Uyi Iredia:

Yes.

CAVEAT: I would prefer if it is a could, so it becomes a question of ability rather than an onus.

Good. You say there should be criminal laws.

Next Jamb Question.

2. On whose moral paradigms should the criminal laws be based -

a) the majority
b) the minority
c) every man should have his paradigm inculcated in the laws [anarchy?]
d) a supervening natural law

(You might want to have a look at the philosophic ideas of natural law and positive law before answering this question)

Nice thread troll.

Deep Sight:

I have not said so, and I have no idea why you would put those words in my mouth.

As far as I know, the general objective morality preached by virtually all world religions is love of God and fellow man.

And believing in that, I draw my position therefrom to say nay to anything that runs counter to love of fellow man - such as murder, theft and the like.

You, on the other hand, say that none of these are intrinsically evil so YOU have no basis to condemn those who subscribe to such - based on YOUR declared position.

I say - there is objective morality and so I can condemn certain actions.

You say - its all subjective, and so you CANNOT condemn ANY actions.

Its simple, really.

The very fact that someone can say it's subjective makes your position so.
But wait. It so happens I've had a case with MyJoe on marriage. Umm. Could you tell us what you have in mind when you say objective or subjective. (ie the definitions you're working with) ?

Uyi Iredia:

For whargarbl's sakes just like the damn thing already. Unless . . .

I'm human bros. I'm not perfect. Besides, I miss our spats. Goot times

wiegraf:

You seem to be describing santa. Where is this universal, human consciousness based universal code? Human consciousness, a completely subjective experience. It applies to every species and isn't built around what the majority of humans are content with? And again, why does it automatically apply to those who do not subscribe to it? Are they not humans with consciousness as well? So, they are defective humans?

In that, you will have to explain why there exist pangs of conscience (with individuals) and revolutions (with nations).

Unless, of course, as I happily expect, you may probably be so far gone in your delusions as to declare that no such thing as pangs of conscience exist.

Deep Sight:

Good. You say there should be criminal laws.

Next Jamb Question.

2. On whose moral paradigms should the criminal laws be based -

a) the majority
b) the minority
c) every man should have his paradigm inculcated in the laws [anarchy?]
d) a supervening natural law

(You might want to have a look at the philosophic ideas of natural law and positive law before answering this question)

a) the majority

PS: I suspect you will soon get to the part where you plead for objective morality. And I have checked on definitions natural and positive law on Wikipedia before replying.

Uyi Iredia:

The very fact that someone can say it's subjective makes your position so.
But wait. It so happens I've had a case with MyJoe on marriage. Umm. Could you tell us what you have in mind when you say objective or subjective. (is he definitions you're working with) ?

Please read up on natural law and positive law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

Uyi Iredia:

a) the majority

PS: I suspect you will soon get to the part where you plead for objective morality. And I have checked on definitions natural and positive law on Wikipedia before replying.

If you state that -

a) All morality is subjective

b) There should be criminal laws

c) The criminal laws should be set by the majority

You do not see any repression of (a) by (b) and (c)?

In other words, you cannot see how your position is contradictory and falls apart, by insisting that all morality is subjective, but that the morality of the majority should by imposed on the minorities?

What makes this just?

Deep Sight:

If you state that -

a) All morality is subjective

b) There should be criminal laws

c) The criminal laws should be set by the majority

You do not see any repression of (a) by (b) and (c)?

In other words, you cannot see how your position is contradictory and falls apart, by insisting that all morality is subjective, but that the morality of the majority should by imposed on the minorities?

What makes this just?

For now, lemme hold back my argument as to why it is just. What's your position and how is it superior to mine as to this context ? With that I'll proceed.

Now Mr Troll, when you get back, please answer these question:

Do you believe Hitler was wrong, as in morally depraved and evil ?

Joshthefirst: Now Mr Troll, when you get back, please answer these question:

Do you believe Hitler was wrong, as in morally depraved and evil ?

Of course not! It's ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE! ! ! ! !

Deep Sight:

Of course not! It's ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE! ! ! ! !

lol. I wonder why he claims humans evolved morality. Smh.

Uyi Iredia:

For now, lemme hold back my argument as to why it is just. What's your position and how is it superior to mine as to this context ? With that I'll proceed.

My position is that such laws are natural laws, and they therefore find binding force on all people because they are natural laws.

__________________________________

Greek philosophy emphasized the distinction between "nature" (physis, φúσις) on the one hand and "law", "custom", or "convention" (nomos, νóμος) on the other. What the law commanded varied from place to place, but what was "by nature" should be the same everywhere. A "law of nature" would therefore have had the flavor more of a paradox than something that obviously existed.[1] Against the conventionalism that the distinction between nature and custom could engender, Socrates and his philosophic heirs, Plato and Aristotle, posited the existence of natural justice or natural right (dikaion physikon, δικαιον φυσικον, Latin ius naturale). Of these, Aristotle is often said to be the father of natural law.[3]

The best evidence of Aristotle's having thought there was a natural law comes from the Rhetoric, where Aristotle notes that, aside from the "particular" laws that each people has set up for itself, there is a "common" law that is according to nature.[16] Specifically, he quotes Sophocles and Empedocles:
Universal law is the law of Nature. For there really is, as every one to some extent divines, a natural justice and injustice that is binding on all men, even on those who have no association or covenant with each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law#Aristotle

Uyi Iredia:

For now, lemme hold back my argument as to why it is just. What's your position and how is it superior to mine as to this context ? With that I'll proceed.

And again - since you say that the criminal laws (probably as with all laws) should be set by the majority, you therefore accede that laws where the majority endorsed, slavery, murder, exploitation, ritualism, and the like, were all right and good and in order - - - > since they were approved by the majority, no?

Be careful, it appears to me you have not thought this matter over carefully.

Deep Sight:

My position is that such laws are natural laws, and they therefore find binding force on all people because they are natural laws.

__________________________________

Greek philosophy emphasized the distinction between "nature" (physis, φúσις) on the one hand and "law", "custom", or "convention" (nomos, νóμος) on the other. What the law commanded varied from place to place, but what was "by nature" should be the same everywhere. A "law of nature" would therefore have had the flavor more of a paradox than something that obviously existed.[1] Against the conventionalism that the distinction between nature and custom could engender, Socrates and his philosophic heirs, Plato and Aristotle, posited the existence of natural justice or natural right (dikaion physikon, δικαιον φυσικον, Latin ius naturale). Of these, Aristotle is often said to be the father of natural law.[3]

The best evidence of Aristotle's having thought there was a natural law comes from the Rhetoric, where Aristotle notes that, aside from the "particular" laws that each people has set up for itself, there is a "common" law that is according to nature.[16] Specifically, he quotes Sophocles and Empedocles:
Universal law is the law of Nature. For there really is, as every one to some extent divines, a natural justice and injustice that is binding on all men, even on those who have no association or covenant with each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law#Aristotle

sir, please could you tell me what brought about these natural laws?

As a christian believe they were brought about by God inscribing in our consciences naturally. I believe our actions regarding the law are not based on mere instincts like animals, I believe they are based on conscience, and consciousness.


So what do you think sir? What is your stance? Were the laws evolved? What brought about these natural laws?

Deep Sight:

And again - since you say that the criminal laws (probably as with all laws) should be set by the majority, you therefore accede that laws where the majority endorsed, slavery, murder, exploitation, ritualism, and the like, were all right and good and in order - - - > since they were approved by the majority, no?

Be careful, it appears to me you have not thought this matter over carefully.

you might add the laws set in germany that legally allowed them to kill 11 million people uinder hitler. legally.

To legally rule that other humans were less than human and worthy of elimination was accepted by the majority.

Deep Sight:

And again - since you say that the criminal laws (probably as with all laws) should be set by the majority, you therefore accede that laws where the majority endorsed, slavery, murder, exploitation, ritualism, and the like, were all right and good and in order - - - > since they were approved by the majority, no?

Be careful, it appears to me you have not thought this matter over carefully.

I have. I think it's my conclusion you dislike, or maybe . . . you aren't thinking the way I am. That said, my answer to your question is yes, but with the same caveat as before, the merits of the matter would bear on my stance.

Joshthefirst: sir, please could you tell me what brought about these natural laws?

As a christian believe they were brought about by God inscribing in our consciences naturally. I believe our actions regarding the law are not based on mere instincts like animals, I believe they are based on conscience, and consciousness.


So what do you think sir? What is your stance? Were the laws evolved? What brought about these natural laws?

Our soul consciousness of God, that is my opinion. So yes, I agree with you there.

Evolution, as an answer, would actually lead to the conclusion that it would be right for the stronger to annihilate, exploit, enslave the weaker, as it deals with survival of the fittest, and in fact the strong will be doing good by annihilating the weaker, as in that world-view, this would eliminate weakness and make the human race overall stronger and healthier. This was the worldview of many Nazis, who strove towards the development of a "super-race" and believed in the elimination of other races.

From the strict point of view of evolution, and the "it is subjective" shout of the atheists here, there should be absolutely nothing wrong with this.

And yet, we are all horrified at it.

Which says it all.

Uyi Iredia:

I have. I think it's my conclusion you dislike, or maybe . . . you aren't thinking the way I am. That said, my answer to your question is yes, but with the same caveat as before, the merits of the matter would bear on my stance.

Your position is contradictory.

You cannot at once say all morality is subjective and then also say that it is right for for some to impose their subjective morals on others.

You are waffling this way and that, with no conclusion in sight, kind sir.

Joshthefirst: you might add the laws set in germany that legally allowed them to kill 11 million people uinder hitler. legally.

To legally rule that other humans were less than human and worthy of elimination was accepted by the majority.

That is the very sad conclusion of the position of wiegraf, Mr. Troll, and Uyi Iredia here.

The blatant truth is that these guys cannot believe this horrific nonsense. The truth is that they are desperately telling themselves these horrifying, reprobate, perverted lies because they cannot stand the spectre of the truth: namely the existence of a morality derived from on-high.

Deep Sight:

That is the very sad conclusion of the position of wiegraf, Mr. Troll, and Uyi Iredia here.

The blatant truth is that these guys cannot believe this horrific nonsense. The truth is that they are desperately telling themselves these horrifying, reprobate, perverted lies because they cannot stand the spectre of the truth: namely the existence of a morality derived from on-high.

very true sir. This will shake the very foundations of their beliefs. Acknowledging that there is an "on-high"

A thread that can lead atheists to declare that there was nothing intrinsically wrong with the genocidal actions of Adolf-Hitler is truly cry-worthy.

We can now see that the religionists do have a point when they speak to the dangers of the extremism that some atheists push themselves to in a bid to run away from the existence of God. . . . .

Sad. . . .

Viewing this topic: Deep Sight(m), rationalmind(m), Joshthefirst(m)

I've caught you nwanne . What do you have to say? Where is logicboy and aManfromMars?

Before I continue I'll note that we have agreed that consciousness is fundamental to morality. That is a common ground we, and I say, both the moral relativist and objectivist share. Now to your argument.

Deep Sight:

My position is that such laws are natural laws, and they therefore find binding force on all people because they are natural laws.

All you did was label them and hold they are a binding force on everyone. In fact, they aren't really a binding force, for if they were, there would be no argument, we would be bound to them.

Deep Sight: __________________________________

Greek philosophy emphasized the distinction between "nature" (physis, φúσις) on the one hand and "law", "custom", or "convention" (nomos, νóμος) on the other.

Okay.

Deep Sight: What the law commanded varied from place to place

[/quote]

Agreed, but and it could be similar too.

Deep Sight: , but what was "by nature" should be the same everywhere

Depends on how one looks at it. Gravity is a natural force and it differs from place to place eg Earth and moon. But then, natural laws eg those of thermodynamics hold virtually everywhere.

Deep Sight: A "law of nature" would therefore have had the flavor more of a paradox than something that obviously existed.[1] Against the conventionalism that the distinction between nature and custom could engender, Socrates and his philosophic heirs, Plato and Aristotle, posited the existence of natural justice or natural right (dikaion physikon, δικαιον φυσικον, Latin ius naturale). Of these, Aristotle is often said to be the father of natural law.[3]

This is simply a morality they argue for and label it natural as an ad hoc authority people would respect. No different from how Christians use the term 'God told me' to rubber-stamp actions.

Deep Sight: The best evidence of Aristotle's having thought there was a natural law comes from the Rhetoric,

That was the worst place to come up with. Can't believe logicboy is smarter on this ? Rhetoric was all about supporting one's arguments. BTW, natural justice should
be tied down to physicochemical laws and their relation to human acts, in particular. Say, fruits are better for humans than grass which we can't digest.

Deep Sight: where Aristotle notes that, aside from the "particular" laws that each people has set up for itself,

Moral subjectivity is thus allowed for, even in their conception of 'natural law'.

Deep Sight: there is a "common" law that is according to nature.[16] Specifically, he quotes Sophocles and Empedocles:
Universal law is the law of Nature.

I think he is trying to appeal for morality in a way it doesn't operate. Without respect to anyone like actual natural laws, like gravity.

Deep Sight:
For there really is, as every one to some extent divines, a natural justice and injustice that is binding on all men, even on those who have no association or covenant with each other.

The underlined phrase does Aristotle no justice and further my case. What if I said to no extent does 'natural justice' bind on men. Even Aristotle brings in subjectivity by the underlined phrase in this concept you appeal to. And you want me to accept it ? You think it solves the problem ?

Deep Sight:

In that, you will have to explain why there exist pangs of conscience (with individuals) and revolutions (with nations).

Unless, of course, as I happily expect, you may probably be so far gone in your delusions as to declare that no such thing as pangs of conscience exist.

Incredible, conscience exists, therefore objective morality....

Spaghetti exists, therefore FSM..

And again, oh again, conscience is an objective experience?? And exactly what sort of creatures conscience do you speak of? How do you decide which conscience is the objective one, that of the majority?

Deep Sight:
A thread that can lead atheists to declare that there was nothing intrinsically wrong with the genocidal actions of Adolf-Hitler is truly cry-worthy.

We can now see that the religionists do have a point when they speak to the dangers of the extremism that some atheists push themselves to in a bid to run away from the existence of God. . . . .

Sad. . . .

What's truly sad is this pathetic appeal to emotions.

Hitler appealed to those as well, when he was justifying genocide. Appealed to his objective good as well.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law]And what's that law which states once you senselessly bring up hitler in a debate, you've lost it?[/url]

Joshthefirst:
Viewing this topic: Deep Sight(m), rationalmind(m), Joshthefirst(m)

I've caught you nwanne . What do you have to say? Where is logicboy and aManfromMars?

Must I say something on every thread? Do you think uve said anything worth my response? Even if I agree with you there is objective morality, you still have to prove to me yahweh is the source of objective morality and not allah or some other Gods.

Uyi Iredia: Before I continue I'll note that we have agreed that consciousness is fundamental to morality. That is a common ground we, and I say, both the moral relativist and objectivist share. Now to your argument.



All you did was label them and hold they are a binding force on everyone. In fact, they aren't really a binding force, for if they were, there would be no argument, we would be bound to them.



Okay.




Agreed, but and it could be similar too.

, but what was "by nature" should be the same everywhere

Depends on how one looks at it. Gravity is a natural force and it differs from place to place eg Earth and moon. But then, natural laws eg those of thermodynamics hold virtually everywhere.

A "law of nature" would therefore have had the flavor more of a paradox than something that obviously existed.[1] Against the conventionalism that the distinction between nature and custom could engender, Socrates and his philosophic heirs, Plato and Aristotle, posited the existence of natural justice or natural right (dikaion physikon, δικαιον φυσικον, Latin ius naturale). Of these, Aristotle is often said to be the father of natural law.[3]

This is simply a morality they argue for and label it natural as an ad hoc authority people would respect. No different from how Christians use the term 'God told me' to rubber-stamp actions.

The best evidence of Aristotle's having thought there was a natural law comes from the Rhetoric,

That was the worst place to come up with. Can't believe logicboy is smarter on this ? Rhetoric was all about supporting one's arguments. BTW, natural justice should
be tied down to physicochemical laws and their relation to human acts, in particular. Say, fruits are better for humans than grass which we can't digest.

where Aristotle notes that, aside from the "particular" laws that each people has set up for itself,

Moral subjectivity is thus allowed for, even in their conception of 'natural law'.

there is a "common" law that is according to nature.[16] Specifically, he quotes Sophocles and Empedocles:
Universal law is the law of Nature.

I think he is trying to appeal for morality in a way it doesn't operate. Without respect to anyone like actual natural laws, like gravity.


For there really is, as every one to some extent divines, a natural justice and injustice that is binding on all men, even on those who have no association or covenant with each other.

The underlined phrase does Aristotle no justice and further my case. What if I said to no extent does 'natural justice' bind on men. Even Aristotle brings in subjectivity by the underlined phrase in this concept you appeal to. And you want me to accept it ? You think it solves the problem ?

I cannot make sense of anything you wrote. You asked me for my position and I said natural law. Simple.

That does not answer your dilemma of having to show why there should be criminal laws if "its all subjective" - - -> Because, as I showed, you, your position is lamentably contradictory.

wiegraf:

What's truly sad is this pathetic appeal to emotions.

Hitler appealed to those as well, when he was justifying genocide. Appealed to his objective good as well.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law]And what's that law which states once you senselessly bring up hitler in a debate, you've lost it?[/url]

The simple fact of the matter is that you have absolved him of any wrong.

End of.

wiegraf:

Incredible, conscience exists, therefore objective morality....

Spaghetti exists, therefore FSM..

And again, oh again, conscience is an objective experience?? And exactly what sort of creatures conscience do you speak of? How do you decide which conscience is the objective one, that of the majority?

From conscience to FSM is just the most pathetic and even egregiously drunken leap I have ever seen.

Stop wasting our time with this nonsense.

Deep Sight:

That is the very sad conclusion of the position of wiegraf, Mr. Troll, and Uyi Iredia here.

The blatant truth is that these guys cannot believe this horrific nonsense. The truth is that they are desperately telling themselves these horrifying, reprobate, perverted lies because they cannot stand the spectre of the truth: namely the existence of a morality derived from on-high.

Fine, that doesn't make right. From my point of view. Also, we aren't sure it was truly the opinion of the majority. Mostly, majority in power (and even that is quite contestable as you go down the power ladder). Finally, there's a good and bad side to everything, it's just peurile to only look at the Holocaust, assuming it was because of the majority and ignore the good things popular (or majority) opinion has brought us eg democracy.

Deep Sight:

From conscience to FSM is just the most pathetic and even egregiously drunken leap I have ever seen.

Stop wasting our time with this nonsense.

No, you stop wasting our time your unadulterated nonsense. Htf does having a conscience = objective moral code. Really, what is wrong with you?

I repeat;

Spaghetti exists, therefore FSM