quote:Originally posted by starLisa: [QUOTE]Originally posted by King of Men: It's the whole critical mass thing. If you and I and Tom are walking down the street, and we see a rich person and a poor person, we aren't entitled to define the five of us in this picture as some sort of society, even though the three of us are a majority, and we aren't entitled thereby to take a third of the rich guy's money and distribute it to the poor guy (keeping some for ourselves to pay ourselves for our trouble, of course).
Actually, if the rich guy agrees that he belongs to our community, I don't see why not. And here I think there can be such a thing as tacit consent : If the rich guy is, let's say, dependent on my car to get to work every day, then I think we can make a reasonable claim that he is tacitly agreeing to be part of our community. He's certainly reaping the benefits.
The car, obviously, is an analogy to the more usual infrastructure, and I think that makes a good critical mass measurement : A community is a sufficient amount of people that they need some specialisation to maintain their infrastructure. Say maybe a thousand, if their technology is at the subsistence farming level. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say, "enough people that they can meaningfully be said to have a common infrastructure." Does that satisfy your requirement of a critical mass?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As promised, I will attempt to present my positions on the hot topics and how my values and reasoning got me there. I had hoped more of you had done the same so that we might compare and I might learn something from your reasoning. I think most of us share the same values. I think we only differ in how we apply them.
I'll start with abortion, since I questioned Katarain on this topic. Similar to her, I desire to protect the opportunity for all people to act according to the dictates of their own conscience without fear of legal reprisal in most cases. That is usually referred to as Liberty, although I acknowledge the correctness of Irami's first post.
I also value the preservation of Life and feel that no person should be deprived of their life by the actions of another in most cases. When I weigh the opportunity of a woman to have an abortion according to her conscience against the preservation of a child's life, I value the opportunity to live more than the opportunity to kill, therefore, I support the setting up of obstacles and legal consequences to prevent the woman from acting according to her conscience and have an abortion.
Most people can understand my reasoning if we were talking about a newborn. I would have acted to prevent Abraham from offering Isaac as a sacrifice had I lived in his time, knew what he was doing, and did not agree that God had commanded him to do it. Where I differ from others is in my thinking of an unborn embryo or fetus as a person who has a life worth protecting. My postion comes from two values: I value the word of God as I understand it, which for me states that human embryos and fetuses are human life; and two, I believe that if I consent to allow someone else to kill a person, or do not at least attempt to prevent the killing of that baby, I am condemned before God and have acted against my conscience.
Some may ask why should my personal belief in God's word come before someone else's belief in what constitutes life. One, it is my ability to act according to my conscience against the woman's ability to act according to her conscience. Well, someone will say, your conscience only dictates that you should TRY to prevent the killing of the baby. You can act according to your conscience at the same time that she acts according to hers, because at least you tried, right? I agree, and that is why I am willing to abide by the law and accept the will of the people on this issue. But, the people have never been able to make their will known, and to act according to my conscience I must continually try to persuade the will of the people to outlaw the ending of the unborn babies' lives.
Second, unlike suicide, if I am right, the woman will be forcing her opinion of when life begins on another (her child) by the shedding of that child's blood. If I am wrong, and the embryo is just a bunch of cells, then I have unjustly taken away a woman's ability to act according to her conscience, but if I am right she will be unjustly taking away the life of another individual. I am comfortable with my choice to ban abortion except in special circumstances, because the potential injury done to others is much less severe with this choice than the other.
One more value comes into play at least for some people. They posit that banning abortions would result in the serious injury if not death of women who try to perform abortions in unsafe ways. I have great compassion for women, I do not want them to suffer, but I do not feel that it is the responsibility of government to make sure people can kill others safely without injurying themselves. I do feel, however, that we should do all that is possible to protect the woman and child from the abuse of others, make sure that unwanted children are adopted into good homes, make sure that the woman does not lose opportunities at work due to her pregnancy, that they get proper health care, etc.
Now, I should clarify that I believe, "that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion". I believe this because I feel that this is the word of God. To demonstrate how these exceptions fit in with my values would be another lengthy discussion. But, I shall go through it if requested.
My positions on the other hot topics will be forthcoming in future posts.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would you have tried to prevent Abraham from killing Isaac if you did know that God had commanded it?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think one of my issues would be for the disabled to be able to enjoy the same freedoms that the normal people do.
I had a child, and the state used my medical history as the ultimate grounds for why she was not returned to me. Childern Services felt that my disablity interfered with my ability to care for my daughter and felt that it was unfare for me to have to rely on things like ADC and other state facilities for help.
They even went so far as to tell me that if I asked family for help, namely my biological mom, who at one time used drugs and drank, they'd cut my rights.
I am a firm believer that disabled people deserve the chance to experience the same things those without disabilites do, like have a family, ect.
Yes, I realize that there are some that are so severely disabled that they cannot partake of these things, but does the state really have the right to dictate what someone that is disabled can or cannot do?
Posts: 113 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I value protecting the opportunity for people to be able to act according to their own conscience without fear of governmental reprisal in most circumstances. I also value an equal treatment under the law in most cases. I cannot justify withholding partner insurance benefits, hospital visitation rights, alimony, custody claims, tax breaks, Social Security benefits, etc., from one segment of the population who have an enduring committed relationship and are only kept from making it a legal contract by the laws of the land. Therefore, homosexuals should be given the opportunity to enter into a legal contract where they get the same legal benefits and liabilities that heterosexuals do.
However, I also value the ability of religious societies to be able act according to their conscience without government interference for the most part. Homosexual partner contracts should not be called marriage, because marriage is a religious covenant whose definition comes from God, and no man or government under heaven has the authority to redefine it. They may try and put it in their books, but the real definition hasn't changed, for God recognizes none such. And His commandments based on marriage only apply to those who are married His way. I don't think the government should have ever adopted that the term marriage, but hindsight is 20/20. So, let's correct it now and refer to partner benefits in the law books and let religions alone decide who can marry, but government decide who can enter into these legal partner contracts.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
King of Men asked: "Would you have tried to prevent Abraham from killing Isaac if you did know that God had commanded it?"
No, I would not. My absolute highest value, that trumps all my other values consistently is to do the will of my Father in Heaven. This is because his perspective is so much greater than mine. What I perceive as wrong may be right in certain circumstances and I trust God's perspective and judgment more than my own. I, of course, must be convinced that it really is God's will and not just a delusion. But, I believe that it is possible to know that for sure.
Cali-Angel-Cat: I think you should have been given the opportunity to raise your child. We should not be a Minority Report society where we judge people before they actually commit a crime. If, however, after you had your child for a while, it became evident that abuse was taking place through neglect, a social worker should be called in to see if a plan can be made to help you meet your child's needs. If neglect continues, however, I do feel the government should protect the child and place the child in someone else's care. The bottom line is I think you should have had the opportunity to take care of your child first. You may have done a great job and everyone would be happy.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with enochville. I've never heard this argument done so well. marriage is not a matter of politics, it's for individual religions to make any recommended on. Those who challenge other religions should only do so in cases where that religion is commiting crimes on a mass scale. E.g. Sex offenses, murders, and encouraging suicides.
That's what the laws for anyway, isn;t it, to prevent and stop unneccessary arguments between the people?
Posts: 75 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Homosexual partner contracts should not be called marriage, because marriage is a religious covenant whose definition comes from God, and no man or government under heaven has the authority to redefine it.
I'm okay with homosexual partner contracts not being called marriage as long as heterosexual partner contracts are also not called marriage. Is that your meaning?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
TomDavidson: I mean that the word marriage would no longer be a legal term, heterosexual and homosexual unions would both be known as partner contracts in the law, or some other such phrase. However, in society we could still talk about people who were united by a religious organization as married.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then what about religions that do not distinguish between homosexual and heterosexual couples when performing marriage ceremonies? If a homosexual couple was united by a religious organization that believes in homosexual marriage, they could call themselves married, but an agnostic homosexual couple who has their ceremony done by a Justice of the Peace could not?
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My general principles concerning when liberty should be constrained:
Liberty should be constrained as little as possible.
It is generally a greater constraint on liberty to force someone to do something than to restrict them from doing something. Obviously, exceptions exist.
Every constraint on liberty should be in furtherance of one or more identifiable legitimate aims of government.
Constraints on liberty should be applied as equally as possible.
Disparities in application of constraints of liberty should be in furtherance of one or more identifiable legitimate aims of government.
The greater the constraint on liberty, the more important the aim of government needs to be.
Certain types of disparities in constraints of freedom, such as those based on race, religion, or gender, require more important aims of government to justify them.
A threat of loss of life, liberty, or property or a threat of physical harm is a form of constraint of liberty.
A denial of a generally available government benefit is a form of constraint of liberty and requires similar justification.
Obviously, there's a lot of flexibility within this framework, mainly in defining importance of an aim of government, legitimacy of an aim of government, magnitude of a constraint on freedom, and bases of disparities.
For example, protecting citizens from physical violence is a very important aim of government. This importance of this aim supports the threats of severe deprivation of liberty and possibly of life associated with criminal laws relating to violence against the person.
There are many gray areas to be filled out before this framework can actually be used to decide if a particular constraint on liberty is justified. But I think it helps focus on what the important questions are.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
enochville, I suspect that within one generation, we'd be calling anyone in such a legal union "married," regardless of their religious affiliation.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Update: I have changed my opinion on same sex marriage. I no longer support same sex civil unions or marriage. Although, I concede that my new position is not Constitutionally defendable.
I believe that the Lord has revealed his will for me:
"Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same gender, undermine the divinely created institution of the family. The Church accordingly favors measures that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman and that do not confer legal status on any other sexual relationship."
It has taken me a while to figure out how to reconcile this position with my values. But, I believe that the Lord can foresee that same sex civil unions would result in much misery for the population of this country.
My value of acting for the greater good of my brothers and sisters outweighs my respect for letting people act according to their own conscience. This is the same reasoning I use when preventing a suicide, or letting a child play in the street. The difference with these examples is it is easier for many people of diffrent religious or philosophical backgrounds to see that preventing suicide or playing in the street is acting for the greater good, but it is not so easily seen or agreed upon with preventing same sex unions. Plus, I think many of you will have a problem with my value of being my brother's keeper. But, I believe the Lord expects us at least to try.
I know my position is indefensible for many of you, but what really matters is that I am comfortable with my decision and I have carefully examined my thought-processes and how I got there.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So that can be regulated within religions, and that's why cynical people who don't want to believe in anything are so angry. But I still don't think it's the place of the law (outside religions) to police peoples choices. All they are is an entity for uniting all the different beliefs within a nation and securing the safety of its citizens from 1. themselves, and 2. outside forces. And they do this with the citizenry themeselves. Gay marriages has nothing to do with either.
It's like making racism illegal. Sure, you can arrest KKK members if you catch them but it's not going to get rid of them. The only thing that will get rid of them is when a large number (around them) stop agreeing with them and protecting them from the law. In cases like these, you have blacks, gays, whatever, and the group that hates them. Without the government protecting them from themselves, their just going to breed hate and kill eachother. But illegalising something is taking sides, which is not the role of the givernment.
The government is a mediator, a peacekeeper. But among a religious organization, gay communities, black americans (who have created their own church), the KKK (also have created their own church), etc. everyone has the same views. (I' not saying gay people should start their own church <grin> but they do all share the one view, at least, that gay people should be allowed the freedonms that everybody else gets. So within these organizations or "ethnic groups", they are kicked out if they don't respect those general views! (Or at least among gays they'll lose all social organization with other gay people and the "protection of the mob effect" they get from being in it.
So as long as all the different groups STOP TRYING TO CONTROL the freedoms or other groups, not that they can't make friendly sugestions, they'll all be alright. The government can keep the peace, but illegalizing ANYTHING is taking sides which is not what they should be doing if you Americans are to all be one nation.
Utah was created as a refuge for LDSs but apparently days of prosecution of other peoples beliefs in America ended and so you all became one big happy country. That's what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was all about, weren't they?
Posts: 75 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Would kill a child if fairy tale superbeing commanded it - check. Is willing to believe in unproven, unspecified 'harm' in order to have secular law come into conformity with superstition - check. Apparently believes that internal conviction really is equivalent to 'knowing God's will' - check.
*Adds comrade enochville to list for re-education camps.*
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Plus, I think many of you will have a problem with my value of being my brother's keeper.
I don't think that's the problem. I think it's that most people will resent your belief that they need to be kept.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: [QUOTE]Originally posted by King of Men: It's the whole critical mass thing. If you and I and Tom are walking down the street, and we see a rich person and a poor person, we aren't entitled to define the five of us in this picture as some sort of society, even though the three of us are a majority, and we aren't entitled thereby to take a third of the rich guy's money and distribute it to the poor guy (keeping some for ourselves to pay ourselves for our trouble, of course).
Actually, if the rich guy agrees that he belongs to our community, I don't see why not. And here I think there can be such a thing as tacit consent : If the rich guy is, let's say, dependent on my car to get to work every day, then I think we can make a reasonable claim that he is tacitly agreeing to be part of our community. He's certainly reaping the benefits.
You can't posit tacit consent in the face of explicit dissent.
If a free market of nations existed, so to speak, where I could easily get up and go to one that was more respectful of the people in it, I'd do that happily.
Nor is what you're suggesting any more moral than a kid jumping into the street at a stop light and washing my windows without asking if I want it. And then expecting to be paid for the "service".
I can state right now, unequivocally, that I do not consent to the taking of my earnings for the purpose of social programs of any sort whatsoever. If I want to give to charitable causes, I'm quite capable of doing so myself. If I want to support the arts, I'm very much able to find art that I feel worthy of support.
But back to your example, you're truly saying that if a rich guy carpools with you, that gives you tacit permission to rob him? That's... wild.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: The car, obviously, is an analogy to the more usual infrastructure, and I think that makes a good critical mass measurement : A community is a sufficient amount of people that they need some specialisation to maintain their infrastructure.
You use the concept of infrastructure as though it's an all or nothing deal. That my consent in one area can be interpreted as a general consent. I think you need to support such a claim.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Say maybe a thousand, if their technology is at the subsistence farming level. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say, "enough people that they can meaningfully be said to have a common infrastructure." Does that satisfy your requirement of a critical mass?
Not even a little bit. "Meaningfully" --in whose opinion?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: You can't posit tacit consent in the face of explicit dissent.
You are certainly entirely at liberty to move to some tax haven. They do exist.
In a way, it is a Prisoner's Dilemma kind of thing. Taxes go into building infrastructure, at least that's the theory. Now, if we could charge money each time you used a bit of infrastructure, we wouldn't need taxes. Unfortunately, it's a bit hard to measure just how much defense you are using on any given day, not to mention police presence, availability of roads, and opportunities for safe investment. So we charge everybody some, and hope that it evens out.
Now this is a tacit agreement among most people. I understand that you do not agree, but if there were really widespread resistance on moral grounds to taxation, the system would long since have ground to a halt. But the thing is, once we have this infrastructure set up, you use it whether or not you want to; and if people were allowed to use it without paying - well, I'm sure you know all about the Prisoner's Dilemma in large populations, right?
quote:But back to your example, you're truly saying that if a rich guy carpools with you, that gives you tacit permission to rob him? That's... wild.
Come now. The carpool example is indeed wild, precisely because infrastructure doesn't really extrapolate down to the level of individuals. It is an emergent effect of having enough people. Precisely the distinction you were seeking, in fact, between individuals and societies. It's an analogy, ok?
quote:You use the concept of infrastructure as though it's an all or nothing deal. That my consent in one area can be interpreted as a general consent. I think you need to support such a claim.
Well, clearly you find the benefits of living here outweigh the disadvantages, or you would have moved to the Bahamas or Luxembourg and paid no taxes, right? So you are consenting at least to that extent.
About all or nothing : You're right that roads, for example, could be priced on a per-use basis. But how about the military? The police? A social safety net? (And just because you prefer to lvive without one, doesn't mean you have the right to impose your choice on everyone else.)
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
