Moral Judgments

quote:

---

So 9-11 and that soldier who fragged his buddies' tent were apparently acting consistently within their moral system. Are we to conclude that murder, as long as it is committed by a true believer of Allah, is fine?

---

Well, Aquinas decreed that a christian can and should commit murder on behalf of the state. Are we therefore to think that murder committed by a christian believer is fine becuase they are acting consistently with their moral system?I find your hypocrisy offensive, HangDawg.

quote:

---

no. It would be highly inconsistent with most European norms to trade in human goods.

---

Clearly false - European states presided over the triangle slave trade, after all. They were quite willing and able to treat non-whites asd non-people.

quote:

---

Let me put it this way, even if they felt the same as above with regard to protections, they would not have felt it okay to consistently rape or murder them themselves, correct?

---

They would and they did in all colonial contexts without exception, as far as I am aware.

quote:

---

And if the main product of the culture had been human soup, they would not have been eating it... right?

---

Probably not but thats a special case. I suspect the injunction against cannibalism develops in the iron age and has been in circulation in the west since that time. I don't think it is related to most other moral questions.This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 01-15-2005 00:48 AM

quote:

---

"Fleeing up Sand Creek with his wife, Medicine Woman, Black Kettle heard the mournful strains of the death chant. Medicine Woman was wounded nine times, but managed to survive. Chivington's troops killed and mutilated about 150 Indians, most of them women and children. After gunning down White Antelope, the soldiers celebrated by cutting off his ears and nose. In a final atrocity, they cut off his scrotum to be used as a tobacco pouch. He was 75 years old."

---

Jerry Brewer, "Unto Thy People: The Story of One Southron Family," Copyright 1996, p. 81.Your view is too blanket, holmes. European moral systems include Celtic headhunters too. There is no "european" moral system - there are multiple moral systems that originated in Europe.

quote:

---

Come on. We can find crime and deviance everywhere, that does not mean that everything is morally acceptable. While there were rapes and murders, they were not morally acceptable to those societies.

---

But thats the point - they WERE morally acceptable because of an ideology claiming that the victims were technically not human but lesser beings. This is rose-tinted spectacles stuff, holmes.

quote:

---

Nice. So I'm right, but not because I am right. I think that was a very bizarre nitpicking.

---

Well pardon me for contributing, fuckwit.This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-06-2005 10:00 AM

quote:

---

Who is Aquinas again? Is he in my Bible?

---

I presume he must be, Dawg. Because you used his argument word for word against the very direct instruction of god that "though shalt not kill".

quote:

---

Well, talk to Brian, he thinks you should be able to sue me.

---

Umm no I think you'll find he probably thinks that you would be prosecutable for incitement to racial hatred, not for causing "offence". But thats just another of your semantic games, subsuming all hate speech into mere 'offence' as if this was childrens argument.

quote:

---

How can I use his argument word for word if I've never heard of him?

---

Because its common in all Christian countries with serving militaries. Its the standard chritsian apologetic for war.

quote:

---

The Hebrew word, which you translate "kill" means "murder". Perhaps there is no difference between the two in your mind.

---

Of course there is no difference. Such alleged difference as may be perceived depens ona dubious "just war". So once again we see self-described Christians choosing not to follow the word of god.

quote:

---

But Jesus says to not even get angry. And to let him without sin cast the first stone..

​

Where does it say this in the muslim book? Or other religions?

---

Lots of places. The Qu'ran is a much more humanistic, sympathetic work than the bible, shockingly so in fact.Goodness and evil are not equal.
Repel evil with what is better.
Then that person with whom there was hatred,
may become your intimate friend!
And no one will be granted such goodness
except those who exercise patience and self-restraint,
none but people of the greatest good fortune.
Qur'an 41:34-35"And if you punish, you shall inflict an equivalent punishment. But if you resort to patience (instead of revenge), it would be better for the patient ones. (16:26)"...anyone who kills any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he killed all the people. And anyone who spares a life, it shall be as if he spared the lives of all the people..." (5:32)"If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum,grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure that is because they are men without knowledge."
[Al-Qur'an 9:6]"Those who invoke not, with God, any other god, nor slay such life as God has made sacred except for just cause, nor commit fornication; - and any that does this (not only) meets punishment. (But) the Penalty on the Day Of Judgement will be doubled To him, and he will dwell Therein in ignominy. (The Noble Quran, 25:68-69)"Tal wrote:

quote:

---

Jesus instituted higher laws. What I mean by that is that Jesus' laws override the OT laws. Example: In the old testament the law states "Eye for an eye." Equate that to the law of gravity. Jesus came and set a new law, "Turn the other cheek." Equate that to the law of lift. The law of lift overrides the law of gravity.

---

The Qu'ran echoes:"We ordained therein for them: "Life for life, eye for eye, nose or nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal." But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what God hath revealed, they are (No better than) wrong-doers. (The Noble Quran, 5:45)"This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-10-2005 11:47 AM

This debate seems pointless to me becuyase nobody has indicated what "wrong" means.Homosexuality is a fact. It happens. Water flowing down hill is a fact. It happens.This is completely distinct from the basis from which wee draft law, which is preusmed to be in the service and defence of the populace at large.It's pointless to ask if polygamy is "wrong" without indicating the standard by which wrongness shuold be judged. That is in fact just a tacit appeal to a universal morality that is shared by all people such that they automatically know what "wrong" means.I can argue against polygamy on any number of platforms, not least being womens rights. I can argue that homosexuality should not be persecuted by the state becuase it occurs between consenting adults. I can argue that paedophilia should be persecuted by the state because one party is incapable of giving informed consent.In none of these cases have I made an appeal to "wrongness". All three cases indicate specific behaviour and my position in relation to it. None of them appeal to morality, although morality may be implicit in, say, our legal conventions that children are not legally competent.By and large I consider arguments to and from "morality" to be futile and often counter-productive.This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-12-2005 07:26 AM

quote:

---

If rights are determined by the state, and if the state does not consent with "sky fairies" what is the source of state sanctioned morality?

---

Its monopoly on violence. But that is not in itself enough in that this capacity is usually limited and partial (in historical contexts), so some accomodation of local sentiment is usually required. That is the state seeks to procure legitimacy through consent, and in so doing establishes a code of conduct which is the basis of its "moral" judgements.I find it interesting that the Code of Hammurabi, reportedly the first legal code, is now thought not to have been a code at all but a list of precedents, advertising as it were prior judgements exercised by the court. The only operational moral principle is reciprocity, and it is from this that we get the lex talionis of "an eye for an eye" etc. So in this context its noit as if a great law-giver unilaterally establishes a legal and judicial system, but rather that those who have the de facto military power to pass and impose judgement seek the legitimacy of full disclosure and adherence to precedent.This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-12-2005 11:00 AM