What Constitutes a "Right?"

[rubberhead]

Morality facilitates cooperation which maximizes well-being. That does not depend on God.

I'll say... because that's a fairly nonsensical definition of Morality.

It's not a definition... A definition is where you define something. Here I am binding morality and cooperation by the relation 'facilitates'. Let me restate: Morality helps us cooperate, which is good for everybody. Does that make more sense? Does it still sound like a definition. I hope not, because I can't really make it any simpler.

Now another word for facilitating cooperation is Coercion... the use of force to compel cooperation. And all that requires is power...

I'm afraid not, at least not in the long run. Coercion has been used (and still is) time and again and has been proven to cause unrest. Unrest erodes power and thus the means to compel. This is not to the benefit of anyone in the long run. Yes, in the short run it gains wealth for some, but coercion begets coercion and eventually the situation explodes into rebellion.

So I don't think that 'morality' really fits here... As morality is little more than the ethos which determines right from wrong... virtue from vice... Now anti-theism rejects theism as a CONCEPT... the rejection of such tends to rule out ethical judgments common to the ethos inherent in such...

I'm not sure how your deduction has taken place. Here let me try to reproduce it:

You can abuse power to coerce people into cooperating with you, therefore morality does not facilitate cooperation. If you think I'm not going to read and comprehend your response, you might as well devolve to JPuke's level and just hurl insults and disagree with everything. Then we can ignore each other, like me and JPuke started doing once I got sick of his rambling.

The purpose of life-in my view-is to continue life, to pass it on to the next generation better than we received it.

Super... But Humanity is doomed... it's potential for the species to surive is zero. So what's that do to your purpose?

Humanity is doomed, but why does that mean that I should want to lay down and die? The Sun won't burn out until long after I'm dead. I can still go to my grave feeling like I did what I could to make the world a better place for my descendants.

It depends on our love for our ancestors and our descendants.

Well that's nice and all, but given that our ancestors; as well as our progeny are doomed to come and go without notice... on a universal scale... and that such will bear absolutely no trace in tick of the universal clock, it's not much in the absence of God and eternal life.

Again, I don't see the connection. Everyone is doomed => we should kill ourselves and not enjoy life and pass it on to our progeny to enjoy. It doesn't follow. Immortality is not a prerequisite for happiness. You are presupposing that only things that are eternal have a point. Nothing is eternal. Everything changes. That's how I see it.

I am not saying that I think God is dead, or even that I do not believe that there is some force (in fact many forces) greater than myself. If, at any point, the human race were to proclaim itself master of those forces it would surely be the final trumpet of the end times. The greatest feature of God is to inspire humility in the highest levels of our hierarchy, and hope in the lowest. The worst feature of God is His perpetual wars with other Gods and the horrible travesties His followers blindly commit in His name. I think there is a compromise some where in there.

'His perpetual wars with other Gods...' do whuh? What wars are those? People happen... that they routinely fail to recognize their responsibilities inherent in their human rights, doesn't fall to God's account.

The Crusades, Various Genocides, Religious Persecutions, Jihaad. Pick your poison. Why should I pick a side? So you can declare war on me for disagreeing on dogmatic details?

 

[JBeukema]

Objectively "good" or "bad" is simply a way of suggesting that an act can be evaluated outside of the individual actor.

That's not 'objective' at all. It's simply the subjective opinion of another party.

Are you recanting your claims of objective moral values and now claiming that you meant only mean t that a 3rd party can pass subjective moral judgment on an act or person?


As you've said elsewhere, language is important. To claim that anything 'can be objectively good or bad' is a very different claim than you're now saying you intended to make.

 

[Contumacious]

yes... hide from the truth because you can't refute

Your posts are a great example of why the Founders believed that even with a Constitution and a Bill Of Rights the right to bear arms was necessary. The World History had shown them that there were criminal scumbags , such as yourself, who required hot lead for re-direction.

Dumb asses like you believe that you have the right to murder, maim and disappear those who stand in your way.


Mossberg 590 - Da' Natural Rights Enforcer

.

Do cite where I said any such thing, liar

I am not going to review all your posts in order to prove you wrong. Suffice it to say that your persistent denial of natural rights in the face of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary demonstrate the validity of my assertions.


.

 

[Diuretic]

Objectively "good" or "bad" is simply a way of suggesting that an act can be evaluated outside of the individual actor.

That's not 'objective' at all. It's simply the subjective opinion of another party.

Are you recanting your claims of objective moral values and now claiming that you meant only mean t that a 3rd party can pass subjective moral judgment on an act or person?


As you've said elsewhere, language is important. To claim that anything 'can be objectively good or bad' is a very different claim than you're now saying you intended to make.

It would be a subjective opinion if it were not arrived at by using a form of analysis that required the application of objective principles. Absent the application of those principles then it's just an opinion.

I don't know if I claimed that objective moral values exist. I've long been of a mind that there are only acts. Acts can be evaluated in context using accepted principles to determine if they were “good” or “bad”.

 

[JBeukema]

you believe that you have the right to murder, maim and disappear those who stand in your way.
.

Do cite where I said any such thing, liar

I am not going to review all your posts in order to prove you wrong.
.

So... you can't produce any post where I've said any such things

Let the record show you are a confirmed liar

 

[JBeukema]

Objectively "good" or "bad" is simply a way of suggesting that an act can be evaluated outside of the individual actor.

That's not 'objective' at all. It's simply the subjective opinion of another party.

Are you recanting your claims of objective moral values and now claiming that you meant only mean t that a 3rd party can pass subjective moral judgment on an act or person?


As you've said elsewhere, language is important. To claim that anything 'can be objectively good or bad' is a very different claim than you're now saying you intended to make.

It would be a subjective opinion if it were not arrived at by using a form of analysis that required the application of objective principles. Absent the application of those principles then it's just an opinion.

1) You have presented no such system that I've seen

2) That requires objective moral values and a means of measuring such; you have produced neither

3) Demonstrate how any moral principle can be truly objective

4) It would still be subjective, as the individual must still form his own perception of the matter (that, however, gets into matters of objective reality)

You have failed to produce any evidence of any of the necessary components for the objective moral judgement of action or condition by any party, regardless of whether said party is a participant.

Until you do so, your assertion remains thoroughly refuted

I don't know if I claimed that objective moral values exist.

If they do not, then no objective judgment of morality can exist. For your assertion to hold, objective moral values are a prerequisite. Hence the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the existence of objective moral values, else your entire assertion breaks down.

I've long been of a mind that there are only acts. Acts can be evaluated in context using accepted principles to determine if they were “good” or “bad”.

You've gone from 'objective' to 'accepted'

Accepted by whom? The individual? That's still subjective moral judgment? By society? That's ethics and an ethical code accepted by the collective per social compact. It is neither objective nor 'moral' in nature.

 

[Diuretic]

I'm open to refutation of course.

But I haven't attempted to produce a system.

What I have done is open myself up to criticism from those who hold that certain moral rules are absolute and I would think universal. I don't think any moral rules are absolute and/or universal and I'd welcome the chance to try and make my case.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Morality facilitates cooperation which maximizes well-being. That does not depend on God.

I'll say... because that's a fairly nonsensical definition of Morality.

It's not a definition... A definition is where you define something. Here I am binding morality and cooperation by the relation 'facilitates'.

Well I hate to break it to you, but binding something through the relation of concepts is defining... characterizing, describing, identifying something by a distinctive characteristic quality or feature...

Let me restate: Morality helps us cooperate, which is good for everybody. Does that make more sense? Does it still sound like a definition. I hope not, because I can't really make it any simpler.

Yes... well it is describing, charactering and identifying something by a distinctive characteristic... thus defining... But morality encourages cooperation by those who adhere to a common ethos... where a culture tolerates differing ethos... it invites what? Division... It seems to me that we're all in agreement that "Morality is a good thing."

Where we seem to be stuck is on what truth Morality represents.

I say we agree that Morality is a function of the natural order; what God says it is. And the anti-theist want to mouth a respect for Morality while leaving the door open to interpretating Morality relative to whatever circumstance is presenting at a given moment; which I feel sorta undermines the whole principle.

Now another word for facilitating cooperation is Coercion... the use of force to compel cooperation. And all that requires is power...

I'm afraid not, at least not in the long run. Coercion has been used (and still is) time and again and has been proven to cause unrest. Unrest erodes power and thus the means to compel. This is not to the benefit of anyone in the long run. Yes, in the short run it gains wealth for some, but coercion begets coercion and eventually the situation explodes into rebellion.

Well coercion exist only in the presence of power... to be sure. But it doesn't always push one towards compliance, it can also draw one towards cooperation. But your point is valid; it just doesn't answer the question... You want to impart the notion that Morality simply serves a biological imperative; in effect claiming that 'morality makes life easier.'

Except that, as noted above; morality is an ethos which falls to the core of one's beliefs; ethos compete... such tends towards that discontent that you're constantly lamenting; and war is HARD, man.

So I don't think that 'morality' really fits here... As morality is little more than the ethos which determines right from wrong... virtue from vice... Now anti-theism rejects theism as a CONCEPT... the rejection of such tends to rule out ethical judgments common to the ethos inherent in such...

I'm not sure how your deduction has taken place. Here let me try to reproduce it:

You can abuse power to coerce people into cooperating with you, therefore morality does not facilitate cooperation. If you think I'm not going to read and comprehend your response, you might as well devolve to JPuke's level and just hurl insults and disagree with everything. Then we can ignore each other, like me and JPuke started doing once I got sick of his rambling.

It's not complicated RH... There's God's law; which is the natural order which rests on the highest authority; which FTR comes with a fair does of coercion... which serves to push and pull, repsectively, where appropriate; but at it's core, that law serves to leave the final judgment; the decision to engage in right or wrong behavior; up to the individual. We are each endowed with the intellectual means to reason; so as to know what that is... where we disagree is in 'what that is...' You guys, ultimately want to rationalize what right and wrong is...

You don't want to be told that you can't murder a pre-born child because you couldn't control the hots for Susy Rottencrotch... knocked her up and found yourself looking at being responsible for your mutual child for the next generation.

You don't like the idea that ya can't grow a human zygot and carve it up for life sustaining purposes...

Ya want to feel good about forcing people to part with their hard earned property to provide it to those who you claim have a need for that property.

When none of that falls into 'right.'

What is right is to recognize that sexual intercourse is where nature requires you're heading, when one starts engaging in the groping of the fun parts... so when one is heading towards the touching of said fun parts... one should be engaging in such touching only with those to whom they are committed... so that where the ensuing conception latches onto its probability, we don't find ourselves rationalizing if it's 'really a good idea to have a child right now...'; which usually occurs just prior to stripping that pre-born child of it's endowed right to it's life.

The purpose of life-in my view-is to continue life, to pass it on to the next generation better than we received it.

Super... But Humanity is doomed... it's potential for the species to surive is zero. So what's that do to your purpose?

Humanity is doomed, but why does that mean that I should want to lay down and die? The Sun won't burn out until long after I'm dead. I can still go to my grave feeling like I did what I could to make the world a better place for my descendants.

The world is doomed, and I didn't suggest that you should lay down and die... I merely asked what is the purpose of Morality, if there is no Deity, meaning no life beyond this world... a world which will in an instant... be reduced to it's common elements... the place it will be; with or without your good works, is the space wherein the sum of those elements drift in the vacuum of space.

Your perception of time, wherein the species will exist a 'long time' is irrelevant to that certainty; that your descendants will come and go as you, without universal notice... thus given the anti-theist perspective, the entire exercise is a function of pure futility.

Thus the question... what's the point? Why endure the pain and suffering, the dreary existance... why allow one's self to be mired in the drugery of life without that which was stripped from you by 'the Rich'... the burden set upon you by the heavy boot of 'the man'... why tolerate the evils perpetrated on the Bother by the white devil... why suffer the imbalance of redistributive flaws common to capitalism... and the pain associated with watching our atmosphere strangled by made made global warming... not to mention the cruelty of chronic illness and disfiguring injury; IF THIS LIFE IS THE EXTENT OF REALITY?

Again, I don't see the connection. Everyone is doomed => we should kill ourselves and not enjoy life and pass it on to our progeny to enjoy. It doesn't follow. Immortality is not a prerequisite for happiness. You are presupposing that only things that are eternal have a point. Nothing is eternal. Everything changes. That's how I see it.

I see... so your answer is to advance a straw dog, and proclaim through implication that 'immorality isn't the key to happiness... ' thus by default assert that morality is the key to happiness... while stripping that away through the realist perspective that everything changes. Thus happiness will tend to ebb and flow... and all to no discernible end.

I gotta say... that's none too inspiring.

I am not saying that I think God is dead, or even that I do not believe that there is some force (in fact many forces) greater than myself. If, at any point, the human race were to proclaim itself master of those forces it would surely be the final trumpet of the end times. The greatest feature of God is to inspire humility in the highest levels of our hierarchy, and hope in the lowest. The worst feature of God is His perpetual wars with other Gods and the horrible travesties His followers blindly commit in His name. I think there is a compromise some where in there.

'His perpetual wars with other Gods...' do whuh? What wars are those? People happen... that they routinely fail to recognize their responsibilities inherent in their human rights, doesn't fall to God's account.

The Crusades, Various Genocides, Religious Persecutions, Jihaad. Pick your poison. Why should I pick a side? So you can declare war on me for disagreeing on dogmatic details?

Oh... so by 'his wars' you're speaking to the wars fought by man... and not by God...

You should pick a side because to not do so is amoral... and as with atheist and apolitical... such notions serve as vacilation; and only serves to promote division, discontent; inevtiably leading towards anti-morality; all of which promote the potential for those wars you chronically lament; and while such is a direct result of your decisions you seem intent on concluding that such is the responsibility of the Deity.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I'm open to refutation of course.

But I haven't attempted to produce a system.

What I have done is open myself up to criticism from those who hold that certain moral rules are absolute and I would think universal. I don't think any moral rules are absolute and/or universal and I'd welcome the chance to try and make my case.

ROFLMNAO... Whatta LOAD!

Your advocacies against objective, absolute rules is an overt advocacy against those rules... you can't legitimately claim to be open when your position is closed...

What you want to do is to present yourself as reasonable and open minded; when in truth your position is unsustainable, thus unreasonable; all of which rests upon a wholly closed position.

Now this founded in large measure by your having advanced emphatic assertions; had those assertions challenged directly and unambiguously; where upon you overtly chose to REPEATEDLY ignore those numerous challenges...

Ya see, where one advances such assertions, it's reasonable that such is merely a point of discussion... but where one rejects the questions spawned by that input, such asserted points of discourse take on a rather declarative quality; thus the certain element necessary to the overt advocacy.

So where you again choose to ignore the below posting... you simply cement the certainty of your advocacy and strip away any potential for such to be recognized as something on the order of 'reasonable'...

I take your point that some people need to think a creator is watching them to make sure they stay on the straight and narrow. But I wasn't arguing from a deterrent position, I was really thinking of it as a sort of encouragement.

But as I said, I take your point that having a God around makes the job of persuaders much easier. Ya can't take on omniscience, it gets you every time.

The cultural evolution idea is interesting. Are we moving to a social existence that allows complete expression of humanity without restriction?

Notice the implication that anti-theists do not 'need' a Deity to behave morally...

Isn't it cute? Why they're vastly more intelligent than the theists... they can do what is otherwise absolutely uncalled for; what is wholly absurd... why they adhere to that which serves no purpose what so ever... using their own stated reasoning...

LOL... Classic!

Now what purpose does morality serve Diur, where there is no life beyond our meager mortality?

Be specific...

I mean using your reasoning; considering that humanity is adrfit on a tiny insignificant rock which enjoys a steamy air-bubble... the solar system in which it orbits, could not be less noteworthy and rests beyond the means of an infinitesimal scale to notice...

In the scope of time, humanity will come and go in an imperceptible instant... leaving no trace; having served no purpose; and no one or nothing... will even know that we existed... let alone have benefited from that existance.

So what purpose does your atheist morality serve?

Perhaps you'll reduce us down to the biological imperative to survive... which is absurd... given that there is no chance that such will happen. Humanity will, when our sun expires; burn away... converted into something less than a blib of energy... This a cold hard fact, based upon the certainty establsihed by the scale of space and time which precludes any chance of our colonizing other solar systems.

So biologically, we can survive only to the extent of our solar system and when that ends... we the human species... end with it.

But what's MORE... is that those who inhabit the Earth at that moment will simply be THEM... purely them and nothing BUT them. Any note of you will long since have perished from memory and for all intents and purposes, there will remain no biological trace... thus any good that you managed; any 'bad' that you advanced... will be as if it never occured...

So what purpose does Morality serve Diur, for the Anti-theist; or using the anti-theist reasoning... what purpose does Morality serve... PERIOD?

Now friends, IF she musters the courage to respond at all, enjoy the indignation wherein she tries to explain why Morality is essential to a species which will, using her own reasoning, perish without notice; having served no purpose... wherein she will pride inherself in what she claims is the reality that life is pointless... while she rationalizes a need for people to 'be nice,' while enduring the otherwise, pointless exercise.

She's hardly the brightest representative of this ideological dead-end... but she's more than capable of producing a few giggles.

But! We should wish her the best of luck... as this is inevtiably the last point of such discussions; which is why they usually run to avoid it at all costs and where cornered, they will typically, be desperate to turn the subject; as is the case with the numerous posts I advanced above, which refute her idiocy, which she's chosen to ignore in hopes that she won't be held accountable for those failures... So Atheism lives on; because it refuses to acknowledge that which effectively contests it.

But hey... if you were evil... that's what you'd do... too.

A hold a Hill of Grace shiraz as divine.

So those who felt that the Anti-theist was capable of sustaining her own emphatically stated position... will simply have to try and get through the pain of this bitter disappointment.

It turns out that the notion of "Atheist Morality" amounts to little more than yet another vacuous platitude... which is common to the sub-intellect.

Let the record reflect that this exchange simply proves that Anti-theism is in effect: Anti-morality... and there's just no more to it, than that...

The confusion of those who believe it is necessary to have religious faith in order to have morality is noted.

The only one who is confused, as is usually the case; is the anti-theist who asserts that Morality, defined in the commonly accepted Western sense... is distinct from the Deity.

The thing about debate on a message board is that the debate is a contest of the written word. So while it is commonly practiced as if the record of such has flashed into the ether; as it would in an oral version of same... the written debate doesn't provide a particularly sound platform for fallacious appeals to popularity.

Now I think we can all agree that it's not politically correct to assert that morality is distinct and relegated exclusive to theism... but such a deceptive notion tends to loose its grip where the assertion is embedded in a QUESTION; a question which asks the anti-theist to simply explain their anti-theist position with regard to what purpose anti-theist morality is designed to serve.

Thus where the anti-theist refuses to respond... and where such leans on vaccuous platitudes and empty cliches; it becomes self evident that; again, as is nearly always the case, the standing 'Politically Correct' notion is found to be resting on a vaporous illusion... and that in point of fact, the concepts of Anti-theism and Morality are diametrically oppossing, wholly distinct points of view.


So I ask you ONCE MORE... and purely to demonstrate your failure; to humiliate you and to discredit your entire anti-theist ideology... your religion:

Now what purpose does morality serve Diur, where there is no life beyond our meager mortality?

Be specific...

I mean using your reasoning; considering that humanity is adrfit on a tiny insignificant rock which enjoys a steamy air-bubble... the solar system in which it orbits, could not be less noteworthy and rests beyond the means of an infinitesimal scale to notice...

In the scope of time, humanity will come and go in an imperceptible instant... leaving no trace; having served no purpose; and no one or nothing... will even know that we existed... let alone have benefited from that existance.

So what purpose does your atheist morality serve?

Perhaps you'll reduce us down to the biological imperative to survive... which is absurd... given that there is no chance that such will happen. Humanity will, when our sun expires; burn away... converted into something less than a blib of energy... This a cold hard fact, based upon the certainty establsihed by the scale of space and time which precludes any chance of our colonizing other solar systems.

So biologically, we can survive only to the extent of our solar system and when that ends... we the human species... end with it.

But what's MORE... is that those who inhabit the Earth at that moment will simply be THEM... purely them and nothing BUT them. Any note of you will long since have perished from memory and for all intents and purposes, there will remain no biological trace... thus any good that you managed; any 'bad' that you advanced... will be as if it never occured...

So what purpose does Morality serve Diur, for the Anti-theist; or using the anti-theist reasoning... what purpose does Morality serve... PERIOD?

Now friends, IF she musters the courage to respond at all, enjoy the indignation wherein she tries to explain why Morality is essential to a species which will, using her own reasoning, perish without notice; having served no purpose... wherein she will pride inherself in what she claims is the reality that life is pointless... while she rationalizes a need for people to 'be nice,' while enduring the otherwise, pointless exercise.

 

[Intense]

Objectively "good" or "bad" is simply a way of suggesting that an act can be evaluated outside of the individual actor.

That's not 'objective' at all. It's simply the subjective opinion of another party.

Are you recanting your claims of objective moral values and now claiming that you meant only mean t that a 3rd party can pass subjective moral judgment on an act or person?


As you've said elsewhere, language is important. To claim that anything 'can be objectively good or bad' is a very different claim than you're now saying you intended to make.

It would be a subjective opinion if it were not arrived at by using a form of analysis that required the application of objective principles. Absent the application of those principles then it's just an opinion.

I don't know if I claimed that objective moral values exist. I've long been of a mind that there are only acts. Acts can be evaluated in context using accepted principles to determine if they were “good” or “bad”.

That is objective Principles borrowed from Theists.

 

[Navy1960]

Many people are under the false impression our form of government is a democracy, or representative democracy. This is a complete falsehood. The Founders were extremely well educated in this area and feared democracy as much as monarchy. James Madison (the acknowledged Father of the Constitution)

The basic problem here when you discuss rights, be they natural rights or those granted by law is to ask what form of Govt. do we have today. If we still have a republic where the natural rights of man and the rights of citizens are held above those of the Govt. and the Govt. is kept constrained by it's citizens then we still have a Republic which the original framers of this nation intended. Or are we ina true democracy where the majoirity votes to ceed it's power to a Govt. unrestrained and Natural Rights of man while spoken of in reverent tones are superceded by unrestrained laws. It would seem to me that we have moved more to a true democracy rather than a representivite republic. So the debate on "rights" seems to be whatever the majoirty wishes those rights to be.

 

[Care4all]

no, you are confused Navy..., we are a Democratic Republic...we are not a pure Democracy as you stated, but our form of Democracy... and we are NOT a pure republic as in the Republic of Congo, or Republic of China, or the Republic of Georgia.

Democratic Republic or Constitutional Republic...BOTH are the same and both are a form of DEMOCRACY...

 

[rubberhead]

Well I hate to break it to you, but binding something through the relation of concepts is defining... characterizing, describing, identifying something by a distinctive characteristic quality or feature...

A relationship may be defining, but it is not a definition. 'Morality facilitates cooperation' tells us about the effects of morality. It does not define morality.

Where we seem to be stuck is on what truth Morality represents.

I say we agree that Morality is a function of the natural order; what God says it is. And the anti-theist want to mouth a respect for Morality while leaving the door open to interpretating Morality relative to whatever circumstance is presenting at a given moment; which I feel sorta undermines the whole principle.

I can agree that Morality is natural and we are still finding out exactly what it is. Here is a definition that I can agree on:

A code shared by a group of people which guides their behavior toward what they agree is the common good.

Well coercion exist only in the presence of power... to be sure. But it doesn't always push one towards compliance, it can also draw one towards cooperation. But your point is valid; it just doesn't answer the question... You want to impart the notion that Morality simply serves a biological imperative; in effect claiming that 'morality makes life easier.'

It's not exactly a biological imperative. However, it does make life easier for all. The decisions of those in difficult situations where their own interests are at odds with the group are made easier by adherence to a moral code. The code (or their interpretation of it) makes the decision for them. The lives of those in the group are made easier because they don't have people defecting from the group every time their interests don't align perfectly.

Except that, as noted above; morality is an ethos which falls to the core of one's beliefs; ethos compete... such tends towards that discontent that you're constantly lamenting; and war is HARD, man.

War is hard, and that's why the abuse of power doesn't immediately lead to war.

It's not complicated RH... There's God's law; which is the natural order which rests on the highest authority; which FTR comes with a fair does of coercion... which serves to push and pull, repsectively, where appropriate; but at it's core, that law serves to leave the final judgment; the decision to engage in right or wrong behavior; up to the individual. We are each endowed with the intellectual means to reason; so as to know what that is... where we disagree is in 'what that is...' You guys, ultimately want to rationalize what right and wrong is...

I agree that Natural Law (God's Law) is what makes it easier to come up with a moral code and expect everyone to live by it. I don't think that Nature (God) has ever told us directly what that code is. Furthermore, I don't think that it will be the same for every geographical and cultural context. I have posed my definition above, which I'm sure is unsatisfactory because it doesn't mention God, but I'd love to hear your definition so I can pick it apart.

You don't want to be told that you can't murder a pre-born child because you couldn't control the hots for Susy Rottencrotch... knocked her up and found yourself looking at being responsible for your mutual child for the next generation.

You don't like the idea that ya can't grow a human zygot and carve it up for life sustaining purposes...

Ya want to feel good about forcing people to part with their hard earned property to provide it to those who you claim have a need for that property.

When none of that falls into 'right.'

I am also against abortion for the purpose of 'correcting' one's own mistakes. I don't call it murder and I think that a doctor and patient that are willing to engage in it should be free to do so. Those who think it is wrong should not be forced to participate, but neither should those who don't think it's wrong be forced to conform to the beliefs of those who have no part in the situation.

I think taxation is wrong without the consent of the taxed. Redistribution of wealth is slavery, and I don't need God to tell me that it's wrong.

What is right is to recognize that sexual intercourse is where nature requires you're heading, when one starts engaging in the groping of the fun parts... so when one is heading towards the touching of said fun parts... one should be engaging in such touching only with those to whom they are committed... so that where the ensuing conception latches onto its probability, we don't find ourselves rationalizing if it's 'really a good idea to have a child right now...'; which usually occurs just prior to stripping that pre-born child of it's endowed right to it's life.

I don't think we're going to agree on this. An embryo does not have rights in my opinion. A fully formed fetus does have rights. Where does this change? I don't know. I don't think abortion should be used as birth control because that is disrespectful to Life.

The world is doomed, and I didn't suggest that you should lay down and die... I merely asked what is the purpose of Morality, if there is no Deity, meaning no life beyond this world... a world which will in an instant... be reduced to it's common elements... the place it will be; with or without your good works, is the space wherein the sum of those elements drift in the vacuum of space.

Your perception of time, wherein the species will exist a 'long time' is irrelevant to that certainty; that your descendants will come and go as you, without universal notice... thus given the anti-theist perspective, the entire exercise is a function of pure futility.

I don't see how life is futile from this perspective. Yes the universe won't notice the ups and downs of my life and the lives of my descendants, but that doesn't change the fact that we will experience those ups and downs and hopefully enjoy our lives. It's only futile if we expected to live forever.

Thus the question... what's the point? Why endure the pain and suffering, the dreary existance... why allow one's self to be mired in the drugery of life without that which was stripped from you by 'the Rich'... the burden set upon you by the heavy boot of 'the man'... why tolerate the evils perpetrated on the Bother by the white devil... why suffer the imbalance of redistributive flaws common to capitalism... and the pain associated with watching our atmosphere strangled by made made global warming... not to mention the cruelty of chronic illness and disfiguring injury; IF THIS LIFE IS THE EXTENT OF REALITY?

What's the point? The point is to continue living because that is what we naturally want. That is the biological imperative. We do not know what lies beyond death, and that scares us. So we invent a God and a religion to make it okay, and then we can go about our lives knowing that we'll never die and life will be good after we die as long as we don't end up on Santa's naughty list. IS THAT THE EXTENT OF REALITY? I doubt it.

I see... so your answer is to advance a straw dog, and proclaim through implication that 'immorality isn't the key to happiness... ' thus by default assert that morality is the key to happiness... while stripping that away through the realist perspective that everything changes. Thus happiness will tend to ebb and flow... and all to no discernible end.

I gotta say... that's none too inspiring.

I think you meant 'immortality' here. Yes, happiness ebbs and flows. Life flourishes and perishes and we continue to toil only to be foiled by misfortune. But that's only half of life. What about the love that we share and the progress that we make. That's what's inspiring. I don't happen to find the various theologies inspiring, but if it works for you and others then more power to you. Not enough power to force me to take on your beliefs.

Oh... so by 'his wars' you're speaking to the wars fought by man... and not by God...

You should pick a side because to not do so is amoral... and as with atheist and apolitical... such notions serve as vacilation; and only serves to promote division, discontent; inevtiably leading towards anti-morality; all of which promote the potential for those wars you chronically lament; and while such is a direct result of your decisions you seem intent on concluding that such is the responsibility of the Deity.

These wars fought by man and atrocities committed by man in the name of some God. Man invented God and thus can manipulate His image to their own ends, and often do even in present times where individuals such as yourself have such an enlightened view of their own beliefs.

I do not claim that God is responsible for these acts, I only claim that the participants delegated their responsibility to those who claim to have spoken with God. That was the basis upon which they were convinced to act against their own principles. But why not? It was a mere person who at some point convinced them of the existence of God, even though there was no other evidence. The responsibility lies with people who are willing to blindly believe things of which they've seen no evidence.

 

[Navy1960]

no, you are confused Navy..., we are a Democratic Republic...we are not a pure Democracy as you stated, but our form of Democracy... and we are NOT a pure republic as in the Republic of Congo, or Republic of China, or the Republic of Georgia.

Democratic Republic or Constitutional Republic...BOTH are the same and both are a form of DEMOCRACY...

Pardon me Care, but I think it's you who's confused here. A Constitutional Republic which we are supposed to have, takes democratic idea's in that it uses a democratic process to elect those that represent them and pass new law's it is not a form of democracy. Since the 1930's when the Supreme Court took the Hamilton view of the General Welfare Clause to mean basically anything that congress wants it to mean rather than what the Father of the constitution wanted it to mean we have moved to a pure democracy where a Congress and Govt. unrestrained by the concepts of a limited Govt. have been free to make laws taking away rights as they so choose.

 

[Care4all]

no, you are confused Navy..., we are a Democratic Republic...we are not a pure Democracy as you stated, but our form of Democracy... and we are NOT a pure republic as in the Republic of Congo, or Republic of China, or the Republic of Georgia.

Democratic Republic or Constitutional Republic...BOTH are the same and both are a form of DEMOCRACY...

Pardon me Care, but I think it's you who's confused here. A Constitutional Republic which we are supposed to have, takes democratic idea's in that it uses a democratic process to elect those that represent them and pass new law's it is not a form of democracy. Since the 1930's when the Supreme Court took the Hamilton view of the General Welfare Clause to mean basically anything that congress wants it to mean rather than what the Father of the constitution wanted it to mean we have moved to a pure democracy where a Congress and Govt. unrestrained by the concepts of a limited Govt. have been free to make laws taking away rights as they so choose.

nope, you are wrong, OUR GOVERNMENT IS A FORM of DEMOCRACY....so are the Brits a Democracy, but their FORM of Democracy is a Parliamentary democracy...same with Canada, i believe....

we are a representative democracy....a Republic with a representative Democracy, with some forms of pure democracy with the access in some States ....of referendums, initiatives, and recalls at the State level...

Main article: Representative democracy

Indirect democracy is a broad term describing a means of governance by the people through elected representatives. The most common system found in today's democratic states is the representative democracy. The people elect government officials who then make decisions on their behalf. Essentially, a representative democracy is a form of indirect democracy in which representatives are democratically selected, and usually difficult to recall.

we are a Republic, with an indirect form of Democracy....

not a PURE form of Democracy...agreed.

 

[Care4all]

A republic is a form of government in which the head of state is not a monarch[1] and the people (or at least a part of its people)[2] have an impact on its government.[3][4] The word 'republic' is derived from the Latin phrase res publica which can be translated as "public affairs".

Both modern and ancient republics vary widely in their ideology and composition. The most common definition of a republic is a state without a monarch.[5] In republics such as the US and France the executive is legitimated both by a constitution and by popular suffrage. In the United States Founding Fathers like James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy as opposed to only having direct democracy[6]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varieties_of_democracy

we are a Republic with an indirect/representative democracy

 

[Navy1960]

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority

Republic: Where the general population elects representatives who then pass laws to govern the nation … a republic is rule by law. Our republic is a form of government where power is separated

Art. 4 Sec. 4 Par. 1

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government.”

Our Founding Fathers chose a Republic over a Democracy for many reasons; primarily because they remembered the most infamous “democratic” vote in all history. [i.e.] The lesson of a bureaucrat some 2000 years ago who turned to a crowd and asked which prisoner should be released – the crowd yelled - “give us Barabbas”. The ‘will of the people’ spoke that day. When the bureaucrat asked the people what should be done with this innocent, this Jesus, the crowd responded with a loud – CRUCIFY HIM.

Democracy: Operates by direct majority vote of the people. When an issue is to be decided, the entire population votes on it; the majority wins and rules. A democracy is rule by majority feeling

Electoral democracies require a majority of the votes cast. While existing representative democracies hold such elections to chtative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law



Sorry Care but the original authors formed this nation on the idea that it was NOT a democracy but a Republic. Yes, it uses the democratic process to elect its representatives but here up until the 1930's the majority were not supposed to rule and Govt. was limited by the constitution.

It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. ... For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?
James Madison

 

[Care4all]

James Madison, often called the father of the United States Constitution, defined a republic in terms similar to those of Aristotle’s polity. In his view, republics were systems of government that permitted direct or indirect control by the people over those who govern. He did, however, warn against the effects of “majority factions” and emphasized the rights of minorities.

The Madisonian concept of republicanism parallels Aristotle’s vision of polity in many important dimensions, and both are essentially different from Plato’s. Madison and Aristotle were concerned with the means by which just and stable rule by the many could be secured. To this end Aristotle relied on a predominant middle class, Madison on an “extended” republic, in which varied interests would check and control one another. Madison also emphasized election of representatives by the people. These representatives, he believed, would be less likely to sacrifice the “public good” than the majority of the people. “Pure democracies,” in which the people ruled directly, Madison wrote, “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention.”

Republic (government) - MSN Encarta
this is a good article navy, on republics and i see why the Republic part must be stressed now!

 

[Diuretic]

That's not 'objective' at all. It's simply the subjective opinion of another party.

Are you recanting your claims of objective moral values and now claiming that you meant only mean t that a 3rd party can pass subjective moral judgment on an act or person?


As you've said elsewhere, language is important. To claim that anything 'can be objectively good or bad' is a very different claim than you're now saying you intended to make.

It would be a subjective opinion if it were not arrived at by using a form of analysis that required the application of objective principles. Absent the application of those principles then it's just an opinion.

I don't know if I claimed that objective moral values exist. I've long been of a mind that there are only acts. Acts can be evaluated in context using accepted principles to determine if they were “good” or “bad”.

That is objective Principles borrowed from Theists.

Not at all. Why would I look to what's been called a "mythical assumption" when it's perfectly easy to frame a moral code that is based in reality. Here's an example.

It's wrong to harm someone in your primary group because it weakens the group's ability to protect itself and survive.

No appeal to a mythical assumption needed.

 

[Diuretic]

Many people are under the false impression our form of government is a democracy, or representative democracy. This is a complete falsehood. The Founders were extremely well educated in this area and feared democracy as much as monarchy. James Madison (the acknowledged Father of the Constitution)

The basic problem here when you discuss rights, be they natural rights or those granted by law is to ask what form of Govt. do we have today. If we still have a republic where the natural rights of man and the rights of citizens are held above those of the Govt. and the Govt. is kept constrained by it's citizens then we still have a Republic which the original framers of this nation intended. Or are we ina true democracy where the majoirity votes to ceed it's power to a Govt. unrestrained and Natural Rights of man while spoken of in reverent tones are superceded by unrestrained laws. It would seem to me that we have moved more to a true democracy rather than a representivite republic. So the debate on "rights" seems to be whatever the majoirty wishes those rights to be.

The concept of "democracy" in the 18th Century was not the concept of "democracy" we understand today. Since America is probably the first modern democracy there's some irony in that claim. America was governed neither by an absolute monarch nor a mob, it gave the rest of the world the model for liberal democracy.

The art of liberal democracy has been to avoid the mob, perhaps that's what Mill cautioned against when he mentioned the “tyranny of the majority.” But a democracy is still predicated on the notion that the will of the majority is recognised. I don't see any way around that. America is a republic, meaning it has an elected president and not a monarch. It is a democracy. It is a republic. The two aren't mutually antagonistic concepts.

There are no natural rights. There are only rights as social relations. Absent society there are no rights because there is no need of the concept.