10
   

Philosophers think they know it all - they are never wrong.

 
 
Fido
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 05:35 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Morality is never based on the spiritual life of the people. It's based on the laws of the land, and anyone who commits a crime against those laws are usually punished.

You have the relationship entirely backwards.... Morality has been around far longer than laws, and it is the genus, and law is the species... Or to put it as ABalard: Jus, Justice is the Genus, and Lex, law is a species of it... What is moral is just, and justice is a moral form, and out of that moral form we try to build the social form of law... So, while it is technically wrong to apply biological terms to social and moral forms, reason is enough to tell the difference here...

The real problem we have here, is that once people build a great edifice of law, they forget the part justice and morality must play in it... When justices say, as they have, that justice is not their concern, that they decide issues according to laws formulated by others, then they have cut themselves off from the very reason for their being in the first place... Law must always be returned to questions of morality and justice... The moment we leave it for others to decide we have abdicated our place in a just society, and doomed the society, because injustice is the destruction of society... Historically, that is was all civilizations die of: Injustice.

IN fact, these issues should always be first on every person's list since we cannot have a Just or happy society without the constant desire and effort toward that end... It is said of Socrates, that when ask when there would be justice in Athens, replied: There will be justice in athens when those not injured by injustice are as indignant as those who are... You cannot buy indignance... We see injustice, and we do not raise a hue and cry, and so long as we make no issue of it, no issue is made of it... In accepting injustice we are defending injustice against ourselves, and this apart from the many many in this land and world who defend injustice with a passion all should show only for justice... Such people cannot be free, and are not capable of democracy... They are already brutes ready to be yoked to the plow, and driven with a lash...
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 05:49 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

I do not appreciate questions that are asked that has no bearing on anything I said. It makes it seem I support the idea by implication. Otherwise, I welcome direct questions to any post I make on any thread.

It does not matter... The facts are obvious, that even in revolutionary times, when all the old icons have be busted, that the first thing people do is reformulate the law, and they can only do so out of their sense of morality and justice, which as moral forms cannot be destroyed short of the destruction of the person holding them... We no longer talk of the genus of the community, and people cannot capture us just by carting off our common figure of God, But it is the community spirit that makes morality and morality that stands behind laws, and when laws reach a point where they do not support morality or justice, and those who make them think they stand on their own, then they are doomed if they do not doom their societies...

Bad laws, laws designed to serve only a fraction of the people and control the rest with threats of coercion can demoralize a people, and such people cannot rise in their own defense, or in the defense of others, and since democracy is a defensive form of social organization pledged to the common defense of the common wealth- such people cannot be democratic.... Law cut off from morality becomes an empty form, empty of meaning, empty of the justice that causes people to uphold it out of sight of a cop... When everyone cheats, and when there is no cop there is no speed limit, no person when caught can call for justice... By living with injustice they force all others to do the same, and justice leaves the land to its fate...
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 06:03 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

Morality is never based on the spiritual life of the people. It's based on the laws of the land, and anyone who commits a crime against those laws are usually punished.


If anything, law is based on morality. But even that is not true. "Based on" is, when it means anything, ambiguous. It may mean, 1. "is justified by", and it might mean, "is generated by". In both meanings, what you said is false.


What is just is moral and moral, just... Clearly people have always given the force of law to their sense of moral outrage... That does not present much of a problem even if the morals are in some senses, misguided... The problem arises in long established societies when those with the power think that laws stands alone, which is a thought the bring themselves to believe even with their archecture, which make a monument of law without the smallest altar to justice... The thought that Law stands alone leads to its manipulation by one class against another, and the reason classes can live side by side in nation states is the promise of justice for those who keep peace....

When people realize that law does not lead to justice the form loses all meaning, and either the people become demoralized, as we are, or they revolt and reform their societies out of their sense of justice and morality...Injustice divides the very people justice would unite...Look at this United States...Could it be that we would suffer this division were division not in the interest of those who would beat us in detail???... We cannot offer a united front against the world, or against the spoilers in this society unless we are united in a common morality...And though we have moral people, they usually forgo the moral argument in order to throw morality down the sink hole of immoral law... They should make the moral argument, and show it by living moral lives, and forget making more and more laws when law has already lost its meaning to the people...
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 06:11 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Where did you learn that cockamamie idea? There are thousands of laws on the books here in the US that are not only ridiculous, but has no "moral" value.

What moral law is based on jaywalking?

Good point, and one I replied to... The fact is, that if Abalard was correct, and he was in a literal sense, then if a law is not just, it is not law; and we have too many laws that people already ignore because they are not just, but are an impediment to justice...But such people also tend to look at justice and morality in individual terms as it never is... A whole society can become demoralizes and suffer injustice at its own hands, and this makes unity impossible... If we cannot sit down together, have a few, and have a decent discussion of morality without coming to blows, then we are done... The answer is not more law when law is a bust... The answer is a minimum of laws supporting a maximum of morality, which is the same as saying: All people should be free to do good and do well if they harm no one in the process of living their lives...
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 06:22 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

Fair question. We live in a secular country, not a religious based country. Laws in our country are essentially based on British common law.

Ever since our country was established in Philadelphia, most of what we have strived for are delineated in the US Constitution. However, over and above the constitution, states have established their own laws that has nothing to do with morals of the community.

Are you familiar with what's been going on concerning illegal immigration? The feds have established laws concerning this topic, but you will have difficulty trying to establish a connection to "community morals" about how illegal immigration is being handled by both the feds and by Arizona. People have different ideas about who and why illegal immigrants should be able to remain in the US. Morals is a nice ideal, but there's no common thread that can be applied.


Laws in our country are essentially based on British common law.

If that means that they historically come from English (not British) common law, that is true. But that does not mean that they are in anyway justified by ECL. If "based on" means "justified by", then neither morality is "based on" (justified by) law, nor is law
" based on" (justified by) morality. You need to say what you mean by "based on". That is the weasel word. Does it mean, "come from" or "come out of", or does it mean, "justified by"?

He is saying what the parent is, in the correct sense of a branch and a twig... The issue is more of genus and species, general relationships rather than specific ones.... Justice and morality should make up the law, and in the beginning, when people are first trying to establish law, they must have common support to do so, and this people do not give without the hope of justice... The problem is law considered as a thing in itself, standing alone, because there people will try to turn it to their advantage; and there is no more serious mistake any one can make...Unjust law either demoralizes the people, or fails for lack of popular support...We are there... People just do what they want making a judge of themselves, and the law finds that it never has enough judges, cops, prisons or attornies to manage the law that has no popular support... The form is failing of its own weight, demanding more and more of resources, delivering less and less of the good it was formed to give...
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 06:34 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

What are you trying to say? Did you study law? I studied law in college and got an "A." You don't even seem to understand what "common law" means.

I have not studied law, formally.. I have a kid who is an attorney, a few text books, a history of the laws and constitution of England which is a jewel, and Law and Revolution which was an award winning book when written, and a black's legal dictionary...I suppose common law is wrongly defined by most, since like the commons themselves, were once the laws of the small land holders who had always been the strength, the bread and the butter of England...

All law must work at a community level, and like the closing of the commons, when law is turned against the common man to benefit the rich, the society is divided between law full, and law less, rich and poor...We should never forget that words like lord came out of law, specifically, Law ward... Those who have owned the law have always owned society, but the imposition of law without justice has destroyed many societies, and left them open to attack or revolution...
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 06:37 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

Morals is a nice ideal, but there's no common thread that can be applied.



What does that mean with or without its being in bold? Even in bold it makes no sense.
[/quote]
Maybe he is stating the obvious, that in our society there is no connection between law and justice, and that is exactly my point, that there should be across the board as there once was, or the thing is done... Stick a fork in it..
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 09:12 am
@Fido,
It's because you see the world through a haze without understanding the subject you are trying to discuss.

My statement is clear and concise, but it requires knowledge of the real world to understand it.
Fido
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 11:18 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

It's because you see the world through a haze without understanding the subject you are trying to discuss.

My statement is clear and concise, but it requires knowledge of the real world to understand it.

Hazy daisy... If I could only be half unkind, you are efin blind...
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 11:21 am
@Fido,
It's not my fault you fail to understand simple English. Maybe, somebody has the patience to explain it to you. I just don't have much patience for dumb.
Fido
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 01:55 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

It's not my fault you fail to understand simple English. Maybe, somebody has the patience to explain it to you. I just don't have much patience for dumb.

For example: Bite me!
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 03:13 pm
@Fido,
Now you resort to juvenile language. It figures.
kennethamy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 03:17 pm
Where are the moderators when you need them? Assassins will do, though.
Zetherin
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 04:03 pm
@kennethamy,
There isn't much enforcement around these parts. You're just going to have to make yourself comfortable with the occasional irrelevances. Smile
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 05:46 pm
@Zetherin,
Let me post one of those irrelevances:
Quote:
For example: Bite me!
Zetherin
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Aug, 2010 07:18 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Yes, well, no offense to Fido, but I often have difficulty understanding anything he says.
Fido
 
  0  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 05:00 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Now you resort to juvenile language. It figures.

You have little patience for dumb, and I have zero patience for idiot... Every one caught on to you stupid comment about morals and laws... Show me some more what you don;t know, because I have a library full of books and a head full of Know...Dumasses are a dime a dozen, and I have had enough of you... Get your story straight, and come back when you want to make sense.
Fido
 
  2  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 05:17 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:

Yes, well, no offense to Fido, but I often have difficulty understanding anything he says.

I understand that, and I will work with anyone with an open mind because not one has had my life experiences, and few have read the books I have read on the range of subjects I have read, including well educated people... And, again; I am not stepping in this mud for the first time... People have been here before... Heidegger for one, and if I did not understand what I do from my particular frame of reference I would suffer to understand what he is saying from his... In addition, there is much of that entire time period in art and philosophy that mirrors our own in boredom and anxiety and desire to lose self and find self in mass movement... We almost to a person have the desire for change, but the individual resistence to change can be seen in a national and international resistence to change that makes violence and revolution entirely necessary when it does not have to be so...

Changing forms has been the common fact of all human progress... Deterioration of forms as been the driving force for all human inovation... Clearly, from the declaration of independence, the people of revolutionary America had a formal consciousness, which made change possible, direction possible and made revolution possible as opposed to mere insurection... I mean business, and if you do not want to develop formal consciousness you will be as useless to me as to yourself and humanity...

I will tell you how it is, and in addition, tell you how I arrived at my conclusions, but if you dis me you better have good cause or I will dis you back... I know what I am talking about, and I know I know... That I why I have read the mountain of books I have read... That is the fruit of my labor... And I know I am not very good at explaining it, and it is not necessarily easy to understand, and no one will understand it without a certain desire to meet me half way... What we used to say of ironwork is true of philosophy as well... If it was easy, your mother would have done it...
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 10:04 am
@Fido,
Fido, It's obvious all those books you claimed to have read have done you no good; you're still ignorant. Morals do not emanate from any group morals. Local laws attempt to control unlawful behavior, but crimes continue. That's the reason most communities have police departments, and even they break laws. It's also the reason we have courts. What community do you know of that doesn't have a police department or courts? Please name any one group or community that hasn't committed any crime.
Fido
 
  3  
Reply Fri 27 Aug, 2010 11:39 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Fido, It's obvious all those books you claimed to have read have done you no good; you're still ignorant. Morals do not emanate from any group morals. Local laws attempt to control unlawful behavior, but crimes continue. That's the reason most communities have police departments, and even they break laws. It's also the reason we have courts. What community do you know of that doesn't have a police department or courts? Please name any one group or community that hasn't committed any crime.

I will agree that I am ignorant only because that is a universal trait of human kind... Other than that, I do not think you can grasp the relationship between morals and laws which is the difference between moral form and social forms... When people take their moral understanding of good, for an example, and use it to formulate a law to prhibite and punish bad behavior, that is moral forms used to create a social form.. Another example is love as a moral form making marriage as a social form.. Your complaint about law is valid enough, but you must understand the causes... Old social forms often lose touch with the moral forms they are founded to achieve.... People thinking law is a thing apart from morals often make laws that result in immorality, or contradict moral sense, as when law promotes injustice, or defends promiscuity... Since the time of Socrates, people have been looking for an individual morality, and also an underlying logic, so it could be taught... All morality is community...Morality for the individual is a form of relationship with his community... No person is more a member of his community than his acceptence of the community morality, and that acceptence, which is a deniel of self gratification at the expense of the community, is what it takes to belong...

On the other side, law does not work because it undercuts community control of its members which has been the universal norm in society up until a thousand years ago in Europe, five hundred years ago in North America, and is still the norm in many places in the world... Little law was needed when every community defended its members, and controlled its members certain that if they went abroad to disrupt the peace, that all might suffer the actions of the individual... Individual self consciousness is not very old... Before the first milenium, the number of true individuals might almost be counted on ones fingers... People like St. Paul, or Caesar were very rare... In fact, the law upon which individual equality is based at first only put forward the notion that each nation was equal to another, and this Roman law of nations became the basis of natural law...

We in modern society are left with laws, and police, and courts, and prisons, all overburdon to society, and all essentially ineffective... Those who are moral need no law, but for all the rest, no amount of law is enough, so that the more law one has, the more law one needs... Children learn in kindergarten to call 911 on their parent if they feel it is will help their cause... The parents and teachers find they have no authority, and little influence at the moment the child learns he has legal power... You can try to discipline your child according to your moral understanding, but law, and the threat of law which has destroyed many communities is now breaking down the vestiges of the community in its basic unit, which means it is the law itself that is teaching lawlessness... Law gives those without moral sense power in their own affairs as legal individuals, and only when they have reached nearly to adult hood do they find too late that they are as powerless before the law as everyone else... For some, those who gain their moral sense before they learn their legal power, the moral lesson taught out of influence are enough, but only because most people are naturally lawful and moral... For them, no law is needed, and for many, no law will ever be enough... They cannot figure out that there is a cruel mailed fist inside the silk glove of law...
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 06/24/2021 at 10:52:14