|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 08/12/2008 : 09:52:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
Originally posted by Robb
How do you define what good and just laws are?
|
By looking at the consequences of the behavior they prohibit and by looking at whether the punishment for it is proportional to the consequences of breaking that law.
|
Bingo! |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2008 : 09:59:42 [Permalink]
|
Robb said:
| If God does not exist then are not all laws arbitrary? What basis do you say that killing someone for stealing a paperclip is wrong? Your reason, whatever it is comes from your mind and only your mind. Why should that apply to everybody? |
Because, Robb, there are tangible benefits to prohibiting certain actions. If a group of people work together, follow the same basic rules (laws), they will be more prosperous than a group of people who who steal from each other regularly.
To answer your question though: Yes. All laws, and all ethics/morals, are 100% arbitrary. Laws are, in our society, (supposed to be) based on enforcing the greatest common good.
Laws in Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, exist to enforce the theocracy.
Nothing is black and white Robb. Everything is a shade of grey, and the shade changes based on context. You can stubbornly cling to your childishly false understanding of ethics all day long, but it will never change the fact that ethics are always subjective.
Its not OK to sneak up on someone and stab them to death for their wallet, but it is OK to shoot a person dead if they break into your home. The objective result, killing a person, is the same. The differing context makes it right in one and wrong in the other though.
| I cannot provide you with any evidence that you have not seen before on this forum. You have decided to reject it. I wish you would reconsider but that is your choice. |
You say that as if this evidence should be plain as day to me, and equally convincing. You do understand that if the majority of people used your standard of evidence for everything, that we would still be living in the dark ages?
I'm not the most intelligent person in the world, but I'm pretty far above the agerage. You will have to explain to me why I should have different standards of evidence for what cold medicine I use and my evaluation of the authenticity of your book.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2008 : 10:05:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
If God does not exist then are not all laws arbitrary? What basis do you say that killing someone for stealing a paperclip is wrong? Your reason, whatever it is comes from your mind and only your mind. Why should that apply to everybody? |
Leaving aside for the moment that you ignored two out of the three adjectives I applied to "the law," this is an interesting argument on two fronts.
One, you appear to be excusing the arbitrary nature of God's law by saying that men can't do any better. Too bad that God has the same foibles as His creation. (Actually, seeing as there is every reason to think that God is a creation of men, it's no wonder that God isn't very god-like, but is instead just like his creators.)
Second, why should God's law apply to everybody? What authority does he have aside from stomping his feet and demanding that we submit to him as an authority? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2008 : 10:10:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Laws are, in our society, (supposed to be) based on enforcing the greatest common good. |
Actually, that makes them not arbitrary, but gives them a presumably empirical basis. And if the laws are subject to modification based upon empirical data of their effects, all the better (less arbitrary). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Im Cool Trust Me
New Member
United Kingdom
14 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2008 : 10:32:02 [Permalink]
|
Uh, ICTM, unless you have a long acquaintence with the Believer, how do you assess her intelligence - a highly subjective matter to say the least - on the basis of a brief encounter? Largely, intelligence is as intelligence does and, IQ (hah!) scores aside, unless you have a hell of a resumé of your debate opponent, you really have no basis on which to gauge his intelligence other than a quick subjective judgment based primarily on her opinion of matters that do not admit of objective investigation. |
Because a lot of the time I have had long acquaintances with people I am debating. At school and college etc. Other times, you really just have to go in head first and then adapt your style depending on how you are received. It's not based on opinion, it's based on interaction. It really does not matter how smart someone is, what matters is how they respond to you, and the points that they make. Their intelligence and education inevitably affects this and that's why I brought it up, but I was not suggesting we make snap judgements on people and then baby talk to them. |
Dig your claws into my organs! Stretch into my tendons! Bury your anchors into my bones!
"Force, my friends, is violence: the supreme authority from which all other authority is derived. Naked force has resolved more issues throughout history than any other means. The common thinking, that violence never solves anything, is wishful thinking at it's worst! People who forget that always pay." |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2008 : 10:41:42 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
| Actually, that makes them not arbitrary, but gives them a presumably empirical basis. And if the laws are subject to modification based upon empirical data of their effects, all the better (less arbitrary). |
Within their specific context they can be non-arbitrary.
But then you have to define "greatest common good", which is has no objective definition.
So the basis, ultimately, is arbitrary.
Most people would agree that we are better off living in a society that runs by rule of law, as opposed to feudalism or some other less structured form.
We can even see the tangible benefits from living in a rule-of-law democracy when we compare ourselves to authoritarian/theocratic systems. But there are some situations where the authoritarian system can be shown "better". I'll use China's one child rule as an example. They have largely averted the massive crisis that would result from extreme overpopulation.
People in the US would object vehemently to such a law here, hell, some people here vehemently object to it in China.
The "greatest common good" is not an objective goal, it can only be subjective and context specific.
Within specific contexts though you can achieve conditionally objective standards for it.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2008 : 13:53:12 [Permalink]
|
In the context of an ethics discussion they have some overlap though. If you were to reject the concept of "greatest common good", then ethics decisions made in that context would appear arbitrary.
Which is why Robb thinks our basis for morality and law is arbitrary.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2008 : 13:57:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Which is why Robb thinks our basis for morality and law is arbitrary. |
Well, to be fair, that's exactly why I think his basis for morality and law is arbitrary. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2008 : 14:19:39 [Permalink]
|
Well, we agree then.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2008 : 15:57:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
[...] Oh, and thanks for sending your son to take the bullet for me. That must have really hurt. I'm glad that he survived to become the fine print. [...]
|
Y'know, it's ironic. This week, our maid said something to the effect "I've suffered a lot," to my mother. My mother, very Christian, in an attempt to curb her whining, replied, "nobody suffered as much as Jesus".
When she told me this snippet I unthinkingly replied "except maybe for all the other people crucified by the Romans." She didn't really have an answer for that; those people didn't even have the privilege of ressurrection. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 08/12/2008 : 17:48:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Robb
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by Robb
Repentence is essential, Jesus said without it no one is saved.
|
That is contradicting to John 3:16 and Rome 10:9.
Those verses says you only need to believe in Jesus to be saved, repentence not required. Of course, they do not explicitly say repentence not required, but they say in no uncertain terms that belief in Jesus is enough.
|
In my thermodynamics book it talks about describing a gas using the ideal gas law. When you go further on in the text you see that the ideal gas law does not accurately describe a gasses state in most instances. Later it tells you how to correct for this. Would it be right for me to only tell people that the ideal gas law completely describes that state of a gas without also telling them about the other text on the subject even though it is written by the author? Same applies for the Bible. If you believe it to be true then you collect all the information and then form a theology based on what it says as a whole.
|
So if I only live by John 3:16 and Rome 10:9, I'll be screwed out of heaven, just because I didn't have time to read the fine print?
 |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2008 : 02:59:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by Robb
In my thermodynamics book it talks about describing a gas using the ideal gas law. When you go further on in the text you see that the ideal gas law does not accurately describe a gasses state in most instances. Later it tells you how to correct for this. Would it be right for me to only tell people that the ideal gas law completely describes that state of a gas without also telling them about the other text on the subject even though it is written by the author? Same applies for the Bible. If you believe it to be true then you collect all the information and then form a theology based on what it says as a whole.
|
So if I only live by John 3:16 and Rome 10:9, I'll be screwed out of heaven, just because I didn't have time to read the fine print?
|
So now we have to read every law in the bible like "only applicable in an ideal situation"? How does that work? |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2008 : 04:55:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
Originally posted by Robb
How do you define what good and just laws are?
|
By looking at the consequences of the behavior they prohibit and by looking at whether the punishment for it is proportional to the consequences of breaking that law.
|
Sounds great. I define laws as good and just as any law that is in the best interest of Mickey Mouse. Why is your definition better than mine? |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2008 : 05:05:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Because, Robb, there are tangible benefits to prohibiting certain actions. If a group of people work together, follow the same basic rules (laws), they will be more prosperous than a group of people who who steal from each other regularly.
To answer your question though: Yes. All laws, and all ethics/morals, are 100% arbitrary. Laws are, in our society, (supposed to be) based on enforcing the greatest common good.
Laws in Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, exist to enforce the theocracy.
Nothing is black and white Robb. Everything is a shade of grey, and the shade changes based on context. You can stubbornly cling to your childishly false understanding of ethics all day long, but it will never change the fact that ethics are always subjective.
Its not OK to sneak up on someone and stab them to death for their wallet, but it is OK to shoot a person dead if they break into your home. The objective result, killing a person, is the same. The differing context makes it right in one and wrong in the other though. |
In all of this it is still your brain telling you what is right and wrong and good and bad. Why do you think that what your brain tells you is more valid than what my brain tells me about right and wrong and good and bad?
|
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Debating religious types, good and bad arguments
