How do you know murder is wrong?

[Wolf DeVoon]

7 hours ago, anthony said:

The law is the defender of morality, of a moral person

Nope. You can agitate and vote for that, but it's an abuse of power, if legislated and enforced. The purpose of law is to restrain the state.

[BaalChatzaf]

39 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

Nope. You can agitate and vote for that, but it's an abuse of power, if legislated and enforced. The purpose of law is to restrain the state.

That is -a- purpose.  Another purpose is to give the State more tools  for enforcing tyranny.  After the Reichstag Fire the parliament of Germany gave Hitler all the emergency powers he demanded.  Later on the racial laws in Germany extended the power of the State to commit some rather brutal acts in the name of national  necessity.  

In principle the Law is to keep the peace but in practice it is to enable the State.

[Peter]

18 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Yep, a lot of screwing. But isn't the gross national product of CA something like 2.2 trillion/yr?

Wouldn't the previous dollar tax have generated over 40 billion bucks? 40 + 5 = 45 billion.

--Brant

Sanders in 2011 (sanders.senate.gov): "These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina, where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger. Who's the banana republic now?"

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, Peter said:

Sanders in 2011 (sanders.senate.gov): "These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina, where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger. Who's the banana republic now?"

Much of South America is a shit-hole.  I would not bet good money are Ecuador or Argentina.   Did you know that before the Perons  Argentina was the fifth richest nation in the world?

[anthony]

5 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Not a bit.  I am a physical materialist.,  I have no room in my thinking for ghosts, gods, gremlins, spirits, fairies, angels, spooks or souls.  The Cosmos is made of various forms of matter which are manifestations of physical fields  all dwelling in a manifold of at least four dimensions.   And I never said a word of "determining physical actions".   You said it. Our orbits through various physical phase spaces is not strictly determined. 

Fine, so I misunderstood. The atoms, elements and forces, you often mention, do not have any determining effects contrary to man's free will. Yours was all only poetic whimsy.

[Wolf DeVoon]

5 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

In principle the Law is to keep the peace but in practice it is to enable the State.

Jesus, you're a clod. I wish there was a kinder, gentler way to say it.

[BaalChatzaf]

30 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

Jesus, you're a clod. I wish there was a kinder, gentler way to say it.

No.  I just look at what is going on.  I am a factoid wonk.  I pay attention to facts. I am too smart to be a clod  and just smart enough to be obtuse. 

What do you make of the NAZI  racial laws?  Or Shariah Law. 

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

Fine, so I misunderstood. The atoms, elements and forces, you often mention, do not have any determining effects contrary to man's free will. Yours was all only poetic whimsy.

On what physical basis do you declare that humans have free will?  We are made of physical stuff that operates according to physical laws.  

[Wolf DeVoon]

5 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

What do you make of the NAZI  racial laws?  Or Shariah Law. 

Nothing. Except to reiterate that the purpose of law is to restrain the state. I think we should stick to the topic thread, whether murder is wrong.

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, wolfdevoon said:

Nothing. Except to reiterate that the purpose of law is to restrain the state. I think we should stick to the topic thread, whether murder is wrong.

It is legally wrong.  In addition the illegality I oppose doing murder (killing with malice) because I do not wish to have it done to me. This is a subjective reason for consider murder wrongful. 

[Wolf DeVoon]

1 minute ago, BaalChatzaf said:

It is legally wrong. 

Because why? - legislation? - inherited from common law decisions? - "natural" law?

[BaalChatzaf]

1 minute ago, wolfdevoon said:

Because why? - legislation? - inherited from common law decisions? - "natural" law?

I suspect people dislike murder because they do not wish to be murdered.  Such a dislike can lead to laws against murder.  Such a dislike could also lead judges to rule against murder and murderers.  

What is "natural law"?  The only natural laws I recognize are the basic physical laws of the cosmos.  The cosmos is physical from top to bottom and from near to far.  Every bit of it. Even our likes and dislikes ultimately reduce to electro-chemical reactions in our bodies. 

[Wolf DeVoon]

19 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I suspect people dislike murder because they do not wish to be murdered.  Such a dislike can lead to laws against murder.  Such a dislike could also lead judges to rule against murder and murderers.  

What is "natural law"?

"Natural law" is a term of art among those who know the subject.

On the question of legislating or deciding law because "people dislike" something, I have never heard anyone (until now) argue that law is emotional.

[Brant Gaede]

On 4/22/2017 at 0:24 AM, wolfdevoon said:

Sort of a shocking statement. Goes to show how little I know about life, repeatedly banished, ignored, punished, shunned, fired.

A general statement about most people does leave room for exceptions.

A lot has to do with how one processes and evaluates negative information--and why one way and not another.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

10 hours ago, wolfdevoon said:

"Natural law" is a term of art among those who know the subject.

On the question of legislating or deciding law because "people dislike" something, I have never heard anyone (until now) argue that law is emotional.

Dislike could also mean negative preference  (aversion, avoidance for perfectly objective reasons).  For example I can unemotionally dis-prefer  fast downhill skiiing  because of the danger to my body.  I might -like- the idea of going fast and having the wind in my face,  but I still do not do downhill skiiing because I might collide with a tree and die. 

Dis-preference  shows up when there is a choice between two actions and safety is the measure of merit.  One chooses the least dangerous option if one is interested in maintaining or increasing his safety.

""Natural law" is a term of art among those who know the subject."

If you can't explain or describe in some fashion what "natural law" is to your aging grandmother   then the notion is either nonsense or you are a bad teacher.   Richard Feynman used the Grandmother Criterion when he lectured about quantum physics.  He said he could describe it to his Grandmother.   That is one of the things that made Feynman a  great teacher.

[Brant Gaede]

18 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Dislike could also mean negative preference  (aversion, avoidance for perfectly objective reasons).  For example I can unemotionally dis-prefer  fast downhill skiiing  because of the danger to my body.  I might -like- the idea of going fast and having the wind in my face,  but I still do not do downhill skiiing because I might collide with a tree and die. 

Dis-preference  shows up when there is a choice between two actions and safety is the measure of merit.  One chooses the least dangerous option if one is interested in maintaining or increasing his safety.

""Natural law" is a term of art among those who know the subject."

If you can't explain or describe in some fashion what "natural law" is to your aging grandmother   then the notion is either nonsense or you are a bad teacher.   Richard Feynman used the Grandmother Criterion when he lectured about quantum physics.  He said he could describe it to his Grandmother.   That is one of the things that made Feynman a  great teacher.

And his grandma had a doctorate in physics.

Just funnin.

But he didn't do it with much if any math, I'd bet.

And I'd bet she couldn't teach what was taught her--described to her. Are you sure he used the word "describe"? You can describe anything to a moron.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

12 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

On what physical basis do you declare that humans have free will?  We are made of physical stuff that operates according to physical laws.  

What is the physical basis of your comment? You are saying by implication that humans do not have free will. What is the physical basis of that?

What is your understanding of free will beyond it being invalid? That is, what are we saying it is in your words? I explained it more than once and elicited not a word of response. You need to say more than "free will" is free will.

--Brant

[moralist]

On ‎4‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 5:35 PM, Brant Gaede said:

Yep, a lot of screwing. But isn't the gross national product of CA something like 2.2 trillion/yr?

Wouldn't the previous dollar tax have generated over 40 billion bucks? 40 + 5 = 45 billion.

--Brant

I won't haggle over the numbers, Brant. But yes, California ranks as the world's sixth largest economy.

1. United States

2. China

3. Japan

4. Germany

5. Great Britain

6. California

 

Every time the government here raises taxes dedicated to a specific purpose like in this situation, road repairs, the revenues get siphoned off to other areas like obscenely lavish liberal democrat public union parasite pensions and other liberal democrat transfer of wealth benefits programs. Then the complaint arises again that there is not enough money to repair the roads and that more money is needed to fund the repairs.

With a liberal democrat Governor and liberal democrat majorities in both the State Senate and Assembly...

...there exists no advocate for the taxpayer when liberal democrat benefits recipient parasites and liberal democrat public union employee parasites dominate state and local elections.

Greg

[anthony]

16 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

 Every bit of it. Even our likes and dislikes ultimately reduce to electro-chemical reactions in our bodies. 

For a proponent of science, it amazes me you don't acknowledge the settled findings of neuro-plasticity. We've known now for some time that one self-directs new neural pathways in the brain, by "electro-chemical reactions" -and- *actions*, all the time. One always, at every instant, has the choice of many options 1. where to turn and focus your senses on, 2. what to think about, identify and assess 3. which action or non-action to take, and finally occurs 4. one or other emotional (automated) response to the act. The number of permutations and combinations of so many options mount way beyond any single, "determined" outcome. And each selected mental and physical action (or reaction) creates a new neural pathway - physically - and so one 'forms' one's system of thought, ethics and character, by "choices".

I like saying philosophers got there first - by a long way. The empirical validation of the "volitional consciousness" by neuro-scientists should have been hailed as a major breakthrough- philosophically - if it has, I haven't heard much about it.

 As I see it, now few people can hide behind determinism ('atomic', biological, genetic, nurture or whatever) any longer. Determinism was seized upon and has been the mainstay of the secular Left, of course. One can't be faulted, ajudged or penalized for an action, caused by predating, "determining" factors beyond one's control (they asserted). That came into increasing prominence some time back, with shifting, subjective attitudes to criminals and their - possibly - reduced psychological responsibility, by society and the law. But it didn't stop there. No-blame, no-responsibility, is continually being extended further -  to (e.g.) a general and noticeable European, moral equivocation towards terror attackers.

"After all, they were 'predetermined' to do so by extremist teachings; they can't help themselves but to kill! Who are we to judge? Why is their faith any worse relatively than any faith - since we've dismissed the notion of moral standards. Someone must have insulted their feelings! (Anyway, they are only reacting deterministically to our nasty white patriarchy, Empires and Colonialism)".

Ultimately, who is to know that murder is evil/wrong - a 'wrong choice'- when self-determinism has been so undercut and the moral culture holds everybody less volitionally accountable? "If God is dead, everything is permitted". Same way, if free will is dead, you can do whatever is in your stars to do and evade the moral consequences.

Seems as though the progressive, post-modern determinist has hoist himself on his own petard. His self-same determinism is being thrown back in his face violently, by the radicals who share it, and his epistemological, ethical sterility can't explain why, condemn it or know how to oppose it - just collapsing back into the lowest denominator of delicate feelings, some shortlived outrage, and apologies to his brutalizers for being a little better than them.

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

And his grandma had a doctorate in physics.

Just funnin.

But he didn't do it with much if any math, I'd bet.

And I'd bet she couldn't teach what was taught her--described to her. Are you sure he used the word "describe"? You can describe anything to a moron.

--Brant

The math is not necessary for a non-scientific description of quantum physics.  It is good enough for Gandma...

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

What is the physical basis of your comment? You are saying by implication that humans do not have free will. What is the physical basis of that?

What is your understanding of free will beyond it being invalid? That is, what are we saying it is in your words? I explained it more than once and elicited not a word of response. You need to say more than "free will" is free will.

--Brant

I can't say "free will" is invalid.  I simply do not know what "free will"  is supposed to mean.

[Wolf DeVoon]

11 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

If you can't explain or describe in some fashion what "natural law" is ... then the notion is either nonsense or you are a bad teacher.

You can think what you like, but I'm not going to educate you. Think of it as "natural rights," which is close enough for government work.

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

You can think what you like, but I'm not going to educate you. Think of it as "natural rights," which is close enough for government work.

Rights are a human artifact.  Which means they are man made and not "natural"

[Wolf DeVoon]

1 minute ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Rights are a human artifact.  Which means they are man made and not "natural"

You're arguing with the wrong guy. I don't endorse natural law or natural rights, in fact argued against them repeatedly.

[Brant Gaede]

10 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I can't say "free will" is invalid.  I simply do not know what "free will"  is supposed to mean.

Well, a non-human animal can chose from choices but its body and mind (consciousness) dictates the seemingly best choice so that choice is taken. (It might run into the highway and get run over.)

Because a human has cognition--and opposable* thumbs and lots of tools--and consequently a plethora of choices some very similar in value, his mind alone can dictate the choices he makes even if his body seemingly objects. One might see this is choosing a long range value and over-riding short term gratification. I'd say free will is freedom from the deterministic dictates of the physical body in some but not all cases.

When I took flying lessons my instructor (illegally) flew the Cessna 172 into clouds and told me to fly the plane. You could not see two feet out of the cockpit. My body said pull back on the control wheel  and apply opposite rudder. The instruments--mind implements--told me to do the opposite. My mind was in a titanic battle with my body and was losing when the instructor took over and said LOOK at those instruments; we were on the verge of stalling out and going into a spin. Then we did it again and I did much, much better.

I don't know how interesting or valuable this is to the discussion, but it's worth relating.

--Brant

*spell checker says this word doesn't exist or is mis-spelled and "mis-spelled" should be spelled "misspelled" (whoever decided words had to be spelled one way and only one way--communists?)