ten Commandments were written by the hand of God, I suggest considering that originally there were only Seven Commandments. If there is ample evidence for Seven Commandments originally, I suggest that there never were any Commandments written buy the hand of God. The Ten Commandments become a myth. Critically, the Ten Commandments do represent a religious cult's laws. Given that there is a difference between other Codes of the Near Eastern people, the Ten Commandments are more representative of the God of Israel than they are about the people. This needs more clarification. The first three commandments involve man and God, whereas, the last seven commandments represent man's relationship with his fellow man. The Near Eastern codes represented crimes against one's fellow man. And the difference between all codes vs. the Ten Commandments was, Near Eastern codes were casuistic law and the Ten Commandments were apodictic law. (See the quote below.)
When one considers that the modern translation of the Ten Commandments changes the emphasis of the Commandments, that new understanding leads to a confused understanding of the purpose of Jewish Law.
Confusing because the difference between coveting and taking is the difference between wanting and doing. So, my understanding relies on coveting, not taking. But then, this illustrates why it is necessary to seek out the correct translation and, it makes a big difference in how Christianity views the Bible and its message.
Given the above documentation of the JBC, one begins to see that there is a sense of morality with Commandments Four through Ten. To be sure, these Commandments represent man's relationship with one's fellow man. At the very least, the Commandments represent an order, albeit the similarity to all other Near Eastern codes. Seems as if the Commandments do not take into account one's heart as the prophets of the OT seem to reiterate Israel's relationship with God, Dt 6:5. But then, that is exactly why Matthew 22:36-40 fulfills the Law. What they did not get then seems to still be the problem now.
JBC = Jerome Biblical Commentary
Library of Congress Catalog Card No.: 68-9140.
"48 (D) The Decalogue (20:1-17). The text of our Ten Commandments was evolved in two forms: Ex 20 and Dt 5:6-21. A harmonization of the two appears in Nash Papyrus of the 2nd cent. BC, found in the Fayyum area of Egypt in 1902. A third form is the so called Ritual Decalogue in Ex 34:11-26(J).
In this section on the Decalogue, e.g., the Code of Lipit-Ishtar, the Code of Eshnunna, the Code of Hamurabi, and the Hittite codes. The basis of these codes is casuistic law: If so-and-so does this, then the following penalty is operative. In the Decalogue, however, we meet the characteristic apodictic law: Thou shalt or thou shalt not do such-and-such, with no introductory conditional element.
Many authors maintain that the formula of the Decalogue found in Commandments Four through Ten represents the original. In the first three, the original pithy statements have been supplemented by late traditions. This change must have taken place at an early period, because the added formulas are found also in the Deuteronomic Code.
. . .
The chief discrepancies between Ex and Dt consist in the humanitarian motivation added in the latter for the observance of the Sabbath precept, and in the reversal of order in Ex 20:17 and Dt 5:21. In Ex, "house" is named first and then "wife."
Commandments Four through Ten constitute essential elements of the natural law; therefore, we also find them in earlier law codes. Even here, however, we can note a major difference: In the codes of other Near Eastern peoples, violation of these precepts constitutes a crime against one's fellow man; in the Bible, their violation maraks a crime against God himself. Hence we note an entirely new orientation. For further details, see W. Harrelson, "Ten Commandments," IDB 4, 569-73. JBC[3:48].
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-joel-h ... 29620.html“The tenth Commandment, commonly but wrongly translated as "thou shalt not covet," illustrates how internal structure or etymology can be misleading. Like the English "host" and "hostile" that share a root but don't mean the same thing, the words for "desirable" and "take" in Hebrew come from the same root. It's the second word, "take," that appears in the Ten Commandments. But translators, not recognizing that related words can mean different things in this way, misunderstood the Hebrew and wrongly translated the text as "thou shalt not covet" for what should have been "thou shalt not take." (Learn more: "Thou shalt not covet?")�
When one considers that the modern translation of the Ten Commandments changes the emphasis of the Commandments, that new understanding leads to a confused understanding of the purpose of Jewish Law.
Confusing because the difference between coveting and taking is the difference between wanting and doing. So, my understanding relies on coveting, not taking. But then, this illustrates why it is necessary to seek out the correct translation and, it makes a big difference in how Christianity views the Bible and its message.
Given the above documentation of the JBC, one begins to see that there is a sense of morality with Commandments Four through Ten. To be sure, these Commandments represent man's relationship with one's fellow man. At the very least, the Commandments represent an order, albeit the similarity to all other Near Eastern codes. Seems as if the Commandments do not take into account one's heart as the prophets of the OT seem to reiterate Israel's relationship with God, Dt 6:5. But then, that is exactly why Matthew 22:36-40 fulfills the Law. What they did not get then seems to still be the problem now.
JBC = Jerome Biblical Commentary
Library of Congress Catalog Card No.: 68-9140.
Post #46
[Replying to post 43 by ThePainefulTruth]
Have you seen my thread in this philosophy subgroup? The one about a definition of morality? I believe it directly challenges several of the axioms in your original post. It seems that the breadth of your argument is asking for a more a posteriori concept of morality. I challenge the notion that it must answer strictly for human interaction alone, to the exclusion of all other socially complex animals. If you are interested in this subject, may I recommend seeing if my concept can help you? Heads up: There is a definition in the original post, and the a major revision in the later third of the posts. Hope I can help you out finding some clarification.
Regards
Have you seen my thread in this philosophy subgroup? The one about a definition of morality? I believe it directly challenges several of the axioms in your original post. It seems that the breadth of your argument is asking for a more a posteriori concept of morality. I challenge the notion that it must answer strictly for human interaction alone, to the exclusion of all other socially complex animals. If you are interested in this subject, may I recommend seeing if my concept can help you? Heads up: There is a definition in the original post, and the a major revision in the later third of the posts. Hope I can help you out finding some clarification.
Regards
"Behold! A Man!" ~ Diogenes, my Hero.
-
ThePainefulTruth
- Sage
- Posts: 841
- Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
- Location: Arizona
Re: Seven Commandments?
Post #47Excellent!!!Eternity wrote: If one believes that the Ten Commandments were written by the hand of God, I suggest considering that originally there were only Seven Commandments. If there is ample evidence for Seven Commandments originally, I suggest that there never were any Commandments written buy the hand of God.
-
ThePainefulTruth
- Sage
- Posts: 841
- Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
- Location: Arizona
Post #48
I think it not only reasonable but incontrovertible that the only creatures capable of comprehending morality, and thereby making moral choices between good and bad, are sentient creatures--that is beings with FULL self-awareness. If one is unable to comprehend the impact of your actions on another being (pain, suffering, permanent death), then they've got no idea what morality is about. If you have no self-awareness, you're innocent.sickles wrote: [Replying to post 43 by ThePainefulTruth]
Have you seen my thread in this philosophy subgroup? The one about a definition of morality? I believe it directly challenges several of the axioms in your original post. It seems that the breadth of your argument is asking for a more a posteriori concept of morality. I challenge the notion that it must answer strictly for human interaction alone, to the exclusion of all other socially complex animals. If you are interested in this subject, may I recommend seeing if my concept can help you? Heads up: There is a definition in the original post, and the a major revision in the later third of the posts. Hope I can help you out finding some clarification.
Regards
-
ThePainefulTruth
- Sage
- Posts: 841
- Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
- Location: Arizona
Post #50
[Replying to post 48 by sickles]
None, though the closer they are to full self-awareness, and allowing that it's hard for us to put a fine point on it given our limited ability to communicate with them, I believe some deserve legal protection of their life and liberty to the maximum extent possible--as a guiding principle to navigate this grey area.
It's similar to the abortion issue. When does a fetus acquire a right to life? (When does a child acquire the rights to liberty, property and self-defense.?) It's the most complex moral issue we face and we're treating it if it had an on/off switch, or that God has a say in making our laws without employing divine authority first hand.
None, though the closer they are to full self-awareness, and allowing that it's hard for us to put a fine point on it given our limited ability to communicate with them, I believe some deserve legal protection of their life and liberty to the maximum extent possible--as a guiding principle to navigate this grey area.
It's similar to the abortion issue. When does a fetus acquire a right to life? (When does a child acquire the rights to liberty, property and self-defense.?) It's the most complex moral issue we face and we're treating it if it had an on/off switch, or that God has a say in making our laws without employing divine authority first hand.
