How do you know murder is wrong?

[Brant Gaede]

deleted

[Brant Gaede]

5 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Really?  What if someone is suffering from extreme and intractable pain and the only way of ending it is dying?  Is life a good then? Sometimes death or being unconscious  is the better state. 

First, try heroin.

--Brant

just in case

[moralist]

5 hours ago, wolfdevoon said:

Nope. Not even close. Totally wrong. The source of law is not your imagination.

Wolf, you just made up your own fake description in order to negate it.

I never used the term "source of law". What I actually referenced was What the law serves. 

Men subjectively create law so obviously they are its source.  What law is supposed to serve is not my imagination or yours. What the law rightly serves is of a higher order than mere intellect. There are plenty of laws subjectively created by men which don't serve objective moral reality. Those are immoral laws. Sharia is a relevant example of immoral law subjectively created by men.

So men subjectively create laws which either agree or disagree with objective moral reality... but no law subjectively created by any man possesses any power to alter objective moral reality.

 

Greg

[anthony]

Greg, I view this radically and basically, too, the purpose of ~objective~ law is to serve good men, to check those not so good and master any others. In a particular sense, it can be realistic to say one "is above the law".

[BaalChatzaf]

11 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Finally, for you just said, "Good and Evil to some extent are [not] doxa--matters of opinion."

--Brant

congratulations

I accept your congratulations for correction a typographical error.  I wish I were a better typist and I wish my hand-eye co-ordination was as good as it was 50 years ago.  I used to be able  to put 9 rounds out of 10 in the V-ring with good grouping.  We never fully appreciate our talents until our talents start to dwindle.

[BaalChatzaf]

12 hours ago, anthony said:

"If life were that valuable in and of itself" ... to whom? There is not some kind of a mystical or universal imperative on 'life'. For whom? Value has to be seen, found and developed, individually. It's not an automatic effect of having life, but life and value are inseparable. Every life is of objective and individual value to he/she who has it. Here's the reason, in part, why each life has to be given such high value, in order that one's life isn't just given up, sacrificed, at the first obstacle one meets. And for any later pain, of any sort. Can life ever become a dis-value? I personally can't imagine any such intensity of relentless suffering which could outweigh the supreme value of existence, so I can't speak for that person and anyone. Perhaps. But where there is life, there's life. With all its existing values which he hasn't lost and haven't left him.

Obviously the life of X  is valuable to X most of the time.  However there times when people throw away their lives or risk it to hazard  more than the would risk it were they completely rational.   PS:  it is unlikely that people are completely rational  all of the time.  We are primates version 2.0  and our emotions  get the better of our wits  at times. 

[BaalChatzaf]

11 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

First, try heroin.

--Brant

just in case

Not in ten million years would I impair my wits except at those times when I undergo surgery.  Then I opt for anesthesia.  My intelligence is the only part of me that is still working near optimum.  Everything else is slowing down.  PS:  take the advice of an 80.7 year old geezer  --   either don't grow old  or expect  some of the things you take for granted to dwindle or vanish.

[anthony]

2 hours ago, anthony said:

Greg, I view this radically and basically, too, the purpose of ~objective~ law is to serve and protect good men, check those not so good and to master any others. In a particular sense, it can be realistic to say one "is above the law".

 

[BaalChatzaf]

3 minutes ago, anthony said:

 

 

4 minutes ago, anthony said:

 

delete

[BaalChatzaf]

5 minutes ago, anthony said:

Greg, I view this radically and basically, too, the purpose of ~objective~ law is to serve and protect good men, check those not so good and to master any others. In a particular sense, it can be realistic to say one "is above the law"

only if one can get away with it...

[Brant Gaede]

48 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Not in ten million years would I impair my wits except at those times when I undergo surgery.  Then I opt for anesthesia.  My intelligence is the only part of me that is still working near optimum.  Everything else is slowing down.  PS:  take the advice of an 80.7 year old geezer  --   either don't grow old  or expect  some of the things you take for granted to dwindle or vanish.

Between pain (death) and heroin (relief of pain) you'd chose pain (death)?

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

55 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Between pain (death) and heroin (relief of pain) you'd chose pain (death)?

--Brant

I choose to keep my wits.... And while one is suffering pain, one is very much alive.  Death implies the cessation of pain.  That is why some people who are suffering great pain kill themselves. 

[anthony]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

only if one can get away with it...

Where there's intrusive, controlling, arbitrary i.e., -subjective- Law, then everybody, rationally independent or irresponsible, equally, will be forced under the law. However, I specified "objective law".

[BaalChatzaf]

23 minutes ago, anthony said:

Where there's intrusive, controlling, arbitrary i.e., -subjective- Law, then everybody, rationally independent or irresponsible, equally, will be forced under the law. However, I specified "objective law".

Where is the Land of Objectivia  where Objective Law reigns?   It surely does not reign in the U.S.   We are governed under English Common Law and Positive Law (the kind of laws that Congress passes).   I assume Objectivia is hidden somewhere in the Rocky Mountains kept out of sight by some electronic screen.

[moralist]

5 hours ago, anthony said:

Greg, I view this radically and basically, too, the purpose of ~objective~ law is to serve good men, to check those not so good and master any others. In a particular sense, it can be realistic to say one "is above the law".

Not ultimately, Tony. People invoke that phrase because they are unaware of the ramifications of their own actions. So they naturally assume others can escape the objective reality of moral consequences just as they fantasize they can escape their own.

No one is above objective reality of the just and deserved consequences of their own actions. People have the power to choose to violate moral law, but they can never escape the consequences of their choices.

Nor can anyone alter moral law... for only moral law has the power to alter what they become as the result of what they do.

 

Greg

[moralist]

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

only if one can get away with it...

Neither Bob nor anyone else could ever escape what they have become as the just and deserved consequences of their own actions. Bob fantasizes that he has because he chose to become a creature of intellect devoid of self awareness who chose the condition in which he is living. So naturally he fantasizes that others can also escape the consequences of what their own actions.

This moral myopia is what gives people license to do evil.

Greg

[moralist]

4 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Not in ten million years would I impair my wits...

Bob impaired his wits from the get go and chose not to grow out of that crippled state. The proof of this is he's proud of it. To do that requires an abysmal lack of self awareness and a giant dose of self deceiving intellectual fantasy.

So you see Bob hasn't escaped what he has become as the just and deserved consequences of his own actions... and neither has anyone else regardless of what they fantasize themselves to be in their darkened intellects.

Greg

[Wolf DeVoon]

12 hours ago, anthony said:

it can be realistic to say one "is above the law".

Wow.

[Wolf DeVoon]

7 hours ago, moralist said:

Neither Bob nor anyone else could ever escape what they have become as the just and deserved consequences of their own actions...

This moral myopia is what gives people license to do evil.

Golly, you're dense. The only "moral good" if there is such a thing is to use your noodle, try to make your way in the world, as opposed to sleepwalking or hitchiking on someone else's theory, example, incentives, or prestidigitation (I think that covers religion). "Moral evil" is the refusal to think, look, pay attention to reality. The way cops and investigators explain it is to be alert and situationally aware at all times, have someone cover your back when you need to eat or sleep.

[moralist]

18 hours ago, wolfdevoon said:

The only "moral good" if there is such a thing is to use your noodle, try to make your way in the world...

You're a real hoot, Wolf!

Was Mao "morally good" because he used his noodle and tried to make his way in the world? 

If making your way in the world is at the expense of others... you're evil. People whose gain can only be derived from the loss of others are living wrong. They are slaves of those whose loss they need to get their own gain. 

That system I just described is not Capitalism. It's Marxism... where wealth is zero sum and one person can only gain by taking from another... until enough of the ones taken from get angry enough to become the tail which wags the dog.

(Jeez... give me a some time to finish postiing.)

I used Mao for no idealogical reason other than because Hitler is overused.

Evil is evil.

 

Greg

[Wolf DeVoon]

Just now, moralist said:

Was Mao "morally good" because he used his noodle and tried to make his way in the world?

I swear to Jesus you're dense. Mao didn't invent Marxism. Nor did he make HIS way independent of Marxist followers. FOLLOWERS, get it?

[moralist]

1 minute ago, wolfdevoon said:

I swear to Jesus you're dense. Mao didn't invent Marxism. Nor did he make HIS way independent of Marxist followers. FOLLOWERS, get it?

(see above)

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, wolfdevoon said:

Golly, you're dense. The only "moral good" if there is such a thing is to use your noodle, try to make your way in the world, as opposed to sleepwalking or hitchiking on someone else's theory, example, incentives, or prestidigitation (I think that covers religion). "Moral evil" is the refusal to think, look, pay attention to reality. The way cops and investigators explain it is to be alert and situationally aware at all times, have someone cover your back when you need to eat or sleep.

Poor OL. So far from God, so close to Wolf and Bob.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

2 hours ago, wolfdevoon said:

Golly, you're dense. The only "moral good" if there is such a thing is to use your noodle, try to make your way in the world, as opposed to sleepwalking or hitchiking on someone else's theory, example, incentives, or prestidigitation (I think that covers religion). "Moral evil" is the refusal to think, look, pay attention to reality. The way cops and investigators explain it is to be alert and situationally aware at all times, have someone cover your back when you need to eat or sleep.

Or have sex.

--Brant

"A man has to know his limitations."

[moralist]

5 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Poor OL. So far from God, so close to Wolf and Bob.

--Brant

Luckily the internet is nonlocal...

...and so is God.  

 

Greg