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

[The Sage of Main Street]

"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.

Me, Myself, and Ayn

I reject your pushy self-righteous claim that you are promoting ethics rather than egos. A pulpit is for bullies.

 

[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.

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.

I have no desire to eliminate you from the debate. I asked you to explain your position and you said “No”. You called me hopeless before even having a debate at all. I’m not sure what you’d like me to say when you haven’t given me anything to work with.

EDIT: Btw, principles are at the core of my position. Why would you suggest otherwise? It’s all about holding fast to one’s morality.

 

[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.

"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

Are you denying that to be a moral person, one must be guided by morality in all cases? Guided, mind you; that doesn’t mean they always follow that guidance. I’m pointing to an earnest striving. If one is not earnestly endeavoring to follow their moral code, what differentiates them from the immoral person?

When I say that law “obliges” I do not mean to say “necessarily compels” as though a person is powerless to resist. I mean it poses an obligation. Plenty of people fail to uphold their obligations. But obviously law sets forth dictates, asserts that the citizen has an obligation to obey them, and punishes them if they don’t.

 

[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

Are you denying that to be a moral person, one must be guided by morality in all cases? Guided, mind you; that doesn’t mean they always follow that guidance. I’m pointing to an earnest striving. If one is not earnestly endeavoring to follow their moral code, what differentiates them from the immoral person?

When I say that law “obliges” I do not mean to say “necessarily compels” as though a person is powerless to resist. I mean it poses an obligation. Plenty of people fail to uphold their obligations. But obviously law sets forth dictates, asserts that the citizen has an obligation to obey them, and punishes them if they don’t.

"Are you denying that to be a moral person, one must be guided by morality in all cases?"

Absolutely. Because, as we agreed earlier, not all cases have moral implications. In addition "morality" and "moral person"
have as many different definitions as there are people.

" If one is not earnestly endeavoring to follow their moral code, what differentiates them from the immoral person?"

Maybe nothing. Last I heard nobody's perfect I have no inclination to sit around trying to decide if I'm better than someone else and, if so, how much better. Judge not.

 

[usmbguest5318]

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...

Thank you for the remarks above. It's a far better argument than the one I read in the OP, I'd even call it a fine argument, and it's one with which I take no material exception.

Thank you kindly.

You're welcome.

I admit that much of the trouble stems from my desire to trim back my OP as close to the core idea as possible....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.

Given your exposition in post 37, I'd say misunderstanding is what I obtained from the OP.

I figured we could cut to the chase, as many would fill in the blanks on their own

Some, perhaps many, here would do just that. I generally don't, mostly out of respect for a writer/speaker. I presume that one will, with full awareness of the implications of one's remarks, say neither more nor less than what one means (tacitly and explicitly). Truly in a segment labeled as an argument, I'm definitely not going to fill in the blanks; doing so oversteps my authority.

Lord knows a good share of my posts are written to preempt readers' filling in the blanks as they see fit rather than in some way that makes sense given the content/context of the argument I present. Sadly, framing, is all too common here. Defending against straw man tactics of that sort compels me to post far wordier posts than I'd otherwise care to or would among conversationalists given to productive discussion in which commonality is found more so than adversarial blathering to "win."

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.

Be thine own palace, or the world's thy jail.
-- John Donne, "To Sir Henry Wotton"​

Noted and understood. The difference in focus is very material. Substantively it limits the scope of considerations, although in doing so, it (1) leaves a huge gap at the point where "non-island" individuals join society and (2) as goes forensic debate strategy, from the start it forces most refutations to the margins, which as any chess player knows is rather an unsatisfying vantage.

TY for the clarification.

I am targeting the argument at people who consider themselves "moral", meaning that they strive to live up to some standard of morality....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.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.
-- Solomon​

I presume you don't intend a notion such as Solomon's, so In the main I agree; however, reading the above, I thought about moral relativism and in turn thought about the point at which the relativist's morals achieve immorality. Even as I think you weren't thematically going down Solomon's road, as it were, I still have to ask what qualifier applies at the limit because I think of morality as a multidimensionality of continuums (there are a few more, but the several below will do for the discussion) that define what is/isn't moral:

• Care (M-moral) vs. Harm (IM-immoral)
• Fidelity (M) vs. Chicanery (IM)
• Rectitude/sanctity (M) vs. Turpitude/impiety (IM) [Rectitude and turpitude being the terms I've chosen to allude to the notion of extratheistic sanctity....I'm trusting you get my meaning.]
• Liberty (M) vs. Tyranny (IM)

Can one reach the limit (abstract or practical) and still be "guided by morality?" May such a person still "accurately describe themselves as a moral person?"

One who routinely lands near the immoral end of several of the spectra cannot accurately declare themselves as moral (truth being existential), though in practice they may think they are to some degree moral. "Even I wouldn't go so far as to....," such individuals may say, yet the rest of us know those persons are depraved. One eventually wonders of such wanton folks whether anything having to do with morality even enters their minds as they choose their undertakings. One answer, is, of course, "no" however, that leaves open the governance model you mentioned.

Wondering whether such person holds to any moral code, the next question one might ask is whether the person ascribes to no moral code and to no jurisprudential code. I should think that for some reprobates, the answer must be no in both regards, but they are the curs who verily define the margins to which I above referred.

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?

It's that "all" cases that really bothers me to the point that I am not inclined to accept "all" whereas I could accept "some," "most," "many," or any of a variety of less absolute qualifiers.

Take my economics and position on economics. My normative economic choices/preferences derive from empirical findings that demonstrate that "this or that" economic policy will produce, well, more money. Now I'm aware that some of the economic stances I prefer will result in some folks being worse off and others better, others still will experience no substantive impact. I'm okay with that because overall, it's more money "in the pot," as it were. I'm completely indifferent about who -- individual level or segment of society -- be the "winners and losers." Obviously I must have some confidence in my own ability to be among the "winners," however, I acknowledge there's risk that I may not be, and if I'm not, well, so be it, I'll have to try harder to join the "winners. Similarly, insofar as I'm choosing the stance I prefer, the formulation of my preference doesn't result from any governance ends or influences.

So what's driving the choice I've described? For me, economic and (to some extent) social Darwinism. Governance nor morality hasn't anything to do with it. Do I think myself a moral person in general? Of course. Might others think me so? Plenty in "the real world" do -- I've for decades, since sometime in high school, heard the same remarks about my moral/ethical bearing..."Very demanding, very fair, generous yet a true believer in the notion that 'the Lord help them who help themselves.' " Might some who don't know me well consider me amoral or immoral? Maybe, but inasmuch as I'm okay with how I'm perceived by those who know me well, other folks' judgment doesn't concern me. Indeed, as go my economics, I'm rather happy they by and large don't depend on morality.

Hopefully the discussion above conveys how I come to take exception with the "all cases" element of the model you've presented. (I don't imagine you'll respond with an exposition about natural law seeing as one can't really call that governance for natural law just is; it's not a construct.)

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.

Here again, when choosing my economic positions, what the law says has nothing to do with what I'd choose to make be policy. I'm simply looking at empirical economic evidence and choosing based on that. There're no laws involved or guiding my preferences. I don't say "it's wrong to implement 'such and such' economic policy because it'll adversely affect...." I say, "Yes, 'such and such' policy will adversely affect the following genre of individuals and I'm okay with it doing so. They either 'step up' (on their own or with help) or perish. I'm okay with either outcome."

Now, once the policy has been implemented, would I deny someone the guidance they request so they can "step up?" No. That absolutely is a moral choice I make. My "system" works about like this:

• Don't solicit assistance when one should do so --> one perishes, and I'm okay with that.
• Solicit assistance and be unable to avail oneself of it --> one perishes, and I'm okay with that.
• Have no need for help or receive help and make effective use of it --> one thrives, and I'm okay with that.

The moral person cannot be obligated to abide by man's law.

That's idea verges on anarchical. It may well be squarely that.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

"Are you denying that to be a moral person, one must be guided by morality in all cases?"

Absolutely. Because, as we agreed earlier, not all cases have moral implications. In addition "morality" and "moral person"
have as many different definitions as there are people.

" If one is not earnestly endeavoring to follow their moral code, what differentiates them from the immoral person?"

Maybe nothing. Last I heard nobody's perfect I have no inclination to sit around trying to decide if I'm better than someone else and, if so, how much better. Judge not.

Well, cases with no moral implications are irrelevant to the discussion. So if I revise my statement to say, "A moral person must be guided by morality in all cases with moral implications", would you then agree?

I did not say the moral person must be perfect. I said that the key factor is the earnest striving to follow one's morality. They must allow their morality to guide decisions with moral implications. It's not about comparing yourself to others, only comparing yourself to your OWN moral standard. It doesn't matter how many other moral systems exist, we're only talking about the individual.

Let's take you for example: if you personally believe it is immoral to kick babies in front of buses, then to be moral, you must earnestly endeavor to not kick babies in front of buses. Failure to earnestly strive toward this would make you immoral by your own standard. Should government make a law that says "All citizens must kick babies in front of buses at every available opportunity" you would be faced with a choice. If you choose your morality, then governmental law has no authority over you, as you are obliged by what you consider to be a higher standard.

Speaking honestly and practically, you must recognize that your own moral judgement takes precedence over law. You would not kick babies based upon a belief in law's authority to oblige you. If this is true, then you do not believe in the authority of law. You simply follow the law when it suits you, either because it coincides with your morality, or because there are no moral implications to the matter at hand and you prefer not to risk punishment. Is this fair enough to be a basis for agreement?

 

[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...

Thank you for the remarks above. It's a far better argument than the one I read in the OP, I'd even call it a fine argument, and it's one with which I take no material exception.

Thank you kindly.

You're welcome.

I admit that much of the trouble stems from my desire to trim back my OP as close to the core idea as possible....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.

Given your exposition in post 37, I'd say misunderstanding is what I obtained from the OP.

I figured we could cut to the chase, as many would fill in the blanks on their own

Some, perhaps many, here would do just that. I generally don't, mostly out of respect for a writer/speaker. I presume that one will, with full awareness of the implications of one's remarks, say neither more nor less than what one means (tacitly and explicitly). Truly in a segment labeled as an argument, I'm definitely not going to fill in the blanks; doing so oversteps my authority.

Lord knows a good share of my posts are written to preempt readers' filling in the blanks as they see fit rather than in some way that makes sense given the content/context of the argument I present. Sadly, framing, is all too common here. Defending against straw man tactics of that sort compels me to post far wordier posts than I'd otherwise care to or would among conversationalists given to productive discussion in which commonality is found more so than adversarial blathering to "win."

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.

Be thine own palace, or the world's thy jail.
-- John Donne, "To Sir Henry Wotton"​

Noted and understood. The difference in focus is very material. Substantively it limits the scope of considerations, although in doing so, it (1) leaves a huge gap at the point where "non-island" individuals join society and (2) as goes forensic debate strategy, from the start it forces most refutations to the margins, which as any chess player knows is rather an unsatisfying vantage.

TY for the clarification.

I am targeting the argument at people who consider themselves "moral", meaning that they strive to live up to some standard of morality....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.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.
-- Solomon​

I presume you don't intend a notion such as Solomon's, so In the main I agree; however, reading the above, I thought about moral relativism and in turn thought about the point at which the relativist's morals achieve immorality. Even as I think you weren't thematically going down Solomon's road, as it were, I still have to ask what qualifier applies at the limit because I think of morality as a multidimensionality of continuums (there are a few more, but the several below will do for the discussion) that define what is/isn't moral:

• Care (M-moral) vs. Harm (IM-immoral)
• Fidelity (M) vs. Chicanery (IM)
• Rectitude/sanctity (M) vs. Turpitude/impiety (IM) [Rectitude and turpitude being the terms I've chosen to allude to the notion of extratheistic sanctity....I'm trusting you get my meaning.]
• Liberty (M) vs. Tyranny (IM)

Can one reach the limit (abstract or practical) and still be "guided by morality?" May such a person still "accurately describe themselves as a moral person?"

One who routinely lands near the immoral end of several of the spectra cannot accurately declare themselves as moral (truth being existential), though in practice they may think they are to some degree moral. "Even I wouldn't go so far as to....," such individuals may say, yet the rest of us know those persons are depraved. One eventually wonders of such wanton folks whether anything having to do with morality even enters their minds as they choose their undertakings. One answer, is, of course, "no" however, that leaves open the governance model you mentioned.

Wondering whether such person holds to any moral code, the next question one might ask is whether the person ascribes to no moral code and to no jurisprudential code. I should think that for some reprobates, the answer must be no in both regards, but they are the curs who verily define the margins to which I above referred.

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?

It's that "all" cases that really bothers me to the point that I am not inclined to accept "all" whereas I could accept "some," "most," "many," or any of a variety of less absolute qualifiers.

Take my economics and position on economics. My normative economic choices/preferences derive from empirical findings that demonstrate that "this or that" economic policy will produce, well, more money. Now I'm aware that some of the economic stances I prefer will result in some folks being worse off and others better, others still will experience no substantive impact. I'm okay with that because overall, it's more money "in the pot," as it were. I'm completely indifferent about who -- individual level or segment of society -- be the "winners and losers." Obviously I must have some confidence in my own ability to be among the "winners," however, I acknowledge there's risk that I may not be, and if I'm not, well, so be it, I'll have to try harder to join the "winners. Similarly, insofar as I'm choosing the stance I prefer, the formulation of my preference doesn't result from any governance ends or influences.

So what's driving the choice I've described? For me, economic and (to some extent) social Darwinism. Governance nor morality hasn't anything to do with it. Do I think myself a moral person in general? Of course. Might others think me so? Plenty in "the real world" do -- I've for decades, since sometime in high school, heard the same remarks about my moral/ethical bearing..."Very demanding, very fair, generous yet a true believer in the notion that 'the Lord help them who help themselves.' " Might some who don't know me well consider me amoral or immoral? Maybe, but inasmuch as I'm okay with how I'm perceived by those who know me well, other folks' judgment doesn't concern me. Indeed, as go my economics, I'm rather happy they by and large don't depend on morality.

Hopefully the discussion above conveys how I come to take exception with the "all cases" element of the model you've presented. (I don't imagine you'll respond with an exposition about natural law seeing as one can't really call that governance for natural law just is; it's not a construct.)

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.

Here again, when choosing my economic positions, what the law says has nothing to do with what I'd choose to make be policy. I'm simply looking at empirical economic evidence and choosing based on that. There're no laws involved or guiding my preferences. I don't say "it's wrong to implement 'such and such' economic policy because it'll adversely affect...." I say, "Yes, 'such and such' policy will adversely affect the following genre of individuals and I'm okay with it doing so. They either 'step up' (on their own or with help) or perish. I'm okay with either outcome."

Now, once the policy has been implemented, would I deny someone the guidance they request so they can "step up?" No. That absolutely is a moral choice I make. My "system" works about like this:

• Don't solicit assistance when one should do so --> one perishes, and I'm okay with that.
• Solicit assistance and be unable to avail oneself of it --> one perishes, and I'm okay with that.
• Have no need for help or receive help and make effective use of it --> one thrives, and I'm okay with that.

The moral person cannot be obligated to abide by man's law.

That's idea verges on anarchical. It may well be squarely that.

All is very well here, thank you for helping to refine the discussion. I view such assistance as a kindness, as it was truly my burden to bear.

A further contraction would answer for much of this... I was made to qualify my "in all cases" remark for another poster, and did so by saying "A moral person must be guided by morality in all cases with moral implications". Since the moral standard is not defined, precisely which cases actually have moral implications is equally undefined. I believe your economic position would fall into the category of not having moral implications, according to the moral standard you've described.

The justification for this narrowing of focus is that I am trying to reveal the core principles that motivate the decisions of the individual. I am speaking to the reader specifically, and asking them to investigate where authority lies in their own thinking. I've defined the key moral factor as the earnest striving toward the moral standard (independent from success rate). Despite the controversial nature of the assertion that "intent determines morality" in objective investigations, on the individual level we can see that there is nothing more a person can do than to earnestly strive. As such, if there can be any qualification for the "moral person", it must be this.

Although it is difficult to ascertain where along the moral continuum a person may reside and still call themselves "moral", it is certain that where the person purposefully does not strive toward the moral standard, they are acting immorally. The argument of the OP asks the question, "which standard takes precedence when divergences occur?" Since anyone who desires to be a moral person must "be guided by morality in all cases with moral implications", and strive in accordance with that guidance, then they must deny the authority of law where it conflicts with morality. And if law does not have authority where conflicts occur, to say it has authority where conflicts do not occur is to say nothing whatever.

The end result is that governmental law has no authority at all over the moral person; which I submit describes the case of nearly all people, as nearly all people would concede to having some moral standard. As such, it seems unreasonable - even immoral - to support governmental authority in the lives of others when you do not admit its authority over yourself. If this results in one adopting an anarchical view by logical necessity, so be it. If the argument is recognized as valid, the only alternative would be to resolve ourselves to cognitive dissonance; at which point we may free ourselves of all pretense of morality and reason, and allow bestial whim to carry us where it will.

 

[usmbguest5318]

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...

Thank you for the remarks above. It's a far better argument than the one I read in the OP, I'd even call it a fine argument, and it's one with which I take no material exception.

Thank you kindly.

You're welcome.

I admit that much of the trouble stems from my desire to trim back my OP as close to the core idea as possible....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.

Given your exposition in post 37, I'd say misunderstanding is what I obtained from the OP.

I figured we could cut to the chase, as many would fill in the blanks on their own

Some, perhaps many, here would do just that. I generally don't, mostly out of respect for a writer/speaker. I presume that one will, with full awareness of the implications of one's remarks, say neither more nor less than what one means (tacitly and explicitly). Truly in a segment labeled as an argument, I'm definitely not going to fill in the blanks; doing so oversteps my authority.

Lord knows a good share of my posts are written to preempt readers' filling in the blanks as they see fit rather than in some way that makes sense given the content/context of the argument I present. Sadly, framing, is all too common here. Defending against straw man tactics of that sort compels me to post far wordier posts than I'd otherwise care to or would among conversationalists given to productive discussion in which commonality is found more so than adversarial blathering to "win."

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.

Be thine own palace, or the world's thy jail.
-- John Donne, "To Sir Henry Wotton"​

Noted and understood. The difference in focus is very material. Substantively it limits the scope of considerations, although in doing so, it (1) leaves a huge gap at the point where "non-island" individuals join society and (2) as goes forensic debate strategy, from the start it forces most refutations to the margins, which as any chess player knows is rather an unsatisfying vantage.

TY for the clarification.

I am targeting the argument at people who consider themselves "moral", meaning that they strive to live up to some standard of morality....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.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.
-- Solomon​

I presume you don't intend a notion such as Solomon's, so In the main I agree; however, reading the above, I thought about moral relativism and in turn thought about the point at which the relativist's morals achieve immorality. Even as I think you weren't thematically going down Solomon's road, as it were, I still have to ask what qualifier applies at the limit because I think of morality as a multidimensionality of continuums (there are a few more, but the several below will do for the discussion) that define what is/isn't moral:

• Care (M-moral) vs. Harm (IM-immoral)
• Fidelity (M) vs. Chicanery (IM)
• Rectitude/sanctity (M) vs. Turpitude/impiety (IM) [Rectitude and turpitude being the terms I've chosen to allude to the notion of extratheistic sanctity....I'm trusting you get my meaning.]
• Liberty (M) vs. Tyranny (IM)

Can one reach the limit (abstract or practical) and still be "guided by morality?" May such a person still "accurately describe themselves as a moral person?"

One who routinely lands near the immoral end of several of the spectra cannot accurately declare themselves as moral (truth being existential), though in practice they may think they are to some degree moral. "Even I wouldn't go so far as to....," such individuals may say, yet the rest of us know those persons are depraved. One eventually wonders of such wanton folks whether anything having to do with morality even enters their minds as they choose their undertakings. One answer, is, of course, "no" however, that leaves open the governance model you mentioned.

Wondering whether such person holds to any moral code, the next question one might ask is whether the person ascribes to no moral code and to no jurisprudential code. I should think that for some reprobates, the answer must be no in both regards, but they are the curs who verily define the margins to which I above referred.

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?

It's that "all" cases that really bothers me to the point that I am not inclined to accept "all" whereas I could accept "some," "most," "many," or any of a variety of less absolute qualifiers.

Take my economics and position on economics. My normative economic choices/preferences derive from empirical findings that demonstrate that "this or that" economic policy will produce, well, more money. Now I'm aware that some of the economic stances I prefer will result in some folks being worse off and others better, others still will experience no substantive impact. I'm okay with that because overall, it's more money "in the pot," as it were. I'm completely indifferent about who -- individual level or segment of society -- be the "winners and losers." Obviously I must have some confidence in my own ability to be among the "winners," however, I acknowledge there's risk that I may not be, and if I'm not, well, so be it, I'll have to try harder to join the "winners. Similarly, insofar as I'm choosing the stance I prefer, the formulation of my preference doesn't result from any governance ends or influences.

So what's driving the choice I've described? For me, economic and (to some extent) social Darwinism. Governance nor morality hasn't anything to do with it. Do I think myself a moral person in general? Of course. Might others think me so? Plenty in "the real world" do -- I've for decades, since sometime in high school, heard the same remarks about my moral/ethical bearing..."Very demanding, very fair, generous yet a true believer in the notion that 'the Lord help them who help themselves.' " Might some who don't know me well consider me amoral or immoral? Maybe, but inasmuch as I'm okay with how I'm perceived by those who know me well, other folks' judgment doesn't concern me. Indeed, as go my economics, I'm rather happy they by and large don't depend on morality.

Hopefully the discussion above conveys how I come to take exception with the "all cases" element of the model you've presented. (I don't imagine you'll respond with an exposition about natural law seeing as one can't really call that governance for natural law just is; it's not a construct.)

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.

Here again, when choosing my economic positions, what the law says has nothing to do with what I'd choose to make be policy. I'm simply looking at empirical economic evidence and choosing based on that. There're no laws involved or guiding my preferences. I don't say "it's wrong to implement 'such and such' economic policy because it'll adversely affect...." I say, "Yes, 'such and such' policy will adversely affect the following genre of individuals and I'm okay with it doing so. They either 'step up' (on their own or with help) or perish. I'm okay with either outcome."

Now, once the policy has been implemented, would I deny someone the guidance they request so they can "step up?" No. That absolutely is a moral choice I make. My "system" works about like this:

• Don't solicit assistance when one should do so --> one perishes, and I'm okay with that.
• Solicit assistance and be unable to avail oneself of it --> one perishes, and I'm okay with that.
• Have no need for help or receive help and make effective use of it --> one thrives, and I'm okay with that.

The moral person cannot be obligated to abide by man's law.

That's idea verges on anarchical. It may well be squarely that.

All is very well here, thank you for helping to refine the discussion. I view such assistance as a kindness, as it was truly my burden to bear.

A further contraction would answer for much of this... I was made to qualify my "in all cases" remark for another poster, and did so by saying "A moral person must be guided by morality in all cases with moral implications". Since the moral standard is not defined, precisely which cases actually have moral implications is equally undefined. I believe your economic position would fall into the category of not having moral implications, according to the moral standard you've described.

The justification for this narrowing of focus is that I am trying to reveal the core principles that motivate the decisions of the individual. I am speaking to the reader specifically, and asking them to investigate where authority lies in their own thinking. I've defined the key moral factor as the earnest striving toward the moral standard (independent from success rate). Despite the controversial nature of the assertion that "intent determines morality" in objective investigations, on the individual level we can see that there is nothing more a person can do than to earnestly strive. As such, if there can be any qualification for the "moral person", it must be this.

Although it is difficult to ascertain where along the moral continuum a person may reside and still call themselves "moral", it is certain that where the person purposefully does not strive toward the moral standard, they are acting immorally. The argument of the OP asks the question, "which standard takes precedence when divergences occur?" Since anyone who desires to be a moral person must "be guided by morality in all cases with moral implications", and strive in accordance with that guidance, then they must deny the authority of law where it conflicts with morality. And if law does not have authority where conflicts occur, to say it has authority where conflicts do not occur is to say nothing whatever.

The end result is that governmental law has no authority at all over the moral person; which I submit describes the case of nearly all people, as nearly all people would concede to having some moral standard. As such, it seems unreasonable - even immoral - to support governmental authority in the lives of others when you do not admit its authority over yourself. If this results in one adopting an anarchical view by logical necessity, so be it. If the argument is recognized as valid, the only alternative would be to resolve ourselves to cognitive dissonance; at which point we may free ourselves of all pretense of morality and reason, and allow bestial whim to carry us where it will.

All is very well here, thank you for helping to refine the discussion. I view such assistance as a kindness, as it was truly my burden to bear.

You're welcome. TY for with charity receiving my remarks.

"A moral person must be guided by morality in all cases with moral implications".

I agree.

I believe your economic position would fall into the category of not having moral implications, according to the moral standard you've described.

I certainly don't think that is so. Indeed, I alluded to there being moral implications to my policy preferences themselves and thus to implementing them, namely that those policy choices will surely produce "winners and losers," and that it's possible that some of the losers may perish. Inasmuch as I consider myself as and aim to be a moral person, I must therefore reconcile an act I'd undertake or for which I'd advocate, "an act" being any given policy decision (personal/household, office, economic, jurisprudential, etc., formal or informal), with its foreseeable immoral effects.

I alluded to the process of doing that, but perhaps a direct expression of that process is warranted, so here it is, in highly abbreviated summary:

1. Choose priorities -- As go economic public policies, I prioritize the economic outcome over the moral effects the policy might have.
2. Policy Selection and Analysis:
   1. Identify the policy goals one aims to realize by implementing any given policy or set thereof. -- This is, for obvious reasons, the single most important step in the whole process.
   2. Identify relevant policies and compatible combinations thereof.
   3. Evaluate the policies' (and policy combinations') intrinsic purpose-specific merits and demerits.
   4. Select the policy/policy combination that in its own right offers the maximum goal achievement outcomes.
3. Morality Assessment and Immoral Effect Design/Planning:
   1. Identify the moral implications of the chosen policy/policy combination.
   2. Identify morality goals.
   3. Identify means of attenuating the immoral effects of the the chosen policy/policy combination.
4. Implement the policy/policy combination along with the mitigation tactics.

it is certain that where the person purposefully does not strive toward the moral standard, they are acting immorally.

Agreed.

From the above outline, one sees that I compartmentalize the decision making and resolving its moral implications. Doing both things is, however, incumbent upon a moral person.

The argument of the OP asks the question, "which standard takes precedence when divergences occur?" Since anyone who desires to be a moral person must "be guided by morality in all cases with moral implications", and strive in accordance with that guidance, then they must deny the authority of law where it conflicts with morality.

Given the clarifications you've provided since posting the OP, I agree. I suppose some people don't, for whatever reason, use the "compartmentalization" approach I do to reconcile do so, but that they don't doesn't affect the accuracy of your (emboldened) assertion.

The argument of the OP asks the question, "which standard takes precedence when divergences occur?" Since anyone who desires to be a moral person must "be guided by morality in all cases with moral implications", and strive in accordance with that guidance, then they must deny the authority of law where it conflicts with morality. And if law does not have authority where conflicts occur, to say it has authority where conflicts do not occur is to say nothing whatever.

Implicit in the compartmentalization approach I described/apply is the duty to reconcile the conflicts. As I wrote, "doing both things is, however, incumbent upon a moral person;" moral lawmakers too must do so when crafting legislation.

The end result is that governmental law has no authority at all over the moral person; which I submit describes the case of nearly all people, as nearly all people would concede to having some moral standard.

In the abstract, yes; however, after arriving at that conclusion, one must use one's judgment to determine how to act in consequence of so concluding. Exercising that judgement has for millenia formed the basis for myriad immoral acts. For instance, that rationale is precisely the one may in turn use to justify a host of unforced immoral acts. I think I can stop there for I don't need to expound for you upon the immoral, "twisted," if you will, applications/interpretations of various philosophical (utilitarianism comes readily to mind) or theological systems.

As such, it seems unreasonable - even immoral - to support governmental authority in the lives of others when you do not admit its authority over yourself. If this results in one adopting an anarchical view by logical necessity, so be it.

I think a reasonable case can be made that an anarchical state of mind as well as an anarchical is, in practice, inherently immoral. I'm not going to present such a case because you earlier defined the scope of the philosophical component of this discussion/thread as being abstract rather than pragmatic or abstract and pragmatic.

 

[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...

Thank you for the remarks above. It's a far better argument than the one I read in the OP, I'd even call it a fine argument, and it's one with which I take no material exception.

Thank you kindly.

You're welcome.

I admit that much of the trouble stems from my desire to trim back my OP as close to the core idea as possible....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.

Given your exposition in post 37, I'd say misunderstanding is what I obtained from the OP.

I figured we could cut to the chase, as many would fill in the blanks on their own

Some, perhaps many, here would do just that. I generally don't, mostly out of respect for a writer/speaker. I presume that one will, with full awareness of the implications of one's remarks, say neither more nor less than what one means (tacitly and explicitly). Truly in a segment labeled as an argument, I'm definitely not going to fill in the blanks; doing so oversteps my authority.

Lord knows a good share of my posts are written to preempt readers' filling in the blanks as they see fit rather than in some way that makes sense given the content/context of the argument I present. Sadly, framing, is all too common here. Defending against straw man tactics of that sort compels me to post far wordier posts than I'd otherwise care to or would among conversationalists given to productive discussion in which commonality is found more so than adversarial blathering to "win."

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.

Be thine own palace, or the world's thy jail.
-- John Donne, "To Sir Henry Wotton"​

Noted and understood. The difference in focus is very material. Substantively it limits the scope of considerations, although in doing so, it (1) leaves a huge gap at the point where "non-island" individuals join society and (2) as goes forensic debate strategy, from the start it forces most refutations to the margins, which as any chess player knows is rather an unsatisfying vantage.

TY for the clarification.

I am targeting the argument at people who consider themselves "moral", meaning that they strive to live up to some standard of morality....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.

The lesser of two evils is still evil.
-- Solomon​

I presume you don't intend a notion such as Solomon's, so In the main I agree; however, reading the above, I thought about moral relativism and in turn thought about the point at which the relativist's morals achieve immorality. Even as I think you weren't thematically going down Solomon's road, as it were, I still have to ask what qualifier applies at the limit because I think of morality as a multidimensionality of continuums (there are a few more, but the several below will do for the discussion) that define what is/isn't moral:

• Care (M-moral) vs. Harm (IM-immoral)
• Fidelity (M) vs. Chicanery (IM)
• Rectitude/sanctity (M) vs. Turpitude/impiety (IM) [Rectitude and turpitude being the terms I've chosen to allude to the notion of extratheistic sanctity....I'm trusting you get my meaning.]
• Liberty (M) vs. Tyranny (IM)

Can one reach the limit (abstract or practical) and still be "guided by morality?" May such a person still "accurately describe themselves as a moral person?"

One who routinely lands near the immoral end of several of the spectra cannot accurately declare themselves as moral (truth being existential), though in practice they may think they are to some degree moral. "Even I wouldn't go so far as to....," such individuals may say, yet the rest of us know those persons are depraved. One eventually wonders of such wanton folks whether anything having to do with morality even enters their minds as they choose their undertakings. One answer, is, of course, "no" however, that leaves open the governance model you mentioned.

Wondering whether such person holds to any moral code, the next question one might ask is whether the person ascribes to no moral code and to no jurisprudential code. I should think that for some reprobates, the answer must be no in both regards, but they are the curs who verily define the margins to which I above referred.

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?

It's that "all" cases that really bothers me to the point that I am not inclined to accept "all" whereas I could accept "some," "most," "many," or any of a variety of less absolute qualifiers.

Take my economics and position on economics. My normative economic choices/preferences derive from empirical findings that demonstrate that "this or that" economic policy will produce, well, more money. Now I'm aware that some of the economic stances I prefer will result in some folks being worse off and others better, others still will experience no substantive impact. I'm okay with that because overall, it's more money "in the pot," as it were. I'm completely indifferent about who -- individual level or segment of society -- be the "winners and losers." Obviously I must have some confidence in my own ability to be among the "winners," however, I acknowledge there's risk that I may not be, and if I'm not, well, so be it, I'll have to try harder to join the "winners. Similarly, insofar as I'm choosing the stance I prefer, the formulation of my preference doesn't result from any governance ends or influences.

So what's driving the choice I've described? For me, economic and (to some extent) social Darwinism. Governance nor morality hasn't anything to do with it. Do I think myself a moral person in general? Of course. Might others think me so? Plenty in "the real world" do -- I've for decades, since sometime in high school, heard the same remarks about my moral/ethical bearing..."Very demanding, very fair, generous yet a true believer in the notion that 'the Lord help them who help themselves.' " Might some who don't know me well consider me amoral or immoral? Maybe, but inasmuch as I'm okay with how I'm perceived by those who know me well, other folks' judgment doesn't concern me. Indeed, as go my economics, I'm rather happy they by and large don't depend on morality.

Hopefully the discussion above conveys how I come to take exception with the "all cases" element of the model you've presented. (I don't imagine you'll respond with an exposition about natural law seeing as one can't really call that governance for natural law just is; it's not a construct.)

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.

Here again, when choosing my economic positions, what the law says has nothing to do with what I'd choose to make be policy. I'm simply looking at empirical economic evidence and choosing based on that. There're no laws involved or guiding my preferences. I don't say "it's wrong to implement 'such and such' economic policy because it'll adversely affect...." I say, "Yes, 'such and such' policy will adversely affect the following genre of individuals and I'm okay with it doing so. They either 'step up' (on their own or with help) or perish. I'm okay with either outcome."

Now, once the policy has been implemented, would I deny someone the guidance they request so they can "step up?" No. That absolutely is a moral choice I make. My "system" works about like this:

• Don't solicit assistance when one should do so --> one perishes, and I'm okay with that.
• Solicit assistance and be unable to avail oneself of it --> one perishes, and I'm okay with that.
• Have no need for help or receive help and make effective use of it --> one thrives, and I'm okay with that.

The moral person cannot be obligated to abide by man's law.

That's idea verges on anarchical. It may well be squarely that.

All is very well here, thank you for helping to refine the discussion. I view such assistance as a kindness, as it was truly my burden to bear.

A further contraction would answer for much of this... I was made to qualify my "in all cases" remark for another poster, and did so by saying "A moral person must be guided by morality in all cases with moral implications". Since the moral standard is not defined, precisely which cases actually have moral implications is equally undefined. I believe your economic position would fall into the category of not having moral implications, according to the moral standard you've described.

The justification for this narrowing of focus is that I am trying to reveal the core principles that motivate the decisions of the individual. I am speaking to the reader specifically, and asking them to investigate where authority lies in their own thinking. I've defined the key moral factor as the earnest striving toward the moral standard (independent from success rate). Despite the controversial nature of the assertion that "intent determines morality" in objective investigations, on the individual level we can see that there is nothing more a person can do than to earnestly strive. As such, if there can be any qualification for the "moral person", it must be this.

Although it is difficult to ascertain where along the moral continuum a person may reside and still call themselves "moral", it is certain that where the person purposefully does not strive toward the moral standard, they are acting immorally. The argument of the OP asks the question, "which standard takes precedence when divergences occur?" Since anyone who desires to be a moral person must "be guided by morality in all cases with moral implications", and strive in accordance with that guidance, then they must deny the authority of law where it conflicts with morality. And if law does not have authority where conflicts occur, to say it has authority where conflicts do not occur is to say nothing whatever.

The end result is that governmental law has no authority at all over the moral person; which I submit describes the case of nearly all people, as nearly all people would concede to having some moral standard. As such, it seems unreasonable - even immoral - to support governmental authority in the lives of others when you do not admit its authority over yourself. If this results in one adopting an anarchical view by logical necessity, so be it. If the argument is recognized as valid, the only alternative would be to resolve ourselves to cognitive dissonance; at which point we may free ourselves of all pretense of morality and reason, and allow bestial whim to carry us where it will.

All is very well here, thank you for helping to refine the discussion. I view such assistance as a kindness, as it was truly my burden to bear.

You're welcome. TY for with charity receiving my remarks.

"A moral person must be guided by morality in all cases with moral implications".

I agree.

I believe your economic position would fall into the category of not having moral implications, according to the moral standard you've described.

I certainly don't think that is so. Indeed, I alluded to there being moral implications to my policy preferences themselves and thus to implementing them, namely that those policy choices will surely produce "winners and losers," and that it's possible that some of the losers may perish. Inasmuch as I consider myself as and aim to be a moral person, I must therefore reconcile an act I'd undertake or for which I'd advocate, "an act" being any given policy decision (personal/household, office, economic, jurisprudential, etc., formal or informal), with its foreseeable immoral effects.

I alluded to the process of doing that, but perhaps a direct expression of that process is warranted, so here it is, in highly abbreviated summary:

1. Choose priorities -- As go economic public policies, I prioritize the economic outcome over the moral effects the policy might have.
2. Policy Selection and Analysis:
   1. Identify the policy goals one aims to realize by implementing any given policy or set thereof. -- This is, for obvious reasons, the single most important step in the whole process.
   2. Identify relevant policies and compatible combinations thereof.
   3. Evaluate the policies' (and policy combinations') intrinsic purpose-specific merits and demerits.
   4. Select the policy/policy combination that in its own right offers the maximum goal achievement outcomes.
3. Morality Assessment and Immoral Effect Design/Planning:
   1. Identify the moral implications of the chosen policy/policy combination.
   2. Identify morality goals.
   3. Identify means of attenuating the immoral effects of the the chosen policy/policy combination.
4. Implement the policy/policy combination along with the mitigation tactics.

it is certain that where the person purposefully does not strive toward the moral standard, they are acting immorally.

Agreed.

From the above outline, one sees that I compartmentalize the decision making and resolving its moral implications. Doing both things is, however, incumbent upon a moral person.

The argument of the OP asks the question, "which standard takes precedence when divergences occur?" Since anyone who desires to be a moral person must "be guided by morality in all cases with moral implications", and strive in accordance with that guidance, then they must deny the authority of law where it conflicts with morality.

Given the clarifications you've provided since posting the OP, I agree. I suppose some people don't, for whatever reason, use the "compartmentalization" approach I do to reconcile do so, but that they don't doesn't affect the accuracy of your (emboldened) assertion.

The argument of the OP asks the question, "which standard takes precedence when divergences occur?" Since anyone who desires to be a moral person must "be guided by morality in all cases with moral implications", and strive in accordance with that guidance, then they must deny the authority of law where it conflicts with morality. And if law does not have authority where conflicts occur, to say it has authority where conflicts do not occur is to say nothing whatever.

Implicit in the compartmentalization approach I described/apply is the duty to reconcile the conflicts. As I wrote, "doing both things is, however, incumbent upon a moral person;" moral lawmakers too must do so when crafting legislation.

The end result is that governmental law has no authority at all over the moral person; which I submit describes the case of nearly all people, as nearly all people would concede to having some moral standard.

In the abstract, yes; however, after arriving at that conclusion, one must use one's judgment to determine how to act in consequence of so concluding. Exercising that judgement has for millenia formed the basis for myriad immoral acts. For instance, that rationale is precisely the one may in turn use to justify a host of unforced immoral acts. I think I can stop there for I don't need to expound for you upon the immoral, "twisted," if you will, applications/interpretations of various philosophical (utilitarianism comes readily to mind) or theological systems.

As such, it seems unreasonable - even immoral - to support governmental authority in the lives of others when you do not admit its authority over yourself. If this results in one adopting an anarchical view by logical necessity, so be it.

I think a reasonable case can be made that an anarchical state of mind as well as an anarchical is, in practice, inherently immoral. I'm not going to present such a case because you earlier defined the scope of the philosophical component of this discussion/thread as being abstract rather than pragmatic or abstract and pragmatic.

Actions will have multiple consequences, each having further consequences that reverberate like ripples on a lake. How we sort that all out defines our moral system. The process you outlined describes a particular moral system, whereby you o. Since the argument presented in this thread does not concern itself with the specifics of the system, but rather demonstrates that the claim of governmental law to override any and all moral systems makes it inherently incompatible with any moral system, it applies to every person seeking to be moral. We seem to be in agreement on that conclusion as it applies subjectively, despite the fact that we may deem the results of this conclusion potentially immoral when evaluated objectively (though we've now moved into the realm of applying our own subjective moral system to the actions of others, which is a tricky business).

We've reached the end of what can be derived from this argument, but a new discussion is birthed from the conclusion; especially given the proposition that anarchy may be inherently immoral. I have claimed that any moral person must conclude that governmental law is of no authority and therefore to support it would be both illogical and immoral. Illogical because it asserts a non-existent authority, and immoral because it demands that a person act immorally where divergences with their moral standard occur, while contributing nothing where they align (subsequently providing only the potential for net immorality).

This suggests that we must adopt the anarchist position by moral necessity; however, the proposition that anarchy is inherently immoral is antithetical to this conclusion. How do we resolve this contradiction?

 

[usmbguest5318]

We seem to be in agreement on that conclusion

Yep.

We've reached the end of what can be derived from this argument

Yep.

 

[usmbguest5318]

We've reached the end of what can be derived from this argument, but a new discussion is birthed from the conclusion; especially given the proposition that anarchy may be inherently immoral.

As I wrote that sentence, something told me you might feel that way. LOL

 

[koshergrl]

You're going to need to address the scenario whereby the two work in tandem. That scenario allows both to be primary and not mutually exclusive.

I felt this was adequately addressed in "The Investigation" section as follows:

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.

Do you feel this does not suffice?

Leftists maintain that if they refuse to be swayed, your argument is insufficient.

When in reality, it's just that they have cognitive issues.

 

[usmbguest5318]

This suggests that we must adopt the anarchist position by moral necessity; however, the proposition that anarchy is inherently immoral is antithetical to this conclusion. How do we resolve this contradiction?

Are you sure you want to "clutter" this thread rather than a new thread that uses that assertion and question as its rubric? I'm asking not because I'm unwilling to here "go there," but because I know how difficult it is on USMB to keep a thread on-topic. Your thread; your call. I'm just sharing an observation in case you may care one way or the other.

 

[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.

I have no desire to eliminate you from the debate. I asked you to explain your position and you said “No”. You called me hopeless before even having a debate at all. I’m not sure what you’d like me to say when you haven’t given me anything to work with.

EDIT: Btw, principles are at the core of my position. Why would you suggest otherwise? It’s all about holding fast to one’s morality.

Narcissus Rex

Get better principles. Yours are self-centered, unrealistic, and harmful to others.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

"Are you denying that to be a moral person, one must be guided by morality in all cases?"

Absolutely. Because, as we agreed earlier, not all cases have moral implications. In addition "morality" and "moral person"
have as many different definitions as there are people.

" If one is not earnestly endeavoring to follow their moral code, what differentiates them from the immoral person?"

Maybe nothing. Last I heard nobody's perfect I have no inclination to sit around trying to decide if I'm better than someone else and, if so, how much better. Judge not.

Well, cases with no moral implications are irrelevant to the discussion. So if I revise my statement to say, "A moral person must be guided by morality in all cases with moral implications", would you then agree?

I did not say the moral person must be perfect. I said that the key factor is the earnest striving to follow one's morality. They must allow their morality to guide decisions with moral implications. It's not about comparing yourself to others, only comparing yourself to your OWN moral standard. It doesn't matter how many other moral systems exist, we're only talking about the individual.

Let's take you for example: if you personally believe it is immoral to kick babies in front of buses, then to be moral, you must earnestly endeavor to not kick babies in front of buses. Failure to earnestly strive toward this would make you immoral by your own standard. Should government make a law that says "All citizens must kick babies in front of buses at every available opportunity" you would be faced with a choice. If you choose your morality, then governmental law has no authority over you, as you are obliged by what you consider to be a higher standard.

Speaking honestly and practically, you must recognize that your own moral judgement takes precedence over law. You would not kick babies based upon a belief in law's authority to oblige you. If this is true, then you do not believe in the authority of law. You simply follow the law when it suits you, either because it coincides with your morality, or because there are no moral implications to the matter at hand and you prefer not to risk punishment. Is this fair enough to be a basis for agreement?

There Is No I in TEAM

What if the government tells you not to kill babies, but your moral code tells you that you should, based on a belief that overpopulation will lead to a worse condition? But you would never think of reversing your analogy that way, which proves that you want to dominate the public by using imaginary morality to take its governmental power away.

 

[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.

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.

I have no desire to eliminate you from the debate. I asked you to explain your position and you said “No”. You called me hopeless before even having a debate at all. I’m not sure what you’d like me to say when you haven’t given me anything to work with.

EDIT: Btw, principles are at the core of my position. Why would you suggest otherwise? It’s all about holding fast to one’s morality.

Narcissus Rex

Get better principles. Yours are self-centered, unrealistic, and harmful to others.

Come on with this stuff... raw assertions aren't getting us anywhere. If you want to provide a direct refutation, go ahead. Show me how my argument is invalid. I didn't always feel this way, so it's not like I can't be swayed. Otherwise, if I'm so awful, relieve yourself of my presence. I won't follow you, I promise.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

What if the government tells you not to kill babies, but your moral code tells you that you should, based on a belief that overpopulation will lead to a worse condition? But you would never think of reversing your analogy that way, which proves that you want to dominate the public by using imaginary morality to take its governmental power away.

That's an equally appropriate example, though it doesn't refute the argument. The baby killer does not feel compelled by an obligation to governmental authority; he is guided by his own morality. Therefore, it would be illogical to support government as an authority to others.

The only reason why I don't use this kind of example is that people can't relate to it as easily, since it's unlikely that they want to kill babies.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Are you sure you want to "clutter" this thread rather than a new thread that uses that assertion and question as its rubric? I'm asking not because I'm unwilling to here "go there," but because I know how difficult it is on USMB to keep a thread on-topic. Your thread; your call. I'm just sharing an observation in case you may care one way or the other.

Ok, we're here now:
CDZ - Anarchy: Moral Imperative or Inherently Immoral?

 

[danielpalos]

it takes morals to be honest. we know what the problem is, right wingers.

 

[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.

I have no desire to eliminate you from the debate. I asked you to explain your position and you said “No”. You called me hopeless before even having a debate at all. I’m not sure what you’d like me to say when you haven’t given me anything to work with.

EDIT: Btw, principles are at the core of my position. Why would you suggest otherwise? It’s all about holding fast to one’s morality.

Narcissus Rex

Get better principles. Yours are self-centered, unrealistic, and harmful to others.

raw assertions aren't getting us anywhere. If you want to provide a direct refutation, go ahead. Show me how my argument is invalid. I didn't always feel this way, so it's not like I can't be swayed. .

whirled wad of wub

Typical Netwit dishonesty. If I don't give you the answer you want to hear, you pretend that I'm not answering your raw assertions.