[nutronjon]

Nothing is more important to democracy than morality. The word moral began as a Greek word meaning to know the law and good manners. To know the law, is to know universal law.

What moved me to start this thread is the one questioning Armageddon, and someone arguing democracy is our ruin. There I wrote, science is to democracy, what the bible is to autocracy. That is, education is essential to democracy. Science is how we come to understand universe laws, and we must govern ourselves with knowledge of universal laws.

Cicero, a Roman statesman, said any law that is not based on natural law, is not truly a law. I am having a termonology problem here. Universal law, natural law, the laws of nature, are all the same thing. When Jefferson wrote the Indeclaration of Independence, he wrote of the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God. He also wrote of the pursuit of happiness, which at that time, meant literacy and the pursuit of knowledge. The point is, democracy comes with a concept of a good law being in harmony with universal law, in harmony with truth. The concept comes from Athens.

Athenians asked, "how do the gods resolve their differences?" This philosophical question was answered, by determining it is reason, that controls the universe, and even the gods themselves are subject to this reason. The US has lost all sight of reason. They are actually quite insane, living with an idea that a God rewards and punishes people, depending on if He is pleased or not, and there are no limits to what this God can do. That is the Christian God is not bond by reason, but acts on whim, and this is tragic for democracy. They like to believe, everyone around the world can live as they do, with plenty of clean running water, bountiful food, fancy cars and unlimited fuel. They are really out of touch with reality, because they are not understanding the rules of reality that control the universe. So although citizens of the US believe they have a democracy, they have a very poor understanding of democracy. There is no God who favors them and can violate laws of nature to reward them for pleasing Him. Candidates are foolish to say they can fix things by ordering Detroit to make cars that use less fuel, as though humans are not bound by laws of nature. It is like we are thinking like the ancient Egyptians who believed their pharaoh could make anything happen by ordering it to happen.

Now the thread about Armageddon, wonders if there is a one government solution to world problems. Cicero believed, when we understand universal law, we will all live with universal law, and stop fighting each other. Why? Because when we do good, good happens. When we do bad, bad happens. That is what separates good from bad, and even if we think we got away with a bad thing, sooner or later the consequences of doing a bad thing, will be unpleasant. There are no prayers to say, no incantations or magic spells, that can change the laws of nature. Understanding this, only igronant people would make bad choices, and in a democracy, that is what morality is all about, seeking truth and living with it. Democracy demands mass education. We are ideally ruled by reason, not tyrants. Tyrants don't have the power the people want them to have, but we are unfortunately prone to believing illusions and following bad leaders.

There is only one universal law above all of us, and we are either working with it, or against it. The illusion of many different governments, is illusion, because like the gods themselves, they are all subject to THE LAW. Moral, is the sequence of cause and effect, and we learn of it by studying nature and arguing with each other until there is a consensus on the best reasoning. It is an unending process and our only salvation is figuring this out.

[modest]

You are making the same mistake the U.S. is making. Saying there is one law that lends itself to the entire world. You are in fact stating it outright when the U.S. would hide it more subtly in its actions.

What if Bush said this:

Originally Posted by nutronjon

There is only one universal law above all of us, and we are either working with it, or against it. The illusion of many different governments, is illusion, because like the gods themselves, they are all subject to THE LAW.

You would flip out and rightfully so. In one post you accuse the U.S. of doing as a negative exactly what you spell out as a positive. Does that not seem a bit odd?

-modest

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by modest

You are making the same mistake the U.S. is making. Saying there is one law that lends itself to the entire world. You are in fact stating it outright when the U.S. would hide it more subtly in its actions.

What if Bush said this:



You would flip out and rightfully so. In one post you accuse the U.S. of doing as a negative exactly what you spell out as a positive. Does that not seem a bit odd?

-modest

We appear to have a misunderstanding, and I thank you for the opportunity to clarify my meaning.

Universal law is what holds all the planets in orbit. It is what makes it possible for us predict cause and effect. It is the laws of math and physics. I agree with Locke that we really do not know what matter is, and we should be humble and honest about what we don't know. We say matter is made of atoms and we have developed a language to talk quantum physics, but still, we are not really sure what matter is. However, through experience, observation and experiementation, we can learn something about matter and laws that make the universe as it is, and what makes humans as they are with all their variety in cultures.

What makes you human, makes me human, and civilizations are the result of human nature and the conditions in which humans find themselves. We can observe and experience and argue with each other and come to know of such things. This is an on going process, so what we know is constantly changing as we learn more about what we think we know.

What I am saying is not specific to the US. I am speaking of the truths that have been argued since we sat around camp fires in the beginning of human time. I really don't understand your objection to what I have said, or why you would jump to the idea that I am saying the human laws of one group of people should rule over all people. That is not what democracy is about. That is what democracy opposes. That is tyranny. Help, how can I better explain that of which I speak? Democracy seeks to know truth and rule by reason. This is not a human authority with an army forcing people to be subservient.

Think back to Athens. Unfortunately, it made the same mistake the US is making in about the same 200 year period. But the moral issue is between secular democracy verses religion, theocracy or despotic rule, Persia was a despot, and Islam seems to be despotic. Christianity can easily be despotic. Democracy holds, what controls the universe is universal laws, that even the Gods must obey. Religions, and despots, tell us it is a God, or a God like human, that makes things happen. The US has forgotten the meaning of democracy and has become despotic.

[modest]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

We appear to have a misunderstanding, and I thank you for the opportunity to clarify my meaning.

Perhaps, yes, I've misunderstood you.

I took what you were saying to be that human morality could be derived from nature and made into laws which would lend themselves to everyone. I would disagree with that but it's entirely likely in doing so I'd not be disagreeing with you.

-modest

[nutronjon]

Originally Posted by modest

Perhaps, yes, I've misunderstood you.

I took what you were saying to be that human morality could be derived from nature and made into laws which would lend themselves to everyone. I would disagree with that but it's entirely likely in doing so I'd not be disagreeing with you.

-modest

I am not sure what you mean, and what you disagree with?

Cicero said: "On Law- True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application..." Now how do we know we have right reason? Cicero, is saying the reasoning must be in agreement with nature. Is it natural to desire to be a slave? What is natural for a person who is a slave?
How might you know the reasoning of these answers? Do you conclude legalizing slavery is in agreement with nature? If so, laws that legalize slavery are good and should stand. If not, then such laws are human tyranny and not truly laws that we should use to govern ourselves. Do you find fault in this reasoning? What is it you are not agreeing with?

I could easily substitute the word "wife" for the word "slave", and ask, is a law that allows a man to hit his wife, to make her obey him, a good law? What are the benefits of our daughter's knowing we will kill them if they interact in an immoral way with a male? What is the draw back to using corporal punishment or/and the death sentence, to make people behave morally? How does your reasoning agree with nature?

[modest]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

I am not sure what you mean, and what you disagree with?

Cicero said: "On Law- True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application..." Now how do we know we have right reason? Cicero, is saying the reasoning must be in agreement with nature. Is it natural to desire to be a slave?

If we extend Cicero's quote a bit:

“True law is right reason in agreement with Nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions… There will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and for all times.”

We find an important aspect of this ideology. Natural law is eternal and unchangeable. This is a natural consequence of saying there is a true ethics that is either difined or created or derived outside of humanity. Here is a quote from The Nature of Law Part III: Law vs. Legislation

Originally Posted by Roderick T. Long

Natural Law — a set of immutable moral principles that transcend human will. Such was indeed the view of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Aquinas, and indeed most legal philosophers throughout history.

and Wikipedia's Natural law:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere.

So, of course this idea lent itself well to Cicero and Rome. The roman idea was to subjugate the known world and impose Roman values throughout. The Gallic, Spanish, British, and other regions of tribes lost their identity and culture as Rome pursued its application of law. They took them as slaves or killed them. This was entirely under the purview of natural law and lucky for slave-owners it was immutable.

This stoic and platonic idea of natural law lent itself very well to Christianity:

Christians found the natural law doctrine of the Stoics quite compatible with their beliefs. St. Paul spoke of Gentiles who do not have the Mosaic law doing “by nature what the law requires” (Romans 2:14). The 6th-century Spanish theologian St. Isidore of Seville affirmed that natural law is observed everywhere by natural instinct; he cited as illustrations the laws ordaining marriage and the procreation of children. Texts from Isidore cited at the beginning of the Italian scholar Gratian's Decretum (circa 1140), the canon law textbook of the Middle Ages, stimulated extensive discussion among the Scholastics. The teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas on the natural law is the most widely known. In his Summa Theologiae (Summary Treatise of Theology, 1265-73) Aquinas called the rational guidance of creation by God the “Eternal Law.” The Eternal Law gives all beings the inclination to those actions and aims that are proper to them. Rational creatures, by directing their own actions and guiding the actions of others, share in divine reason itself.

- Natural Law (ethics) - Search View - MSN Encarta

The list of things found reasonable under natural law by Christians and yet despicable by today’s standards is lengthy and well-known. I’ll just say slavery and genocide are at the top of the list.

Originally Posted by nutronjon

Do you find fault in this reasoning? What is it you are not agreeing with?

I disagree with the idea we can find unchangeable and universally applicable ethics from some enigmatic yet often-looked-to source. Ethics and laws have evolved as humanity has evolved and this is good. We shouldn’t look to the universe or nature or God to find what’s right and wrong and we should not presume that what’s right for me is right for someone from some other culture.

-modest

[nutronjon]

Excellent argument. You make me regret I don't have all day to spend on my references and composing a reply. I mean that very sincerely. You have made this debate intelligectually exciting and I live for moments like this. Your argument could be used as supporting arguments for Intelligent Design, however, Intelligent Design must be separated from the God of Abraham.

I can not recall who said this, but I believe in was an ancient Greek who said, "Ignorance of the laws is no excuse". He did not mean a violation of local laws or customs.

"Oh, you are from Carthage, and in Carthage people can park their chariot wherever they like. You might not know that when a crub is painted yellow, that means you can not park your chariot there. You will be excused this time, but from here on, when in Rome do as the Romans do."

He meant a violation of the kind of law we are discussing. For example, a king killed a man and left him to rot in the feild and ordered no one bury him, or he too would be killed. Despite the kings orders, the man's sister sister buried her brother. The king called her before him and questioned why she would bury her brother when he ordered no one was to bury him, with a penalty of death for disobeying his order. She argued, even before kings, sisters buried their brothers. She is arguing, there is a law above even the law of kings. It is the universal law we are arguing.

There are somethings human beings agree on around the world. Marriage is one of them. There are a few unimportant exceptions. Such as tribes that do not recognize fathers, but hold the mothers brother in the position of father to the child. This law is based in nature, and the extended dependency of the child, and marriage plays a very important role in social order. The only other form of social order I can think of, is military order and the US has moved from family order to military order with very bad consquences! That is another thread.

I am sure you think your argument is one for freedom, but actually it is one for tyranny, and out of control power. I don't think you want to make that argument. I think you are arguing that human law is the highest possible law. I am arguing human laws are often flawed, and for that reason, in a democracy laws can be changed. With experience and new information, we can argue the reasoning of existing laws, and redesign the laws to comply with our better understanding of the laws of nature. This is an on going process, and should result in humans reaching their highest potential, and the ighest order of justice!

I don't think the problem is the concept of rule by reason, and universal law, but human nature, and especially the nature of power. People get drunk with power and then make terrible decisions. For that reason, in a democracy the power is distributed and balanced. Bush seriously unbalanced the power, and ignorance of that of which we speak, prevents corrective action from being taken. Hopefully, with people like arguing such matters, we will regain wisdom and act to rebalance the powers.

Refusing to speak to the leaders of another country, and ordering they do as the Great Power of the US demands, or their country will bombed, as Bush bombed Iraq, is tyranny. It is a violation of universal law. The problem is human understanding, not the concept or universal law. War can destroy a country, and Bush may have very well, brought us to the end of being a great nation. What he has done to the lives of Iraqis, the destruction of their homes, businesses, families and lives, will have bad repercussions, and no prayers to a God will change the wrong of what was done. There is a higher law, and a force greater than human law and human power.

This does not mean this force is the God of Abraham. I think this God is mythology mixed with superstition. Universal law doesn't have favorite people, and we can not malnipulate this forces with our prayers, pious acts, or magic rituals. When we do good, good things will happen. When we do bad, bad things will happen. The worst evil is our ignorance of good and evil. If we are self centered and put personal interest first, surely our judgement will be poor and bad will follow.

[modest]

Originally Posted by nutronjon

Your argument could be used as supporting arguments for Intelligent Design, however, Intelligent Design must be separated from the God of Abraham.

My point is that your idea of natural law is now and has for a long time been used by those who support intelligent design. I do not support intelligent design or the old attitude of natural law. My moral compass is not in the sky - NO!

Originally Posted by nutronjon

She is arguing there is a law above even the law of kings.

I understand that this concept is used to overthrow kings. I know its roots in the American revolution and French revolution. I get that. What you are missing is that anyone can use this idea to support any law. Slavery and genocide fit into natures idea of natural law just as well as liberty. It is therefore meaningless and foolish.

Originally Posted by nutronjon

There are somethings human beings agree on around the world.

The point is - you saying this doesn’t make it so. Natural law does by design and custom disenfranchise the minority. It is in my opinion neither true nor moral.

Originally Posted by nutronjon

Marriage is one of them.

Marriage is a good example of different cultures having different ideas of what’s right and wrong. You have to see that. Your idea of marriage is not Joseph Smith’s or Solomon’s or Brittney Spears’. One ethics does not make the world complete.

Originally Posted by nutronjon

There are a few unimportant exceptions. Such as tribes that do not recognize fathers, but hold the mothers brother in the position of father to the child. This law is based in nature, and extended dependency of the child.

Everywhere and everything is an exception to the moral laws of nature because it doesn’t have any. Your exception is small. There are tribes where a father’s semen is considered his life force. It is his responsibility to ejaculate in his child’s mouth in order to transfer that power to his son. How would your idea of morality hold up in that tribe. Or, do you think their idea of ethics should be a law over you?

Originally Posted by nutronjon

I am sure you think your argument is one for freedom, but actually it is one for tyranny, and out of control power.

I’m not arguing for or against freedom. I’m telling you the history of the thing you’re describing. It’s bloody and tyrannical. Anything can be claimed to come from nature. Just because a hyena kills its siblings doesn’t mean it’s moral for you or I to do so, eh?

-modest

[pgrmdave]

Define "Natural Law".

If you mean "Law" in the sense that science uses it, then I must disagree. There is no morality to be found in mathematics. Nothing about friction or gravity will tell you whether it is wrong or right to bury your dead brother.

If, however, you mean "natural law" in the sense that most people understand there to be a basic morality, then I must still disagree. Morality is based on respect, showing respect to others and yourself. However, how you show that respect differs greatly from culture to culture, from time to time. I believe that it is wrong to kill, no matter what the circumstances. I think that is a very simple, very obvious 'natural' law. And yet there are many, many people who disagree with me. And they think just as much that it is obvious that there are times where killing is necessary, and even good and justified.

[nutronjon]

Well some good arguments and arguments are what keep a thread going.

I said marriage is pretty universal, because of the extended dependency of a child, and that it is important to social order.

Modest wrote:

Marriage is a good example of different cultures having different ideas of what’s right and wrong. You have to see that. Your idea of marriage is not Joseph Smith’s or Solomon’s or Brittney Spears’. One ethics does not make the world complete.

In all cultures, human children are dependent on others for their survival for many years. yes-no?

In all cultures the pairing of males and females is an important element of social order. yes-no? Please, give an example where this is not so, if your answer is no.

pgrmdave, I can understand the argument that science and math are amoral, but they provide information we need for good moral judgements. Another source of information for good moral judgement is, holy books. Myself, I prefer science to superstitution. It was science that ended 200 years of witch hunts. However, it is mistaken to think witch hunts didn't involve science. Actually, at the time, those who examined persons suspected of being witches were being as scientific as modern doctors. How to identify a witch and the methods to use, were well documented, and the experts in this feild of study were highly respected. Unfortunately, their information was wrong. By pursuing the scientific method, the error was corrected. The moral of this story is, the scientific method is effective in bringing us to moral decisions. On the other hand, if one only reads the bible and that Jesus counted cast demons out of people, there would be no correction to the belief that lead to witch hunts. We know natural law through science. Do you want to argue this? Secondly, with knowledge of natural law, we can make moral decisions.

That we rely on science for justice, is extremely important to me!!!! Many years ago, it was determined the human brain develops in stages. At around age 8 the myalin sheath is fully developed and the brain literally begins to function differently. The Jews have a ritual for boys at this time, and consider them to have reached an age of judgement. However, more recently it has been determined the frontal lobe of the cerebrum is not fully developed until age 25. That is the region of the brain essential to judgement. I believe it is Sweden where adulthood begin age 25. Given the science, we might stop treating young people as adults in the court room, and we might not give 18 years the vote, nor give them full adult status until age 25. I think people over 50 will appreciate this reasoning more than people in those in their early 20's, because of the difference in judgement that comes with age. Obviously there are legal and justice considerations, to be based on scientific information. yes or no?