posted
I don't know if anything can have solely a religious doctrine basis, including religious doctrine. But if law can, then I think "thou shalt not murder" qualifies. And I think we should keep it.
And, you're right, it's a no-brainer that stoning of witches is a bad idea.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: But if law can, then I think "thou shalt not murder" qualifies.
Ah, but it doesn't. Murder is a demonstrable, provable harm -- unlike, say, witchcraft or homosexual behavior.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
A DENSE GERM A MENS GREED A DR GENES ME A DREG SEMEN GRENADES ME DERANGES ME GREASED MEN GEARED MENS EARNED GEMS GRADES ME NE DREAM GENES READS GEM NE DNA ERE GEMS MEAGRE ENDS RAGE ENDS ME
Posts: 104 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think what a lot of you are forgetting is that a lot of what is perceived as "religious law" was originally societal law. To put it another way: 'X' was the law of this society that happened to worship the god known as Yahweh (Jehovah, I am that I am...) Most of this law was not based on what God passed down or allegedly passed down, but what made sense to those in power and their counselors. Whether your society is explicitly religious or secular, certain things make sense: if someone can be randomly murdered in the street, they don't form any of the businesses and relationships that form and strengthen society, but rather cower in their homes and stockpile weapons and food. If someone who didn't earn or create something can steal from someone who did, the impetus to earn and create is diminished. And so on. Some of these laws made sense at the time, or at least the best sense that the smartest people could come up with: many people who eat pork and shellfish get sick, so we should ban it altogether. Leprosy is a horrible and terrifying plague of our time, so we have a long and somewhat ridiculous list of symptoms that might indicate leprosy; having this list gives us a sense of control over something that frightens us and we do not understand. Then there's passages about burnt offerings and slavery, which have been the fodder of humor postings before...
Full disclosure: religious background (Catholic.) Democrat, albeit disgruntled (party has no spine.) Heterosexual, married, one child. I would call myself a liberal, but some twenty years of conservative PR has worked to poison that word beyond any reason, so I'll call myself a progressive instead.
As a resident of Oregon, I witnessed one of the most well-funded, highly-organized, and completely hysterical (not in the funny sense) political campaigns of my life in the effort to ban homosexual marriage. I was literally receiving mail and brochures insisting that if we let gay marriage slide, "they" would be teaching explicit sodomy in our schools. I'm tired of hysteria. Those who oppose gay marriage do so on an emotional basis, and I understand that. Frequently, it doesn't seem like they do. With nothing beyond their own hunches, they spin a tale of complete societal decline on the basis of this issue. What I understand is this: plenty of children who are the product of families with a traditional mommy and daddy end up abused and neglected, and in need of foster care. Many of those children would be better off in the hands of a sane and loving homosexual couple than their natural parents. I'm not saying there aren't plenty of heterosexual couples that aren't also sane and loving, or that homosexuals are posessed of some inherent nobility; there are plenty of messed up people in every category. I just don't think that homosexuality alone should be used in declaring people unsuitable for qualities and rights straight people take for granted. If it's a "special" right for gay people to be able to adopt and have the same legal rights with their partners as a married straight couple, why is it not a "special" right for that married couple? Is it merely a matter of procreation? And if so, with 6 billion people and mounting on the planet, should we really be putting that ability on such a pedestal? If it's tradition and fear that cause us to ban homosexual unions, we should consider those ancient people with their traditional fear of leprosy and undercooked pork and try to come up with reasons for this tradition that are based on sense, not hysterical conjecture.
Card has suggested those who allow gay marriage are performing a reckless experiment on society. The whole of Canada is currently engaged in this experiment. I ask: if their society fails to show the complete breakdown some have imagined in the wake of gay marriage, will those entrenched against it reconsider? Or will we just hear how Canada is such a different case, and they are breaking down in this other way, and blah blah blah... <Whew> All right, I'm going to stop ranting now.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lego feet: I'd like to point out that "Enders Game" is an anagram for "Same Gender"
OBVIOUSLY MR. CARD IS A HYPOCRITE!
hehehe.....that's funny, but exactly what some one might use as an argument. wait!! you were being sarcaastic, yeh?
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And why should I care about demonstrable harm to another human being? Looks like we're back to religious doctrine again.
If you're arguing against victimless crimes, I'm with you. But there are victimless crimes that are not based on what we usually call religious doctrine (such as the Swedish ban on criticizing homosexuality; or the capital crime in Stalinist Russia of "anti-tractorism"), and there are victim-ed crimes that can certainly be based solely on what we usually call religious doctrine (as I just showed).
This is a common type of argument. I knew Democrats who were passionate about voting for Kerry because Bush said the war in Iraq was justified. So did Kerry; it didn't matter. Others were passionate for Kerry because Bush, like Kerry, opposed gay marriage. In 2000, I met someone who was horrified that Bush supported the death penalty, and therefore was passionately for Gore, who also supported the death penalty.
A man sent a note to his wife: I'm coming home, across the bridge over the ravine, but my enemy is trying to get there first, so he can kill me. You have to let me in and keep him out. She sent him back a message: should I destroy the bridge to keep him out, or should I leave it, to let you in?
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
err...I really didn't understand that post, except for the very first bit. So I'll answer that and hope that someone can explain the rest of it to me.
There are many arguments for setting up systems concerned with harm ot human beings that don't rely on "Because I (or God) said so.", which is what I assume is meant by religious doctrine. Two of the most convincing for me are the "veil of ignorance" and the utilitarian one. I'd make a case for it being one of the core principles of the Enlightenment, but that'd take more time than I really want to spend.
Anyway, the veil of ignorance is the idea that when setting up a system, you have no idea what role you are going to take on in that system. This leads pretty directly to making the harm of people a central concern, because you have no idea whether or not the person who is going to be harmed is you. The utilitarian argument is that a society that concerns itself with its citizens being harmed and with justice is likely to be more successful than one that does not.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The real villain behind this whole argument is the federal government, more specifically its unnatural, unconstitutional power and size.
Imagine if you will a pie. That pie is all the things that the federal government has control of, indirectly or directly.
If the pie is a large thick, juicy pie full of wonderful, rich ingredients every citizen will want a piece.
If, on the other hand, we have only a few crumbs and some frosting on a plate, not very many people will be fighting to get it.
If the federal government (and government in general) was smaller, with jurisdiction over a few, albiet important, things, we would not see all the national controversy we see today over who gets the biggest piece of pie of tax breaks and contracts.
Our founding fathers, fortunately, saw that the expansion of federal power could become a problem, that is why they went so far as to actually write down the exact number of things that the federal government is allowed to do (we have a government of ENUMERATED powers), they wrote these things in a document called the Constitution, which is now used as toilet paper by activist judges who legislate their beliefs into law.
If the federal government was impotent regarding the issue of the definition of marraige, than no one could get hurt by its ruling.
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by RoyHobbs: ... which is now used as toilet paper by activist judges who legislate their beliefs into law.
If the federal government was impotent regarding the issue of the definition of marraige, than no one could get hurt by its ruling.
Wow, another slam against "activist" judges, who saw that coming?
If the feds are impotent, then the status quo in marriage would remain. Presumably you favor this, Roy. But others do not, and claim the right to petition the courts, under constitutional rules.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If the feds are impotent, then the status quo in marriage would remain."
Perhaps not. On this issue, I agree with Roy; one of the reasons social issues are becoming so important is that the federal government is increasingly sticking its nose in where it should fear to tread.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There would be one clear federalist way to change marriage: by legislation. (Another would be referendum.)
--
The veil of ignorance argument doesn't work well even in our society, and it's been abysmal in most societies throughout history. If I were utterly selfish, and lower class, I'd want mercy for the lower class. If I were utterly selfish, and upper class, I'd want to maximize power for the upper class. This is what many people through history did. But fortunately, societies are full of people who aren't utterly selfish in this way. In the mid-1800's whites in the USA, the UK, and France pushed for the abolition of black slavery. It was not clear at the time that this would make whites more prosperous, but they did it anyway because they thought it was right (and in most cases this involved them thinking God wanted it). And a good thing.
The utilitarian argument seems to assume that if my society is successful, this is a good thing. But why would I want my society to be successful? African dictators ruined their societies by robbing them, and ended up with mansions, fat Swiss bank accounts, etc.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Will, I'm not sure that you understand either of the points I made. The whole point of the veil of ignorance is that you don't know whether you'll be lower class or upper class or black or white or whatever. This perspective provides a definitive reason for pushing for equality without recourse to unprovable value arguments. If I understand you correctly, I think you were trying to say that peopel don't often utilize veil of ignorance reasoning in their actual lives. That's completely irrelevant to what I was saying.
I really don't understand your point about African dictators. You've shown that not caring about the harm caused leads to cultures that collapse, which supports rather than detracts from my argument as you seem to think it does. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. If that's not what you were saying, could you elaborate?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Roy, I'm wondering, as you're talking about the constitution and what our country is supposed to be, could you explain how you feel the Federalist Papers fit into to what you are saying? It is often hard for me to follow these types of arguments and I find that tying them to directly relevant concrete influences greatly assists my understanding of what people are saying and the FP is one you must obviously have considered. If you'd be willing to do that, I'd appreciate it.
>The whole point of the veil of ignorance is that you don't know whether you'll be lower class or upper class or black or white or whatever.
Yes. I'm saying that isn't what happens in the real world, and since it doesn't happen in the real world, it's not useful for giving a motivation for law in the real world. It might make an interesting thought experiment.
>I really don't understand your point about African dictators. You've shown that not caring about the harm caused leads to cultures that collapse, which supports rather than detracts from my argument as you seem to think it does. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. If that's not what you were saying, could you elaborate?
I've shown that it is not necessarily in the interest of the individual for society to succeed. They profited from causing their societies to fail. Therefore "it is in my interest for my society to succeed" is not always valid.
Since it doesn't hold up, it's not reasonable to want laws that are good for society because this will benefit me. So whereas utilitarianism is a useful perspective, it doesn't answer the question of why I should support this law or that.
So neither utilitarianism nor "veil of ignorance" are sufficient to take the place of religious views in creating motivation for law. Therefore it is not true, as someone stated earlier, that all laws that have a foundation solely in religious doctrine are bad laws. (I assume that "solely" doesn't mean "I have to turn off all my other faculties," but something like "this faculty is necessary.") Laws against murder, and laws against buying alcohol on Sunday, are both based on religious doctrine (although the alcohol one is very tenuously connected). Laws by rabid anti-religious people like Mao and Stalin are also sometimes bad law. Knowing whether the people supporting a law have religious motivations won't help us in determining the value of the law.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Knowing whether the people supporting a law have religious motivations won't help us in determining the value of the law."
And yet the motivations behind a law are in fact relevant, if the law is not based on other logic. Consider blue laws, which you mentioned. What non-religious motivation compels them?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say blue laws weren't based on religious doctrine. I said the opposite: "Laws against murder, and laws against buying alcohol on Sunday, are both based on religious doctrine."
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Laws against murder, and laws against buying alcohol on Sunday, are both based on religious doctrine.
And that's where you're wrong. Laws against murder are based on provable harm, whereas laws against buying alcohol on Sunday are based on religious doctrine. This is an important distinction, because the former criteria is the important one in a secular society.
In other words, if murder is a provable harm, it's okay to have a law against it even if religious doctrine also forbids it. No one's saying otherwise. What people are saying is that if something is considered "wrong" solely due to religious doctrine, it would be improper to legislate against it in a society that does not universally accept that doctrine.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Will, I still think you're not getting it. We're talking about the theoretical bases for systems of laws here. Such as systems are (usually) about curbing people's "bad" actions and encouraging their "good" actions, based on the values derived from the theorectical bases. So, what people have done or are predisposed to do are largely irrelevant. It's like criticizing using the 10 commandments as basis for a system of laws because people are always breaking them.
Of course people don't act on the veil of ignorance in real life. That's not what we're talking about. What we're talking about are what values one should use to determine a system of governance. You are arguing that it must come from an irrational (and likely at some point irreducible) source and I'm demonstrating that it doesn't. The realm of values is not necessarily logically arbitrary.
And again, the dictator argument actually supports my point. You're presenting a case where equality and harm are not central concerns and showing that in some cases this leads to a screwed up and pretty much doomed society. That is the utilitarian argument, that we should value these things because they lead to more sucessful societies.
Look, I don't know if that explanation is going to get through to you. Here's a summary. We're looking for reasons why we should value something, in this case concern about harm and equality, while setting up and maintaining a system of laws. The claim was made that there is no basis for these things other than "religious" values. I'm showing that there are in fact rational, logical reasons for valuing these things.
edit: We're concerned with the "why" chain. The idea that you must have a "religious" basis is saying that for any law there's going to come a point where asking why are we doing this is going to end up at "Because X is by definition right (or wrong)." In this case, we reached a point in the why chain where the answer was "Because we value concern about harm and equality." People then calimed that at the next step ("Why do we value concern about harm and equality?") the only possible answer is "Because harm is by definition wrong and equality is by definition wrong." whereas I'm supplying other answers.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The dictator argument: no, I didn't say we should value certain policies because they lead to more successful societies. Why should we? You're right: we are talking about a why? chain, and it's a valiant effort to answer this tough question, but your answers still beg the question.
I should support law X because it's good for society. Why should I support what's good for society? [Here we reach the limit of the utilitarian argument.] Because it might benefit me in some hypothetical situation of a veil of ignorance. But why should I support something that might benefit me in some hypothetical situation I don't live in? [And here we reach the limit of the veil-of-ignorance argument.]
It's fun arguing with you, by the way.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Laws against murder make excellent sense, in that they protect the lawmaker too. No religious motive is required to be afraid of death - quite the opposite, one might say.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've talked about this so many times I don't think I have much energy anymore for it (or at least the energy to argue very politely about it).
Ok... just a little bit.
For me, the religious argument against me and other gay folk doesn't hold water. Religion is an ancient form of science and/or philosophy. It was trying to explain the world around us. We've grown up. We've found better ways to explain the universe. While moral codes are good to keep us from killing each other, many are outdated. We don't need slaves, we don't need women below men, we don't need to hate homosexuals, we don't need human sacrifices.
The whole reason the taboo on homosexuals began was way back when the key to success was the size of your clan/tribe. If you weren't breeding you were not a productive member of society. Now in a world of 6 billion I think the greatest threat is way too many people.
The modern reason why most religions have a ban on birth control and want people haveing 12 kids is still that age old worry... not anymore about saving your city from an invading army that is larger then yours, but down to politics and the number of believers. If you have more believers then the next religion, you can crush them, get more donations, save more souls, etc...
It's not because "God" hates gay folk... it's because religion is afraid of low numbers.
I'm sure some ethinc groups are worried about population where that still matters...and then you have Italy with a declining population. But while the Vatican tries to get Italians to breed, their policies are helping to create a population explosion in South America and Africa.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read somewhere that an excellent indicator of juvenile delinquency is family size. That says something to me about the REAL effects of Mormons, Catholics, other religious groups with large families, etc.
Bear in mind the conclusions of "The Fates of Nations" in which it becomes clear that a sudden rise in population comes immediately before ALL major wars of conquest.
Keep it in your pants. I don't care if you're married or not. I neither want to have your 18-year-old kids fighting FOR me or AGAINST me. At least that's my common sense attitude. Of course, few will listen.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What a pleasant and oh-so-reasonable, yet simplistic and condescending viewpoint of religion. If there is more to homosexuality than gay bars and dressing in drag, could it not be possible there's more to religion than a set of ancient, now mostly irrelevant platitudes?
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:What people are saying is that if something is considered "wrong" solely due to religious doctrine, it would be improper to legislate against it in a society that does not universally accept that doctrine.
So how is it proper to legislate gay marriage in a society that, by majority, does not universally accept that "doctrine"? Minority opinions are legislated all the time, often against the express will of the majority.
Establishing proper behavior via laws does not necessarily advocate that religion––and neither Jefferson nor the rest of the Founding Fathers believed that keeping religion out of politics meant removing the doctrines. This country was never intended to be completely secular. If you read the works of many of the founders you see a common thread––religious doctrine (though not religious organization) is an essential part of this nation's success.
Assuming all laws must be secular in origin is a handy presumption by those who want to enforce their belief systems on others. That's the beauty of the system. If the majority want blue laws, for example, they can have them. It's their right. It's never improper.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's with you Americans and the 'intent of the Founding Fathers'? They lived two hundred years ago, in a different country. Surely we've learned something since then? They may not have intended the USA as a secular country; then again, they also didn't intend the USA as a country without slavery. Try to think for yourselves for a change, why don't you?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are some 280 million of ourselves. What will really happen if we dump the Constitution and its intent is that a very few living people get to decide for the rest of us. Not something I want to see happen.
The rule of law may have its problems, but it's better than the alternative.
--
Laws against murder do not benefit those who wish to commit it. Why should I prefer the rights of a victim over the rights of a killer, if I'm not the victim? There must be some reason.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that's kind of the point : A law against murder protects you from becoming a victim. It's a bit late to go legislating when the dagger is lifted against you.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Laws against murder do not benefit those who wish to commit it."
Will, are you seriously implying that the only reason people might obey laws which do not directly benefit them is religion?Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I can only hope your arrogance is based on ignorance.
I could "think for myself" and use water instead of gasoline for my car, of course, because I'm far more practical and advanced than the inventors of the automobile, right?
I suppose we can simply reshape the Constitution to fit whatever whim and fancy we want, because it feels good and we want our way. We ought to follow Ancent Rome's sterling example of pissing away a bright future by doing whatever we dang well please. Isn't that the credo of the secularist?
Whoopie! Bread and circuses for everyone!
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I wasn't talking about obeying laws, I was talking about _supporting_ laws. I thought that was clear.
But if what you reall meant was "only reason people might support laws," propose an alternate reason, and let's see if it's religion.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"propose an alternate reason, and let's see if it's religion."
Because the preservation of society, for all but the most sociopathic of people, is a goal that provides concrete benefit to the most individuals.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:What's with you Americans and the 'intent of the Founding Fathers'? They lived two hundred years ago, in a different country. Surely we've learned something since then? They may not have intended the USA as a secular country; then again, they also didn't intend the USA as a country without slavery.
Americans don't think we have to do exactly what the Founders would have done. Rather, some of us think that if we wish to change the foundational principles upon which this country is founded, that is better done by majoritatarian process rather than judicial fiat. The principles subject to enforcement by unelected officials should be ones that, at some point, the people enacted.
quote:Try to think for yourselves for a change, why don't you?
Actually, we're being prevented from doing that, or at least from implementing the product of our thoughts, by 9 people who insist on doing our thinking for us.
posted
Tom, why should I care about what gives concrete benefits to the most individuals, as opposed to what benefits me?
Don't you see how this begs the question? I should care about things that don't benefit me but benefit society overall, because it would benefit the most individuals. Since society is the set of all individuals in it, and "overall" means "most," you've just restated the question in with different terms. It's like saying I should clean the house because that will give me an orderly domicile.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because the more individuals are benefitted, the more statistically likely it is that you will be one of them; moreover, it is also less likely that a large and powerful group will take to the streets and remove you from power. That kind of thing is usually painful for all involved.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That statistical likelihood doesn't works for those in power, because they are not typical individuals: they have power. So they can twist the law to make themselves rich. It is not in their interest to put society ahead of themselves.
It doesn't work too well for the rest of us, either, once we know our social class (which we do) and the particular law. We don't live under a veil of ignorance.
Be careful what you wish for. Suppose you convince everyone that the only necessary reason to vote for laws for everyone, is self-interest. Then, since we have a white majority, we'll return to race discrimination against blacks -- reduces the competition for jobs and slots at the university. Very few of us are gay, so we can vote for a gay tax -- after all, they don't have any children to support -- and we can make sure of that by maintaining bans on gays adopting or being foster parents. It makes many of us uncomfortable to be around the handicapped, and it costs an enormous amount of money to make everything handicap-accessible; so that goes too: expenses go down a little, and we don't have to feel depressed from seeing someone blind or in a wheelchair. We'd save even more money if we killed the ones who aren't economically productive. They don't have the votes to stop us.
Is that what you really want? Because all I have described is voting in one's self-interest.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: That statistical likelihood doesn't works for those in power, because they are not typical individuals: they have power. So they can twist the law to make themselves rich. It is not in their interest to put society ahead of themselves.
As religion hasn't prevented this over the last four thousand years, either, I think it's safe to say that those in power are going to try to rewrite rules in their favor, either way.
Respect for society, fear of god, or fear of authority: all these are effective sticks (and, in reverse, carrots.)
You seem to be equating religion with anything that isn't short-term self-interest, which seems a bit narrow to me.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:That statistical likelihood doesn't works for those in power, because they are not typical individuals: they have power. So they can twist the law to make themselves rich. It is not in their interest to put society ahead of themselves.
Not ahead of themselves, no. But it is in their interest to keep the peasants sufficiently happy that they don't revolt - the second point I made, which I note that you didn't address at all.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM: A society that keeps the peasants subservient and happy for the benefit of the masters -- is that what you're proposing?
ToM: So is it right for the powerful to rewrite the rules in their favor -- legalize murder provided the accused is upper class, etc.? If not, why not?
I still haven't heard why I should prefer to benefit society over benefiting myself (long-term or otherwise).
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I'm not saying such a society would be a good thing. I'm saying that the ruling / legislating class needs to do an absolute minimum in terms of keeping their peasants happy if they are going to remain rulers, and this is a good selfish reason for them to support laws against murder. As the peasants become more sophisticated and win power, as in a democracy, that minimum becomes considerably larger.
Regarding legalisation of murder done by the upper classes, I don't take a stance on its rightness or otherwise. I merely say that I would prefer not to live in such a society. I also note that such laws have existed, and have been burned out by risings of the peasantry - take a look at the privileges (literally, 'private laws') of the French nobility before the Revolution.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lots of interesting stuff here. Thought I'd respond a bit. This from OSC:
"There are idiots on the right; but the idiocy is not uniformly distributed. As witness the fact that Republicans in the Senate are not voting in a lockstep bloc, but have to be persuaded, while the Democrats have utterly purged their party of any divergent thought at all, so everybody votes the party line on every important issue."
I'm not sure what his point is here. There are any number of reasons or rationales for this behavior.
1. The republicans who don't vote in lockstep are fearful of a "liberal conspiracy" that might undermine their careers.
2. The republican's who don't vote in lockstep have a reason to do so based on a principaled conscientiousness opposed to party-line.
3. Divisiveness amongst the GOP make them look more like questioning truth-seekers in the face of the mindless onslaught of knee-jerk Democratic zombies.
4. Well, the Dems are on the losing end of things, so why wouldn't they act/speak in strict accord with team strategy (ok, that's laughable).
5. Being in the majority, with lotsa control, the GOP simply has the luxury of divisive opinion (for now)
so... what's the point? Idiocy is a function of complacency as a result of what?
Posts: 551 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I concede that "enlightened self-interest" may be non-religious . . . but it's irrelevant, since I've shown that enlightened self-interest is not sufficient to motivate good laws. Enlightened self-interest will give us discrimination against minorities, persecution of gays, and elimination of the handicapped.
I notice you keep dodging the question: why should I prefer to benefit society over benefiting myself?
It's no surprise you don't have an answer. Nobody's ever been able to come up with a way, in all those attempted philosophical justifications of altruism, to derive "ought" from "is." It's nothing to be ashamed of -- being unable to solve a philosophical problem no one in human history has been able to resolve.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Why should I prefer to benefit society over benefiting myself?"
Will, the problem here is that the answers I've already given you -- enlightened self-interest, concern for one's fellow man, etc. -- are not answers that you have been willing to accept.
Speaking as someone who is NOT religious and yet is rather stridently moral, I'd be interested to hear why you think I have a code of ethics.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've already shown that enlightened self-interest leads to benefiting myself over society, not society over myself.
So: why should I be concerned for my fellow man?
This is the nominal fallacy. "Concern for one's fellow man" is a _name_ we apply to benefiting society over oneself, not an explanation.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
What people are saying is that if something is considered "wrong" solely due to religious doctrine, it would be improper to legislate against it in a society that does not universally accept that doctrine.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
