Where's The Law, Drew?"

[motherengine]

Some smart-a** wrote about the God delusion. What of the delusions concerning freewill, morality and justice?

 

Clarification: I am paraphrasing a line from the film 1408 (concerning Hannah Arendt and her book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil), as opposed to simply insulting Dawkins.

Edited September 6, 2015 by motherengine

[HydrogenBond]

Moral law is misunderstood. Moral law was designed with the group or team in mind. It was never about the individual. Rather it was about the needs of the team. In sports team, individuals can't do anything they want. It is not relative. Rather individuals will get restricted, for the good of the team. If the team wins the championship, then all will rise. 

 

If you look at the ten commandments, these laws all had the team in mind. It was never about the individual except in the context of a team player. For example, stealing could benefit lazy individuals, who might justify this with relative arguments. In terms of the team, if this was allowed, it would harm the team spirit and require resources for defense and police. If nobody stole anything, there is no need for defensive measures and suspicion so the team is stronger. 

 

The first commandment is connected to one God. In terms of the team, religious differences, even today, can cause a team to divide, This commandment was not about individual freedom to believe what you want, but rather agreeing on one God will keep the team together. 

 

Relative morality is more about the needs of individuals. This is more subjective, since the criteria might be something like the pursuit of happiness. The team uses an objective standard, since not every coach's rules make a champion. Certain teams and coaches win due to objective things they do when preparing the team. 

 

Moral law was objective at the level of team. Relative morality tends to dissociate the team; abortion splits the team. The decline of America is connected to relative thinking, since this weakens team objectivity using individual subjectivity. 

 

Immoral behavior is any behavior that weakens the team. Relative morality often requires greater expenditure of resource, to mop up the social mess. Since the resource of the team have declined, this makes it harder for the team. 

Edited September 4, 2015 by HydrogenBond

[Buffy]

Relative morality is more about the needs of individuals. This is more subjective, since the criteria might be something like the pursuit of happiness. The team uses an objective standard, since not every coach's rules make a champion. Certain teams and coaches win due to objective things they do when preparing the team. 

 

Moral law was objective at the level of team. Relative morality tends to dissociate the team; abortion splits the team. The decline of America is connected to relative thinking, since this weakens team objectivity using individual subjectivity. 

 

Immoral behavior is any behavior that weakens the team. Relative morality often requires greater expenditure of resource, to mop up the social mess. Since the resource of the team have declined, this makes it harder for the team. 

 

"Relative morality" is a made up term that appears to simply be a mechanism for pigeonholing behavior you don't like. Anyone interested in the opinions Hydro expresses here would do well to look up "Communitarianism," a conservative movement that's surprisingly been replaced among conservatives by the more Randian "I got mine, screw you."

 

 

As philosophies, some religions have very valuable moral points. They may have a good influence or proper principles to inculcate, but in a very contradictory context and, on a verydangerous or malevolent base: on the ground of faith, :phones:

Buffy

[pgrmdave]

A hypothesis:

 

Human beings strive to live in relative comfort; one manner in which to do this is through fostering belief in the rule of law and in justice.

 

To some degree the functionality of secular society is dependent upon beliefs in things which are fantastical (things for which there is no actual supportive evidence).

 

 

An assertion:

 

Arguments for ideals, values and morals are either religious or senseless

I prefer to live in a world with less human suffering. That doesn't mean that my ideal is strictly better than someone else's but it is *mine* and I do fight for it. It doesn't mean that I have to appeal to religious ideas, nor does it mean that it's senseless - the fact that I consider it important is sense enough.  That's nihilism in a nutshell - there is no objective meaning or morality, but that doesn't mean that the morals I choose to have are worthless.

[CraigD]

A hypothesis:

 

Human beings strive to live in relative comfort; one manner in which to do this is through fostering belief in the rule of law and in justice.

 

To some degree the functionality of secular society is dependent upon beliefs in things which are fantastical (things for which there is no actual supportive evidence).

Logically, these are not hypotheses, because they aren’t proposed explanations for phenomena. They are two assertions.

 

An assertion:

 

Arguments for ideals, values and morals are either religious or senseless (i.e., appeals to a commonality of fantastical belief).

I don’t understand what you mean. Can you apply your assertion to categorize the following moral law, attributed to Hillel:

"What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."

Is this an “argument for ideals, values, and morals”, in the sense you mean?

 

Is it religious, or senseless?

 

Some smart-a** wrote about the God delusion. What of the delusions concerning freewill, morality and justice?

I disagree with the assertion Dawkins makes in his 2006 book The God Delusion that belief in the existence of God is a delusion, because so many people support this belief that a reasonable person could accept this consensus as evidence superior to evidence that common claims of tangible evidence for the existence of God, such as miracles that cannot be explained scientifically, are false. I agree with his assertion that one doesn’t need religion to be moral.

 

Hillel’s moral law – most commonly called the Golden Rule – is, I think, an example of a moral principle that one can adhere to without being religious.

 

Finally, who is Drew? Drew Peterson? Or is “where’s the law, Drew?” something like “What’s the frequency, Kenneth?”?

[motherengine]

I prefer to live in a world with less human suffering. That doesn't mean that my ideal is strictly better than someone else's but it is *mine* and I do fight for it. It doesn't mean that I have to appeal to religious ideas, nor does it mean that it's senseless - the fact that I consider it important is sense enough.  That's nihilism in a nutshell - there is no objective meaning or morality, but that doesn't mean that the morals I choose to have are worthless.

Do you believe that you are actually choosing anything?

[motherengine]

Logically, these are not hypotheses, because they aren’t proposed explanations for phenomena. They are two assertions.

Good God, with the definitions.

 

from Merriam Webster:

 

hypothesis-

 

a: an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument

b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action

 

If you must rely on Wikipedia for your definition then I am proposing that the phenomenon of human beings relying on terms such as ‘justice’ and ‘rule of law’ in order to validate the condemnation and subsequent ‘punishment’ of certain social behaviors stems, in part, from the desire to live in relative comfort (i.e., that social comfort is, at least in part, dependent upon the terms/ideals we utilize in order to rationalize aggressive actions against others).

Edited September 6, 2015 by motherengine

[motherengine]

I don’t understand what you mean. Can you apply your assertion to categorize the following moral law, attributed to Hillel:

"What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."

Is this an “argument for ideals, values, and morals”, in the sense you mean?

 

Is it religious, or senseless?

 

Is it religious? If it is taken from the Torah then it may well be.

 

Is it senseless? If its only support stems from an emotional basis, then I would say- yes.

[motherengine]

I agree with his assertion that one doesn’t need religion to be moral.

 

Hillel’s moral law – most commonly called the Golden Rule – is, I think, an example of a moral principle that one can adhere to without being religious.

 

Finally, who is Drew?

1- I also agree that a person can be moral without religion. But I would argue that the belief in morality itself can be religious, especially when it is preached as being anything beyond the predetermined articulation of non-rational emotions.

 

2- One can adhere to anything. But the adherence of one does not necessarily demand the acceptance of another.

 

3- The title of the thread is from a line in the film/book Deliverance which is given in response to the assertion that an aspect of the situation which the characters have found themselves in is "a matter of the law".

Edited September 6, 2015 by motherengine

[motherengine]

That's nihilism in a nutshell - there is no objective meaning or morality, but that doesn't mean that the morals I choose to have are worthless.

Nothing is worthless if it has worth to someone. I am only asserting that one person's worth or values cannot rationally be placed 'above' another's.

[motherengine]

Immoral behavior is any behavior that weakens the team. Relative morality often requires greater expenditure of resource, to mop up the social mess. Since the resource of the team have declined, this makes it harder for the team.

I don't see a team at all, only various groupings of animals with various beliefs and values.