Okay Maniac. Let me illustrate to you how lame it is to discuss spelling and grammar on a internet forum.

Earlier in this thread you wrote:
"Tolstoy - when you say ' if I could get away with murder' do you mean there will be no legal ramifications. What about your victims family are they likely to kill your nearest and dearest because they feel that you have killed, are untouchable by the state and could kill again?"

1. There shouldn't be a space between ' and if.
2. It should have been your "victim's family" rather than your victims family"
3. There should have been a question mark after "family".

So that's 3 language mistakes right there in just three lines of text. Wow. You suck dude.

Sorry Maniac. I meant "an internet forum." Please don't mock me over that. It would hurt my feelings so much.

@Putin,

You don't believe morality is dictated by a majority vote, either. Currently, for example, the minimum wage is far lower than you think it should be; you don't assent to stop decrying it merely because a majority votes for legislators that choose that level.

So I really don't guess I grasp your critique. You say that abolutists "don't believe their opponents have a right to implement their dissenting views if they prevail." This all just depends what you mean by "right."

I do think the government does wrong things sometimes. But that doesn't mean I think I have the right to stop them, or that they don't have the legal authority to do them.

I think my neighbors do wrong things sometimes, too, things that are absolutely wrong -- but I don't have the right to stop THEM either. One of the things I think would be immoral is for me to arrogate to myself the governing power. That power -- mistakes and all -- is for the government, not me.

You're trying to suggest that every absolute moral system must be opposed to democracy, but that really just depends completely on the *contents* of a particular absolutist moral system.

"You don't believe morality is dictated by a majority vote, either."

Yes I do, actually. That's a central tenet of democratic centralism. If the majority decides on an action then it is legitimate and others must abide by the decision.

"you don't assent to stop decrying it merely because a majority votes for legislators that choose that level."

I assent to abide by the law and view the law as legitimate. I can work to change it by trying to get a new majority, but nonetheless the law is valid and I accept that opposing majorities have the right to implement laws and minorities must accept them.

"But that doesn't mean I think I have the right to stop them, or that they don't have the legal authority to do them."

So your system of morality permits doing nothing in the face of moral evil and permits allowing evil to prevail?

And do you also claim that compromise is possible with moral absolutism? Or moral learning?

"You're trying to suggest that every absolute moral system must be opposed to democracy, but that really just depends completely on the *contents* of a particular absolutist moral system."

I do not see how such a view is logically consistent. Nor do I see how compromise, which is essential to democracy, is possible.

"I assent to abide by the law and view the law as legitimate. I can work to change it by trying to get a new majority, but nonetheless the law is valid and I accept that opposing majorities have the right to implement laws and minorities must accept them."

I think this is a good point. You're being completely reasonable in championing an issue to gain support and change the law when and if that support is gained.


semck is echoing that thought when he says he realizes that there are those around him that are doing things that are absolutely wrong but doesn't have the right (he seems to make it clear-the individual right- to stop them). He does have the same right as you though to decry the acts and to garner support to change the laws permitting it. He may not have worded it that way, but it is a perfectly legitimate stance to think that something is absolutely wrong and speak out to get others to agree with you.

@ putin

forgot to tag that one.

The question is does Semck believe an immoral law can none the less be legitimate if implemented in a legally permissible way? Not liking the law is different than viewing it as being illegitimate.

It just seems incoherent to claim there are fixed, unchanging moral laws that nonetheless nobody is under any obligation to implement. If moral laws are fixed why subject the law to the changing whims of the majority?

I can't really speak for semck, but if something is wrong and I'm working within a valid framework to bring about right it, then I wouldn't consider myself as doing nothing in the face of evil.

Personally, I think that good vs. evil ; and valid vs. illegitimate are two different things. That's the issue for me. A valid law is the law of the land whether I personally agree with it or not. I can work to have it changed and (so long as that isn't stripped from me) the correct way to right any perceived wrong is through the legitimate processes available.

Can't blame auto correct that's just poor typing skills:

***omit bring about***
***so long as that right is stripped***

If moral rules are fixed, absolute, and unchanging why support a process that facilitates change to moral rules governing a society, and subjects rules to a popular vote?

I do not understand where moral absolutists come to believe that democracy is the best facilitator for producing a society governed by moral laws, based on their starting point.

Like anyone else, I would see democracy as a way to move toward an ideal. Remember, it's also part of our theology, in many cases, that we aren't going to be able to put an ideal society together on earth, and therefore don't expect it.

By ideal I mean completely morally right. We can still work toward a society that functions very well and is ideal in that respect.

@Putin,

CA has argued well, and I don't differ from his points.

"And do you also claim that compromise is possible with moral absolutism? Or moral learning?"

I think moral "learning" is incoherent *without* moral absolutism. Without absolute morals, we wouldn't be learning -- just changing our arbitrary moral rules.

"I assent to abide by the law and view the law as legitimate."

As CA pointed out, there is a difference between legitimate and morally right. If there were not, then by your own admission here, you would be actively working for immoral ends whenever you opposed the status quo.

"... and I accept that opposing majorities have the right to implement laws and minorities must accept them."

As do I.

"So your system of morality permits doing nothing in the face of moral evil and permits allowing evil to prevail? "

CA more or less answered this, but I would add that it depends on the type and degree of the evil. If the government merely allows something evil -- such as euthenasia -- that does not actively oppress and destroy people against their will, then I would fight it politically, but would still honor it as a legitimate law, while working for that change.

On the other hand, laws that completely abdicated a government's right to protect its citizens from others, such as those enabling slavery or (in extreme cases) ethnic cleansing, I would feel completely free to subvert in any way I could. So I do not, for example, judge those who ran the underground railroad; indeed, I applaud them.

"Nor do I see how compromise, which is essential to democracy, is possible."

Compromise is possible if it creates a move in the right direction. As CA said, any political stance which assumes that perfection will be attainable in this world is deeply out of touch with reality.

"The question is does Semck believe an immoral law can none the less be legitimate if implemented in a legally permissible way?"

It can be legitimate without being moral, provided that it does not unjustly oppress.

Incidentally, even with a belief in absolute morality, there can be valid differences of opinion on wise laws. For example, adultery is absolutely wrong; and so one might naively think that it should be illegal. However, banning it creates significant problems of its own, due to the limitations of humans, and history and reason strongly suggest at this point that it should not be criminal, even though it is wrong.

"If moral laws are fixed why subject the law to the changing whims of the majority?"

Because there has never been a perfect governor, and because the situations in which morality applies even as morality remains fixed. Enslaving and sexually dominating another human being has always been a terrible sin; but online trafficking in child pornography is a novel expression of it, and requires new laws (such as the PROTECT act).

"I do not understand where moral absolutists come to believe that democracy is the best facilitator for producing a society governed by moral laws, based on their starting point. "

Because humans of necessity must make the laws, and humans are profoundly flawed. I could say, "Hey, guys, I am a reasonable moral absolutist who wants only the best. Trust me with absolute power, and you will get laws that enshrine perfect morality for all time."

But there would be some problems with this. First, while I believe in absolute morality, it doesn't follow that I think specific humans have perfect moral vision. Second, and worse, I'm a corrupt and fallen human, and power would badly corrupt and tempt me. While I hope that it wouldn't do so badly, it's hard to guarantee, and it would almost certainly do it some. There is no question that the laws I would create would be, in some respects, unjust.

There are a lot of arguments for democracy.

A government has power over the lives and rights of all its citizens, and democracy recognizes that no human is morally good enough or wise enough to do this better without than with the consent and participation of the individuals subject to the laws. A law that unjustly oppresses a minority will never be right (and thus I laud the antimajoritarianism of the Bill of Rights, for example); but in a democracy, at least the people have the putative ability to prevent laws that oppress a majority.

The Declaration of Independence nicely sums up how I feel about the relationship between absolute morality and governmental legitimacy. It's of course a well known passage, but I'll quote anyway.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

Semck, don't you think it's a bit of a stretch to presume that any morality that isn't absolute is inherently "arbitrary?"

YJ,

Perhaps. It wasn't a point I was focusing on, and I searched briefly for a word and used that one. I do think that the point is valid with respect to any non-absolute morality. If morality is not absolute, then learning is not generically the right description for changing opinions on it.

One might say, of course, that learning about other things led to this moral evolution, and thus use the term as a kind of shorthand.

Anyway, I'm interested in your expanded thoughts on non-absolute, non-arbitrary morality.

"I think moral "learning" is incoherent *without* moral absolutism."

This makes no sense. How are you learning with fixed unchanging morals? You do not adapt to new information. You do not reach new conclusions. The conclusions are the same regardless of what new informational inputs that exist.

"Just changing our arbitrary moral rules."

As YJ already pointed out, subjective morality is not arbitrary. There is nothing arbitrary about inter-subjective understandings, which is why you can't just make up words to have certain meanings without other people agreeing to those meanings, to use an example. Subjective morality allows for new information and new conditions to lead to new moral conclusions. For example, information about the relative intelligence of women led to women's participation in politics and the workplace. New information about race and biology led to new moral conclusions about race. Moral absolutism doesn't allow for any kind of new information. Moral absolutists assume that moral rules laid down thousands of years were and remain correct.

"If there were not, then by your own admission here, you would be actively working for immoral ends whenever you opposed the status quo."

Why? I could be simply working for a law that I would prefer to be implemented. Why do I have to reject existing law as immoral in order to work to change it?

"CA more or less answered this, but I would add that it depends on the type and degree of the evil."

That seems rather situational and subjective.

"Compromise is possible if it creates a move in the right direction."

But you are supporting laws which you do not believe to be wholly moral in such cases.

"As CA said, any political stance which assumes that perfection will be attainable in this world is deeply out of touch with reality."

Then this begs the question, why care about the law 'in this world' at all? Why engage in politics at all?

"However, banning it creates significant problems of its own, due to the limitations of humans, and history and reason strongly suggest at this point that it should not be criminal, even though it is wrong."

So moral absolutists believe rules for governing society should be pragmatic and capitulate to human failings? This seems strange. I'm beginning to fail to see the point of claiming to be a moral absolutist. You don't think achieving your ends is possible and you think the law and morality should be separate considerations.

"Enslaving and sexually dominating another human being has always been a terrible sin; but online trafficking in child pornography is a novel expression of it, and requires new laws (such as the PROTECT act)."

So what? I fail to see why new problems necessitates the complicated and compromising machinery of democracy in a world where morality is absolute. Simply apply already existing moral absolutes to new manifestations of the problem. This shouldn't be difficult.

"But there would be some problems with this. First, while I believe in absolute morality, it doesn't follow that I think specific humans have perfect moral vision."

Why? I fail to see why moral absolutists simultaneously believe that moral rules are so self-evident, obvious and unambiguous but yet people are incapable of these self-evident and obvious rules to any extent that is satisfying, so we can't have to inaugurate a political system that makes implementing moral laws that much more difficult. If morality was a complex issue with lots of gray area and subject to change, I could understand doing this.

"A government has power over the lives and rights of all its citizens, and democracy recognizes that no human is morally good enough or wise enough to do this better without than with the consent and participation of the individuals subject to the laws."

*Should read: but yet people are incapable of implementing these self-evident and obvious rules to any extent that is satisfying, so we have to inaugurate a political system that makes implementing moral laws that much more difficult*

I think Putin's doing a pretty good job.

Just because my morality isn't dictated by a supposed higher power does not imply arbitrariness. When major morality shifts occur in a society (e.g. gay rights in America today) there is always a reason for it - it's a reaction to a perceived "wrongness" in the current status quo, and a societal desire to right that wrong for the betterment of all society. It isn't just willy-nilly like, "Oh, I guess a fuck in the ass between two dudes is cool with me now."

@oscar
First please forgive me for being as concise as possible. I’ve had this discussion at least four or so times it seems. Also please forgive me quoting scripture in a thread specifically set aside for the non religious. I’ll say my piece and move on so as not to high-jack.

I’m a bit curious as to why you think “Gilbeah’s crime” (Judges 19:21-30) is an expression of the Law and the Prophets? Quite regularly, this scripture is thrown out as some great evil secret of the Bible, but there isn’t a good reason (that I’ve found) to suppose anyone condoned those actions. There are several reasons to suppose quite the opposite that it represents a tragedy.

1) It is called Gilbeah’s Crime (that alone should be enough)
2) The verses that you left out of the quotation describe the man’s reaction in graphic detail (cutting her corpse and sending it out to each of the twelve regions of Israel), and ending with the specific claim that everyone who saw it said, “Nothing like this has been said or done, not since the Israelites came from Egypt. Something must be done! Speak up!”
3) There is a parallel story in which Lot offers his daughter to the Sodomites who are demanding that he send out his guests. In that story God’s angels prevent Lot from doing so.
4) Hosea 9:9 The words of an actual prophet hearken back to Gilbeah’s crime, “They have sunk into depravity as in the days of Gilbeah, and God will punish their sins.”
5) Hosea again mentions it in 10:9 “From the days of Gilbeah, you have sinned O Israel…”

It just doesn’t seem to me that the story of “Gilbeah’s Crime” could accurately be used as an argument for the legality of rape. At least I’ve never heard a convincing argument for such based on a full and authoritative reading of that scripture. I know it’s a favorite at “evil bible verses R us” type websites, but it really isn’t what those site purport it to be.

@Putin

I'm not entirely sure that a thread titled "a question for the non-religious" is the place to discuss my particular brand of moral absolutism (or lack thereof). If it is of interest, perhaps a moral absolutism thread would be the way to go. I'll leave that up to you if you are interested in continuing the discussion. Sorry for the high-jack folks.

@CA

First off, as far I'm concerned your not hi-jacking anything and you are welcome to post whatever you think is relevant to this thread.

Secondly, I don't think Gilbeah's Crime is part of the Law and the Prophets as Judges is not generally considered part of that. AFAIK the Law refers to Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy and while it is less clear what exactly is to be understood as part of the Prophets, it certainly doesn't include Judges.

Where I mentioned that there were examples of condoning rape in the Law and the Prophets I wasn't referring to Gilbeah's Crime. But take for instance Deuteronomy 20:13-14 where it says how to behave upon being victorious in war:

"When the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword. Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the Lord your God has given you."

Similarly Zechariah 14:1-2:
"Behold, a day is coming for the Lord when the spoil taken from you will be divided among you. For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city will be captured, the houses plundered, the women ravished and half of the city exiled, but the rest of the people will not be cut off from the city."

Unless you wish to argue that "take as booty", "use the spoil" or "ravish" does not include rape then clearly according to the Bible it is okay to rape women captured in war and make them your slaves.

As to your interpretation of Gilbeah's crime, maybe you are right and it is not an example of the Bible condoning rape. It seems to suggest that the wife, who had been unfaithful, had it coming though. Certainly the almighty God did not see it fit to intervene on her behalf. Cutting up a rape victim into twelve pieces and sending them to all corners of the land doesn't seem very respectful to that victim either. So, seeing as how there's no mention of any consequences for the rapists, or even a pursuit of them, I'd say that those pieces were sent as a warning as to what will happen to an unfaithful women rather than as a protest against the rape.

Cutting At the very least though it illustrates how "righteous" man should sacrafice to murderous rapists to protect a guest, which suggest that a woman being raped, even if it is your wife, is at least not as bad as a man being raped.

Sorry, that last paragraph should have read:

At the very least though it illustrates how a "righteous" man should sacrafice his wife to murderous rapists to protect a guest, which suggest that a woman being raped, even if it is your wife, is at least not as bad as a man being raped.

@oscar
Please bear with me as it’s hard to take each of the many points you make individually in this format. So I’ll cut my response into four parts for clarity’s sake

“I don't think Gilbeah's Crime is part of the Law and the Prophets as Judges is not generally considered part of that. AFAIK the Law refers to Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy and while it is less clear what exactly is to be understood as part of the Prophets, it certainly doesn't include Judges.”

Doesn’t that undercut what you said to Dragnaur with regard to this story and its relation to the New Testament? If it isn’t part of the Law then, it is safe to say that Christ wasn’t condoning it in the passage that you cited from Matthew.

@oscar

“Where I mentioned that there were examples of condoning rape in the Law and the Prophets I wasn't referring to Gilbeah's Crime. But take for instance Deuteronomy 20:13-14 where it says how to behave upon being victorious in war”

Okay, I’ll do that.

"When the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall strike all the men in it with the edge of the sword. Only the women and the children and the animals and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as booty for yourself; and you shall use the spoil of your enemies which the Lord your God has given you."

It seems as if you are attributing the proper “use” of a woman is to have sex with her with or without her consent. Since it comes in the same sentence as “children, animals, and all that is in the city”, I would assume that you attribute different “uses” to each of these individually. The Law seems to not mention exactly the “use” for any of these things, As to a specific endorsement of rape this falls short, doesn’t it? If we take into account the rather unfortunate pun of “booty” as particularly not applicable to children and animals, then why not women, as well? At best this leaves up to the individual what the “use” of these people and things are. I’d point out that if the law said to kill them (you’d say that was cruel), and if the law said to leave them to starve in the wilderness or at the mercy of bandits you’d probably also see that as cruel. I don’t see that many options, nor do I see a specific endorsement of rape. I do not see the “use” of women to be rape, do you?

@oscar
“Similarly Zechariah 14:1-2:
Behold, a day is coming for the Lord when the spoil taken from you will be divided among you. For I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem to battle, and the city will be captured, the houses plundered, the women ravished and half of the city exiled, but the rest of the people will not be cut off from the city."

Yeah Zechariah is certainly a prophet. Yet this seems to be a warning about what will happen to the Jews at the end of days, not an endorsement of those actions. He goes on to say that He (God) will go out and fight against the very people that are committing these crimes. So yeah, He’s going to “gather together” these enemies of Jerusalem, but it’s a bit of a stretch to think that He’s condoning their behavior here. Especially since they are going to have immediate consequences for them, as God will be entering the battle against them.

"Doesn’t that undercut what you said to Dragnaur with regard to this story and its relation to the New Testament? If it isn’t part of the Law then, it is safe to say that Christ wasn’t condoning it in the passage that you cited from Matthew."

I said: "Note that "the Law and the Prophets" refers to large parts of the old testament in which rape is condoned on multiple occasions."

Although I can see how from the context of the conversation you would think that I meant the previously discussed story to be one of those occasions, that is not what I said nor what I meant. So no, I don't think it is undercut, especially since in my previous post I have quoted two of those multiple occasions that are definitely part of the Law and the Prophets.

@oscar.

“At the very least though it illustrates how "righteous" man should sacrifice to murderous rapists to protect a guest,”

I’m curious as to your textual evidence that says either of these men are “righteous”, I’ve presented evidence to the contrary.

” which suggest that a woman being raped, even if it is your wife, is at least not as bad as a man being raped.”
Well yeah, as long as you take into account that the message of the Biblical story is actually how wrong this act was, and if you are repulsed by it (as I am) that such a reaction is exactly what the author intended.

“So, seeing as how there's no mention of any consequences for the rapists, or even a pursuit of them, I'd say that those pieces were sent as a warning as to what will happen to an unfaithful women rather than as a protest against the rape.”

As to your interpretation of it being a “This is what happens to unfaithful women” story, it does leave the weakness that “In all the days since Israel has left from Egypt such a thing has never been done”. What thing?
A woman being unfaithful?
Or a man kicking a woman out to be raped by a ravening crowd, rather than protecting her.

I’d say that in the light of one Divine intervention to prevent it (Lot’s case in Sodom) and the comdemnation from an entire nation of the act (in Gilbeah’s Crime), that the latter interpretation seems much more likely. Remember its labelled “Gilbeah’s Crime”, not “the Just Retribution for the Concubine’s Crime”

"I do not see the “use” of women to be rape, do you?"

I don't, but in the context of women as spoils of war, then yes, history (including certainly biblical times), suggests that despite my personal view, it is to nonetheless be seen as such.