Quote of the Day

_{Barry Arrington

June 11, 2016

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

“No argument can pry doubt from the minds of those wishing not to believe.” WJM

Exactly. Dozens of idiots commenting on these pages have engaged in what we call “insane denial.” WJM’s particular comment was directed to daveS, and if Dave wants to join their ranks, there really is nothing anyone can do to stop him. All thinking people must respond to Arthur Leff’s Grand Sez Who, and when they respond they have two and only two choices:

Choice 1: Insist on radical personal autonomy and deny the objective nature of morality.

Choice 2: Bow humbly before the obvious existence of self-evident moral truth.

There is a price for either choice. The price of Choice 1 is rationality itself. The price of Choice 2 is that last measure of freedom.

For those who opt for Choice 1, the great irony is they’ve paid a very steep price for their freedom, but they are cheated, because they are not really free. As WJM has demonstrated so admirably in these pages these last couple of weeks, unless they are truly insane, they are absolutely compelled to act as if the freedom they’ve reserved for themselves does not really exist.

A solipsist (like Learned Hand) who has reserved unto himself the right to deny the objectively binding truth of analytic statements such as simple mathematical equations (1+1=2) or the laws of thought (A=A) has achieved nothing, because even in the midst of his denial he is compelled to live his life as if his denial is false. The same is true of those who deny the objectively binding truth of morality.

They have sold their souls for a mess of pottage, and they don’t even get the pottage. How sad.

Comments

rvb8 said:
Why are questions about morality prior to Judeo/Christian versions of morality so toxic here? Why is it so difficult for people to understand that at different places, and at different times, people’s notions of what was good behaviour and what was unacceptable behaviour have changed?
We all understand this, rvb8. What it implies, logically, in full context of how we all act wrt our moral views, is what is under debate. Just because people believe differently about a thing doesn't mean the thing itself is subjective in nature.William J Murray_{June 13, 2016
June
06
Jun
13
13
2016
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

rvb8,
Why are questions about morality prior to Judeo/Christian versions of morality so toxic here? Why is it so difficult for people to understand that at different places, and at different times, people’s notions of what was good behaviour and what was unacceptable behaviour have changed?
On moral relativism there is no basis for any real person-to-person moral obligation. If person-to-person obligation does not exist there is no possibility of real and binding human rights-- which are moral obligations writ large. Nor is there any way to create or establish a truly just society. I find it not only ironic but totally absurd when subjectivist/relativist like rvb8 show up here and try to start an argument. What’s the point? Do they think we are obligated to give their POV consideration?john_a_designer_{June 13, 2016
June
06
Jun
13
13
2016
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

rvb8, let us simply start with MSET 1 - 3:
1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought.
(This is manifest in even an objector's implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right. Not even the hyperskeptical objector can escape this truth. Patent absurdity on attempted denial.)
2] Second self evident truth, we discern that some things are right and others are wrong by a compass-sense we term conscience which guides our thought. (Again, objectors depend on a sense of guilt/ urgency to be right not wrong on our part to give their points persuasive force. See what would be undermined should conscience be deadened or dismissed universally? Sawing off the branch on which we all must sit.) 3] Third, were this sense of conscience and linked sense that we can make responsibly free, rational decisions to be a delusion, we would at once descend into a status of grand delusion in which there is no good ground for confidence in our self-understanding. That is, we look at an infinite regress of Plato’s cave worlds: once such a principle of grand global delusion is injected, there is no firewall so the perception of level one delusion is subject to the same issue, and this level two perception too, ad infinitum; landing in patent absurdity.
KFkairosfocus_{June 13, 2016
June
06
Jun
13
13
2016
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT}

The best answers are of course short and simple. Needless wordiness says far more about people than short precise and economic answers. I'll grant complex issues demand complex answers; sometimes. This thread is not one of them. It is also the reason RM+NS is such a sturdy theory. If your job was to baffle me KF, mission accomplished.rvb8_{June 13, 2016
June
06
Jun
13
13
2016
03:27 AM
3
03
27
AM
PDT}

rvb8, Did you notice citation of Cicero, that Bible-thumping right-wing fundy . . . NOT. As well as Justinian's synthesis of 1,000 years of that religious dictat, roman law, by way of the Jurisconsults . . . NOT. It seems you are triggering, going off on tangents and putting up talking points irrelevant to the issue on the table. Are we under government of ought, in ways that are generally discernible to the reasonable and responsible person? The long run of history says yes, but that is not politically correct in our day. A day that imagines disagreement implies no standard, at least when it comes to morality. But once error exists is undeniable, the issue then is to find stable warrant for moral government, at the core. Which through the principles of justice then sets a context for law at all levels. I think I need to put back on the table the following, as a challenge to you and others of like ilk, to rethink. And I am going to highlight what historically pivotal sources in the Judaeo-Christian tradition actually have to say, as opposed to what too many imagine they say, then identify a dozen manifestly evident first principles of the natural moral law that are highly relevant to our concerns. Nor will I shy away from the onward world-roots issues:
>> normally responsive people will at least grudgingly respect the following summary of core, conscience attested morality from the pen of Paul:
Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . . Rom 13:8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong [NIV, "harm"] to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. [ESV]
Where, John Locke, in grounding modern liberty and what would become democratic self-government of a free people premised on upholding the civil peace of justice, in Ch 2 Sec. 5 of his second treatise on civil Government [c. 1690] cites "the judicious [Anglican canon, Richard] Hooker" from his classic Ecclesiastical Polity of 1594 on, as he explains how the principles of neighbour-love are inscribed in our hearts, becoming evident to the eye of common good sense and reasonableness:
. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8 and alluding to Justinian's synthesis of Roman Law in Corpus Juris Civilis that also brings these same thoughts to bear:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.]
We may elaborate on Paul, Locke, Hooker and Aristotle, laying out several manifestly evident and historically widely acknowledged core moral principles for which the attempted denial is instantly and patently absurd for most people -- that is, they are arguably self-evident (thus, warranted and objective) moral truths; not just optional opinions. So also, it is not only possible to
(a) be in demonstrable moral error, but also (b) there is hope that such moral errors can be corrected by appealing to manifestly sound core principles of the natural moral law.
For instance: 1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought.
(This is manifest in even an objector's implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right. Not even the hyperskeptical objector can escape this truth. Patent absurdity on attempted denial.)
2] Second self evident truth, we discern that some things are right and others are wrong by a compass-sense we term conscience which guides our thought. (Again, objectors depend on a sense of guilt/ urgency to be right not wrong on our part to give their points persuasive force. See what would be undermined should conscience be deadened or dismissed universally? Sawing off the branch on which we all must sit.) 3] Third, were this sense of conscience and linked sense that we can make responsibly free, rational decisions to be a delusion, we would at once descend into a status of grand delusion in which there is no good ground for confidence in our self-understanding. That is, we look at an infinite regress of Plato’s cave worlds: once such a principle of grand global delusion is injected, there is no firewall so the perception of level one delusion is subject to the same issue, and this level two perception too, ad infinitum; landing in patent absurdity. 4] Fourth, we are objectively under obligation of OUGHT. That is, despite any particular person’s (or group’s or august council’s or majority’s) wishes or claims to the contrary, such obligation credibly holds to moral certainty. That is, it would be irresponsible, foolish and unwise for us to act and try to live otherwise. 5] Fifth, this cumulative framework of moral government under OUGHT is the basis for the manifest core principles of the natural moral law under which we find ourselves obligated to the right the good, the true etc. Where also, patently, we struggle to live up to what we acknowledge or imply we ought to do. 6] Sixth, this means we live in a world in which being under core, generally understood principles of natural moral law is coherent and factually adequate, thus calling for a world-understanding in which OUGHT is properly grounded at root level. (Thus worldviews that can soundly meet this test are the only truly viable ones. if a worldview does not have in it a world-root level IS that can simultaneously ground OUGHT, it fails decisively.*) 7] Seventh, in light of the above, even the weakest and most voiceless of us thus has a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of fulfillment of one’s sense of what s/he ought to be (“happiness”). This includes the young child, the unborn and more. (We see here the concept that rights are binding moral expectations of others to provide respect in regards to us because of our inherent status as human beings, members of the community of valuable neighbours. Where also who is my neighbour was forever answered by the parable of the Good Samaritan. Likewise, there can be no right to demand of or compel my neighbour that s/he upholds me and enables me in the wrong — including under false colour of law through lawfare. To justly claim a right, one must first be in the right.) 8] Eighth, like unto the seventh, such may only be circumscribed or limited for good cause. Such as, reciprocal obligation to cherish and not harm neighbour of equal, equally valuable nature in community and in the wider world of the common brotherhood of humanity. 9] Ninth, this is the context in which it becomes self evidently wrong, wicked and evil to kidnap, sexually torture and murder a young child or the like as concrete cases in point that show that might and/or manipulation do not make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘worth,’ ‘justice,’ ‘fairness,’ ‘law’ etc. That is, anything that expresses or implies the nihilist’s credo is morally absurd. 10] Tenth, this entails that in civil society with government, justice is a principal task of legitimate government. In short, nihilistic will to power untempered by the primacy of justice is its own refutation in any type of state. Where, justice is the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. Thus also, 11] Eleventh, that government is and ought to be subject to audit, reformation and if necessary replacement should it fail sufficiently badly and incorrigibly.
(NB: This is a requisite of accountability for justice, and the suggestion or implication of some views across time, that government can reasonably be unaccountable to the governed, is its own refutation, reflecting -- again -- nihilistic will to power; which is automatically absurd. This truth involves the issue that finite, fallible, morally struggling men acting as civil authorities in the face of changing times and situations as well as in the face of the tendency of power to corrupt, need to be open to remonstrance and reformation -- or if they become resistant to reasonable appeal, there must be effective means of replacement. Hence, the principle that the general election is an insitutionalised regular solemn assembly of the people for audit and reform or if needs be replacement of government gone bad. But this is by no means an endorsement of the notion that a manipulated mob bent on a march of folly has a right to do as it pleases.)
12] Twelfth, the attempt to deny or dismiss such a general framework of moral governance invariably lands in shipwreck of incoherence and absurdity. As, has been seen in outline. But that does not mean that the attempt is not going to be made, so there is a mutual obligation of frank and fair correction and restraint of evil. _________________ * F/N: After centuries of debates and assessment of alternatives per comparative difficulties, there is in fact just one serious candidate to be such a grounding IS: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. (And instantly, such generic ethical theism answers also to the accusation oh this is “religion”; that term being used as a dirty word — no, this is philosophy. If you doubt this, simply put forth a different candidate that meets the required criteria and passes the comparative difficulties test: _________ . Likewise, an inherently good, maximally great being will not be arbitrary or deceitful etc, that is why such is fully worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. As a serious candidate necessary being, such would be eternal and embedded in the frame for a world to exist at all. Thus such a candidate is either impossible as a square circle is impossible due to mutual ruin of core characteristics, or else it is actual. For simple instance no world is possible without two-ness in it, a necessary basis for distinct identity inter alia.
KFkairosfocus_{June 12, 2016
June
06
Jun
12
12
2016
11:46 PM
11
11
46
PM
PDT}

Troll alert @9 . . . The question is not whether there are different standards for behavior. The question is whether there's an absolute moral standard. The Florida shooter was convinced he was justified in killing gays for Allah. Are you saying that he's within his moral rights and that we have no right to impose our standards of moral behavior on him and others who believe that this is Allah's will? Or maybe you're suggesting that the majority rules regarding moral behavior. So, if Islam becomes the majority religion in the US as it has in many nations, would you support Sharia Law?
From the Washington Post . . . Here are the 10 countries where homosexuality may be punishable by death: Yemen: According to 1994 penal code, married men can be sentenced to death by stoning for homosexual intercourse. Unmarried men face whipping or one year in prison. Women face up to seven years in prison. Iran: In accordance with sharia law, homosexual intercourse between men can be punished by death, and men can be flogged for lesser acts such as kissing. Women may be flogged. Iraq: The penal code does not expressly prohibit homosexual acts, but people have been killed by militias and sentenced to death by judges citing sharia law. Mauritania: Muslim men engaging in homosexual sex can be stoned to death, according to a 1984 law. Women face prison. Nigeria: Federal law classifies homosexual behavior as a felony punishable by imprisonment, but several states have adopted sharia law and imposed a death penalty for men. A law signed in early January makes it illegal for gay people countrywide to hold a meeting or form clubs. Qatar: Sharia law in Qatar applies only to Muslims, who can be put to death for extramarital sex, regardless of sexual orientation. Saudi Arabia: Under the country’s interpretation of sharia law, a married man engaging in sodomy or any non-Muslim who commits sodomy with a Muslim can be stoned to death. All sex outside of marriage is illegal. Somalia: The penal code stipulates prison, but in some southern regions, Islamic courts have imposed Sharia law and the death penalty. Sudan: Three-time offenders under the sodomy law can be put to death; first and second convictions result in flogging and imprisonment. Southern parts of the country have adopted more lenient laws. United Arab Emirates: Lawyers in the country and other experts disagree on whether federal law proscribes the death penalty for consensual homosexual sex or only for rape. In a recent Amnesty International report, the organization said it was not aware of any death sentences for homosexual acts. All sexual acts outside of marriage are banned.
-QQuerius_{June 12, 2016
June
06
Jun
12
12
2016
11:30 PM
11
11
30
PM
PDT}

Why are questions about morality prior to Judeo/Christian versions of morality so toxic here? Why is it so difficult for people to understand that at different places, and at different times, people's notions of what was good behaviour and what was unacceptable behaviour have changed?rvb8_{June 12, 2016
June
06
Jun
12
12
2016
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT}

Excellent post and comments, save for mahuna. Thank you all!Truth Will Set You Free_{June 12, 2016
June
06
Jun
12
12
2016
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

mahuna says morality varies from culture to culture and as an example he asserts the Norse had no law against murder. He has brought this piece of lunacy up before, and I have called him on it. Yet he still insists on it. Which goes to show that some people refuse to learn even after correction.Barry Arrington_{June 12, 2016
June
06
Jun
12
12
2016
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

F/N: Cicero in The laws, as Marcus in his dialogue: __________ >>Marcus.—That is not quite the case, my Quintus. It is not so much the science of law that produces litigation, as the ignorance of it. But more of this by-and-by. At present let us examine the first principles of Right. Now, many learned men have maintained that it springs from law. I hardly know if their opinion be not correct, at least according to their own definition; for "law," say they, "is the highest reason implanted in nature, which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary." And when this same reason is confirmed and established in men's minds, it is then law. They therefore conceive that prudence is a law, whose operation is to urge us to good actions, and restrain us from, evil ones. And they think, too, that the Greek name for law (nomos), which is derived from nomia [?], to distribute, implies the very nature of the thing, that is, to give every man his due. The Latin name, lex, conveys the idea of selection, a legendo. According to the Greeks, therefore, the name of law implies an equitable distribution: according to the Romans, an equitable selection. And, indeed, both characteristics belong peculiarly to law. And if this be a correct statement, which it seems to ma for the most part to be, then the origin of right is to be Sought in the law. For this is the true energy of nature,— this is the very soul and reason of a wise man, and the test of virtue and vice. But since all this discussion of ours relates to a subject, the terms of which are of frequent occurrence in the popular language of the citizens, we shall be sometimes obliged to use the same terms as the vulgar, and to call that law, which in its written enactments sanctions what it thinks fit by special commands or prohibitions. Let us begin, then, to establish the principles of justice on that supreme law, which has existed from all ages before any legislative enactments were drawn up in writing, or any political governments constituted . . . . This is the bearing which they have on our subject. This animal—prescient, sagacious, complex, acute, full of memory, reason, and counsel, which we call man—has been generated by the supreme God in a most transcendent condition. For he is the only creature among all the races and descriptions of animated beings who is endued with superior reason and thought, in which the rest are deficient. And what is there, I do not say in man alone, but in all heaven and earth, more divine than reason, which, when it becomes right and perfect, is justly termed wisdom? There exists, therefore, since nothing is better than reason, and since this is the common property of God and man, a certain aboriginal rational intercourse between divine and human natures. But where reason is common, there right reason must also be common to the same parties; and since this right reason is what we call law, God and men must be considered as associated by law. Again, there must also be a communion of right where there is a communion of law. And those who have law and right thus in common, must be considered members of the same commonwealth. And if they are obedient to the same rule and the same authority, they are even much more so to this one celestial regency, this divine mind and omnipotent deity. So that the entire universe may be looked upon as forming one vast commonwealth of gods and men. And, as in earthly states certain ranks are distinguished with reference to the relationships of families, according to a certain principle which will be discussed in its proper place, that principle, in the nature of things, is far more magnificent and splendid by which men are connected with the Gods, as belonging to their kindred and nation. VIII. For when we are reasoning on universal nature, we are accustomed to argue (and indeed the truth is just as it is stated in that argument) that in the long course of ages, and the uninterrupted succession of celestial revolutions, there arrived a certain ripe time for the sowing of the human race; and when it was sown and scattered over the earth, it was animated by the divine gift of souls. And as men retained from their terrestrial origin those other particulars by which they cohere together, which are frail and perishable, their immortal spirits were ingenerated by the Deity. From which circumstance it may be truly said, that we possess a certain consanguinity, and kindred, and fellowship with the heavenly powers. And among all the varieties of animals, there is not one except man which retains any idea of the Divinity. And among men themselves, there is no nation so savage and ferocious as not to admit the necessity of believing in a God, however ignorant they may be what sort of God they ought to believe in. From whence we conclude that every man must recognise a Deity, who has any recollection and knowledge of his own origin. Now, the law of virtue is the same in God and man, and in no other disposition besides them. This virtue is nothing else than a nature perfect in itself, and wrought up to the most consummate excellence. There exists, therefore, a similitude between God and man. And as this is the case, what connexion can there be which concerns us more nearly, and is more certain. Therefore, nature has supplied such an abundance of supplies suited to the convenience and use of men, that the things which are thus produced appear to be designedly bestowed on us, and not fortuitous productions. Nor does this observation apply only to the fruits and vegetables which gush from the bosom of the earth, but likewise to cattle and the beasts of the field, some of which, it is clear, were intended for the use of mankind, others for propagation, and others for the food of man. Innumerable arts have likewise been discovered by the teaching of nature, whom reason has imitated, and thus skilfully discovered all things necessary to the happiness of life. IX. With respect to man, this same bountiful nature hath not merely allotted him a- subtle and active spirit, but also physical senses, like so many servants and messengers. And she has laid bare before him the obscure but necessary explanation of many things, which are, as it were, the foundation of practical knowledge; and in all respects she has given him a convenient figure of body, suited to the bent of the human character. For while she has kept down the countenances of other animals, and fixed their eyes on their food, she has bestowed on man alone an erect stature,1 and prompted him to the contemplation of heaven, the ancient home of his kindred immortals. So exquisitely, too, has she fashioned the features of the human face, as to make them indicate the most recondite thoughts and sentiments. For our eloquent eyes speak forth every impulse and passion of our souls; and that which we call expression, which cannot exist in any other animal but man, betrays all our feelings, the power of which was well known to the Greeks, though they have no name for it. I will not enlarge on the wonderful faculties and qualities of the rest of the body, the modulation of the voice, and the power of oratory, which is the greatest instrument of influence upon human society. For these matters do not all belong to the present occasion or the present subject, and I think that Scipio has already sufficiently explained them in those books of mine which you have read. Since, then, the Deity has been pleased to create and adorn man to be the chief and president of all terrestrial creatures, so it is evident, without further argument, that human nature, has also made very great advances by its own intrinsic energy; that nature, which without any other instruction than her own, has developed the first rude principles of the understanding, and strengthened and perfected reason to all the appliances of science and art . . . >> _____________ More food for thought. Yes, a pagan, influenced by Stoic thought. KFkairosfocus_{June 12, 2016
June
06
Jun
12
12
2016
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

F/N: For information, opening remarks in the Institutes part of Justinian's Corpus Juris on the nature of law: ________________ http://www.constitution.org/sps/sps02_j1-1.htm >>THE INSTITUTES OF OUR LORD JUSTINIAN. BOOK I. TITLE I. CONCERNING JUSTICE AND LAW. Justice is the constant and perpetual desire to give to each one that to which he is entitled. (1) Jurisprudence is the knowledge of matters divine and human, and the comprehension of what is just and what is unjust. (2) These divisions being generally understood, and We being about to explain the laws of the Roman people, it appears that this may be most conveniently done if separate subjects are at first treated in a clear and simple manner, and afterwards with greater care and exactness; for if We, at once, in the beginning, load the still uncultivated and inexperienced mind of the student with a multitude and variety of details, We shall bring about one of two things; that is, We shall either cause him to abandon his studies, or, by means of excessive labor — and also with that distrust which very frequently discourages young men — conduct him to that point to which, if led by an easier route, he might have been brought more speedily without much exertion and without misgiving. (3) The following are the precepts of the Law: to live honestly, not to injure another, and to give to each one that which belongs to him. (4) There are two branches of this study, namely: public and private. Public Law is that which concerns the administration of the Roman government; Private Law relates to the interests of individuals. Thus Private Law is said to be threefold in its nature, for it is composed of precepts of Natural Law, of those of the Law of Nations, and of those of the Civil Law. TITLE II. CONCERNING NATURAL LAW, THE LAW OF NATIONS, AND THE CIVIL LAW. Natural Law is that which nature has taught to all animals, for this law is not peculiar to the human race, but applies to all creatures which originate in the air, or the earth, and in the sea. Hence arises the union of the male and the female which we designate marriage; and hence are derived the procreation and the education of children; for we see that other animals also act as though endowed with knowledge of this law. (1) The Civil Law and the Law of Nations are divided as follows. All peoples that are governed by laws and customs make use of the law which is partly peculiar to themselves and partly pertaining to all men; for what each people has established for itself is peculiar to that State, and is styled the Civil Law; being, as it were, the especial law of that individual commonwealth. But the law which natural reason has established among all mankind and which is equally observed among all peoples, is called the Law of Nations, as being that which all nations make use of. The Roman people also employ a law which is in part peculiar to them, and in part common to all men. We propose to set forth their distinctions in their proper places. (2) The Civil Law derives its name from each state, as, for example, that of the Athenians; for if anyone wishes to designate the laws of Solon or of Draco as the Civil Law of Athens, he will not commit an error; for in this manner We call the law which the Roman people use the Civil Law of the Romans, or the Jus Quiritium employed by Roman citizens, as the Romans are styled Quirites from Quirinus. When, however, We do not add the name of the state, We mean Our own law; just as when We mention the poet but do not give his name, the illustrious Homer is understood among the Greeks, and Virgil among us. The Law of Nations, however, Is common to the entire human race, for all nations have established for themselves certain regulations exacted by custom and human necessity. For wars have arisen, and captivity and slavery, which are contrary to natural law, have followed as a result, as, according to Natural Law, all men were originally born free; and from this law nearly all contracts, such as purchase, sale, hire, partnership, deposit, loan, and innumerable others have been derived. (3) Our Law, which We make use of, is either written or unwritten, just as among the Greeks, written and unwritten laws exist. The written law consists of the Statutes, the Plebiscita, the Decrees of the Senate, the Decisions of the Emperors, the Orders of the Magistrates and the Answers of Jurisconsults. (4) A Statute is what the Roman people have established as the result of an interrogatory of a senatorial magistrate, for example, a consul. The Plebiscitum is what the plebeians have established upon the interrogatory of a plebeian magistrate, for instance, a tribune. Plebeians differ from the people as a species does from a genus; for all citizens, including even patricians, and senators, are understood by the word people, and by the term plebeians all other citizens, exclusive of patricians and senators, are designated. Plebiscita have had the same force as statutes since the passage of the Lex Hortensia. (5) A Decree of the Senate is what the Senate orders and establishes, for since the Roman people have increased in numbers to such an extent that it is difficult for them to be convoked in an assembly for the purpose of adopting a law, it has seemed advisable for the Senate to be consulted instead of the people. (6) Whatever is approved by the sovereign has also the force of law, because by the Lex Regia, from whence his power is derived, the people have delegated to him all their jurisdiction and authority. Therefore, whatever the Emperor establishes by means of a Rescript or decrees as a magistrate, or commands by an Edict, stands as law, and these are called Constitutions. Some of these are personal and are not considered as precedents, because the sovereign does not wish them to be such; for any favor he grants on account of merit, or where he inflicts punishment upon anyone or affords him unusual assistance, this affects only the individual concerned; the others, however, as they are of general application unquestionably are binding upon all. (7) The Edicts of the Prætors also possess more than ordinary authority, and we are accustomed to designate them "honorary" laws, because they derive their force from those who are invested with honors, that is to say magistrates. The Curule Ædiles, likewise, formerly published edicts relative to certain matters which also constitute part of the honorary law. (8) The Answers of Jurisconsults are the decisions and opinions of persons upon whom has been conferred authority to establish laws; for it was decided in ancient times that the laws should be publicly interpreted by those to whom the right to answer had been granted by the Emperor, and who were called jurisconsults, and the unanimous decisions and opinions of the latter had such force that, according to the Constitutions, a judge was not permitted to deviate from what they had determined. (9) The unwritten law is that which usage has confirmed, for customs long observed and sanctioned by the consent of those who employ them, resemble law. (10) Not improperly does the Civil Law appear to have been divided into two branches; since in its origin it seems to have been derived from the institutions of two states, namely, Athens, and Lacedæmon; for in these states it was the practice for the Lacedæmonians to commit to memory the rules which served them as laws, and the Athenians, on the other hand, observed whatever legal regulations which they had reduced to writing. (11) Natural Laws that are observed without distinction by all nations and have been established by Divine Providence remain always fixed and unchangeable; but those which every State establishes for itself are often changed either by the tacit consent of the people, or by some other law subsequently enacted. (12) Every law of which We make use has reference either to persons, to things, or to actions. We shall first treat of persons, for there is little advantage in being familiar with the law if the persons on account of whom it was adopted are unknown.1 1 Roman legislation begins with the Leges Regiæ, the enactments passed by the Comitia, or assemblies of the people, with the sanction of the sovereign, or rather by his direction, for his influence and authority long were paramount. The Leges Regiæ were generally of a religious or social character, and some of them, if not all, can lay claim to a much higher antiquity than the Twelve Tables.>> ________________ Context. KFkairosfocus_{June 12, 2016
June
06
Jun
12
12
2016
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT}

Mahuna said:
My problem with your continued insane fixation on shouting down opponents of “morality” is that what you really mean is mainstream Protestant morality using the King James bible as its foundation.
I can't speak for Mr. Arrington, but I've been the one initiating most of the major threads the past couple of weeks about moral subjectivism. I'm not a Christian nor have I ever read the Bible. Socially speaking, I'm very Libertarian - not because I particularly think certain things are moral, but rather because I think that in many cases the freedom to engage in immoral activity is more important than attempting to stop some behaviors via force of law. I've never argued for a morality based on any spiritual or religious text, nor for any even correlating - per se - to any particular religious doctrine. IMO, it's wiser - if one is capable - to use reason to establish a good, sound foundation for one's moral views. Simply adopting something that is written because figures of authority pressure one to do so is never a good idea. I understand the emotional reaction to and rejection of religious morality, because I've done the same thing in my life. In fact, I rejected all morality. However, I soon realized that I had become a slave to emotional commitments and had - as they say - thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Accepting that morality is objective in nature is not the same thing as accepting any particular moral system. However, to even begin to be able to rationally address the issue, one must be willing to set aside their a priori emotional and ideological commitments.William J Murray_{June 12, 2016
June
06
Jun
12
12
2016
03:40 AM
3
03
40
AM
PDT}

Mahuna, Further to the issues, I suggest you will find the following a relevant context for considering first moral principles:
We may elaborate on Moshe, Jesus, Paul, Locke, Hooker and Aristotle as well as other classical sources in the moral traditions of our civilisation that point to a conscience-attested natural moral law that is at the core of morality, laying out several manifestly evident and historically widely acknowledged core moral principles for which the attempted denial is instantly and patently absurd for most people -- that is, they are arguably self-evident (thus, warranted and objective) moral truths; not just optional opinions. So also, it is not only possible to
(a) be in demonstrable moral error, but also (b) there is hope that such moral errors can be corrected by appealing to manifestly sound core principles of the natural moral law.
For instance: 1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought.
(This is manifest in even an objector's implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right. Not even the hyperskeptical objector can escape this truth. Patent absurdity on attempted denial.)
2] Second self evident truth, we discern that some things are right and others are wrong by a compass-sense we term conscience which guides our thought. (Again, objectors depend on a sense of guilt/ urgency to be right not wrong on our part to give their points persuasive force. See what would be undermined should conscience be deadened or dismissed universally? Sawing off the branch on which we all must sit.) 3] Third, were this sense of conscience and linked sense that we can make responsibly free, rational decisions to be a delusion, we would at once descend into a status of grand delusion in which there is no good ground for confidence in our self-understanding. That is, we look at an infinite regress of Plato’s cave worlds: once such a principle of grand global delusion is injected, there is no firewall so the perception of level one delusion is subject to the same issue, and this level two perception too, ad infinitum; landing in patent absurdity. 4] Fourth, we are objectively under obligation of OUGHT. That is, despite any particular person’s (or group’s or august council’s or majority’s) wishes or claims to the contrary, such obligation credibly holds to moral certainty. That is, it would be irresponsible, foolish and unwise for us to act and try to live otherwise. 5] Fifth, this cumulative framework of moral government under OUGHT is the basis for the manifest core principles of the natural moral law under which we find ourselves obligated to the right the good, the true etc. Where also, patently, we struggle to live up to what we acknowledge or imply we ought to do. 6] Sixth, this means we live in a world in which being under core, generally understood principles of natural moral law is coherent and factually adequate, thus calling for a world-understanding in which OUGHT is properly grounded at root level. (Thus worldviews that can soundly meet this test are the only truly viable ones. if a worldview does not have in it a world-root level IS that can simultaneously ground OUGHT, it fails decisively.*) 7] Seventh, in light of the above, even the weakest and most voiceless of us thus has a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of fulfillment of one’s sense of what s/he ought to be (“happiness”). This includes the young child, the unborn and more. (We see here the concept that rights are binding moral expectations of others to provide respect in regards to us because of our inherent status as human beings, members of the community of valuable neighbours. Where also who is my neighbour was forever answered by the parable of the Good Samaritan. Likewise, there can be no right to demand of or compel my neighbour that s/he upholds me and enables me in the wrong — including under false colour of law through lawfare. To justly claim a right, one must first be in the right.) 8] Eighth, like unto the seventh, such may only be circumscribed or limited for good cause. Such as, reciprocal obligation to cherish and not harm neighbour of equal, equally valuable nature in community and in the wider world of the common brotherhood of humanity. 9] Ninth, this is the context in which it becomes self evidently wrong, wicked and evil to kidnap, sexually torture and murder a young child or the like as concrete cases in point that show that might and/or manipulation do not make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘worth,’ ‘justice,’ ‘fairness,’ ‘law’ etc. That is, anything that expresses or implies the nihilist’s credo is morally absurd. 10] Tenth, this entails that in civil society with government, justice is a principal task of legitimate government. In short, nihilistic will to power untempered by the primacy of justice is its own refutation in any type of state. Where, justice is the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. Thus also, 11] Eleventh, that government is and ought to be subject to audit, reformation and if necessary replacement should it fail sufficiently badly and incorrigibly.
(NB: This is a requisite of accountability for justice, and the suggestion or implication of some views across time, that government can reasonably be unaccountable to the governed, is its own refutation, reflecting -- again -- nihilistic will to power; which is automatically absurd. This truth involves the issue that finite, fallible, morally struggling men acting as civil authorities in the face of changing times and situations as well as in the face of the tendency of power to corrupt, need to be open to remonstrance and reformation -- or if they become resistant to reasonable appeal, there must be effective means of replacement. Hence, the principle that the general election is an insitutionalised regular solemn assembly of the people for audit and reform or if needs be replacement of government gone bad. But this is by no means an endorsement of the notion that a manipulated mob bent on a march of folly has a right to do as it pleases.)
12] Twelfth, the attempt to deny or dismiss such a general framework of moral governance invariably lands in shipwreck of incoherence and absurdity. As, has been seen in outline. But that does not mean that the attempt is not going to be made, so there is a mutual obligation of frank and fair correction and restraint of evil. _________________ * F/N: After centuries of debates and assessment of alternatives per comparative difficulties, there is in fact just one serious candidate to be such a grounding IS: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. (And instantly, such generic ethical theism answers also to the accusation oh this is “religion”; that term being used as a dirty word — no, this is philosophy. If you doubt this, simply put forth a different candidate that meets the required criteria and passes the comparative difficulties test: _________ . Likewise, an inherently good, maximally great being will not be arbitrary or deceitful etc, that is why such is fully worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. As a serious candidate necessary being, such would be eternal and embedded in the frame for a world to exist at all. Thus such a candidate is either impossible as a square circle is impossible due to mutual ruin of core characteristics, or else it is actual. For simple instance no world is possible without two-ness in it, a necessary basis for distinct identity inter alia.
Notice, this is not a matter of quoting Bible verses, not that such verses are irrelevant to understanding sound morality and to the foundation of law in our common law tradition as well as the Justinian corpus juris civilis synthesis. Indeed, King Alfred's Book of Dooms starts literally with the ten commandments. I suggest, look at these and ask yourself whether or no these speak the truth, and do so on pain of patent absurdity on attempted denial. KF PS: I add that as error exists is undeniably true, the mere existence of diverse opinions on moral subjects no more proves that there is no moral truth of objectively justified character than does the existence of diverse views on other subjects. The sensible approach is much as WJM has highlighted. Seek and use self evident first moral principles as plumbline and yardstick guidelines. Moral axioms if you will. The just above can be viewed as a simple first, rough summary.kairosfocus_{June 12, 2016
June
06
Jun
12
12
2016
03:04 AM
3
03
04
AM
PDT}

Mahuna, WJM is simply not what you imagine him to be. He can tell you the details, but that is so. KFkairosfocus_{June 12, 2016
June
06
Jun
12
12
2016
02:56 AM
2
02
56
AM
PDT}

My problem with your continued insane fixation on shouting down opponents of "morality" is that what you really mean is mainstream Protestant morality using the King James bible as its foundation. There have been, and still are, lots and lots of systems of morality did not and do not start with King James. Is Japanese Shintoism moral or immoral? How about Voodoo? Or shamanism? Christianity has only existed for perhaps 0.2% of mankind's presence on Earth. Are you seriously arguing that for more than 99% of our existence human cultural and social values were immoral or at least amoral? In Norse culture killing a man in cold blood was "murder" only if the killer did not freely announce the killing to the first man the killer met. Is that moral or immoral? Amongst the Irish, there were a number of different kinds of "marriage", besides just shacking up (which was OK, but it complicated the inheritance of cattle and other property). One of the kinds was the 1 Year Marriage, where the union was automatically ended on the 1st anniversary but could be renewed. Were Irish husbands and wives acting morally or immorally? Hint: only the modern "till death do you part" marriage was considered legal after the arrival of Christianity.mahuna_{June 12, 2016
June
06
Jun
12
12
2016
02:16 AM
2
02
16
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply