Is Secular Moral based Laws ANY different then Theology Moral based Laws?

[EyeKhan]

In answer to the poll, the laws are different in that theology is based on the purported desires of a god and secular law is based on, presumably, something less tenuous.

If you had left out the "ANY" I would have answered no. Ultimately all law is derived from human culture and theology is just one aspect of that. Government and religion are just BIG ideas, collections of memes, cultural constructs, strategies for structuring successful human interaction and cooperation. So if it is bad to steal because god doesn't like theft or if it is bad to steal because the constitution says every citizen is entitled to protection of their property, what difference does it make?

Well, in our nation the difference is that not everyone believes in a god, and our constution protects that as a right. And those who do have a religion come in a huge variety of sects with many often conflicting tenets. If it is bad to steal only because a god doesn't like theft, but I don't believe in that god, then what reason do I have not to steal? To have religious freedom and diversity you have to have a societal structure that is not founded on the tenets of a religion or 'flavor' of religions.

Regarding welfare, it isn't about "the right thing to do." What is, really? Welfare keeps the Have-Nots from saving themselves by taking what they need to survive from the Haves. It prevents crime, chaos, civil strife of all kinds. Less directly a helping hand to the poor gives talented and motivated individuals a better chance of contributing to the economy, which benefits everyone. And don't forget that unlucky Haves can end up Have-Nots, so a safety net is a reasonable insurance policy against unexpected poverty. And a decent safety net also empowers the Haves to take economic risks, like starting businesses, that they might not otherwise take.

Maybe the missing bit of your reasoning is the 'because.' Welfare is right because god says you are your brother's keeper --- vs --- welfare is right because it makes for a more stable and more economically healthy society.

[EyeKhan]

So immorality is not going with the flow? Ie if 70% thought slavery was moral and right by society then the 30% who said it was immoral would be part of the immoral group based on your definitions. Again... boggle.

Morality is relative. There is a vast array of examples of morality evolving over time, so it's meaningless to talk about as though its an absolute. Really, the welfare thing comes as close to an absolute as you're likely to get because sick and starving humans with sick and starving families are always, at some point, going to try something desperate to save themselves. You can have a powerful police state to keep those people at bay, but it is better, cheaper, and safer for everyone to provide that safety net instead.

[ar81]

I see Lewk is trying that old trick of making secularity just another taste of religion. Boring.

Tron universe objects trying to demonstrate that there is no digital evidence of the existence of the physical user, therefore they conclude the user does not exist... 90% is dark matter, something we still do not know what it is, so we do not even have the whole set of puzzle pieces to conclude.

Morality is relative. There is a vast array of examples of morality evolving over time, so it's meaningless to talk about as though its an absolute. Really, the welfare thing comes as close to an absolute as you're likely to get because sick and starving humans with sick and starving families are always, at some point, going to try something desperate to save themselves. You can have a powerful police state to keep those people at bay, but it is better, cheaper, and safer for everyone to provide that safety net instead.

Those who already ate cannot understand those who starve... In Spain bankers caused the crisis, politicians are putting down the safety net catholics put in place in the past, so the only option for jobless and starved is to go for Cáritas charity. Cáritas is a catholic NGO that was originally created to serve people starving in Africa.

Religion is more than a set of morality rules. Right now for 1 million spaniards, Cáritas is their only safety net.

[Aimless]

Killing babies. If my reasoning is that God said thou shalt not kill - is this any different then an atheist saying its wrong because we are all human? Its different in the details but overall from a policy prescriptive they are both moral positions that we are basing public policy on.

If God had said, "Thou must kill these cute babies," would you do it? Would you believe it to be the right thing to do? Is it possible in principle for God to do or to require an act that is generally considered to be evil?

[EyeKhan]

If God had said, "Thou must kill these cute babies," would you do it? Would you believe it to be the right thing to do? Is it possible in principle for God to do or to require an act that is generally considered to be evil?

I think these scenarios are stupid. Who would dare oppose an instruction directly from God? Would you? Could you? If GOD, undeniably and definitely THE god, creator of heaven and Earth, all that is seen and unseen, keeper of hell the worst afterlife you can imagine, gave you a direct command to kill a baby, would you dare refuse?

[EyeKhan]

Religion is more than a set of morality rules. Right now for 1 million spaniards, Cáritas is their only safety net.

You are referring to the actions people take within the framework of the memes, mythos, and rules religion prescribes within their culture. Are those actions part of the religion? Does it matter if they are included in the definition or not? Not sure it does, though it's an interesting question to kick around.

[ar81]

If God had said, "Thou must kill these cute babies," would you do it? Would you believe it to be the right thing to do? Is it possible in principle for God to do or to require an act that is generally considered to be evil?

If a president had said, "Thou shall kill them for they are terrorists, and God is in our side" would you do it? Would you believe it to be the right thing to do? Is it possible in principle for God to do or to require an act that is generally considered to be evil? Or is it that a politician is trying to violate the franchise copyright of heaven?

[Aimless]

I think these scenarios are stupid. Who would dare oppose an instruction directly from God? Would you? Could you? If GOD, undeniably and definitely THE god, creator of heaven and Earth, all that is seen and unseen, keeper of hell the worst afterlife you can imagine, gave you a direct command to kill a baby, would you dare refuse?

The scenarios themselves do not matter, the question is about how Lewk really approaches matters of right and wrong. The answer to these questions illustrate the importance of "showing your work".

[Lewkowski]

There's no functional difference between the two examples you gave, Lewkowsk, because they say exactly the same thing. But there is a fundemental functional difference between the two systems of thought in that they come to their conclusions in a very different way. But that's not what this thread is really about is it?

The hypocrisy of those who support laws founded on morality "independent" of religion but despise laws founded on morality based on religion. It really boils down to "I don't believe in X therefore X is bad. I believe in Y and therefore Y is good." I'm not arrogant enough to suggest that everyone be forced to worship my God at the point of the gun however there are plenty of people on this board that are perfectly OK with forcing people to give up the fruits of their labor at the point of a gun because of their morality. Hypocrisy of the worst kind.

[Timbuk2]

however there are plenty of people on this board that are perfectly OK with forcing people to give up the fruits of their labor at the point of a gun because of their morality. Hypocrisy of the worst kind.

Care to qualify that?

[Nessus]

Care to qualify that?

It's Freeper talk for taxation, basically

[Lebanese Dragon]

Here's my ideal society:

1. They make laws that only restrict actions that violate the moral rights of others (as defined by Christian values).

The society that i still find morally acceptable but not Ideal:

2. A society which allows any law to be created except ones that violates others rights.

The differnece being society 2 could have a law like every sunday everyone has to stand on their right leg for one hour (as long as it passed democratically), wherease society 1 could make no such law. I still find them both morally fine socieities though.

Morality is relative. There is a vast array of examples of morality evolving over time, so it's meaningless to talk about as though its an absolute.

If morality is relative then there is no morality, it's as simple as that. Morality turns into set of prefrences and not some significant moral law. It's only significant if you want it to be. Two people can have contradictory views and both be right. So there is no moral law, or anything, it's just a matter of prefrences. And prefrences don't create right or wrong, they don't create moral law, they create something just called law. Which doesn't say whether it's right or wrong, simple that if you do X then Y happens, it's based on the values of the populace.

The thing the church and other religions try to do, is mold the people to their, what they call, absolute values, and not vice versa.

Even if morality changes over time doesn't mean there is not an absolute morality, to be perfectly clear, you can easily argue we are heading to the "absolute morality" and the reason our morality changes is simply because we're more aware, and are hammering out our definitions. If someone proved fetus at 2 months is alive that would affect our abortion laws. It can also simply be a matter of understanding.

[Lewkowski]

Care to qualify that?

I didn't say everyone I said plenty of people on the board... all taxation (except when folks voluntarily pay more) is done at the point of the gun.

[Lebanese Dragon]

I didn't say everyone I said plenty of people on the board... all taxation (except when folks voluntarily pay more) is done at the point of the gun.

Yes it's a requirement, but people, who wish to live in the U.S are simply playing their club fees so-to-speak to get all the universal benefits that come with living here over other places. Running this country, and maintaining it's greatness isn't free.

[Steely Glint]

I didn't say everyone I said plenty of people on the board... all taxation (except when folks voluntarily pay more) is done at the point of the gun.

So are property rights.

[Nessus]

In Freeper-town, it's their own gun that does it

[Loki]

So are property rights.

Using that logic, your right to your own body is done at the point of the gun. See what I did there?

[Nessus]

Using that logic, your right to your own body is done at the point of the gun. See what I did there?

Do you?

[Loki]

Then tell me how property rights are granted at gun point. I buy land. I build something on land. I get a piece of paper from the government saying the land and what's on it is mine. Where does force play into this?

[Lewkowski]

Yes it's a requirement, but people, who wish to live in the U.S are simply playing their club fees so-to-speak to get all the universal benefits that come with living here over other places. Running this country, and maintaining it's greatness isn't free.

The forced confiscation of *some* wealth to provide basic government (protect against internal and external threats of violence for example) is a necessary evil. The point of using the phrase "point of the gun" is to understand clearly what it means to tax someone. You have usurped their autonomy and taken what is not yours. Some is required for society to function but beyond that it is a violation of a person's autonomy. If you value freedom you support lower taxation.

[Nessus]

Then tell me how property rights are granted at gun point. I buy land. I build something on land. I get a piece of paper from the government saying the land and what's on it is mine. Where does force play into this?

thatsthejoke.jpg

pictureofapoliceman.jpg too, I guess

[Steely Glint]

See what I did there?

Made my point for me?

[Loki]

Someone doesn't know the difference between criminal and civil law.

[Steely Glint]

Someone's missing the point by a country mile.

[Nessus]

Someone doesn't know the difference between criminal and civil law.

As I pointed out earlier, in Freeper world it's always preferable if you get to strangle the neg---person who took your tooth paste, but doesn't sheriff Joe boil people alive for infringing property rights too? If not, why not?

[Aimless]

Then tell me how property rights are granted at gun point. I buy land. I build something on land. I get a piece of paper from the government saying the land and what's on it is mine. Where does force play into this?

To be fair I think you guys kinda took it and made it your property in the first place with the help of guns

[Unheard Of]

For example is there any functional difference between these types of laws?

"God wants us to take care of the poor, so we will have welfare."

"Its the right thing to do to take care of the poor, so we will have welfare."

Each argument is based on morality. Each argument justifies the forced acquisition of money from one group and gives it to another based on their view of morality. Are they any different?

Secular is much more likely to try to hump your leg, Theology is very yappy, so there's clearly a difference. BTW how did you find out my dogs' names?

[Lebanese Dragon]

The forced confiscation of *some* wealth to provide basic government (protect against internal and external threats of violence for example) is a necessary evil. The point of using the phrase "point of the gun" is to understand clearly what it means to tax someone. You have usurped their autonomy and taken what is not yours. Some is required for society to function but beyond that it is a violation of a person's autonomy. If you value freedom you support lower taxation.

You cannot think of yourself as an individual, you have to think of yourself as a group. Every great society will have this be a fundamental premise. Each individual group member may be vying for their own self interest but as you decide the course we need to take it must consider the entirity of society, it's immoral not to, and it destabilizes the entire system.

I don't really understand middle income people suppoting the wealthy. When you become wealthy it becomes logical to support republican policies, until then both in selfish interest (and i would contend in the good for all) you should be supporting a democratic economic policy.

Here will be the greatest short-term increase in our production as a society: When businesses are able to track their employees in real-time as they perform tasks. If for example you're working at Walmart, and they say go get these boxes moved, or toys put in their proper shelves, tracking the # of toys stacked per minute of that employee, and rewarding accordingly. We're so sloppy, there's so much lazyness everywhere. We have so many problems it's just frustrating, and they're solvable. Imagine how much money walmart or any company would save if it was done that way, and how much could be passed onto the employees that outperform other employees. Right now our system of employment does not reward hard work, or quality of work. That's one problem.

Another problem is the stupid amount of corruption being a cancer on our government. For one thing we need a new vetting system for who can be elected into positions of office. Too many times, stupid, ignorant people are there, or the candidate with the most money is there, it's a I scratch your back you scratch my back system.

We will live in a rediculously weathly and beautiful society if we can tackle these key problems.

[Lewkowski]

So end result from the poll and this thread I've come to this conclusion (which I had previously).

The board generally views that it is perfectly OK to restrict someone's freedom based on moral doctrine as long as those moral views don't come directly from belief in a deity.

Sound about right?

[Aimless]

So end result from the poll and this thread I've come to this conclusion (which I had previously).

The board generally views that it is perfectly OK to restrict someone's freedom based on moral doctrine as long as those moral views don't come directly from belief in a deity.

Sound about right?

A more salient insight would be that the board in general recognises that there are differences in both principle and practice between secular and religious approaches to morality.