How do you know murder is wrong?

[anthony]

13 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Without morality . . . .

We are ruled by whim or decree and real bad law.

--Brant

I think the sum of it. You have those who "do without being commanded", those who "do from fear of the law", and those who don't give a damn for either - the immoral and lawless. Whichever way the proportions of the three types fluctuate in a society, gives the measure of how civilised it is. 

[anthony]

20 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

  If you are depending on Goodness you are doomed to Disappointment. 

 

I count on people minding their own business and acting in their own best interest. I admit to being disappointed many times in these simple expectations.

The dependency on Goodness that some will make, is a presumption. There is something quite ugly about the presumptuousness on others to always do the right thing, while doing whatever one feels like. E.g. The Christians in the West have largely kept to a certain moral standard which - over all* - benefitted societies. They have been completely taken for granted and derided, and now they have to bear the brunt of an amoral backlash. They merit a little more appreciation, without presumption, I think.

*I am not arguing that they have not been and are not, at times, badly wrong on specific *issues*. Also I don't need to mention the rationality lacking in religious premises. For all that in recent times, Christians have not resorted to coercion to get their way.

[moralist]

14 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Lucky you.  I have worked on weapons that have been used to slay thousands.,  I am a genuine accomplice to mass homicide. 

This is a statement only an amoral secular leftist statist could ever make.

In Judeo Christian America:  "Fighting evil."

In leftist secularist America:   "Fighting IS evil."

In secular leftist America legalism replaces morality.

There is no morality... only moral equivalence... where there is no distinction made between good and evil. The secular leftist statist America in which Bob lives does not know why murder is wrong, because it does not know the difference between murder and destroying evil in defense of the good.

Bob is in total agreement with Obama's weak amoral leftist pacifist foreign policy of "fighting is evil".

 

Greg

[Wolf DeVoon]

On 4/29/2017 at 1:04 AM, moralist said:

Now that would all depend on What the Authority is, Wolf.

Those words are either true or a lie. Since your no comment is such a cowardly evasion worthy of a secular liberal, I'll ask you directly.

Which are they? True or lie? Or are you just like Bob, and you don't know why murder is wrong either?

Dear Greg,

I will make an effort to explain. If all we had was Biblical authority, we would have no electricity, no knowledge of anatomy, no anesthesia, no machinery to produce food or transport it to market with internal combustion, no aircraft, and so on. I have never evaded a discussion. There are many people (especially Brant, who I respect very sincerely) that believe morality is the basis of law, a concept with which you broadly agree for other reasons. I don't. The basis of law is a legal principle unrelated to morality or revealed religion or a canon of inherent rights that we inherited from the Brits. Now, whether you want to discuss what the meaning of due process might be, well, fine. I can put it in a few words. It arose as a science, like any other science, from empirical observation.

I'm somewhat skeptical about continuing this discussion with you. Wish you well from afar, conceptually.

[BaalChatzaf]

59 minutes ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

Dear Greg,

I will make an effort to explain. If all we had was Biblical authority, we would have no electricity, no knowledge of anatomy, no anesthesia, no machinery to produce food or transport it to market with internal combustion, no aircraft, and so on. I have never evaded a discussion. There are many people (especially Brant, who I respect very sincerely) that believe morality is the basis of law, a concept with which you broadly agree for other reasons. I don't. The basis of law is a legal principle unrelated to morality or revealed religion or a canon of inherent rights that we inherited from the Brits. Now, whether you want to discuss what the meaning of due process might be, well, fine. I can put it in a few words. It arose as a science, like any other science, from empirical observation.

I'm somewhat skeptical about continuing this discussion with you. Wish you well from afar, conceptually.

And we would burn witches alive...

" I can put it in a few words. It arose as a science, like any other science, from empirical observation."  Precisely!  That is what makes Common Law the great thing that it is!

[Peter]

Wolf wrote: The basis of law is a legal principle unrelated to morality or revealed religion or a canon of inherent rights that we inherited from the Brits. end quote

It is good to hear your expertise, Wolf. I previously wrote on OL, not in a “big picture sense” but simply about the right to a *view* on beachfront property: What do precedents and concepts going back to English Common Law like Easement, encroachment, rights of adjoining landowners, “Light, Air, and View,” the doctrine of “ancient lights,” adverse possession, and “coming to the nuisance,” have to do with a hypothetical Objectivist Government or Wolf’s Laissez Faire City? Should the history of Western Law apply to the statutes that will be enacted at the State or county level under an Objectivist, Tea Party Constitution, or libertarian government?

A first glance it appears Ayn Rand is saying that a person can do on their property as they see fit as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others but are there subtleties involved? Did Ayn Rand think of these subtleties? Only to a limited degree.

“Man’s Rights,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 96. . . . Any undertaking that involves more than one man, requires the voluntary consent of every participant. Every one of them has the right to make his own decision, but none has the right to force his decision on the others. end quote

And in her article, "The Left: Old and New" in The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, [p. 89] Ayn Rand wrote: In regard to the political principle involved: if a man creates a physical danger or harm to others, which extends beyond the line of his own property, such as unsanitary conditions or even loud noise, and if this is *proved*, the law can and does hold him responsible.  If the condition is collective, such as in an overcrowded city, appropriate and *objective* laws can be defined, protecting the rights of all those involved -- as was done in the case of oil rights, air-space rights, etc." end quote

Based on these statements, I would say that air pollution as one example of the extension of *property rights* is addressed by her philosophy only insofar as pollution can be seen as infringing on individual rights, but Rand acknowledges that the condition could be collective, as when people live in close proximity. Then, *objective* laws can be written binding all citizens to its ruling, and this is not force but a concept called *precedent.*

My position is that a lot of common sense “trial and error experience” would be lost if we simply state as a part of Objectivism that a person may do anything on their property as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others, because your rights and the rights of others has ancient legal precedent that extends beyond simple property lines. It would be wrong to lose this knowledge and history.

In “What Is Capitalism?” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal Ayn Rand wrote: The institution of private property, in the full, legal meaning of the term, was brought into existence only by capitalism. In the pre-capitalist eras, private property existed de facto, but not de jure, i.e., by custom and sufferance, not by right or by law. end quote

Private property has existed in English Common Law for centuries, and the history of Western Law should apply to modern laws that will be enacted at the State, County or City level, in an Objectivist Government. In “The Structure of Liberty” Lon Fuller agrees, and he mentions eight basic rules of law embodied in Western Common Law and Precedent:

1. Having rules at all, rather than deciding issues of justice ad hoc (or, for the particular end or case at hand without consideration of wider application.)

2. Having clearly understood rules.

3. Having rules that do not change rapidly, so one can use them to make decisions.

4. Having non-contradictory rules, so it is possible to obey them

5. Having rules that do not require one to do things beyond one's power.

6. Having rules that are well publicized.

7. Having rules that are not retroactive.

8. Having rules where there is congruence between the rule as articulated and the rule as actually applied. The result?

"The pluralism of Western law . . . has been, or once was, a source of freedom. A serf might run to the town court for protection against his master. A vassal might run to the king's court for protection against his lord. A cleric might run to the ecclesiastical court for protection against the king."

The rule of law developed as each of these legal systems, attempting to curry "customers" away from alternative legal systems that could be chosen, granted "benefits to their customers". Use our service, and you'll be sure of avoiding ex post laws. Come to us, and we make sure your legal duties are clearly communicated. Join us--publicize our rules and make them enduring.

Thus a polycentric legal system (market justice) was responsible, historically, for developing what is now known as the rule of law. Better, in a sense, to think of it as the unintended consequence of the rule of laws. end quote

[anthony]

And yet.

They were, many of them, scientists, thinkers, law-givers, first Capitalists - individually - Christians. We stand on their shoulders.

The Faith itself did not determine, nor apparently prevent, the acts of men of action.

[BaalChatzaf]

35 minutes ago, anthony said:

And yet.

They were, many of them, scientists, thinkers, law-givers, first Capitalists - individually - Christians. We stand on their shoulders.

The Faith itself did not determine, nor apparently prevent, the acts of men of action.

Isaac Newton who invented mathematical physics  was a God-Phreak...

[Peter]

30 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Isaac Newton who invented mathematical physics  was a God-Phreak...

I think he was a monk. But where else could you do research, be paid a modest amount, and not need to work a real job? Remember the times. The most disturbing 'rumor" I heard was that he had boy friends. It is disturbing because of the possibility of underage sex, which is just wrong. But that may just be a rumor, unlike Shakespeare's sonnets to a young man. As Jerry Seinfeld said, "Not that there is anything wrong with that."

   

[moralist]

2 hours ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

Dear Greg,

I will make an effort to explain. If all we had was Biblical authority, we would have no electricity, no knowledge of anatomy, no anesthesia, no machinery to produce food or transport it to market with internal combustion, no aircraft, and so on.

That's a lie, Wolf.

Without Judeo Christian values of which words were written in the Bible to describe them so that they could be transported from generation to generation...

...there would be no America.

Greg 

[BaalChatzaf]

9 hours ago, Peter said:

I think he was a monk. But where else could you do research, be paid a modest amount, and not need to work a real job? Remember the times. The most disturbing 'rumor" I heard was that he had boy friends. It is disturbing because of the possibility of underage sex, which is just wrong. But that may just be a rumor, unlike Shakespeare's sonnets to a young man. As Jerry Seinfeld said, "Not that there is anything wrong with that."

   

Newton was no monk.  He never served in a monastery.  He was a Don at Cambridge, the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics.  That position is now filled or was filled until recently by Stephen Hawking.   He never married.  He led an a-sexual life.  There is no evidence that Newton was a homosexual either passive or active.  He just had other priorities. 

Newton was also a first class neurotic.  His mother abandoned him to the care of his grand-parents  when mamma married a man who did not want to raise another man's son.  Newton never forgave his mother.  Newton was a rather nasty man. He was not the least be lovable.  Being psychologically bent he never formed a sexual relation to women.  He apparently lived a sexless life. 

He also had trouble relating to his professional peers. A had a strong aversion to conflict with his peers and he could not abide criticism from his peers. He basically shut down communication with his peers after his work on optics was criticized.  Later on the Royal Astronomer Halley was able to coax  Newton to write something on gravitation.  Fortunately for the world,  Halley succeeded and the result was Principia Mathematica,  the main treatise that kicked off   mathematical physics. 

When Newton was in his fifties he was appointed head of the Mint  and he went after counterfeiters hammer and tong.  I succeeded in having several notorious counterfeiters drawn and quartered (counterfeiting as a Very Serious Crime back then). he got the coinage of Great Britain straightened out properly  and through his efforts to get the money system working right, Britain became the super power of its time. 

You would not have liked Newton.  Neither would I. 

[Wolf DeVoon]

3 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

And we would burn witches alive...

" I can put it in a few words. It arose as a science, like any other science, from empirical observation."  Precisely!  That is what makes Common Law the great thing that it is!

Uh, swell, except I wasn't referring to common law. Like talking to a lump of incurious concrete.

[Wolf DeVoon]

1 hour ago, moralist said:

That's a lie, Wolf.

Without Judeo Christian values of which words were written in the Bible to describe them so that they could be transported from generation to generation...

...there would be no America.

Greg 

Sigh. You don't know your history, bub.

[moralist]

30 minutes ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

Sigh. You don't know your history, bub.

I know your Howard Zinn secular leftist revisionist history, Wolf.

I just don't subscribe to its lies.

Greg

[Wolf DeVoon]

6 minutes ago, moralist said:

I know your Howard Zinn secular leftist revisionist history, Wolf.

I just don't subscribe to its lies.

Greg

Don't be an ass. I've never read Howard Zinn. Try Commager's Documents of American History. Get it? - documents

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

Uh, swell, except I wasn't referring to common law. Like talking to a lump of incurious concrete.

what were you referring to?

[Wolf DeVoon]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

what were you referring to?

The issue is constitutional, as far back as Magna Carta, obliquely addressed in the Declaration of Independence and 5th and 14th Amendments. I mention these only in passing, gateway stuff. More fully, explicitly stated in the Freeman's Constitution, specifically Art. IV, The Police Power, concerning wrongful use (i.e., murder).

[moralist]

4 hours ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

Don't be an ass. I've never read Howard Zinn.

You'd love him, Wolf. He's a secular statist like you. His screed, "A People's History of the United States" is the most widely read textbook in government medrasas. According to him America is purely secular statist nation which had nothing to do with Judeo Christian moral values. Right up your alley.

Talking with you reminds me of how the secular libertine radical left and the secular libertine extreme right are alike in so many ways. You both share so many of the same values.

 

Greg

[Wolf DeVoon]

11 minutes ago, moralist said:

You'd love him, Wolf. He's a secular statist like you. His screed, "A People's History of the United States" is the most widely read textbook in government medrasas. According to him America is purely secular statist nation which had nothing to do with Judeo Christian moral values. Right up your alley.

Talking with you reminds me of how the secular libertine radical left and the secular libertine extreme right are alike in so many ways. You both share so many of the same values.

Unwarranted fantasy, ridiculous. Burning a straw man, nothing to do with me. Incurious blockhead.

[Brant Gaede]

The West got X (us) while the rest got not except as latch-ons and add-ons. The ratio between secularism input to Judeo-Christian input to X as the present day result cannot be historically determined. However, the secularism of the Founding Fathers was bedded in religion. The Roman Empire was destroyed in the west by its dominant secularism and sustained in the east by Christianity for a thousand more years. Even after the fall of Constantinople, it was Christianity that stopped the Moslems at the gates of Vienna with the greatest cavalry charge in history led by the Polish King. It took a thousand years for the Christians to expel the Moslems from Spain. And over a thousand years ago Charles "The Hammer" Martel hammered them down in central France. Today, the Moslems are taking over France in the name of their Allah and Prophet and the French can't stop them. There's little doubt Le Pen won't be elected May 7. The churches are empty; might as well be mosques.

Objectivism has fallen well short of replacing or displacing religion in an ethos and lacks much comparative gravitas. I'm speaking essentially as a secularist who also calls himself a pantheist. (The God of Reality is within reality, not outside or beyond it.) Without the God of Reality you have the God of Objectivism paying lip service to reality. That's why true critical thinking (and individualism) was never emphasized back in the days of NBI and continued with the Orthos. A lot of libertarians split off from Objectivism for those reasons--and others.

--Brant

 

[Peter]

Newton wasn’t a monk? Who am I thinking of then?

It isn’t as if “believers” can’t become scientists, but when they are doing research or experimenting they need to compartmentalize the made up from the factual, and the observed from the fantasized.

I see Leah Rimini who went ballistic on Scientologists is going to be back in a sitcom after her documentary expose. She is a brave woman.

Peter     

From Wiki This is a list of Roman Catholic clerics^[1] throughout history who have made contributions to science. These cleric-scientists include Nicolaus Copernicus, Gregor Mendel, Georges Lemaître, Albertus Magnus, Roger Bacon, Pierre Gassendi, Roger Joseph Boscovich, Marin Mersenne, Bernard Bolzano, Francesco Maria Grimaldi, Nicole Oresme, Jean Buridan, Robert Grosseteste, Christopher Clavius, Nicolas Steno, Athanasius Kircher, Giovanni Battista Riccioli, William of Ockham, and others listed below. The Catholic Church has also produced many lay scientists and mathematicians.

The Jesuits in particular have made numerous significant contributions to the development of science. For example, the Jesuits have dedicated significant study to earthquakes, and seismology has been described as "the Jesuit science."^[2][3] The Jesuits have been described as "the single most important contributor to experimental physics in the seventeenth century."^[4] According to Jonathan Wright in his book God's Soldiers, by the eighteenth century the Jesuits had "contributed to the development of pendulum clocks, pantographs, barometers, reflecting telescopes and microscopes, to scientific fields as various as magnetism, optics and electricity. They observed, in some cases before anyone else, the colored bands on Jupiter’s surface, the Andromeda nebula and Saturn’s rings. They theorized about the circulation of the blood (independently of Harvey), the theoretical possibility of flight, the way the moon effected the tides, and the wave-like nature of light."^[5]

[Peter]

Fascinating. Close relationship with Nicolas? Then a breakup and a breakdown? Was Newton gay or not?

Peter

From wiki. Isaac Newton’s Personal relations.  Although it was claimed that he was once engaged,^[96] Newton never married. The French writer and philosopher Voltaire, who was in London at the time of Newton's funeral, said that he "was never sensible to any passion, was not subject to the common frailties of mankind, nor had any commerce with women—a circumstance which was assured me by the physician and surgeon who attended him in his last moments".^[97] The widespread belief that he died a virgin has been commented on by writers such as mathematician Charles Hutton,^[98] economist John Maynard Keynes,^[99] and physicist Carl Sagan.^[100]

Newton did have a close friendship with the Swiss mathematician Nicolas Fatio de Duillier, whom he met in London around 1689.^[101] Their intense relationship came to an abrupt and unexplained end in 1693, and at the same time Newton suffered a nervous breakdown.^[102] Some of their correspondence has survived.^[103][104]

In September of that year, Newton had a breakdown which included sending wild accusatory letters to his friends Samuel Pepys and John Locke. His note to the latter included the charge that Locke "endeavoured to embroil me with woemen".^[105]

[anthony]

On 2017/04/30 at 7:03 PM, BaalChatzaf said:

Isaac Newton who invented mathematical physics  was a God-Phreak...

As was - everybody - for ages. Right out to the 'ordinary folk', God fearing and also capable of high rationality. Why only Newton? Do you only notice the tall timber? Reading between the lines here, it could lead one to believe the empirical method was only discovered by secularists, agnostics, atheists. But they arrived late, in the first appreciable number, with Marxism-Socialism. Evidently, the contradictions or dichotomy between Faith and Reason, religion and science, 'rationalism and empiricism' go wa-ayy back. An uneasy and, one would think, impossible combo for any thinker, but consider how so many managed to advance knowledge and civilisation greatly or somewhat, and in the minutest ways (by all the forgotten actions of the unknown masses of individuals) too. 90%+ the religious.

(Not even Kant, in a half-million words, could overcome the dichotomy, leaving behind what amounts to his convoluted compromise - I think).

[anthony]

On 2017/04/30 at 3:53 PM, moralist said:

This is a statement only an amoral secular leftist statist could ever make.

In Judeo Christian America:  "Fighting evil."

In leftist secularist America:   "Fighting IS evil."

In secular leftist America legalism replaces morality.

There is no morality... only moral equivalence... where there is no distinction made between good and evil. The secular leftist statist America in which Bob lives does not know why murder is wrong, because it does not know the difference between murder and destroying evil in defense of the good.

Bob is in total agreement with Obama's weak amoral leftist pacifist foreign policy of "fighting is evil".

 

Greg

I have my doubts the hard Left will ever use the word "evil". Not in their vocab. It's that childishly simple, they replaced good and evil with love and hate. Only implied - is they are the same thing. The Love Experiment began to fall apart when the 'lovers' have exposed themselves for being as much and worse haters, as the "haters" were purported to be. They are too infantile to know it though.

[BaalChatzaf]

13 hours ago, Peter said:

Newton wasn’t a monk? Who am I thinking of then?

Roger Bacon....