CDZ The Government of No Authority, Part 1: Law and Morality

[Brian Blackwell]

"... the philosophical justifications for government and its law ..." essentially referring to John Locke et al.

Locke is no better or worse nor more or less sacred than any other philosopher. You could say he was merely a more modern Plato, and whereas Plato was fascist, Locke was Federalist.

Philosophy does not justify anything, and especially not government (unless you have been truly brainwashed by Locke).

Philosophy is simply pure human thought applied to everything -- mostly to questions which are esoteric in nature.

Word for the day:

es·o·ter·ic
ˌesəˈterik/
adjective
adjective: esoteric

1. intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest.
   "esoteric philosophical debates"
   synonyms: abstruse, obscure, arcane, recherché, rarefied, recondite, abstract; More
   enigmatic, inscrutable, cryptic, Delphic;
   complex, complicated, incomprehensible, opaque, impenetrable, mysterious
   "in attendance were more than 50 antiques dealers brimming with esoteric knowledge"

Origin
View attachment 182968
mid 17th century: from Greek esōterikos, from esōterō, comparative of esō ‘within,’ from es, eis ‘into.’ Compare with exoteric.

And amidst all this, I've not seen an answer to the question this thread has posed; namely, how morality and governmental law can be anything but mutually exclusive as it regards practical application by the individual.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Authoritarian Doubletalk

You want each individual to follow whatever authority pleases him, call that moral, and call governmental authority immoral.

I never made any statement about what I "want". I am suggesting that the logic of the argument proves beyond doubt that a person cannot be both moral and faithfully law-abiding (as an overarching personal characteristic). If you have ANY personal moral standard at all, regardless of its particular nature or source of origin, you cannot also be personally obliged by law. Your actions may meet both standards in any given instance, but only one can be the primary motivating obligation (which will be revealed in instances of conflict between the two).

Governmental authority MUST be either irrelevant or immoral to the moral person, as the law must necessarily agree or disagree with their morality (their primary obligation).

Donate, Do Not Think

That only rebuts if you are preaching to your choir. Expect a nice reward at the collection plate.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I just wanted to call attention to the fact that governance law and moral law are not universally mutually exclusive and insofar as your argument's conclusion asserts that they are, you need revise your argument to account for the fact and incidence of their not being mutually exclusive. [2] Now, insofar as you don't understand by what means they can function collaboratively, you need to explore philosophy to develop that understanding, and, no, I'm not of a mind to be your or anyone else's magister for that. Doing that is beyond the scope of my intentions for participating at all on USMB.

I sincerely appreciate your attention to the topic, and this thread in particular. Unfortunately, I've studied philosophy to a fair degree (having a bachelor's degree in that area of study) and though I would in no way claim to have masterful knowledge of all that has been written on the subject of jurisprudence, I've read enough to discern that the bulk of that material (as is so often the case in philosophy) serves more as a justification for a foregone conclusion, rather than an adequate validation of the position being proposed.

Similarly, your reply -- though incredibly thoughtful and well-written -- at no point demonstrates (even in the most rudimentary form) how either the premises or conclusion of my argument are false or invalid. To be quite honest, I feel as though it's merely obfuscation by way of complexification (again, as so much of philosophy turns out to be upon extensive investigation), and that it would benefit all who participate in this thread to distill your ideas down to their most basic form, so as to make known your true position.

This I have done with my argument, allowing the premises to stand as self-evident unless challenged, at which point I would be happy to elaborate further.

Me, Myself, and Ayn

Saying so doesn't make it so. Your sermon is a typical rhetorical trick practiced by those insistently pushing a pet idea derived from blind obedience to their power-hungry gurus. It is often expressed in an "I know (this sounds anti-social), but (society will actually benefit from it)." That way you can claim you're not deaf to criticism, when you really are. And notice the sneaky word "sounds," implying that your critics are just making empty noises.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Authoritarian Doubletalk

You want each individual to follow whatever authority pleases him, call that moral, and call governmental authority immoral.

I never made any statement about what I "want". I am suggesting that the logic of the argument proves beyond doubt that a person cannot be both moral and faithfully law-abiding (as an overarching personal characteristic). If you have ANY personal moral standard at all, regardless of its particular nature or source of origin, you cannot also be personally obliged by law. Your actions may meet both standards in any given instance, but only one can be the primary motivating obligation (which will be revealed in instances of conflict between the two).

Governmental authority MUST be either irrelevant or immoral to the moral person, as the law must necessarily agree or disagree with their morality (their primary obligation).

Donate, Do Not Think

That only rebuts if you are preaching to your choir. Expect a nice reward at the collection plate.

Are you satisfied offering these vague replies to a question of such import? Would you please express your position clearly by making a pointed case for the falsity of my premises, or the invalidity of my conclusion?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

In this thread, I will outline a simple argument that demonstrates the inherent inconsistency between morality and governmental law. Following the formal argument, you will find a more thorough explanation of supporting reasoning. I hope some here will find this investigation thought-provoking, and I look forward to discussing these ideas with anyone who is interested.


THE ARGUMENT

1. Morality, to have authority, must be a primary obligatory standard for individual behavior.

2. Governmental law, to have authority, must be a primary obligatory standard for individual behavior.

3. Therefore, since only one authority may hold the primary place as a standard for individual behavior, morality and governmental law are mutually exclusive -- where one holds sway, the other cannot.


THE INVESTIGATION

Morality, to exist as such, must stand above all other standards of behavior; for its sole function is to provide an authoritative determination as to whether it is right or wrong for an individual to perform a particular action, given a particular set of circumstances. If, at any point, morality is relegated to a secondary position relative to another standard, it no longer holds authority to prescribe or prohibit action, and thus ceases to exist.

Likewise, governmental law, to exist as such, must stand above all other standards of behavior; for its sole function is to prescribe or prohibit action within the scope of its jurisdiction, independent of all other considerations. Obviously, were governmental law made to abide exceptions based upon moral claims, it could not perform its sole function. If, therefore, governmental law is relegated to a secondary position, it no longer holds authority, and thus ceases to exist as law.

If governmental law dictates something that is not in accord with the individual’s moral standard, and the law is permitted to act as the primary obligation, the moral obligation is made utterly void. For what would it mean to say “I am personally obliged to perform this action, and also obliged not to perform it.” Clearly, where discrepancies occur, one standard must be chosen to take precedence, and in so doing, the other will be obviated entirely. We may feel torn between two systems of obligation, but where they contradict, we cannot act in accordance with both. A man cannot have two masters.

If, on the other hand, governmental law is in perfect harmony with the individual’s moral standard, we may say that one of the standards is redundant, and thus irrelevant (or non-existent). If the moral standard is held as primary and dictates that murder is wrong, and governmental law also dictates that murder is wrong, it can be seen that the governmental law was not the authoritative standard that prohibited the action, as the action was already prohibited by the moral standard. The governmental law becomes a meaningless echo, as the individual did not refrain from the action on its authority. The adherence to such a law occurred merely by coincidence.

In conclusion, we can see that it would be impossible for a single individual to be (as an overarching personal characteristic) both a “moral person” (one who is guided by morality as a primary obligatory standard for behavior) and a “law-abiding citizen” (one who is guided by governmental law as a primary obligatory standard).

A choice must be made; and if one chooses to be a moral person, it necessarily follows that governmental law holds no authority in their lives. Since it would be in defiance of reason and basic human equality to hold others to a standard of authority which one does not abide by personally, any voluntary acknowledgement or support of governmental law as an authority in the lives of others (such as voting, willingly paying taxes, taking employment funded by taxes, etc.) is both illogical and immoral.

I welcome reactions and pointed refutations relevant to the above argument and investigation. It should be noted that I did not adopt the above reasoning in an attempt to justify a previously held position; but instead found myself necessarily compelled to adopt the position by the irrefutability of the reasoning. You may find yourself similarly compelled upon earnest investigation of your own moral position, and be freed from the tiresome futile debates concerning the particulars of politics and governmental law.

*The title of this thread was chosen in honor of Lysander Spooner's lucid examination of the U.S. Constitution titled "No Treason", which can be found in audiobook format on YouTube here:

Seems to me that the only time morality and adherence to the law can't coexist as primary motivators is when the law directly contradicts the morals of the individual in question, and there's plenty of potential scenarios wherein morals that don't align with the law can still be practiced faithfully while the individual in question adheres 100 percent to the law.

Personally, I occasionally indulge in a substance or two that are frowned upon by the US legal system, and there's been a few times in my past where I have initiated physical violence that was not in self defense. However, if I happened to be the sort of person who refrained from drugs, not out of any moral stance, but simply to keep my mind sharp (and I do go through phases where this is the case), as well as a pacifist, and given the current context of my life's details, I would easily be able to adhere 100 percent to both my morals and the law, allowing both to exist as at least defacto primary motivators.

If I ran a business with employees, I could see this changing, but as things currently stand, the law doesn't demand that I do anything in violation of my morals, and my morals don't demand that I do anything in violation of the law. My desires and emotions sometimes override both, but that's a separate topic, I think.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

"... the philosophical justifications for government and its law ..." essentially referring to John Locke et al.

Locke is no better or worse nor more or less sacred than any other philosopher. You could say he was merely a more modern Plato, and whereas Plato was fascist, Locke was Federalist.

Philosophy does not justify anything, and especially not government (unless you have been truly brainwashed by Locke).

Philosophy is simply pure human thought applied to everything -- mostly to questions which are esoteric in nature.

Word for the day:

es·o·ter·ic
ˌesəˈterik/
adjective
adjective: esoteric

1. intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest.
   "esoteric philosophical debates"
   synonyms: abstruse, obscure, arcane, recherché, rarefied, recondite, abstract; More
   enigmatic, inscrutable, cryptic, Delphic;
   complex, complicated, incomprehensible, opaque, impenetrable, mysterious
   "in attendance were more than 50 antiques dealers brimming with esoteric knowledge"

Origin
View attachment 182968
mid 17th century: from Greek esōterikos, from esōterō, comparative of esō ‘within,’ from es, eis ‘into.’ Compare with exoteric.

And amidst all this, I've not seen an answer to the question this thread has posed; namely, how morality and governmental law can be anything but mutually exclusive as it regards practical application by the individual.

No Man Is an Island

You have the perspective of someone holed up in his castle being besieged by uppity peasants with pitchforks.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Authoritarian Doubletalk

You want each individual to follow whatever authority pleases him, call that moral, and call governmental authority immoral.

I never made any statement about what I "want". I am suggesting that the logic of the argument proves beyond doubt that a person cannot be both moral and faithfully law-abiding (as an overarching personal characteristic). If you have ANY personal moral standard at all, regardless of its particular nature or source of origin, you cannot also be personally obliged by law. Your actions may meet both standards in any given instance, but only one can be the primary motivating obligation (which will be revealed in instances of conflict between the two).

Governmental authority MUST be either irrelevant or immoral to the moral person, as the law must necessarily agree or disagree with their morality (their primary obligation).

Donate, Do Not Think

That only rebuts if you are preaching to your choir. Expect a nice reward at the collection plate.

Would you please express your position clearly by making a pointed case for the falsity of my premises, or the invalidity of my conclusion?

Narcissus Shrugged

No, I won't. You're beyond hope of anyone convincing you to abandon the infantile selfish solipsism you hold onto as if your life depended on it.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

In this thread, I will outline a simple argument that demonstrates the inherent inconsistency between morality and governmental law. Following the formal argument, you will find a more thorough explanation of supporting reasoning. I hope some here will find this investigation thought-provoking, and I look forward to discussing these ideas with anyone who is interested.


THE ARGUMENT

1. Morality, to have authority, must be a primary obligatory standard for individual behavior.

2. Governmental law, to have authority, must be a primary obligatory standard for individual behavior.

3. Therefore, since only one authority may hold the primary place as a standard for individual behavior, morality and governmental law are mutually exclusive -- where one holds sway, the other cannot.


THE INVESTIGATION

Morality, to exist as such, must stand above all other standards of behavior; for its sole function is to provide an authoritative determination as to whether it is right or wrong for an individual to perform a particular action, given a particular set of circumstances. If, at any point, morality is relegated to a secondary position relative to another standard, it no longer holds authority to prescribe or prohibit action, and thus ceases to exist.

Likewise, governmental law, to exist as such, must stand above all other standards of behavior; for its sole function is to prescribe or prohibit action within the scope of its jurisdiction, independent of all other considerations. Obviously, were governmental law made to abide exceptions based upon moral claims, it could not perform its sole function. If, therefore, governmental law is relegated to a secondary position, it no longer holds authority, and thus ceases to exist as law.

If governmental law dictates something that is not in accord with the individual’s moral standard, and the law is permitted to act as the primary obligation, the moral obligation is made utterly void. For what would it mean to say “I am personally obliged to perform this action, and also obliged not to perform it.” Clearly, where discrepancies occur, one standard must be chosen to take precedence, and in so doing, the other will be obviated entirely. We may feel torn between two systems of obligation, but where they contradict, we cannot act in accordance with both. A man cannot have two masters.

If, on the other hand, governmental law is in perfect harmony with the individual’s moral standard, we may say that one of the standards is redundant, and thus irrelevant (or non-existent). If the moral standard is held as primary and dictates that murder is wrong, and governmental law also dictates that murder is wrong, it can be seen that the governmental law was not the authoritative standard that prohibited the action, as the action was already prohibited by the moral standard. The governmental law becomes a meaningless echo, as the individual did not refrain from the action on its authority. The adherence to such a law occurred merely by coincidence.

In conclusion, we can see that it would be impossible for a single individual to be (as an overarching personal characteristic) both a “moral person” (one who is guided by morality as a primary obligatory standard for behavior) and a “law-abiding citizen” (one who is guided by governmental law as a primary obligatory standard).

A choice must be made; and if one chooses to be a moral person, it necessarily follows that governmental law holds no authority in their lives. Since it would be in defiance of reason and basic human equality to hold others to a standard of authority which one does not abide by personally, any voluntary acknowledgement or support of governmental law as an authority in the lives of others (such as voting, willingly paying taxes, taking employment funded by taxes, etc.) is both illogical and immoral.

I welcome reactions and pointed refutations relevant to the above argument and investigation. It should be noted that I did not adopt the above reasoning in an attempt to justify a previously held position; but instead found myself necessarily compelled to adopt the position by the irrefutability of the reasoning. You may find yourself similarly compelled upon earnest investigation of your own moral position, and be freed from the tiresome futile debates concerning the particulars of politics and governmental law.

*The title of this thread was chosen in honor of Lysander Spooner's lucid examination of the U.S. Constitution titled "No Treason", which can be found in audiobook format on YouTube here:

Law is law. It is amoral -- neither moral nor immoral.

Morality is a concept within Philosophy. Has nothing to do with law.

Law is simply the enactments of the legislature sometimes as interpreted by the judiciary. It is then administered by the administration branch.

The original meaning of law in ancient Aryan/Persian was simply "the utterances of the King". Still nothing to do with morality -- not for over 27 centuries since the word was invented.

Ergo, your thesis is flawed in a really major way.

The Bubble Paradise

Since survival is sine qua non, law must have priority over pushy moralistic considerations. Law's only goal must be to create a functioning society; therefore, moralists who don't care about that are misfits trying to destroy society, despite their pretense of preaching a greater good. Somehow they've persuaded the ignorant that idealism is at worst impractical, but at least has good intentions. It doesn't. It is directed inward as a vindictive substitute for being sociable.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Seems to me that the only time morality and adherence to the law can't coexist as primary motivators is when the law directly contradicts the morals of the individual in question, and there's plenty of potential scenarios wherein morals that don't align with the law can still be practiced faithfully while the individual in question adheres 100 percent to the law.

Personally, I occasionally indulge in a substance or two that are frowned upon by the US legal system, and there's been a few times in my past where I have initiated physical violence that was not in self defense. However, if I happened to be the sort of person who refrained from drugs, not out of any moral stance, but simply to keep my mind sharp (and I do go through phases where this is the case), as well as a pacifist, and given the current context of my life's details, I would easily be able to adhere 100 percent to both my morals and the law, allowing both to exist as at least defacto primary motivators.

If I ran a business with employees, I could see this changing, but as things currently stand, the law doesn't demand that I do anything in violation of my morals, and my morals don't demand that I do anything in violation of the law. My desires and emotions sometimes override both, but that's a separate topic, I think.

Very thoughtful reply, thank you. First I think we need to address the idea that there can be two "primary motivators", de facto or otherwise. How do you address the following illustration:

If, on the other hand, governmental law is in perfect harmony with the individual’s moral standard, we may say that one of the standards is redundant, and thus irrelevant (or non-existent). If the moral standard is held as primary and dictates that murder is wrong, and governmental law also dictates that murder is wrong, it can be seen that the governmental law was not the authoritative standard that prohibited the action, as the action was already prohibited by the moral standard. The governmental law becomes a meaningless echo, as the individual did not refrain from the action on its authority. The adherence to such a law occurred merely by coincidence.

The question of this thread is the validity of governmental authority on the moral person. If one's actions, as guided by their morality, were in accordance with law on every point, this does not validate governmental authority. It only means that their actions are temporarily in alignment with law by coincidence (law having the potential to deviate from their morality on a future occasion). They would not need to know the particulars of law (or even know of the existence of law) for this to be the case; so we can hardly say that law is acting as an authoritative guiding force for their behavior.

If you indulge in a substance prohibited by law (not "frowned upon" - let's not abide euphemism in our investigation), then you are being guided by your morality, and you do not permit law to hold authority over you on this matter. Having no authority in this matter, how can it be said to have authority in any matter? Authority does not vacillate. Either law has the authority to guide your actions, or it does not. You may choose to abide by law over morality in another instance, but this would not assert law's authority, it would only invalidate morality's authority, leaving you with neither as an obligatory standard for your behavior. You would effectually be acting by caprice, which you acknowledge by saying, "My desires and emotions sometimes override both..."

In light of this, do you feel that we've adequately demonstrated that morality and law cannot co-exist as primary standards for behavior?

 

[danielpalos]

In this thread, I will outline a simple argument that demonstrates the inherent inconsistency between morality and governmental law. Following the formal argument, you will find a more thorough explanation of supporting reasoning. I hope some here will find this investigation thought-provoking, and I look forward to discussing these ideas with anyone who is interested.


THE ARGUMENT

1. Morality, to have authority, must be a primary obligatory standard for individual behavior.

2. Governmental law, to have authority, must be a primary obligatory standard for individual behavior.

3. Therefore, since only one authority may hold the primary place as a standard for individual behavior, morality and governmental law are mutually exclusive -- where one holds sway, the other cannot.


THE INVESTIGATION

Morality, to exist as such, must stand above all other standards of behavior; for its sole function is to provide an authoritative determination as to whether it is right or wrong for an individual to perform a particular action, given a particular set of circumstances. If, at any point, morality is relegated to a secondary position relative to another standard, it no longer holds authority to prescribe or prohibit action, and thus ceases to exist.

Likewise, governmental law, to exist as such, must stand above all other standards of behavior; for its sole function is to prescribe or prohibit action within the scope of its jurisdiction, independent of all other considerations. Obviously, were governmental law made to abide exceptions based upon moral claims, it could not perform its sole function. If, therefore, governmental law is relegated to a secondary position, it no longer holds authority, and thus ceases to exist as law.

If governmental law dictates something that is not in accord with the individual’s moral standard, and the law is permitted to act as the primary obligation, the moral obligation is made utterly void. For what would it mean to say “I am personally obliged to perform this action, and also obliged not to perform it.” Clearly, where discrepancies occur, one standard must be chosen to take precedence, and in so doing, the other will be obviated entirely. We may feel torn between two systems of obligation, but where they contradict, we cannot act in accordance with both. A man cannot have two masters.

If, on the other hand, governmental law is in perfect harmony with the individual’s moral standard, we may say that one of the standards is redundant, and thus irrelevant (or non-existent). If the moral standard is held as primary and dictates that murder is wrong, and governmental law also dictates that murder is wrong, it can be seen that the governmental law was not the authoritative standard that prohibited the action, as the action was already prohibited by the moral standard. The governmental law becomes a meaningless echo, as the individual did not refrain from the action on its authority. The adherence to such a law occurred merely by coincidence.

In conclusion, we can see that it would be impossible for a single individual to be (as an overarching personal characteristic) both a “moral person” (one who is guided by morality as a primary obligatory standard for behavior) and a “law-abiding citizen” (one who is guided by governmental law as a primary obligatory standard).

A choice must be made; and if one chooses to be a moral person, it necessarily follows that governmental law holds no authority in their lives. Since it would be in defiance of reason and basic human equality to hold others to a standard of authority which one does not abide by personally, any voluntary acknowledgement or support of governmental law as an authority in the lives of others (such as voting, willingly paying taxes, taking employment funded by taxes, etc.) is both illogical and immoral.

I welcome reactions and pointed refutations relevant to the above argument and investigation. It should be noted that I did not adopt the above reasoning in an attempt to justify a previously held position; but instead found myself necessarily compelled to adopt the position by the irrefutability of the reasoning. You may find yourself similarly compelled upon earnest investigation of your own moral position, and be freed from the tiresome futile debates concerning the particulars of politics and governmental law.

*The title of this thread was chosen in honor of Lysander Spooner's lucid examination of the U.S. Constitution titled "No Treason", which can be found in audiobook format on YouTube here:

We simply don't have to take Persons seriously about morals, once they are elected to public office.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Seems to me that the only time morality and adherence to the law can't coexist as primary motivators is when the law directly contradicts the morals of the individual in question, and there's plenty of potential scenarios wherein morals that don't align with the law can still be practiced faithfully while the individual in question adheres 100 percent to the law.

Personally, I occasionally indulge in a substance or two that are frowned upon by the US legal system, and there's been a few times in my past where I have initiated physical violence that was not in self defense. However, if I happened to be the sort of person who refrained from drugs, not out of any moral stance, but simply to keep my mind sharp (and I do go through phases where this is the case), as well as a pacifist, and given the current context of my life's details, I would easily be able to adhere 100 percent to both my morals and the law, allowing both to exist as at least defacto primary motivators.

If I ran a business with employees, I could see this changing, but as things currently stand, the law doesn't demand that I do anything in violation of my morals, and my morals don't demand that I do anything in violation of the law. My desires and emotions sometimes override both, but that's a separate topic, I think.

Very thoughtful reply, thank you. First I think we need to address the idea that there can be two "primary motivators", de facto or otherwise. How do you address the following illustration:

If, on the other hand, governmental law is in perfect harmony with the individual’s moral standard, we may say that one of the standards is redundant, and thus irrelevant (or non-existent). If the moral standard is held as primary and dictates that murder is wrong, and governmental law also dictates that murder is wrong, it can be seen that the governmental law was not the authoritative standard that prohibited the action, as the action was already prohibited by the moral standard. The governmental law becomes a meaningless echo, as the individual did not refrain from the action on its authority. The adherence to such a law occurred merely by coincidence.

The question of this thread is the validity of governmental authority on the moral person. If one's actions, as guided by their morality, were in accordance with law on every point, this does not validate governmental authority. It only means that their actions are temporarily in alignment with law by coincidence (law having the potential to deviate from their morality on a future occasion). They would not need to know the particulars of law (or even know of the existence of law) for this to be the case; so we can hardly say that law is acting as an authoritative guiding force for their behavior.

If you indulge in a substance prohibited by law (not "frowned upon" - let's not abide euphemism in our investigation), then you are being guided by your morality, and you do not permit law to hold authority over you on this matter. Having no authority in this matter, how can it be said to have authority in any matter? Authority does not vacillate. Either law has the authority to guide your actions, or it does not. You may choose to abide by law over morality in another instance, but this would not assert law's authority, it would only invalidate morality's authority, leaving you with neither as an obligatory standard for your behavior. You would effectually be acting by caprice, which you acknowledge by saying, "My desires and emotions sometimes override both..."

In light of this, do you feel that we've adequately demonstrated that morality and law cannot co-exist as primary standards for behavior?

I can concede that, in my current state, the law isn't my primary motivator, even in a de facto sense. Not even close.

However, I can also see where, with only a couple of minor changes to my preferences, I would be in a state of being where, though the law might not be a motivating force with the same level of control over my actions as my morals, it would be impossible to tell which was the stronger influence unless I explicitly told you. Thus, it would be at least a de facto primary motivator, given that nothing would override it. That's what I was getting at with the bit about not doing drugs for non moral reasons and being a pacifist. That combination of traits is not my own, but there are people wired thusly.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

There's also the idea that morals, like all other values, exist as a hierarchy. If a man is morally opposed to violence, but commits an act of violence against a man who is harming an innocent child in order to protect that child, you could say that this was a context where the man was willing to go against his own morality. You could also say, however, that this was a case where the moral value of protecting the innocent was decisively greater than the moral value of refraining from the commission of violent acts, and rather than betraying his morality, the man was actually abiding by his morals in perfect keeping with their order of importance.

Anyway, take this idea of morals as a hierarchy and not a code of coequal demands, and plug in a faithful Christian. We'll call him Ted.

Let's say that Ted was really affected the first time he read the passages in the bible regarding obeying the laws of the land and rendering unto Caesar. Let's say that Ted adheres to this principle to the point that only obedience to the 10 commandments is more important. Now, assuming the law of the land in which he lives doesn't contradict the big 10, it could be said that ONLY by adhering to the law 100 percent can Ted fulfill his own morality. You might not be able to call both his morals and the law "primary" due to the exclusive nature of that word's meaning, but it would certainly be accurate to say that both the law and morality have authority over Ted's actions.​

 

[usmbguest5318]

.
Law is law. It is amoral -- neither moral nor immoral.

Morality is a concept within Philosophy. Has nothing to do with law.

Law is simply the enactments of the legislature sometimes as interpreted by the judiciary. It is then administered by the administration branch.

The original meaning of law in ancient Aryan/Persian was simply "the utterances of the King". Still nothing to do with morality -- not for over 27 centuries since the word was invented.

Ergo, your thesis is flawed in a really major way.

I purposefully did not secure my argument with laborious clarifying verbiage for the sake of brevity; trusting that readers would understand that the informal setting did not require such tedious language. Earnest investigators would perceive clearly upon reading the entirety of my opening post that my initial statement, “inconsistency between morality and governmental law” carries the implication of “as practically applied by the individual.” The overall nature of law as a concept, or strict definitions of the word are not what’s being addressed here.

My credentials are minor and not meant to impress, or even to be considered relevant. I mention them merely to illustrate that I have read much of the philosophical justifications for government and its law, and do not feel that the argument presented at the head of this thread has been adequately addressed. Would you like to address it now?

I would in no way claim to have masterful knowledge of all that has been written on the subject of jurisprudence, I've read enough to discern that the bulk of that material (as is so often the case in philosophy) serves more as a justification for a foregone conclusion, rather than an adequate validation of the position being proposed.

allowing the premises to stand as self-evident

The premises in your argument are foregone conclusions, and not one of them is deductively or inductively substantiated. You've merely presented them baldly and bid us to accept them as "self-evident forgone conclusions." Having a degree in philosophy, you know that onus probandi lies with the person who presents the premises, the person making the argument, not with the person who identifies material weaknesses in it. That there are multiple premises in your argument that you present as givens, as self-evident, when they are not constitutes multiple material weaknesses in your argument.

Premise 1:

Morality, to have authority, must be a primary obligatory standard for individual behavior.

• Insofar as moral tenets are normative, anyone will agree that, in most instances, they have no formal authority unless and until its precepts become codified as jurisprudence. That said, one need only canvas "Bible thumpers" to observe that moral tenets that are not codified nonetheless have authority. Indeed, Kim Davis' actions in 2015-16 show that even when moral tenets are expressly rejected, they still can have authority in the mind of any given individual. Such is the nature of normativism. (cont'd in the next subsection)

Premise 2:

Governmental law, to have authority, must be a primary obligatory standard for individual behavior.

(cont'd from the prior subsection)

• Continuing with the Davis example, it's clear that Davis subordinated secular law to moral law -- as she understands it given her ascribed-to theology, which is what obliged her to take the stance she did -- and concluded that denying marriage licenses to gay couples was the morally apt thing to do. Yet even and after her doing/thinking/asserting so, the enactors and supporters of the very same secular law have maintained that according to same-sex couples the same pair-bonding legal rights different-sex couples enjoy is the morally apt thing to do.
  
  The thing to keep in mind is that the imprimatur for the same-sex marriage authorization law that Davis rejects, derives from both jurisprudential philosophy (governance) and moral philosophy. Although Davis did indeed see morality as superior to governance, that law's supporters/enactors can assert a duality of governance and morality as the justification for the law's existence, enforcement, etc.
  
  Having illustrated the dual primacy as goes the authority by which laws are implemented let's also consider the authority by which one be called to adjudge another's culpability for "whatever." (Note: I've used the term "juror;" however, the setting need not be necessarily that of a courtroom. It could as well be a convocation of faculty or camp counselor, siblings, the court of public opinion, or any other body wherein a community individually or representationally expresses its approbation or disapprobation.)
  • "Juror 1" may declare a defendant guilty (or not guilty) on moral grounds. Such a juror prioritizes the authority of morality over that of governance.
  • "Juror 2" may determine the same defendant guilty (or not guilty) on strictly "letter of the law" grounds. Such a juror prioritizes the authority governance over that of morality.
  • "Juror 3" may find the same defendant guilty (or not guilty) on account of his/her being both immoral and strictly unlawful. To the extent such a juror cites both as the reasons for his/her decision, s/he may be said to have prioritized neither authority. Can "Juror 3" indicate that one played a greater role than the other? Sure, s/he can, but s/he can as well be of a mind that were the defendant not guilty in both dimensions, s/he (the juror) would have demurred from declaring the defendant guilty.

What the foregoing shows us is yet another aspect of the concept I presented earlier, though in that prior discussion I presented the concept from the societal-level perspective. At the individual level, yes, governance and morality can and do battle for primacy, just as they do at the societal level. For individuals, one often enough wins out over the other; however, that need not "must be" the outcome.

Who among us would, for instance, argue that governance (law and order), rather than morality, is the reason to prohibit murder? I think that most folks acknowledge that eschewing the act of murder is every bit as critical to the orderly conduct of their own life as it is to their maintaining and acceptable degree of rectitude. Murderers may not share most folks' "obligatory standard" for how they conduct their own affairs; some of them may well prefer not to murder someone because doing so increases the risk of terminating the orderly conduct of their lives. Even murderers realize that being killed in return for killing another unequivocally ends the orderly conduct of their own life.

Premise 3:

morality and governmental law are mutually exclusive

Although you buried this premise in your argument's conclusion, the two preceding premises don't at all establish that morality and governance are mutually exclusive. Neither, as discussed above, is their being so "self-evident."

Conclusion:

only one authority may hold the primary place as a standard for individual behavior

As I have now twice described, morality and governance do not exist as distinct vacuums from which individuals and societies draw authority from or assign authority to only one or the other when crafting, evaluating and/or enforcing whatever be their extant or desired laws. Sometimes morality and governance share primacy in the formulation of laws.

Quite simply, there can be a primacy tie between them. Because primacy can be shared, it is not so that "only one," morality or governance, defines the standard for individual behavior.​

Similarly, your reply -- though incredibly thoughtful and well-written -- at no point demonstrates (even in the most rudimentary form) how either the premises or conclusion of my argument are false or invalid.

You just keep thinking that....

(having a bachelor's degree in [philosophy]

Having that degree, you know the discipline of philosophy called logic requires the presenter of an argument to prove/show the veracity of his/her premise(s) and that his/her conclusion follows soundly/cogently from the premises. One who'd refute an argument need only show that the premises don't universally hold true. I've done that, twice now.

Remember, you made the legitimacy of your conclusion -- "only one authority may hold the primary place as a standard for individual behavior" -- contingent upon the mutual exclusivity of morality and governance, and thereby making your premises universal affirmatives with regard to morality or governance having authority.

I've provided at multiple examples that show that both individuals and societies may assign/draw authority to governance, morality or both concurrently. Because there are such examples, your conclusion/argument/premises are sometimes true and sometimes not.

You have a degree in philosophy, so you you know as well as I that that for an argument to be sound/cogent and valid, the premises and conclusion must be always true.
​

To be quite honest, I feel as though it's merely obfuscation by way of complexification (again, as so much of philosophy turns out to be upon extensive investigation), and that it would benefit all who participate in this thread to distill your ideas down to their most basic form, so as to make known your true position.

Excuse me? The only person with whom I'm engaging in discourse is you. You have a degree in philosophy, so surely nothing I wrote strikes you as complex enough to obfuscate the ideas I've expressed.

Now, sure as I've engaged with you on this topic, trust me, it's for nobody's benefit; it's merely an abstract conversation in which I opted to partake because I think the topic interesting. Like you, I acknowledge there is "inconsistency between morality and governmental law." You and I differ, right now at least, in that you've argued that the discordance derives from one's/society's having to choose between morality and governance. The point, then, of my refutation of your argument is that society does not have to so choose, and what I've shown is that sometimes it does choose between the two, suborning one to the other in the design and implementation of jurisprudence, it does not always do so. Society/individuals can choose to do that, but it/they can as well choose not to and instead declare the two be equivalently legitimate authorities for jurisprudential actions (creating a law, passing it, enforcing it, and judging various comportment's legitimacy.)

To be quite honest, I feel as though it's merely obfuscation by way of complexification (again, as so much of philosophy turns out to be upon extensive investigation), and that it would benefit all who participate in this thread to distill your ideas down to their most basic form, so as to make known your true position.

If "all who participate" comprehend what I've written, great. If they don't, they can ask me for clarification and/or read the linked content. If they don't understand what I've written and don't care enough about it to ask for clarification or read the linked content, that's also okay with me so long as they have the decency not to respond to my comments that they don't understand.

Aside:

Facilitating readers' comprehension of my remarks is often the reason I hyperlink the content I do. Sometimes the content at the linked site explains a term, phrase or concept. That is generally the case when I use terminology that has a specific meaning in a given discipline. "Universal affirmative" in the above remarks is one example of that.

Other times the hyperlinked content provides background information that informs the reader of what I had in mind. Such is the reason I above hyperlinked content in association with "self-evident," which is a term I am reasonably certain readers know what it means on its own.​

 

[Brian Blackwell]

No, I won't. You're beyond hope of anyone convincing you to abandon the infantile selfish solipsism you hold onto as if your life depended on it.

Ok, then you refuse to argue your position, or to logically refute mine, and have deemed me hopeless despite no attempt to change my mind. So I'm not sure what you're doing here in CDZ (the "D" does stand for "debate" after all). The best we can gather is that you don't think morality should be a primary moral standard (as per your comment, "law must have priority over pushy moralistic considerations"), which is fine. Making law the higher standard relegates morality to a lower position, rendering it incapable of judging law for the purposes of guiding action. Therefore, morality serves no function and ceases to exist. That's logically consistent with the argument, so we appear to be in agreement. You and I have successfully concluded our exchange on this topic - a rare and welcomed outcome. Thank you!

 

[Brian Blackwell]

There's also the idea that morals, like all other values, exist as a hierarchy. If a man is morally opposed to violence, but commits an act of violence against a man who is harming an innocent child in order to protect that child, you could say that this was a context where the man was willing to go against his own morality. You could also say, however, that this was a case where the moral value of protecting the innocent was decisively greater than the moral value of refraining from the commission of violent acts, and rather than betraying his morality, the man was actually abiding by his morals in perfect keeping with their order of importance.

Anyway, take this idea of morals as a hierarchy and not a code of coequal demands, and plug in a faithful Christian. We'll call him Ted.

Let's say that Ted was really affected the first time he read the passages in the bible regarding obeying the laws of the land and rendering unto Caesar. Let's say that Ted adheres to this principle to the point that only obedience to the 10 commandments is more important. Now, assuming the law of the land in which he lives doesn't contradict the big 10, it could be said that ONLY by adhering to the law 100 percent can Ted fulfill his own morality. You might not be able to call both his morals and the law "primary" due to the exclusive nature of that word's meaning, but it would certainly be accurate to say that both the law and morality have authority over Ted's actions.​

As to the first point, I think you solved it, but I would describe it differently than "hierarchy" (though that model is fair enough). I would say that he distinguishes the "violence" or beating an innocent person, and that of defending an innocent person, as inherently two different actions. Morality does, after all, take circumstance into account. "Punching" cannot be said to be moral or immoral in the absolute, as punching a heavy bag is usually considered perfectly moral, while punching a baby is not. We can acknowledge this distinction by using the word "violence" to denote force used in an act of aggression against an innocent person (thus violating their right to remain unharmed), while using "defensive force" to denote defending innocents.

As to Ted the Christian, it's a common logical work-around to the argument to say, "Well, what if my morality is 'obey governmental law'?" But to equate these two things is really to obviate (even eliminate) the one that contributes nothing of its own. What you've really done is remove morality from the equation by making it a hollow echo of law. The morality has no authority of its own to guide action, because it looks to law for its content. Adding in the 10 commandments provides a new twist, but I think that brings us back to the former problem...

First of all, law can change, and if it changes such that the 10 commandments would be violated, Ted will have to make a choice. Should he choose morality, the true guiding principle would be revealed. We can say that where two standards are in perfect alignment, it is practically irrelevant which is primary, but this does not equate to them BOTH being primary. It only means that we have no means by which to distinguish which holds sway. They are like two perfect circles, one on top of the other - one IS on top, but we cannot tell which. Where discrepancy occurs, that's where we can see the true primary obligation.

Most importantly, this thread is intended to aid in real-life self-reflection. Let's allow Ted to take our seat in the armchair, and consider the practical implications of the argument on our own lives. Do YOU have a moral standard? I can tell you do. Does YOUR moral standard hold sway over governmental law? Obviously it does, given you subvert government's judgement to your own in matters of substances, and would no doubt balk at the idea of fulfilling such laws as The Fugitive Slave Act were it active at this time (especially if you thought you could away with it).

What this means is that you only obey the law where it coincides with your own judgement and morality, rendering it effectually powerless in your personal guidance system. That doesn't mean you never consider it in your decisions, but in matters whereby morality is not at play, you are free to choose obeying the law over being hassled by fines and imprisonment. Succumbing to coercion is not the same as acknowledging governmental authority over your personal decision-making process. Even were you to violate your morality outright on the basis of government threats, this does not mean that you accept their authority; it only means you respect their threats. It's no different than if a bear attempted to take your sandwich while lunching in the woods. You do not believe he has a right to it, but discretion dictates that you hand it over to preserve your own well-being.

You, my friend, do not accept governmental authority over you, though perhaps you've never realized it. I would ask that you ponder this realization and make a greater commitment to that acknowledgement by not supporting the authority of government over others when you don't even accept it yourself.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"3. Therefore, since only one authority may hold the primary place as a standard for individual behavior, morality and governmental law are mutually exclusive -- where one holds sway, the other cannot."

False assumption.

denying the validity of the statement that each must be primary in order to serve their purpose?

Do you suppose that two standards can both hold the primary place? Or are you denying the validity of the statement that each must be primary in order to serve their purpose? Please explain your assertion of a false assumption.

"...denying the validity of the statement that each must be primary in order to serve their purpose?"

People can get along just fine using different standards for different behaviors under different circumstances. Most behaviors most of the time can be both legal and moral. It is not a given that they will conflict. Or that people will always use the same standard when they seem to.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

The point, then, of my refutation of your argument is that society does not have to so choose, and what I've shown is that sometimes it does choose between the two, suborning one to the other in the design and implementation of jurisprudence, it does not always do so. Society/individuals can choose to do that, but it/they can as well choose not to and instead declare the two be equivalently legitimate authorities for jurisprudential actions (creating a law, passing it, enforcing it, and judging various comportment's legitimacy.)

Thank you kindly. I admit that much of the trouble stems from my desire to trim back my OP as close to the core idea as possible. You're perfectly justified in taking exception with my "self-evident" statements, and certainly much explanation would be required to justify those statements in a rigidly formal setting. That's not to say that we should just "let things slide" in any setting, but I figured we could cut to the chase, as many would fill in the blanks on their own, finding the ideas agreeable enough to proceed.

Important to note is that the entirety of my argument is meant to refer to the individual, not the larger society and how it creates law. Of course law is ostensibly predicated upon common concepts of morality, and is expected to co-exist with it. This argument is only meant to demonstrate that both cannot hold a primary authoritative position in the individual's personal decision-making process, and that where one is not primary, it is not operating as it must to be effective (or even extant, relative to that individual). Also, I am targeting the argument at people who consider themselves "moral", meaning that they strive to live up to some standard of morality. Anyone who does not value morality at all is free to dismiss the argument, as the matter need not concern them.

Now, if the "moral person" desires to live up to their own standard, then whatever the practical consequences of that striving -- be it complete failure, complete success, or anywhere along that spectrum -- it can be said that their intent is in the moral direction. In order to make an earnest effort to this effect, the moral standard must represent the primary obligation in all cases; for what else does it mean to be a moral person other than that your life is guided by morality? One may fail in the practical attempt, but they cannot purposefully dismiss the moral obligation under any circumstances and still accurately describe themselves as a moral person. Morality's role is to stand as the ultimate judge of the individual's behavior. It's purpose is to determine right action; not in a vacuum, but while navigating the tumult of other conflicting standards and motivations. If it does not hold this primary position, it is not serving its purpose, and thus ceases to exist as morality proper. Its authority is rooted in its primacy. Obviously, the same can be said of governmental law. This is the fundamental reasoning behind the assertion of exclusivity. Given this contextual explanation, do you still dispute this claim?

Mutual exclusivity between law and morals in the context of their perfect alignment is rather a moot point. I stand by my argument that one standard must still be primary (since the standard, to be a standard, must be so at all times), but since it will only be revealed where discrepancies occur, it serves to dilute the discussion to expound upon this point. However, I felt it necessary to note that the instance of perfect alignment does not contradict the mutual exclusivity conclusion.


PERSONAL NOTES AND TANGENTIALS:
I have a tendency to be verbose, and am constantly on-guard against this because posts can swell to unmanageable lengths. My attempts to avoid this can often lead to misunderstanding. My comment about "obfuscation via complexification" was expressing my reluctance to have this thread become an armchair bout of high philosophy. I desire to have this argument serve as a tool for self-reflection, and for readers to analyze their own motivations to determine where authority lies in their own lives. I did not want to distract from this goal with the rigors of establishing definitions and providing formal proofs to establish my premises, etc., unless absolutely necessary. I felt that your initial reply was taking us in that direction, rather than cutting to the chase, and so I offered that comment. I hope you did not take offense; it was more about my unstated desire for informality than any perceived wrongdoing on your part.

In simple, informal terms: I'm of the opinion that a moral person cannot concede the validity of governmental authority at all, because man's law claims supremacy over their individual morality. Law may coincide with our morality, but it's of no matter whether it does or it does not, because it is irrelevant if we are committed to holding to our moral standard. Basically, where it aligns - good for you; where it doesn't - oh well, catch me if you can. The moral person cannot be obligated to abide by man's law.

Furthermore, I submit the rather obvious claim that government can never have valid authority in anyone's life, regardless of their beliefs. One need only realize that even if they believe that governmental law holds the highest authority in their life, it is their own judgement that grants it this position, in lieu of all other options. So the law itself holds no authority that is not personally conceded. if the reader recognizes that they allow themselves the luxury of making the core determination as to what role government will play in their own life, then I merely ask that they consider affording others an equal opportunity. When they vote, however (effectually saying "I support government's right to be an authority over YOU"), they are not respecting their neighbor's right to make that choice for themselves, and to perhaps choose differently. No one can truly deny their neighbor the choice, but you are placing them in a position of danger for making a choice different from your own. As such, you are subjecting them to violent coercion by proxy. But this is a matter for another thread...

 

[Brian Blackwell]

"3. Therefore, since only one authority may hold the primary place as a standard for individual behavior, morality and governmental law are mutually exclusive -- where one holds sway, the other cannot."

False assumption.

denying the validity of the statement that each must be primary in order to serve their purpose?

Do you suppose that two standards can both hold the primary place? Or are you denying the validity of the statement that each must be primary in order to serve their purpose? Please explain your assertion of a false assumption.

"...denying the validity of the statement that each must be primary in order to serve their purpose?"

People can get along just fine using different standards for different behaviors under different circumstances. Most behaviors most of the time can be both legal and moral. It is not a given that they will conflict. Or that people will always use the same standard when they seem to.

For someone to be a "moral person", their morality must guide ALL of their decisions. To the degree that morality is subjugated to another standard, to that degree they fail to be moral. Now there are many decisions to be made where any choice is within the framework of morality, and so there is no moral consequence; such as when choosing what color jeans to buy. But where morality is relevant, it must be heeded, or the person is not moral by their own standard.

Of course, we may fail and try again, but we cannot ride the fence and say, "Well, I'll take each situation as it comes, and where conflicts exist, sometimes I'll follow my morality, and sometimes I'll follow the law." This means that morality holds no authority in their lives; and since morality must be an authority in order to actually be morality, if it does not hold authority it ceases to exist.

Where no conflict exists between morality and law, the question of which is primary is moot. I would still say that one standard is primary, and the other is a hollow echo, but since we cannot determine which one is which until a discrepancy occurs, it's futile to discuss the situation of perfect alignment between the two.

Authority means obliging the individual regardless all other considerations. The law claims to be such an authority, regardless of your moral objections to it. It reserves the right to diverge from your morality and still oblige you to its demands. As such, it cannot be abided by the moral person. Therefore, for someone to make the claim that they are a moral person, they cannot permit governmental law as an authority in their lives. And if law cannot oblige the moral person, then clearly the moral person could not support government's claim to oblige others; for this would be to impose immorality on others, which would be an immoral act in itself. The moral person cannot support government and still be moral, regardless of the nature or cited origin of their moral standard.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"3. Therefore, since only one authority may hold the primary place as a standard for individual behavior, morality and governmental law are mutually exclusive -- where one holds sway, the other cannot."

False assumption.

denying the validity of the statement that each must be primary in order to serve their purpose?

Do you suppose that two standards can both hold the primary place? Or are you denying the validity of the statement that each must be primary in order to serve their purpose? Please explain your assertion of a false assumption.

"...denying the validity of the statement that each must be primary in order to serve their purpose?"

People can get along just fine using different standards for different behaviors under different circumstances. Most behaviors most of the time can be both legal and moral. It is not a given that they will conflict. Or that people will always use the same standard when they seem to.

For someone to be a "moral person", their morality must guide ALL of their decisions. To the degree that morality is subjugated to another standard, to that degree they fail to be moral. Now there are many decisions to be made where any choice is within the framework of morality, and so there is no moral consequence; such as when choosing what color jeans to buy. But where morality is relevant, it must be heeded, or the person is not moral by their own standard.

Of course, we may fail and try again, but we cannot ride the fence and say, "Well, I'll take each situation as it comes, and where conflicts exist, sometimes I'll follow my morality, and sometimes I'll follow the law." This means that morality holds no authority in their lives; and since morality must be an authority in order to actually be morality, if it does not hold authority it ceases to exist.

Where no conflict exists between morality and law, the question of which is primary is moot. I would still say that one standard is primary, and the other is a hollow echo, but since we cannot determine which one is which until a discrepancy occurs, it's futile to discuss the situation of perfect alignment between the two.

Authority means obliging the individual regardless all other considerations. The law claims to be such an authority, regardless of your moral objections to it. It reserves the right to diverge from your morality and still oblige you to its demands. As such, it cannot be abided by the moral person. Therefore, for someone to make the claim that they are a moral person, they cannot permit governmental law as an authority in their lives. And if law cannot oblige the moral person, then clearly the moral person could not support government's claim to oblige others; for this would be to impose immorality on others, which would be an immoral act in itself. The moral person cannot support government and still be moral, regardless of the nature or cited origin of their moral standard.

"For someone to be a "moral person", their morality must guide ALL of their decisions."

That may be your personal opinion but be reminded that it is personal opinion only; not an absolute truth. Nor is it an opinion that most people share.

"Authority means obliging the individual regardless all other considerations."

Law doesn't actually force anybody to do (or not do) anything otherwise there would be no criminals. The same is true of moral authority or there would be no sinners. Couldn't be either. Free will.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

No, I won't. You're beyond hope of anyone convincing you to abandon the infantile selfish solipsism you hold onto as if your life depended on it.

Ok, then you refuse to argue your position, or to logically refute mine, and have deemed me hopeless despite no attempt to change my mind. So I'm not sure what you're doing here in CDZ (the "D" does stand for "debate" after all). The best we can gather is that you don't think morality should be a primary moral standard (as per your comment, "law must have priority over pushy moralistic considerations"), which is fine. Making law the higher standard relegates morality to a lower position, rendering it incapable of judging law for the purposes of guiding action. Therefore, morality serves no function and ceases to exist. That's logically consistent with the argument, so we appear to be in agreement.

Preachers Have No Principles, Only Interests

Very dishonest. Just because I haven't blasted open the lockbox you call a mind, doesn't mean I didn't try hard enough before realizing it is Sage-proof. Typical Netwit trick; all of us have seen this many times: If an answer doesn't convince a narrow-minded fanatic by meeting the self-serving standards set by his mind-raping gurus, he closes his eyes and pretends it wasn't an attempt to answer at all. I do not accept the authoritarian way you pretend to eliminate me from the debate.