How do you know murder is wrong?


moralist

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, anthony said:

I am too not unfamilar with her works, but this article was new to me. It's worth repeating (often):

"...and compromise, conformity, staleness, dullness, the dismal grayness of the middle-of-the-road are all that can be expected from them. Independent thinking does not submit to bureaucratic edicts, originality does follow "public policies", integrity does not petition for a license, heroism is not fostered by fear, creative genius is not summoned forth at the point of a gun.

Non-Objective law is the most effective weapon of human enslavement: its victims become its enforcers and enslave themselves". ['Vast Quicksands' :Oist Newsletter]

Does this look familar to you? Maybe the consequences of non-Objective law are not so bad in the US, but this an exact reproduction of what life and society looks like in other places. Europe, and here. Staleness, dullness.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=netherlands+second+best

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 822
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

10 hours ago, Peter said:

Reminds me once again of the bromide that the Jews killed Christ. NO. The Romans killed Christ.

Peter,

Come on.

The establishment Rabbi rousers of the time ordered the murder and even chose Brand X (Barrabas) to make sure it happened. If they could have tortured and executed him personally and legally, they would have. Instead, they used the murder-for-hire (after torture-for-hire) services of the state, so to speak.

It's an odd way to say it, but it's true...

:)

In my view, establishment cronies killed Christ, Jew and Roman. And they manipulated the masses to back them up. It's the same old shit we see today with other innocents.

The way people frame this (the Jews killed Christ or didn't kill him) is to force a stolen concept on the culture through a false dichotomy to talk about bigotry instead of abuse of power.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

It is only from facts that we learn how the world works. 

The enemy to understanding nature  is the dogmatic a priori.  

Facts - without recourse to a conceptual, evaluative mind; a mind - without recognition of facts. We have been over a priori etc. several times.

It's like deja vu all over again. Groundhog Day, every day, if that's not redundant. Press Reset, and off you go again.

The Empiricism-Rationalism dichotomy was over-turned by Objectivism. And your favorite, the Is-Ought, is exposed as a skeptic's fallacy.

You should thank your lucky stars that there existed thinkers who followed their observations and minds (despite Hume) and - yup - DID derive law from the facts of reality and facts of man's metaphysical nature - or - the ought from the is. John Locke and Thomas Jefferson, for a few. Contra your dreary determinism, they were not deterministically 'pre-ordained' to do so (nor did they 'owe' their efforts, in service, to mankind).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, anthony said:

I am too not unfamilar with her works, but this article was new to me. It's worth repeating (often):

"...and compromise, conformity, staleness, dullness, the dismal grayness of the middle-of-the-road are all that can be expected from them. Independent thinking does not submit to bureaucratic edicts, originality does follow "public policies", integrity does not petition for a license, heroism is not fostered by fear, creative genius is not summoned forth at the point of a gun.

Non-Objective law is the most effective weapon of human enslavement: its victims become its enforcers and enslave themselves". ['Vast Quicksands' :Oist Newsletter '63]

Does this look familar to you? Maybe the consequences of non-Objective law are not so bad in the US, but this a reproduction of what life and society looks like in other places. Europe, and here. Staleness, dullness. Self-conformity.

Non objective law exists where the majority of the populace does not live lives worthy of objective law.

People demand non objective law because of their NEED for the government to support them financially, to educate them, to employ them, to underwrite their debts, to indemnify them against every conceivable calamity, and to take care of their own body.

Do any of you here realize just how degrading that is?

The government dependent parasites infesting America don't deserve a decent Constitutional government...

... simply because they aren't decent.

There is no group resolution for this situation. There is only a personal resolution... so save yourself. Grow up, become a self motivated responsible adult, give up your parasitic relationship to the government. And only then will it leave you alone to enjoy the freedom you earned by being decent.

This is something no one here has even begun to understand...

If the government is oppressing you... it's your own God damned fault for needing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎4‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 6:46 AM, anthony said:

An objective law protects a country’s freedom; only a non-objective law can give a statist the chance he seeks: a chance to impose his arbitrary will—his policies, his decisions, his interpretations, his enforcement, his punishment or favor—on disarmed, defenseless victims.

Tony... there are no "disarmed defenseless victims" in America.

There is only a parasitic populace who politically cried out for non-objective law to be their savior... out of their own pathetic need for a "caring and compassionate" government to give them free stuff and to take care of them.

 

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, moralist said:

Non objective law exists where the majority of the populace does not live lives worthy of objective law.

People demand non objective law because of their NEED for the government to support them financially, to underwrite their debts, to indemnify them against every conceivable calamity, and to take care of their own body.

Do any of you here realize just how degrading that is?

The government dependent parasites infesting America don't deserve a decent Constitutional government...

... simply because they aren't decent.

There is no group resolution for this situation. There is only a personal resolution... so save yourself. Grow up, become a self motivated responsible adult, give up your parasitic relationship to the government. And only then will it leave you alone to enjoy the freedom you earned by being decent.

This is something no one here has even begun to understand...

If the government is oppressing you... it's your own God damned fault for needing it.

A prisoner who can't see the bars of his cage, is one thing, bad enough. Nothing can be worse than the man who is trusted to lock himself in the cage. The way Europe is heading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Rand tied every human volitional, cognitive activity to ethics and morality, especially the law.

Moral context is the only way to view the objective reality of your own life.

Everything else is just silly stupid intellectual emotional fantasy.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, anthony said:

 

The Empiricism-Rationalism dichotomy was over-turned by Objectivism. And your favorite, the Is-Ought, is exposed as a skeptic's fallacy.

No it wasn't.  A priori that which is true independent of experience.   A poseriori  that which is known to be true -from- experience.

The starting point of all physical science  is the recognition of facts about the world.  

The sloppy pseudo philosopher   Peikoff had a fantasy of eliminating the dichotomy between a priori and a posteriori  and between analytic and synthetic. 

He deluded himself. 

The some of the orthodox Objectivists even went as far as denying the correctness of quantum theory,  the most successful physical theory so far formulated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

No it wasn't.  A priori that which is true independent of experience.   A poseriori  that which is known to be true -from- experience.

The starting point of all physical science  is the recognition of facts about the world.  

The sloppy pseudo philosopher   Peikoff had a fantasy of eliminating the dichotomy between a priori and a posteriori  and between analytic and synthetic. 

He deluded himself. 

The some of the orthodox Objectivists even went as far as denying the correctness of quantum theory,  the most successful physical theory so far formulated.

Peikoff actually wrote the A-S Dichotomy under Rand's auspices, we must assume she approved it.

Pseudo-'philosophers of science' probably can't accept that the dichotomy could be solved - relatively simply. But then they probably are invested in and committed to 'a posteriori' (as you are, following Hume)!

The "starting point" of knowledge for ALL individuals is facts. Direct from one's senses. To be conceptualized. By oneself. Repeat, there's no dichotomy between a priori and a posteriori. "Man's knowledge is not acquired by logic apart from experience or by experience apart from logic, but by the application of logic to experience". Understand better?

The dichotomy is all yours mate, you are welcome to it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back on point, Bob. Clinging to a posteriori is the reason you can't derive an ought(not) from an is, I fancy. Which is the reason you haven't any rational idea why murder is wrong/evil. Facts don't corellate with objective values in an 'a posteriori' mind. They remain just an assortment of 'facts'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, anthony said:

Peikoff actually wrote the A-S Dichotomy under Rand's auspices, we must assume she approved it.

 

Then they were both wrong.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, anthony said:

Back on point, Bob. Clinging to a posteriori is the reason you can't derive an ought(not) from an is, I fancy. Which is the reason you haven't any rational idea why murder is wrong/evil. Facts don't corellate with objective values in an 'a posteriori' mind. They remain just an assortment of 'facts'.

This is what makes amoral secularist legalistic wards of the state like Bob so creepy. They're the ones who gassed Jews because their government told them it was legal to do it...

...and all because they haven't the foggiest notion why murder is wrong.

 

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, anthony said:

 Nothing can be worse than the man who is trusted to lock himself in the cage. The way Europe is heading.

Secular relativistic Europe has no moral culture with which to counter Islamic Sharia values...

...and this is why Europe is being assimilated.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Rand tied every human volitional, cognitive activity to ethics and morality, especially the law.

Atomistically treating law as the end all be all of a philosophy pretty much ruined libertarianism. But you're taking the libertarian position one further step in the wrong direction.

Philosophy is not a science nor can it be. There is the philosophy of science or scientific methodology or--as Bob might say--facts plus logic. However, there are facts and logic in philosophy that do not appertain to science. The general commonality is reason...

Hi, Brant. You've always been kind to me, which is much appreciated. I won't ask you to agree. I understand Miss Rand's position fairly well. I also understand the "natural rights" argument that Locke and the Founders attributed to the Creator, a durable strand in American political thought. A couple things to consider. Ritchie suggested that natural law succeeds only where there is homogeneity of opinion, and it's evident throughout U.S. history that "rights" meant different things to different parties and sects -- clashes that persist today, especially pertaining to unfunded entitlements, regulation, No Nothing gender multiplicity, gay marriage by Supreme Court fiat, politicization of DOJ and FBI, etc. If you took a poll of Americans (or lawyers) as to the meaning of rights, you'd get a kaleidoscopic Broken Window fallacy, expecting law enforcement to work exclusively for atomistic individual benefit and abstract justice to be paid for by someone else whom we disagree with and view as an enemy. In a very real sense, Americans are all libertarians, demanding government to leave us alone, while expecting government to punish the "bad guys." We fight one another every two years for political power, to redefine in legislation what a plurality deem good and evil.

Are we on the same page so far? Democracy is a contest of self-serving, conflicting classes. (Madison, Federalist #10)

This is not what happens in a court of law or equity. It's A vs B, with equal procedural rights that are not "natural law" and which exist separately after millennia of legal development. If you don't like the notion that philosophy of law is a science, okay, it's an engineering problem, viz: What common law proceeding is fundamentally fair? (can't be tried twice, no secret testimony, no perjury, jurors can't be interested or prejudiced, appellate review)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

This is not what happens in a court of law or equity.

Yes.  Just because it happens in a court of law doesn't always mean it's just.

To enjoy natural law only requires living a life deserving of it.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

If you were a client, I'd tell you to find another lawyer.

I'd never be your client, Wolf, because you'll never see me in court unless I'm serving jury duty. There's always plenty of your own kind who you can get to be your clients.

I don't do business with people who don't share my values. That's the best way I know to never get entangled in the legal system. It's worked like a charm for all of my life. 

 

 

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wolf wrote: In a very real sense, Americans are all libertarians, demanding government to leave us alone, while expecting government to punish the "bad guys." end quote

Well said, and I agree. That is why it is crucial to have “precedent,” legal history, and a Supreme Court as final arbiter.

Off on a tangent, what is more morally right, entitlements or class action suits? Suits, of course. Even false paradigms like “reparations” should not be paid to a whole class of wronged people, like American Indians or previously enslaved blacks, but the gist of reparations makes some sense because they are akin to class action suits that don’t stretch The Constitution.  I hope that makes sense. It’s after midnight so I better go to bed.

Peter    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, wolfdevoon said:

 In a very real sense, Americans are all libertarians, demanding government to leave us alone...

While what you said holds true for Americans...

...most of the people living in the US aren't Americans.

Want proof?

The size of government itself is proof.

Someone needed to create a huge bureaucracy to take care of them... but it wasn't the Americans.

 

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

Hahahaha.

By law everyone borne in the U.S. is a U.S. citizen.  The current population of the U.S. is 330,000,000.  If Greg, el shmucko, is right than over 165,000,000 living in the U.S.  were not born in the U.S. nor were they legally naturalized.   Highly unlikely.

Anyone who is a U.S. citizen either born here or legally naturalized, is by definition,  an American. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's fair comment by Greg. In the same sense that man must choose to be man, and simply by dint of being 'a man' is no criterion, to be "American" is more than only being a citizen of the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Anyone who is a U.S. citizen either born here or legally naturalized, is by definition,  an American. 

Bob, if the majority of people living in America lived by American values, the government would be very small and well within its Constitutional limitations...

...but it isn't...

...and you're one of the reasons the government is so huge. Just like the liberal parasites, you also believe that being an American is an unearned entitlement and not an earned merit. Needing a huge bureaucracy to take care of you is not an American value

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now