News for nerds, stuff that matters
Sections
About
Services
Slashdot Log In
iminplaya (723125)
iminplaya
(email not shown publicly)
(email not shown publicly)
Morality
Sunday July 20, @11:54PM
is NOT a purview of the state. It's sole purpose should be the the defense of liberty and the pursuit of justice. Morality IS a purview of the church. That is why it must be unequivocally and completely separate from the state. Thank you.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Oh, (Score:2)
That such a statement of unequivocal support for the rise of the Enlightenment should be produced as a decadent glimmer of rage against the onset of a new dark ages.
Re: (Score:1)
I am the "Crock-Pot" of rage. And oh so tasty.
Luuu-uucille
Has messed my mind up
But I still love her
Oh I still love her...
Re: (Score:2)
... onset of a new dark ages.
If you're talking about now and the near future I think you are off. The "dark ages" implies ignorance and cultural decline. The world in general seems to be going in the opposite direction although there are indications that politically motivated people would like to see it stop. The world is certainly starting to get more Orwellian however. I don't think there is a term that exists that can accurately describe the generic historical state the world is in now. "Flux"? The Age of Flux. Yeah that's it.
Re: (Score:1)
The "dark ages" implies ignorance and cultural decline.
A better explanation of our current crop of politicians you will never find. And the future does look dark indeed.
Re: (Score:2)
Hahaha. I wasn't thinking of politicians though, or of any elites per se, and my perspective in time is more than just a few years. In terms of the ignorance issue we have the Internet (Wikipedia, Project Gutenberg, open source software etc and so on) and things like the History Channel, international news channels, etc. In terms of cultural diversity we also have the Internet and TV (Porn channels, "ethnic" channels, international news channels, and TV shows that deal with homosexuality, philosophy, art, d
Re: (Score:1)
Well, I do admit that the net has brought us new forms of instant communications unknown until now, and I have faith(hope, ugh!) that it will enable us to rip down the fences that divide us. At the same time, radio and TV were supposed to do the same thing. Maybe they have to a certain extent. Eventually people will lose interest in American Idol. I suppose I'm being a bit edgy waiting to the great changes it may yet bring. Someone may pull a rabbit out of their hat yet. Patience is a virgin.
Re: (Score:2)
Patience is a virgin.
Is that a Freudian slip? :)
Re: (Score:1)
Why? Is it showing?
Somehow I reached excess... (Score:2)
"...without ever noticing when I was passing through satisfaction."
-- Ashleigh Brilliant
Re: (Score:1)
You are most confusing sometimes. I just don't know how to read you. I'm the first to admit I'm a big dummy with very strong opinions. I'm very comfortable with them, but I don't always, if ever, express them well. The more I get into this, the more I realize this JE is more of a question than a statement. It's my feeble attempt to get deeper than petty politics. I need to know if I am wrong or if I'm right. Is there a suitable compromise, or is it an absolute truth? A little "moral" support in either direc
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I think we are on the level and understand / agree with each other.
Sorry if I can be a bit clever/oblique. I did mean my forst reply as an admiring compliment - tempered with my dark understanding of the time we are entering.
The AB quote popped up in a timely way - describing - I thought - the arc that our civil society took in the 20th century.
Re: (Score:1)
Your first reply was easy :-) and the quote was great. I just didn't know how or where it was directed, and whether I should "hit the floor". Maybe I'm being just a bit too sensitive these days.
I was with you until... (Score:1)
...the separation part. I see the morality of the Judeo-Christian tradition at least, as dealing with 1) things that are destructive to others, and 2) things that are destructive to oneself. (And there is some (much?) overlap.) Because the former category coincides with a major, proper role of the state, this half of the thing called "morality" can never even possibly be "unequivocally and completely separate". So all you can really say is that you think govt. should not stop one from hurting oneself, as do
Re: (Score:1)
Ah, but justice can deal with things that are destructive to others. As the state is there to resolve the dispute. As you said, that would be its purpose. Morality is for those things that are destructive to one's self. It has no function in a disagreement amongst individuals, other than a purpose of advisement or counsel. But never as a dictate. It is strictly a personal matter for each. So, for me, the two can remain very separate and distinct. Regardless of one's attempt to inject needless complexity for
Re: (Score:2)
I had to read it twice, but I think he is communicating that both religion and the state impose morality on people, therefore they are not inherently (philosophically) separate. For example the state makes laws against murder (one could argue they do this for moral reasons; the people demand morality in their secular laws), and for the same reason the sanction against murder is in the ten commandments. Religion and politics can be legally separated, but there will always be overlap. That's what I got out of
Re: (Score:1)
For example the state makes laws against murder (one could argue they do this for moral reasons; the people demand morality in their secular laws), and for the same reason the sanction against murder is in the ten commandments. Religion and politics can be legally separated, but there will always be overlap.
In the case of murder, we are dealing with a coercive act amongst two or more individuals. To me, it's a matter of justice as to how to deal with it. Yes I personally consider it to be morally wrong, but
Re: (Score:1)
You seem to want to view prohibitions handed down from the state as not having anything to do with morality. ?
Re: (Score:1)
Yes sir. It is a matter of justice. And believe it or not, liberty. As in a prohibition against forcing one to do another's bidding against their will, or a prohibition against restraining one's freedom of movement, for instance. And since morality is relative to one's beliefs, it must not enter the picture. Not everybody believes in the morality of the Judeo-Christian tradition. And they are right not to. There are many traditions that are just as moral. As loony as it might seem to us, Islamic tradition i
Re: (Score:1)
You're making a choice, to believe what you want. Morality is a value judgment. It's about declaring certain things "bad", and some things worse than others. The state declares for example murder and burglary "bad". And declares murder worse than burglary, by the amount of prison time that's awarded. You choose to ignore all this, I guess, because you don't want to see the state this way. But the state, nevertheless, "legislates morality". And follows it up by attempting to restore justice by either or both
Re: (Score:1)
You're making a choice, to believe what you want. Morality is a value judgment.
That's what I've been saying all along. It is a value judgment. A very personal one. That's why people have a different set of morals. No one set is the correct one. What is seen as "bad" to some is perfectly exceptable to others. Basing a government on such variables is not just. That is why the state will not administer justice in your discrimination case. It's decision is based on morality. It sees discrimination as "moral", a
Re: (Score:1)
>> You're making a choice, to believe what you want. Morality is a value judgment. [...]
> That's what I've been saying all along. It is a value judgment. [...]
An unfortunate choice on my part not to put a paragraph separator between the two -- one was a thesis a statement and the other the beginning of a multi-part description.
Morality is indeed a value judgment, but not in the way you're thinking. It's a value judgment in that it's the assigning of relative value to things such as actions, not a v
Re: (Score:1)
My personal biases are no different than yours. I just recognize mine as being personal, not to be imposed on anybody else. They can all take it or leave it. It's not my place to decide. You place yours on an outside authority you call god. But that god is your god, not everybody's. I would like the state to limit itself to the job that I presented in the JE, nothing more. It exists to insure that people are free and that acts amongst them remain consensual. Anything more is beyond its scope, and it's up to
Re: (Score:1)
I would like the state to limit itself to the job that I presented in the JE, nothing more.
And that's fine, my only point was that you're applying extra meanings to the labels "morality" and "justice", and distinctions, that you've come up with for yourself. So don't be surprised when someone is totally confused when he sees you talk about them, but wasn't already aware that your position is "they mean what I say they mean".
And there's no point in getting into a debate between our religions -- as religion l
Re: (Score:1)
Well, the gist of my argument is, whose morals are we going to apply in deciding what is just, or even right? Christian? Muslim? The atheist communist's? The cold blooded capitalist's? Yours? Mine? Those of a simple majority is completely unacceptable. Somebody will get left out the cold. Right or wrong, the state cannot act morally, or everybody will be in prison. The prohibition against alcohol is a suitable example of what I mean. Imagine what would happen if the same thing was tried with tobacco, or sin
Re: (Score:1)
What you're saying is basically how I feel about for example scientists. Scientists are biased (like anybody else), hence their findings cannot be trusted. Therefore:
1) I think they shouldn't be in the business of practicing science, and
2) I don't call what they do do "science".
Now compare that with what you're saying. It's agreed that man is flawed and there's the whole sticking point of just whose morality we're going to use. So you say that 1) govt. shouldn't be in the morality business, and 2) you simpl
Re: (Score:2)
I think that you are probably thinking of "dogma" as opposed to "morality". Granted a person's moral beliefs may be based on dogma and the self-righteous ideologies of both Church and State. I'm thinking of things like the "Just Say No" campaigns that relate to sex and drugs. Both institutions have their own dogmas. The Church certainly has a history of trying to impose its own dogma's on the State.
Best regards,
UTW
It is purely a question of ownership: (Score:2)
Do you own your body and self, or does some other human or group of humans or their structures of paper?
God is not the Church so lets get that straight. God is some abstract concept or being that is supposedly not able to be grasped by the human mind. The Church is simply another control structure that has nothing to do with God except pretending to understand what they outright claim nobody else can. Talk about Cognitive Dissonance.
Morality is only pure in its true sense if it comes from YOUR will. YOU
Re: (Score:1)
God is self. I see nothing wrong with looking to the church(use the generic meaning) for counseling. Not as a matter of authority, but for guidance to help me see and "talk" to god(my self). My blindness is self inflicted. That I know. To seek help from others should not be seen as a sign of weakness. We don't all share the same strength of character. It's why we need and have each other. It's why congregating can be a good thing. To spread the wealth. It's parallel processing at its best.
Concur (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
ethics [reference.com]... -- a system of moral principles... -- Synonyms 2. See moral.
To me, business rules to be enforced by the state are an issue of economic justice. To insure the inter-personal contact is entirely consensual on both sides, and that would also include affected third parties. So, for instance, I can make a deal to put up a factory, but I don't have a right to forcibly displace others or contaminate their environment.
Re: (Score:2)
Bill Gates might be moral, but his ethics could be questionable.
RMS might be ethically impeccable, but his morality questionable.
Divorce might be perfectly ethical in some cases, while not necessarily moral.
Hopefully, the legal system drives ethical behavior, which is as much as we can ask of anyone. Morality is where the bar goes higher, gets more subjective, and thus kind of impossible to apply generally.
This is my opinion, but I fee
Re: (Score:1)
Morality is where the bar goes higher, gets more subjective, and thus kind of impossible to apply generally.
That's why morality is none of the state's business. Justice, which by definition is applied equally to all, will do much to assure moral, and ethical behavior.
Since you brought it up, how is RMS immoral?
Re: (Score:1)
Ok, thanks. Makes a good point. Too bad these guys can't stick to what they do best. Or maybe trolling is what he does best. One could hope he's doing it for laughs, looking for the money shot, so to speak. I certainly can't take that kind of stuff seriously. But I could understand how it damages the "movement", forever limiting linux to a sort of hobbyist status. Which is also fine with me. Those are the kind of people I identify with most. It's a fine OS. I do experiment with it a lot, but I always remain
Re: (Score:2)
The question I have for the guy, specifically, is how he defines "ethical" in such a way that a proprietary license is immoral/unethical (which I've seen him say in print).
While I can track him at a common sense level, I need more detail on how he's defining stuff to achieve buy-in.
Re: (Score:1)
The question I have for the guy, specifically, is how he defines "ethical" in such a way that a proprietary license is immoral/unethical
It denies the right to share.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, in what context is this 'right to share' deemed to trump all other freedoms, including the right to enter into an agreement snuffing that 'right to share'?
My point is that I need a thorough development at greater depth than 'because' to view this FSF definition of ethical in a 'moral' light.
It works quite well at a common sense level already.
Re: (Score:1)
Sure, but how did two consenting adults become immoral in entering into such an agreement?
What agreement?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That's not what I purchased. I purchased a product. The only agreement I made was with the guy at the checkout. I made no agreement about any license. That is something they wish to impose. My purchase does not automatically give them the right.
Re: (Score:2)
What I think is better in the hardware case is that the community reward the vendors that don't suck, as when I specified an Intel video chip on my laptop just to thumb my nose at nVidia and ATI.