Please !

[Bryan]

Try this post again, except without the ridiculous assumption you made about the 'immorality' I'm talking about being the disbelief itself.

I didn't make that assumption, Strife. I simply told you that I'd be inclined to interpret your ambiguous statement that way.

Would you be an immoral person if you didn't believe in a god?

Clearly that can be read at least two ways, and the simplest is to suppose that you're asking if one would be immoral simply for not believing in a god.

No, I don't think that lack of belief automatically results in immorality.

And your would-be horns of dilemma were an utter failure in any case.

Obviously I meant 'immorality' as it's generally understood among people: the 'lie/cheat/steal' type.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Or the lie/cheat/steal/don't believe in god type?

You've got your answer, and your argument was a flop. It's time for you to go plot your next mistake.

[Strife767]

Deists wanted a secular government because they didn't believe in miracles or a god who took an active interest in human affairs.

?

Isn't that a non sequitur, akin to Becky wanted to open the can of beans, so she wore her red lipstick.

?

No. You suggested that a Deist would not want a secular nation when you asked "Why would a Deist want [a secular nation]?" as if that's the most preposterous notion ever.

I merely pointed out that having/adopting a secular nation would not interfere one bit with a Deist's belief system at all (the same can't be said of a Christian, for example). It is NOT, as you strongly implied, contradictory or ironic for Deist X to be in favor of a secular nation.

[Guest Guest]

You're absolutely right. See the post just above.

Sometimes I can't help it, Guest. I see an idea move and I have to chase it, even if it isn't much of an idea.

Thank you for the reminder. (What is CTS?)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Carpal Tunnel Syndrome or CrapTastic Shennanigans. Your pick.

[Guest Guest]

He's caught in the game no matter how he replies (even with utter silence).

Paul has been very careful to avoid answering my posts in any detail, however, so if that's the strategy you recommend for him, he hardly seems to need your advice.

What would change your mind about that?

What if LaClair actually had an argument that wasn't pathetic for once?

Check this one out:

"Bryan, it's very simple. We are all human. That is what binds us together. Try to base the law on anything but that and it will fall apart in conflict and division."

Is there any sense in this response?

"We are all human."

Then why have societies treated other apparent humans as something other than human?

LaClair can't afford to get into that discussion, because it immediately illustrates that he isn't offering a "universal" in the sense of something that everyone accepts--he's offering a "universal" in the sense of something he thinks everyone should accept.

So where's the foundation in philosophy for that view? 

There is none, as LaClair describes it (he could go deeper but can't afford to because the view falls apart).

LaClair is just offering an axiom with no justification behind it.

Yet what did LaClair say, earlier?

"[T]here is a rational and universal basis for values systems."

"I don't shy away from elucidating and defending mine."

The former has never been rationally supported by LaClair.

The latter, as a result, appears to be utter hogwash.

And that's Paul's quandary at this point.  He has made some rather sensational claims about the view he would enforce on Kearny.

He probably hoped those would just be taken as true without any deep consideration by the KOTW readers (and "Guest" is right on board:  "No one else will bother to read these line-by-line either.")

Almost forget the rest of his vacuous response (forgettable as it was):

"That is what binds us together."

Could have fooled Stalin and Mao.

"Try to base the law on anything but that and it will fall apart in conflict and division."

Where is the example of human-based law that did not fall apart in conflict and division?

That's the funniest part yet.

LaClair himself is in the center of conflict and division based on his attempt to enforce his "human-based" law.  And of course the fault lies completely with the other side.  A perfect analog to a religious conflict?

Except for you?

And if that makes LaClair a liar for claiming that he's perfectly willing to expand on his views, what of it?

Nothing could change Guest's mind--is that it? 

LaClair, unfortunately, cannot afford to really get to the point in a true sense.  Certainly he can get to the "point" of simply reiterating his view (without elaboration) while repeating personal attacks.

Of course, that gives me the reply option of quickly getting to the point that Paul hasn't really addressed the point.

Coincidentally, that has happened repeatedly already.

Can't you see that he's been trying to do that?  Oh, that's right--nobody reads the line-by-line responses, so you wouldn't be aware of Paul's difficulties in that department.  He keeps coming up with straw men.

While he's coming up with straw men, however, I'm able to quote Paul's position from his own posts while respecting the context.

If LaClair's position is unclear or self-contradictory, as often seems to be the case, I ask him to expand on his position.

Typically, he'll respond with either silence or a distraction technique.

This isn't difficult, because at it's heart, he conjures up a lot of fluff out of nothing to defend any indefensible position.

For example?

No, eh?  What a surprise.

Always highlight that indefensible position.

You don't have to out-Bryan Bryan.  You can't.

"Guest" apparently failed to notice that, minus the avoidance of truly addressing the point each time, the advice he has given to Paul is exactly what I'm doing to Paul.

I always highlight his indefensible position (sometimes gently, sometimes not as gently).

And Paul has yet to address the problems I've pointed out, save with empty platitudes.

But to see him blotivate line-by-line any simple post like it was a Shakespearean poem worthy of grad student literary criticism is just fascinating.

Not that you read it, right? 

Keep an open mind:  Don't read what I write.

Heh.

Oh, and Bryan, feel free to follow this same advice.

I'm way ahead of you, though I don't see any reason to ensure that my responses are as brief and empty as Paul's.

The topic is actually complicated to some degree.  Therefore, it will tend to take more words whenever a real dialogue on the issue takes place.

Your advice to LaClair cannot help him.  He's in too deep, now, and I'll exploit his weakness no matter what strategy he chooses.

It won't help your arguments, but it may cut down on your CTS.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As a matter of fact, I've got good posture, and my forearm structure is not of the type that tends to predispose to CT problems.  Plus I'm missing palmaris longus bilaterally, which seems like it would only leave more room in there.

Don't forget to avoid reading my long posts while also claiming that what I write is just fluff.

Makes you look like a real authority.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Like I said in the portion you snipped. Fascinating.

And no, I don't really read your resonses line-by-line anymore. I did, and you bailed.

My voluminous post.

(To be called "voluminous" by the master!)

But feel free to write about your non-CTS in more detail. Fascinating.

Oh, and I'm just an unworthy heathen, but I'm not pretending to be otherwise.

[Guest Paul]

If it matters (why we do what we do), which is another nettlesome problem for non-theistic worldviews.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There's nothing nettlesome about it. The why (thought and emotion) is the foundation for action (behavior). Without the foundation the behavior wouldn't be what it is.

Quite beyond that, what alternative does Bryan propose, except one in which human beings, driven by their thoughts and emotions, act in the world? I'd love to see an answer to that. One that makes sense and actually relates to the world as it is, that is.

[Strife767]

I didn't make that assumption, Strife.  I simply told you that I'd be inclined to interpret your ambiguous statement that way.

And then based the rest of your post on it, which is why I didn't bother with it.

[Strife767]

You were proved wrong, and as with many other errors you've committed you probably won't own up to it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Someone's projecting: http://tinyurl.com/yvbz74

[Strife767]

You've got your answer, and your argument was a flop.  It's time for you to go plot your next mistake.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Another concession in so many words. Now that I clarified for you, apparently the only one who didn't "get it," instead of addressing what I actually said, you claim victory and dodge the entire thing. How utterly pathetic.

[Bryan]

No. You suggested that a Deist would not want a secular nation when you asked "Why would a Deist want [a secular nation]?" as if that's the most preposterous notion ever.

I know you're eager to support your wild speculations by inferring things into what I write, but there is no suggestion in my question that Deists might not want a secular government.

The point is that there is nothing about Deism per se that entails a wish for a secular government. That's the point you don't address, and I don't expect you'll be able to address it without invoking more fallacies.

I merely pointed out that having/adopting a secular nation would not interfere one bit with a Deist's belief system at all (the same can't be said of a Christian, for example).

What baloney! Here's how you started:

Bryan:

Why would a Deist want [a secular nation]? Doesn't a Deist believe in god (and in those days they capitalized pretty close to randomly)?

Strife:

Way to show just how ignorant you are of Deism, Bryan.

Rather than pointing out "that having/adopting a secular nation would not interfere one bit with a Deist's belief, system, Strife seemed to think there was something about Deism that make it natural for the Deist to favor secular government.

That something remains missing in Strife's explanation.

It is NOT, as you strongly implied, contradictory or ironic for Deist X to be in favor of a secular nation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So, it would be natural for a Deist to object to any mention of god in the Constitution even though Deists believe in god?

If yes, explain yourself.

[Bryan]

Like I said in the portion you snipped.  Fascinating.

Not really.

And no, I don't really read your res[p]onses line-by-line anymore. I did, and you bailed.

lol

I no longer make my posts line-by-line because you do not read them?

You just took yet another hilarious (il)logical leap.

How much or how little you read my posts has nothing to do with how I post except for the type of comment I'm currently making.

I "bailed" from responding to your tripe because 1) it's particularly inane, as I have pointed out in cyberprint, and 2) because you post anonymously, making it impractical if not impossible to consider your whole body of work in a unified context.

You can post without reading what I write. Indeed, much of what you wrote in apparent direct response to what I wrote makes it look like you didn't read it.

If you register and post under the a consistent board identity, your chance of warranting a response will rise.

[Bryan]

Yes, everyone should accept it. All legal systems are based on the idea of what "should" be.

Great. I think I'll describe the moral notion that all humans should give me $3,000 as a "universal ethic" with an objective basis.

The difference with putting our common humanity as our first and central principle is that it is based on an objective (shared) reality: we are all human, and that humanity is what matters most.

Are human fetuses human? Just checking.

Even supposing that LaClair is consistent in thinking we are all human (I think there's a good chance he'll make an exception for the human fetus), no moral precept follows logically from that would-be objective fact. It's called the is/ought divide, and better thinkers than LaClair have tried and failed to bridge it.

It may be that LaClair is naive enough to think that he has said something non-vacuous, but all he did was pronounce a moral precept out of the philosophical blue: humanity is what matters most.

As such, it has no more foundation than my moral precept that all humans ought to give me $3,000 (we're all human, after all).

For each of us, that is true.

Then send me my $3,000 without further delay.

The trick is to live by the recognition that each person has as great an objective claim to happiness as everyone else.

What is an "objective claim to happiness"?

If I say "I should be happy" is it the objective fact that I expressed the claim the key to its objective status?

Have I mentioned that all humans should send me $3,000? Is that also an objective claim?

That is what equality means. Everyone is entitled (should be entitled by law) to equal rights, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, etc. Why?

Why, indeed. I can't wait for what follows.

Because that is the only way the system works for everyone.

Haven't you just begged the question as to why the system should work for everyone?

It turns out that the moral precept that humanity is what matters most is in its turn based on the moral precept (both being spun out of thin air in terms of philosophical foundation) that the system ought to work for everyone.

What makes that better than the system I suggested above, where the system works in particular for me?

If you don't care whether the system works for everyone, that's up to you, but game theory (which is based on evolutionary principles) tells us why it works, so one is well-advised to know something about game theory before claiming that this isn't objective.

You're out of your depth, Paul.

Thank you for thinking otherwise enough to reply in detail, however.

Let's say that game theory is perfectly objective, and that a group might have overall better outcomes by utilizing its precepts.

How does that serve as a foundation for the notion that each member of the group ought to benefit instead of just one?

I'll toss out a counterexample here.

Suppose that an individual is so outstanding that he stands a better chance of gaining without appealing to game theory?

Using the original example of picking up a girl, suppose that individual would (objectively) have a consistently better outcome without cooperating with his buddies? Has he located an objective foundation for his enlightened self-interest?

We claim to accept and live by this, but often we don't. It is the essence of "liberty and justice for all," the Golden Rule and probably many other ways of announcing a principle out of the simple, objective fact that we are all human. Make that the central Truth of your ethical, moral and legal system, and you can't go far wrong.

That's hilarious. Crossing the is/ought divide without so much as an "Abracadabra!"

You went promptly wrong, LaClair, by supposing you can cross that divide by simply declaring it so.

Hume's argument that one cannot derive on "ought" from an "is; i.e. a value from a fact. Reason alone is not the basis of our moral judgments. Passion determines morality. A factual premise such as "Fred killed every third person he met on Tuesday" must be accompanied by a value premise based on the passions, such as "Killing persons randomly is abhorrent" in order to reach a conclusion about obligation or "ought." See R. Solomon and C. J. Martin, Morality and the Good Life. 4rd edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2004) 220-22 and Angeles, "is-ought dichotomy".

http://www.class.uidaho.edu/jcanders/Ethic...or_test_two.htm

You won't be perfect --- no one is --- but you probably won't enslave people or commit genocide because you want someone else's land, etc.

Likewise, some might not send me my $3,000. But there's no denying that it is a universal, rational, and objective ethical system.

Treating our common humanity as central is perhaps the only principle that contains a built-in check against its own abuse --- a principle that is very hard to turn into dogmatism because its very essence is that respect and honor are to be accorded to everyone.

Good grief. I think he actually believes himself.

Paul, where is the logical link between everyone being human and the notion that we "ought" to be solicitous of the welfare of every human?

Every foraminiferan is objectively a foraminiferan. Why not build morality around them instead?

Christians (and others) claim this principle as their own (the Golden Rule), but when it comes time to living by it --- well, sometimes that's another story. The main reason they don't is that people are self-interested. The whole point of a just government is putting aside self-interest to a sufficient degree that society becomes possible: do what is best for all, not just for yourself. That is what citizenship is. If you don't believe in that, Bryan, that's up to you.

I have reason to think that self-interest is not the correct path. You don't. On the one hand, I'm delighted that you've fooled yourself since it makes you a better citizen. But when it comes down to brass tacks, your worldview is almost assuredly incoherent (quite certainly, if we based the assessment on your current post).

Depart from that as your centralizing organizing principle, and your society will have problems, for example:

1. racism

2. sexism

3. ethnic division

4. divisions over religious differences

5. nationalism

6. etc., ad nauseam.

It looks like you just argued in a circle (a vicious, fallacious circle).

We ought to ensure that all people are treated equally well.

If we don't treat people equally well (racism, sexism, etc.), then they won't be treated equally well.

Therefore, we ought to behave to ensure that all people are treated equally well.

The argument presumes the very point it seeks to prove, AFAICT.

Would it be true to say that you're accustomed to arguing fallaciously in your law practice, simply because it works?

The central Truth that makes justice possible is our common humanity.

Non sequitur. You haven't remotely succeeded in bridging the is/ought divide. No "ought" and no need for justice, and there is no "ought" that springs logically from all humans being human.

Hold to that and you'll have as just a system as any collection of human beings can put together.

That's a wise caveat for an atheist. It's the hedge against the meaninglessness of existence. The refusal, minus any logical justification, to take the next step to Nihilism.

If everything is meaningless, at least this system is no worse than any other.

The same is true for my ethical system in which everyone ought to send me $3,000, of course.

Depart from it and there is trouble. That's how simple it is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What's wrong with trouble?

Edited April 22, 2007 by Bryan

[Guest Guest]

Like I said in the portion you snipped.  Fascinating.

And no, I don't really read your resonses line-by-line anymore. I did, and you bailed.

My voluminous post.

(To be called "voluminous" by the master!)

But feel free to write about your non-CTS in more detail.  Fascinating.

Oh, and I'm just an unworthy heathen, but I'm not pretending to be otherwise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oops. I sent in a draft that contains something I thought I snipped. Just confirmed it today.

Disregard the first line, and please accept my apologies.

But do continue to tell us how you soooo do not have carpal tunnel syndrome.

[Guest Paul]

Great.  I think I'll describe the moral notion that all humans should give me $3,000 as a "universal ethic" with an objective basis.

Are human fetuses human?  Just checking.

Even supposing that LaClair is consistent in thinking we are all human (I think there's a good chance he'll make an exception for the human fetus), no moral precept follows logically from that would-be objective fact.  It's called the is/ought divide, and better thinkers than LaClair have tried and failed to bridge it.

It may be that LaClair is naive enough to think that he has said something non-vacuous, but all he did was pronounce a moral precept out of the philosophical blue:  humanity is what matters most.

As such, it has no more foundation than my moral precept that all humans ought to give me $3,000 (we're all human, after all).

Then send me my $3,000 without further delay.

What is an "objective claim to happiness"?

If I say "I should be happy" is it the objective fact that I expressed the claim the key to its objective status?

Have I mentioned that all humans should send me $3,000?  Is that also an objective claim?

Why, indeed.  I can't wait for what follows.

Haven't you just begged the question as to why the system should work for everyone?

It turns out that the moral precept that humanity is what matters most is in its turn based on the moral precept (both being spun out of thin air in terms of philosophical foundation) that the system ought to work for everyone.

What makes that better than the system I suggested above, where the system works in particular for me?

You're out of your depth, Paul.

Thank you for thinking otherwise enough to reply in detail, however.

Let's say that game theory is perfectly objective, and that a group might have overall better outcomes by utilizing its precepts.

How does that serve as a foundation for the notion that each member of the group ought to benefit instead of just one?

I'll toss out a counterexample here.

Suppose that an individual is so outstanding that he stands a better chance of gaining without appealing to game theory?

Using the original example of picking up a girl, suppose that individual would (objectively) have a consistently better outcome without cooperating with his buddies?  Has he located an objective foundation for his enlightened self-interest?

That's hilarious.  Crossing the is/ought divide without so much as an "Abracadabra!"

You went promptly wrong, LaClair, by supposing you can cross that divide by simply declaring it so.

Hume's argument that one cannot derive on "ought" from an "is; i.e. a value from a fact. Reason alone is not the basis of our moral judgments. Passion determines morality. A factual premise such as "Fred killed every third person he met on Tuesday" must be accompanied by a value premise based on the passions, such as "Killing persons randomly is abhorrent" in order to reach a conclusion about obligation or "ought." See R. Solomon and C. J. Martin, Morality and the Good Life. 4rd edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2004) 220-22 and Angeles, "is-ought dichotomy".

http://www.class.uidaho.edu/jcanders/Ethic...or_test_two.htm

Likewise, some might not send me my $3,000.  But there's no denying that it is a universal, rational, and objective ethical system. 

Good grief.  I think he actually believes himself.

Paul, where is the logical link between everyone being human and the notion that we "ought" to be solicitous of the welfare of every human?

Every foraminiferan is objectively a foraminiferan.  Why not build morality around them instead?

Christians (and others) claim this principle as their own (the Golden Rule), but when it comes time to living by it --- well, sometimes that's another story. The main reason they don't is that people are self-interested. The whole point of a just government is putting aside self-interest to a sufficient degree that society becomes possible: do what is best for all, not just for yourself. That is what citizenship is. If you don't believe in that, Bryan, that's up to you.

I have reason to think that self-interest is not the correct path.  You don't.  On the one hand, I'm delighted that you've fooled yourself since it makes you a better citizen.  But when it comes down to brass tacks, your worldview is almost assuredly incoherent (quite certainly, if we based the assessment on your current post).

Depart from that as your centralizing organizing principle, and your society will have problems, for example:

1. racism

2. sexism

3. ethnic division

4. divisions over religious differences

5. nationalism

6. etc., ad nauseam.

It looks like you just argued in a circle (a vicious, fallacious circle).

We ought to ensure that all people are treated equally well.

If we don't treat people equally well (racism, sexism, etc.), then they won't be treated equally well.

Therefore, we ought to behave to ensure that all people are treated equally well.

The argument presumes the very point it seeks to prove, AFAICT.

Would it be true to say that you're accustomed to arguing fallaciously in your law practice, simply because it works?

The central Truth that makes justice possible is our common humanity.

Non sequitur.  You haven't remotely succeeded in bridging the is/ought divide.  No "ought" and no need for justice, and there is no "ought" that springs logically from all humans being human.

Hold to that and you'll have as just a system as any collection of human beings can put together.

That's a wise caveat for an atheist.  It's the hedge against the meaninglessness of existence.  The refusal, minus any logical justification, to take the next step to Nihilism.

If everything is meaningless, at least this system is no worse than any other.

The same is true for my ethical system in which everyone ought to send me $3,000, of course.

Depart from it and there is trouble. That's how simple it is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What's wrong with trouble?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bryan, your arguments are those of a nihilist. Flatter yourself as you will, your points are not hard to understand or dispatch. You can't even put them together into a coherent system, which is why you keep avoiding that subject, or so it seems.

Your argument, I believe, is that the statement that people are "endowed by their Creator" is the appropriate (necessary?) foundation for our legal system. Many people (proponents of theocracy, for example) would like to think that, but that is not the system the Framers desiged when they drew the Constitution some eleven years after that statement was made in the Declaration of Independence.

Of course, each person giving you $3,000 would not reflect a universal ethic, as you admit later in observing that such an "ethic" would be directed toward your benefit alone. By contrast, respecting each person's worth and dignity is a universal ethic --- in fact it is the only truly universal ethic given the nature of human preferences, though it can be expressed in many different ways. So while it is true (in the sense that Hume and other philosophers meant it) that we cannot derive an ought from an is in strict philosophical terms, it is also true that the shape of human preferences is roughly the same for everyone: everyone (so nearly so that any exceptions need not detain fashioning a legal system) prefers health over sickness, satisfaction of essential needs over want, pleasure over pain (e.g., people avoid having needles stuck under their fingernails) and happiness over misery. That is the "is" that leads to the ought, and it is universal because those preferences are universally shared. That is also why it is possible to speak of the good and have people understand generally what that means, especially if you add a context. One could niggle, of course, that some people genuinely prefer being miserable, but the vast majority of us, including our psychologists and psychiatrists, would recognize that as a form of illness and therefore would not be detained by it.

If you don't think our legal and governmental systems should work for everyone, then perhaps none of us who value humanity can convince you why that ethic is essential to values like peace, security, stability, freedom, equality and justice, which assume it. Game theory tells us how to accomplish these ends, i.e., why certain values work in given environments. Understanding why we should want to achieve universal happiness requires an understanding of what being human means --- that is actually the point you ignore in making your argument, a fact that illustrates how indefensible your argument is. You have to ignore what being human means to make it. If you disagree, I am content to let others judge for themselves which of us has the better of the argument.

Finally, you ask whether fetuses are human. The question is better phrased: are fetusus human beings. In other words, do they feel and think in such a way that a person who values the life experience would protect them by law? We could ask a similar question about organisms in other species from chimpanzee to fruit fly. It's not an easy question, and there are widely different answers running throughout our country and the world. No one said fashioning a just system would be easy in a world where most of the sentient creatures kill and eat each other (of necessity) to survive, and everyone eventually dies.

I do believe, however, that respecting and honoring every person is essential to justice, and whether you agree with it or not, that universal ethic is what we have been moving toward ever since Jefferson proclaimed that all men are created equal. The fact that the culture of his time wasn't ready to apply that ethic honestly (witness the continuation of slavery, genocide against the Native Americans and the unequal treatment of women, etc.) doesn't diminish its beauty. If you don't think so, that's up to you, but the least you could do it spell out what system you propose, instead of making silly debating points about everyone giving you $3,000. Now I have better things to do, Bryan, including three cases to try in the next month, so unless you want to elevate the terms of this discussion, I think I'll pass on further responses. You will, of course, insist that you've only suffered a flesh wound --- if you deign to admit that.

[Guest Paul]

The central Truth that makes justice possible is our common humanity. Hold to that and you'll have as just a system as any collection of human beings can put together. Depart from it and there is trouble. That's how simple it is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Enough trial prep for today.

John Adams expressed the idea I've alluded to in the following document, written I believe in 1787. There can be no doubt that he recognized the revolutionary character of the proposed new government's departure from the old relationship to and reliance on religion (defined as they did in his time). Especially notable is Adams' recognition that this new reliance on human interests alone reflects nature itself. Considering that evolutionary theory and game theory had not yet been discovered, this statement is extraordinarily insightful.

Following is the paragraph from a longer document, which contains this statement. The entire document can be found at http://www.constitution.org/jadams/ja1_pre.htm

"It was the general opinion of ancient nations, that the divinity alone was adequate to the important office of giving laws to men. The Greeks entertained this prejudice throughout all their dispersions; the Romans cultivated the same popular delusion; and modern nations, in the consecrations of kings, and in several superstitious chimeras of divine rights in princes and nobles, are nearly unanimous in preserving remnants of it: even the venerable magistrates of Amersfort devoutly believe themselves God's vicegerents; Is it that obedience to the laws can be obtained from mankind in no other manner? — Is the jealousy of power, and the envy of superiority, so strong in all men, that no considerations of public or private utility are sufficient to engage their submission to rules for their own happiness? Or is the disposition to imposture so prevalent in men of experience, that their private views of ambition and avarice can be accomplished only by artifice? — It was a tradition in antiquity that the laws of Crete were dictated to Minos by the inspiration of Jupiter. This legislator, and his brother Rhadamanthus, were both his sons: once in nine years they went to converse with their father, to propose questions concerning the wants of the people; and his answers were recorded as laws for their government. The laws of Lacedæmon were communicated by Apollo to Lycurgus; and, lest the meaning of the deity should not have been perfectly comprehended, or correctly expressed, were afterwards confirmed by his oracle at Delphos. Among the Romans, Numa was indebted for those laws which procured the prosperity of his country to his conversations with Egeria. The Greeks imported these mysteries from Egypt and the East, whose despotisms, from the remotest antiquity to this day, have been founded in the same solemn empiricism; their emperors and nobles being all descended from their gods. Woden and Thor were divinities too; and their posterity ruled a thousand years in the north by the strength of a like credulity. Manco Capac was the child of the sun, the visible deity of the Peruvians; and transmitted his divinity, as well as his earthly dignity and authority, through a line of incas. And the rudest tribes of savages in North America have certain families under the immediate protection of the god war, from which their leaders are always chosen. There is nothing in which mankind have been more unanimous; yet nothing can be inferred from it more than this, that the multitude have always been credulous, and the few artful. The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature: and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an æra in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had any interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the inspiration of heaven, any more than those at work upon ships or houses, or labouring in merchandize or agriculture: it will for ever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses. As Copley painted Chatham, West, Wolf, and Trumbull, Warren and Montgomery; as Dwight, Barlow, Trumbull, and Humphries composed their verse, and Belknap and Ramzay history; as Godfrey invented his quadrant, and Rittenhouse his planetarium; as Boylston practised inoculation, and Franklin electricity; as Paine exposed the mistakes of Raynal, and Jefferson those of Buffon, so unphilosophically borrowed from the Recherches Philosophiques sur les Américains those despicable dreams of De Paw — neither the people, nor their conventions, committees, or sub-committees, considered legislation in any other light than ordinary arts and sciences, only as of more importance. Called without expectation, and compelled without previous inclination, though undoubtedly at the best period of time both for England and America, to erect suddenly new systems of laws for their future government, they adopted the method of a wise architect, in erecting a new palace for the residence of his sovereign. They determined to consult Vitruvius, Palladio, and all other writers of reputation in the art; to examine the most celebrated buildings, whether they remain entire or in ruins; compare these with the principles of writers; and enquire how far both the theories and models were founded in nature, or created by fancy: and, when this should be done, as far as their circumstances would allow, to adopt the advantages, and reject the inconveniences, of all. Unembarrassed by attachments to noble families, hereditary lines and successions, or any considerations of royal blood, even the pious mystery of holy oil had no more influence than that other of holy water: the people universally were too enlightened to be imposed on by artifice; and their leaders, or more properly followers, were men of too much honour to attempt it. Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind. The experiment is made, and has completely succeeded: it can no longer be called in question, whether authority in magistrates, and obedience of citizens, can be grounded on reason, morality, and the Christian religion, without the monkery of priests, or the knavery of politicians. As the writer was personally acquainted with most of the gentlemen in each of the states, who had the principal share in the first draughts, the following letters were really written to lay before the gentleman to whom they are addressed, a specimen of that kind of reading and reasoning which produced the American constitutions."

[Bryan]

Bryan, your arguments are those of a nihilist. Flatter yourself as you will,

Where did I flatter myself? (another question for LaClair to dodge--but who's counting?)

your points are not hard to understand or dispatch.

Prove it

You can't even put them together into a coherent system, which is why you keep avoiding that subject, or so it seems.

I haven't avoided that subject (assuming we're talking about the same thing), even though I reasonably expect you to explain yours first. You did, after all, make the claim about a rational and objective system of values.

For my part, I've simply stated that the Framers' view was different from yours and that it removes from man the right to change morality to suit himself.

There's no difficulty in arguing for either point, if you should insist upon it.

Your argument, I believe, is that the statement that people are "endowed by their Creator" is the appropriate (necessary?) foundation for our legal system.

I think that it is the appropriate foundation for morality, which in turn serves as the appropriate foundation for the legal system. I haven't suggested the argument that you attribute to me, however.

To repeat, I have simply stated that it was the view of the Framers, as indicated by the Declaration of Independence.

You don't accept the logic of the Declaration of Independence, do you?

Many people (proponents of theocracy, for example) would like to think that, but that is not the system the Framers desig[n]ed when they drew the Constitution some eleven years after that statement was made in the Declaration of Independence.

They should have spelled out again in the Constitution what they averred as "self-evident"?

That seems like a dubious proposition, but do go on.

Of course, each person giving you $3,000 would not reflect a universal ethic, as you admit later in observing that such an "ethic" would be directed toward your benefit alone.

Non sequitur. Universality of the ethic is not necessarily related to the one who would benefit from the ethic, though I can imagine that LaClair may have developed special meanings for everyday terms (as he has done at times in the past).

I've asked you, Paul, what makes your system "universal," since it seems like a massive misnomer. Don't avoid that question and then turn to this word game.

Under an ordinary understanding of "universal" it would mean that either everyone accepts it or it applies to everyone. My ethic qualifies on every point that yours does. By "universal ethic" you appear to mean an ethic that benefits everyone (even though that's a pipe dream, in practice).

By contrast, respecting each person's worth and dignity is a universal ethic --- in fact it is the only truly universal ethic given the nature of human preferences, though it can be expressed in many different ways.

Please confirm or deny that by "universal ethic" you refer to an ethic with either very broad or universal benefit.

So while it is true (in the sense that Hume and other philosophers meant it) that we cannot derive an ought from an is in strict philosophical terms, it is also true that the shape of human preferences is roughly the same for everyone: everyone (so nearly so that any exceptions need not detain fashioning a legal system) prefers health over sickness, satisfaction of essential needs over want, pleasure over pain (e.g., people avoid having needles stuck under their fingernails) and happiness over misery.

Isn't that a personal preference? In other words, isn't that one set of wants per person rather than everyone sharing the same wants?

That is the "is" that leads to the ought, and it is universal because those preferences are universally shared.

Sounds like the perfect foundation for egoism. Paul's carelessness in his reasoning is purely astounding. This is rationalization, not reasoning.

The ethic that "me and mine" get taken care of approaches universality. The ethic that all get taken care of might not even be a majority view.

That is also why it is possible to speak of the good and have people understand generally what that means, especially if you add a context. One could niggle, of course, that some people genuinely prefer being miserable, but the vast majority of us, including our psychologists and psychiatrists, would recognize that as a form of illness and therefore would not be detained by it.

There's the expected appeal to the majority. I figured we'd get to that.

If you don't think our legal and governmental systems should work for everyone, then perhaps none of us who value humanity can convince you why that ethic is essential to values like peace, security, stability, freedom, equality and justice, which assume it.

Heh. That's our Paul LaClair, always playing to the jury and taking his flailing shots as the mood takes him.

The issue is your foundation for this supposed "universal ethic." The lack of one, that is. Appeal to the majority is not an objective foundation. It is, in fact, a deductive fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/a...popularity.html

Game theory tells us how to accomplish these ends, i.e., why certain values work in given environments. Understanding why we should want to achieve universal happiness requires an understanding of what being human means --- that is actually the point you ignore in making your argument, a fact that illustrates how indefensible your argument is.

Oh? And how does it illustrate this?

You have to ignore what being human means to make it. If you disagree, I am content to let others judge for themselves which of us has the better of the argument.

Shouldn't you make the argument before asking them to judge the argument? Or was the above ad hominem circumstantial supposed to pass for your argument?

http://www.cuyamaca.edu/bruce.thompson/Fal...cumstantial.asp

(Bryan allegedly doesn't understand what being human means, therefore his argument is indefensible)

Finally, you ask whether fetuses are human.

No, that's not what I asked. I know, for example, that a chicken fetus is not human. I also know that a salamander fetus is not human. I asked you whether a human fetus is human.

The question is better phrased: are fetusus human beings. In other words, do they feel and think in such a way that a person who values the life experience would protect them by law?

You get all of that by adding "being" to "human"?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/being

Interesting. It smells of special pleading (which is a fallacy).

We could ask a similar question about organisms in other species from chimpanzee to fruit fly. It's not an easy question, and there are widely different answers running throughout our country and the world. No one said fashioning a just system would be easy in a world where most of the sentient creatures kill and eat each other (of necessity) to survive, and everyone eventually dies.

I'm satisfied with your acknowledgment that it's not an easy question.

I do believe, however, that respecting and honoring every person is essential to justice, and whether you agree with it or not, that universal ethic is what we have been moving toward ever since Jefferson proclaimed that all men are created equal.

Ah! So we have Jefferson to thank for our equality.

The fact that the culture of his time wasn't ready to apply that ethic honestly (witness the continuation of slavery, genocide against the Native Americans and the unequal treatment of women, etc.) doesn't diminish its beauty. If you don't think so, that's up to you, but the least you could do it spell out what system you propose, instead of making silly debating points about everyone giving you $3,000.

Ah, you finally addressed my argument ... with the fallacy of appeal to ridicule!

My argument is in deep trouble now, no doubt.

Seriously, if the argument is worthy of ridicule, shouldn't you be able to come up with no less than one non-fallacious way of addressing it?

Now I have better things to do, Bryan, including three cases to try in the next month, so unless you want to elevate the terms of this discussion, I think I'll pass on further responses. You will, of course, insist that you've only suffered a flesh wound --- if you deign to admit that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's up to you to elevate the discussion by producing an argument that doesn't rely on fallacies throughout.

You're the black knight in this one, Paul. Go ahead. Bleed on me.

[Guest Guest]

Not really.

lol

I no longer make my posts line-by-line because you do not read them?

You just took yet another hilarious (il)logical leap.

How much or how little you read my posts has nothing to do with how I post except for the type of comment I'm currently making.

I "bailed" from responding to your tripe because 1) it's particularly inane, as I have pointed out in cyberprint, and 2) because you post anonymously, making it impractical if not impossible to consider your whole body of work in a unified context.

You can post without reading what I write.  Indeed, much of what you wrote in apparent direct response to what I wrote makes it look like you didn't read it.

If you register and post under the a consistent board identity, your chance of warranting a response will rise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't really care if you resond to me or not. I just found it interesting when you stopped digging yourself in deeper here. You have a butt to cover. I understand.

And I'm under no delusion that anything I post will not fall under your "inane" category. Like I said before, this is just a different version of online Halo for me, but without the aching thumbs.

I really value posters like you for practice for real-life discussions. The reality is that we're not going to change each others' minds. (Clearly for different reasons, IMHO.) But when people less "talented" than yourself use some of the tactics you use to argue indefensible points, I find it much easier to point them to reason after practicing on you.

Believe it or not, I owe you a debt of gratitude for helping me change a few people's minds, and no one else on this board came close to having your tenacity. They weren't nearly as fun, er... engaging.

I hope that one day you'll see that whatever you're trying to prove is neither correct nor worth the effort. I have to apologize for being more of an antagonist than someone who tried to steer you towards reason. But honestly, you have to know what you're doing when you're simultaneously aligning yourself with and defending yourself against 2smart4u, and you have to defend yourself on how you so do not have Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. I love a good contrarian, but I mean, come on!

I could have just asked you to admit you feel it's OK for a public school teacher to say "You belong in Hell," to a captive audience of minors who may or may not be of similar religious persuasion as he, under whatever context you conjure up. Then we'd agree to disagree, because you basically own up to what I see as an indefensible position, and you'd see me as an ignorant heathen. But I was too curious to see why you choose to side with the likes of Patriot, Kearny Kard and "oldfart."

Believe it or not, I mostly try to get you to engage in honest debate by using self-deprication and punching holes in your fallacious arguments. Most of the uglier things I post are really just logical extensions of your arguments. Honestly, I can't make that stuff up. Of course, sometimes I'm a jerk just as you are, but I'm going to try harder to give you a real opportunity to respond in honest debate.

[Bryan]

Enough trial prep for today.

John Adams expressed the idea I've alluded to in the following document, written I believe in 1787.

Indeed, the document is dated "January 1, 1787, before the United States even existed according to Mr. LaClair.

"That framework did not exist until the Constitution was adopted and the USA was formed. That happened over a two-year period beginning in 1787, when the Constitution was drafted. We didn't become the USA until the states adopted the Constitution, and that didn't happen immediately. The first president took office in the spring of 1789. That is when the USA took its present legal form."

There can be no doubt that he recognized the revolutionary character of the proposed new government's departure from the old relationship to and reliance on religion (defined as they did in his time).

And by "new government," Adams appeared to refer to the government in place prior to his speech, not one that would be invented subsequently:

"The experiment is made, and has completely succeeded: it can no longer be called in question, whether authority in magistrates, and obedience of citizens, can be grounded on reason, morality, and the Christian religion, without the monkery of priests, or the knavery of politicians.

Especially notable is Adams' recognition that this new reliance on human interests alone reflects nature itself. Considering that evolutionary theory and game theory had not yet been discovered, this statement is extraordinarily insightful.

And if only he hadn't named "the Christian religion" in the same passage I quoted just above.

Doesn't it sound as though Adams' view shares something in common with Paszkiewicz's view, where the Christian religion is seen as a faith built on reason?

The entire document can be found at http://www.constitution.org/jadams/ja1_pre.htm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In summary, either LaClair has again highlighted his own blunder, or he appears to be suggesting that John Adams was a clairvoyant.

[Bryan]

There's nothing nettlesome about it. The why (thought and emotion) is the foundation for action (behavior). Without the foundation the behavior wouldn't be what it is.

LaClair seems to have allowed his dropping of the context to skew his understanding of what I wrote.

His reply does not address my comment. The mere fact of emotion does not inarguably supply meaning, and even if it did the cessation of emotion (as might be the case if consciousness is finite in duration) there is no enduring meaning.

Quite beyond that, what alternative does Bryan propose, except one in which human beings, driven by their thoughts and emotions, act in the world? I'd love to see an answer to that. One that makes sense and actually relates to the world as it is, that is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A worldview that encompasses a concept of soul-building (like Hinduism, at least on the surface), or like, lays a stronger claim to meaning than does a worldview like Existentialism.

An Existentialism burdened with determinism has even greater philosophical problems.

It still reads to me like LaClair went off on a random tangent, though.

[Strife767]

Where did I flatter myself? (another question for LaClair to dodge--but who's counting?)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One of the most ironic and least self-aware lines I've ever read online.

[Guest Guest]

I've asked you, Paul, what makes your system "universal," since it seems like a massive misnomer.  Don't avoid that question and then turn to this word game.

Under an ordinary understanding of "universal" it would mean that either everyone accepts it or it applies to everyone.  My ethic qualifies on every point that yours does.  By "universal ethic" you appear to mean an ethic that benefits everyone (even though that's a pipe dream, in practice).

By contrast, respecting each person's worth and dignity is a universal ethic --- in fact it is the only truly universal ethic given the nature of human preferences, though it can be expressed in many different ways.

Please confirm or deny that by "universal ethic" you refer to an ethic with either very broad or universal benefit.

So while it is true (in the sense that Hume and other philosophers meant it) that we cannot derive an ought from an is in strict philosophical terms, it is also true that the shape of human preferences is roughly the same for everyone: everyone (so nearly so that any exceptions need not detain fashioning a legal system) prefers health over sickness, satisfaction of essential needs over want, pleasure over pain (e.g., people avoid having needles stuck under their fingernails) and happiness over misery.

Isn't that a personal preference?  In other words, isn't that one set of wants per person rather than everyone sharing the same wants?

That is the "is" that leads to the ought, and it is universal because those preferences are universally shared.

Sounds like the perfect foundation for egoism.  Paul's carelessness in his reasoning is purely astounding.  This is rationalization, not reasoning.

The ethic that "me and mine" get taken care of approaches universality.  The ethic that all get taken care of might not even be a majority view.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To be clear, by "a universal ethic" I mean one that works for everyone. It's not special pleading to observe that people seek food, clothing, shelter, a decent life for themselves and those they care about, etc. Those are universally shared values. When we treat all people equally in that regard, it's not necessary to have any particular relgious beliefs. On the contrary, dividing ourselves along religious lines has a dismal history, which the Framers wisely sought not to repeat. If Bryan thinks that's not sufficient, that's up to him.

[ElneClare]

So far all I can boil down from Bryan's posts, is that he feels that 'Man', 'Humans' or 'Human Beings' are materialistic and need a 'Deity' to keep them from doing harm to other 'Men', 'Humans' or 'Human Beings.'

Therefore all laws must be based on there being some Power or Gods, that people throughout history have base whatever laws they have made on. In such a world all government comes from this "Power" or "God(s)" and it's leaders rule by Divine Right.

The Framers of the United States of America's Constitution, saw how such a system easily is Abused and so tried to create a system that is base on "Natural Laws" and not made the claim, that the government's laws come from a Higher Power.

That any of the writers of the Constitution, may have been Deist or Theist, doesn't matter in fact they were trying to avoid the problems they saw in other forms of government in Europe, which the rules based their right to Power on Divine Rights.

I remember, this being taught to me, first in elementary school and reinforce to me by my mother, while she lived. She focus most of her, college study on Constitutional History and spent years working as an volunteer in the League of Women Voters. Mom could go on for hours about the subject. One fact she always made was that under our system of government, Americans are to bow down to "No One". Every four years she watch the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games to make sure our national flag was not dipped before foreign heads of state.

Which brings us to the Point Paul been trying to get Bryan to understand. One can have a system of government that does not need a 'God" to justified it's laws, but can instead ask that it's citizens try to treat each other with respect and over come ones self interest, for the greater good of "Man Kind." Paul's Universal Ethic" is based on the idea, that one can look at what human around the world value as Ethical and not always need some Higher Power to justified them.

Such a world where all live by these Universal Values, sadly doesn't exist and probably never will. We as humans always are pulled between acting for our own self interest and helping others.

Government is a social contract. Citizens agree to live by the government's laws, in exchange for the services they want the government to give.

[Guest Paul]

To be clear, by "a universal ethic" I mean one that works for everyone. It's not special pleading to observe that people seek food, clothing, shelter, a decent life for themselves and those they care about, etc. Those are universally shared values. When we treat all people equally in that regard, it's not necessary to have any particular relgious beliefs. On the contrary, dividing ourselves along religious lines has a dismal history, which the Framers wisely sought not to repeat. If Bryan thinks that's not sufficient, that's up to him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This was mine.

[Bryan]

To be clear, by "a universal ethic" I mean one that works for everyone.

And you're Paul LaClair posting as "Guest"?

It's not contleading to observe that people seek food, clothing, shelter, a decent life for themselves and those they care about, etc.

(It would be special pleading to say that the ethic applies to all humans and then make an exception, as would be the case if human fetuses are human)

Nice red herring, though.

Those are universally shared values.

As I pointed out, they aren't really shared values, since the beneficiary of the values varies from individual to individual. Many of the individuals are concerned about their own food, clothing, shelter, etc.--not that of others.

It takes one exception to put the lie to "universal."

When we treat all people equally in that regard, it's not necessary to have any particular relgious beliefs.

It is itself, in effect, a religious belief.

On the contrary, dividing ourselves along religious lines has a dismal history, which the Framers wisely sought not to repeat.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yet here you are, trying to complete the undermining of the "self-evident" truths to which the Framers subscribed.

Yet you don't count yourself as a divider. How can that be?

[Bryan]

One of the most ironic and least self-aware lines I've ever read online.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now that was ironic, coming as it does from the guy who has no answer to the question.

[Bryan]

So far all I can boil down from Bryan's posts, is that he feels that 'Man', 'Humans' or 'Human Beings' are materialistic and need a 'Deity' to keep them from doing harm to other 'Men', 'Humans' or 'Human Beings.'

Another expert at seeing what she wants to see in what she reads, evidently.

Therefore all laws must be based on there being some Power or Gods, that people throughout history have base whatever laws they have made on.  In such a world all government comes from this "Power" or "God(s)" and it's leaders rule by Divine Right.

The above goes double for this comment of EC's.

The Framers of the United States of America's Constitution, saw how such a system easily is Abused and so tried to create a system that is base on "Natural Laws" and not made the claim, that the government's laws come from a Higher Power.

The morals on which the laws are based were attributed to a higher power.

Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence, ElneClare?

Or how about Paul's post where he quotes John Adams?

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=52237

That any of the writers of the Constitution, may have been Deist or Theist, doesn't matter in fact they were trying to avoid the problems they saw in other forms of government in Europe, which the rules based their right to Power on Divine Rights.

Relevance, other than to the position you have falsely attributed to me above?

One fact she always made was that under our system of government, Americans are to bow down to "No One".  Every four years she watch the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games to make sure our national flag was not dipped before foreign heads of state.

(no royal class)

Which brings us to the Point Paul been trying to get Bryan to understand.  One can have a system of government that does not need a 'God" to justified it's laws, but can instead ask that it's citizens try to treat each other with respect and over come ones self interest, for the greater good of "Man Kind."

Would I need Paul to help me understand that?

Sure you can have a system of government that doesn't need a "God" to justify its laws--but that's not the vision of the Framers. Again, I refer you to the DoI.

Paul's Universal Ethic" is based on the idea, that one can look at what human around the world value as Ethical and not always need some Higher Power to justified them.

It's not as easy as just claiming that it's so.

Paul, for his part, seems to mistake the corpus of the law itself for the philosophical foundation for the law (unless he's deliberately being obtuse).

I suggest that a system that contradicts itself is weaker than a system that does not contradict itself.

Such a world where all live by these Universal Values, sadly doesn't exist and probably never will.

Then why do you call them "Universal Values"? Clearly they are not universal.

We as humans always are pulled between acting for our own self interest and helping others.

Sounds like you're suggesting a competing "universal value."

Government is a social contract.  Citizens agree to live by the government's laws, in exchange for the services they want the government to give.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You don't say.

Flen is the residue that collects at the top of ketchup bottles.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=flen

Edited April 25, 2007 by Bryan