OT: Will non net-neutrality kill the internet?

[Stephen Sprunk]

I personally believe reliogion and morals are more about a person
maintaining their own moral standing, rather than trying to enforce a
good standing on everyone else.

That's what I think too, but that's not how most other people see
things; they're quite insistent on punishing others for committing
"immoral" acts. For instance, in many countries it is common to execute
unmarried women for having premarital sex--or even simply exposing their
skin. While the US doesn't go that far, we _do_ imprison people for
prostitution, growing and consuming harmless drugs, and all other sorts
of "immorality".

granted, in a theological sense, keeping good morals in themselves,
will not get one into heaven

Really? That seems to contradict Romans 2:13-16, which says "For it is
not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is
those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when
Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the
law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the
law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on
their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts
now accusing, now even defending them.) This will take place on the day
when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel
declares." In other words, if you haven't heard of Jesus, you can still
get into Heaven as long as you're a good person.

A cynic would say that, rather than spreading the Word and condemning
otherwise good people to Hell because they don't accept Jesus, you
should keep quiet and let them go to Heaven or Hell on their own merits,
as judged by their own morality rather than the morality in the Bible.

(especially if the person sees their moral behaviors as some way of
making themselves better than others who have fallen into
depravity, since this would be counter to morals).

This is extremely common. The "let he who is without sin cast the first
stone" message seems to be lost on a great many "Christians" who delight
in pointing out others' sins--and punishing them, usurping God.

I don't personally see the reasoning here...

as I see it, an a-moral person sees value in using morals, or disregarding
them, more in terms of how it will lead to personal advancement (like, well,
if I bend this little rule here, I may be able to get some money or get a
promotion, ...).

An amoral person has no morals, period.

An immoral person has morals but violates them (for whatever reason).

According to Christianity, there is no moral person, for all are sinners
from conception.

I just don't believe in trying to force moral behavior on others, unless
there is some obvious benefit, and feel it is more a matter of others
choosing whether or not to do the right thing.

Unfortunately, that is not how most "Christians" in the US act/believe;
they believe they have been charged by God^H^H^HJesus to force moral
behavior on society as a whole.

Personally, I have no beef with Christians enforcing morality on each
other; that's between them and their God. My problem is when they try
to enforce their morality on those of another (or no) religion, who
necessarily have a different (or no) morality since morality is rooted
in religion.

S

 

[Chris H]

In most Christian cultures, killing a prostitute is as immoral as
killing any other non-monastic person, and killing a monk/nun _is even
more immoral_.

Despite the fact that many priests are Pedophiles are Child Abusers?

 

[BGB / cr88192]

That's what I think too, but that's not how most other people see
things; they're quite insistent on punishing others for committing
"immoral" acts. For instance, in many countries it is common to execute
unmarried women for having premarital sex--or even simply exposing their
skin. While the US doesn't go that far, we _do_ imprison people for
prostitution, growing and consuming harmless drugs, and all other sorts
of "immorality".

fair enough...

Really? That seems to contradict Romans 2:13-16, which says "For it is
not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is
those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when
Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the
law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the
law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on
their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts
now accusing, now even defending them.) This will take place on the day
when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel
declares." In other words, if you haven't heard of Jesus, you can still
get into Heaven as long as you're a good person.

keeping morals is a good thing, but the matter is, if it is keeping morals
simply for morals sake that is sufficient.
if a person does a good thing because it is the right thing to do, then it
is credit to them.

if a person does something simply because they believe they will get them
credit or a better status by having done so, this is different. like, a
person with an impure heart doing good things, and avoiding bad things,
simply as a means of promoting their own best interests.

this would be more the type of morality the Pharisees were known for...

A cynic would say that, rather than spreading the Word and condemning
otherwise good people to Hell because they don't accept Jesus, you
should keep quiet and let them go to Heaven or Hell on their own merits,
as judged by their own morality rather than the morality in the Bible.

except that one may be still obligated to tell people...

This is extremely common. The "let he who is without sin cast the first
stone" message seems to be lost on a great many "Christians" who delight
in pointing out others' sins--and punishing them, usurping God.

yes, agreed.

An amoral person has no morals, period.

An immoral person has morals but violates them (for whatever reason).

yeah, it seems it is more confusing...

According to Christianity, there is no moral person, for all are sinners
from conception.

fair enough, if one judges by a standard of perfection...

from the usual point of view of most people, it is more relative to the
average standing, much as a hill is "higher" than the ground, and a ditch is
"lower".

Unfortunately, that is not how most "Christians" in the US act/believe;
they believe they have been charged by God^H^H^HJesus to force moral
behavior on society as a whole.

yeah. I had thought that way for a while, but read stuff, and came to the
opinion that this was not the correct interpretation.

Personally, I have no beef with Christians enforcing morality on each
other; that's between them and their God. My problem is when they try
to enforce their morality on those of another (or no) religion, who
necessarily have a different (or no) morality since morality is rooted
in religion.

I partly agree, but disagree on the point that morality (as a whole) is
based in religion.

it may be fluid, but I suspect the central premises likely exist on a much
wider scale, and may even be, at some point, possible to measure and
determine objectively.

however, I will not claim this is possible for the time being, as the
underlying nature of morals is not well understood, and the best one has is
specific belief systems, and an ugly and tangled mess of philosophical
outlooks, many of which may come to conflicting or absurd conclusions in
many cases...

now, as for the implications and nature of its existence, this is a more
complex issue.


I suspect one place I differ from many other people in my "sense" of morals
though, is that it seems most common for people to assume that values are
intrinsic, but this seems problematic. for example, one can instead assume
that value tends to be extrinsic.

the thing is that this leads to very different conclusions:
if one assumes, for example, that human life has intrinsic worth, this will
lead to different conclusions than someone who assumes that the value of
human life is an extrinsic property.

for example, the former might conclude that killing someone is wrong in all
cases, due to the act itself.
another might conclude that, instead, it is related to the impact it has on
others (for example, a persons' death might make their family members
unhappy, might damage the company they work for, ...).
but, the harm is not in the persons' death, but rather in how it has
impacted everyone involved.

similarly, a person wouldn't need fear their own loss of life, but rather
the unhappiness of their family members and people who know them, ...


oddly, I guess I disagree with some people by currently taking the stance
that reality is likely itself relative and contextual, rather than being
absolute and ontological, which I guess is kind of the opposite of people
who assume an absolute and ontological reality, but a relative and
subjective sense of morality...

however, I still believe that reality is objective, just if one can imagine
a reality that is both objective but also relative and based on a large
number of interconnected contexts. (otherwise, one faces seemingly
unresolvable existential difficulties...).


or such...

 

[John Kelly]

Also, we've figured out how to turn matter into energy, so logically it
must be possible to turn energy into matter; however, that just
transforms the question into "where did the energy come from to create
all the matter we observe?"

You could also ask "how did God bootstrap himself" but it's beyond the
intellectual capacity of man. Just as dogs do not have the capacity to
understand calculus, humans do not have the capacity to understand how
God bootstrapped Himself.

Why? Nobody invented the laws of mathematics, either, and physics is
just applied math. (We may have _discovered_ the laws over time, but
they were always there.)

Not always.

Time is a property of our universe, the fourth dimension. Before God
created the universe, time as we observe it, did not exist.

God is not bounded by time, as we are. He provided it as a property of
the universe, and he can do with it what He wills.

Joshua 10:12-14
2 Kings 20:8-11

 

[Kenny McCormack]

You could also ask "how did God bootstrap himself" but it's beyond the
intellectual capacity of man. Just as dogs do not have the capacity to
understand calculus, humans do not have the capacity to understand how
God bootstrapped Himself.

Please, John, tell me this is all a put-on and that you're not really a
God-botherer. Please, please, please.

--
(This discussion group is about C, ...)

Wrong. It is only OCCASIONALLY a discussion group
about C; mostly, like most "discussion" groups, it is
off-topic Rorsharch [sic] revelations of the childhood
traumas of the participants...

 

[Nick Keighley]

<--
good for you. Though laws when they approximate morality have a degree
of compulsion.
-->

yes, however, laws are typically reserved for more severe cases, whereas
"keeping good morals" usually refers more to minor cases.

I was distinguishing the two, but laws do cover things like murder and
theft. In some countries they cover things like adultary and
homosexuality.

for example: killing someone is a greater crime than fornication, for
example...
one deserves a law, the other is free choice.
however, both may well still be immoral.

not all counties and societies agree on where the dividing line is

Is having more than one wife at the same time moral or immoral? Legal
or illegal?

the difference is mostly in terms of social impact:
in the past, people found guilty of fornication would have been socially
obligated to marry, but usually with few hard feelings after the fact.

some places you get rocks thrown at you...

<--
I'll leave theology to the theologians. Take a look at Lutherans
sometime...
-->

I am going by a relatively literal interpretation here...

*whose* literal interpretation?

generally, it is understood (including by people like Catholics and
similar), that for things like confession to really work, one generally
needs to feel guilt or remorse.

The reason I picked Lutherans is (if I've picked the right protestant
sect) that they believe you are born already saved or not saved. What
you do in your life doesn't affect this state (maybe god can peep
ahead into your future life to make the decision). Confession and
older RCC practices like indulgences are of course not practiced by
such protestant sects.

<--
I don't quite see the amoral here...
-->

yeah, it is more about decision making.
if a person knows the costs, and is willing to accept them, then the
decision remains rational.
justification or denial can't remove any of the costs, but does make the
decision no longer rational.

it is like buying a car: one gets the car (a good thing), at the realization
that they will be faced with car payments (a bad thing). but, one may still
choose to buy the car despite the cost of having to make payments.

yes but if guilt is the cost why should I feel guilt because I've
broken *your* moral code? Not everyone agrees that sex outside
marriage is necessarily sinful or wrong. I suspect many homosexuals
don't feel guilty about some of the things they do. Why should they?

<--
soci-paths. People who are guided by what they can get away with
-->

I suspect probably many normal people think this way as well.

yes, I over-stated the case. Office workers "take" stationary and
don't regard it as theft.

like, people will cut corners here and there on all sorts of things, and
then act like they had not done so. other people will just look for loopholes,
and do what they want this way.

this kind of behavior may make someone a jerk or maybe a criminal, but I
don't necessarily think it makes them a sociopath.

it is like, is every gang member who will willingly steal ones' car stereo,
or hubcaps, or tires, a sociopath? doubtful.

agreed. They may operate their own morality. "don't steal from
friends"

[...] nothing stops a person from being immoral, so long as they
acknowledge this, and accept the respective guilt for doing such.

<--
but should I feel guilty if I do something you view as immoral but I
don't? Do you get to decide my moral code?
-->

most people agree on most things, from what I have observed.

obvious things like murder, rape and theft. But what about sex outside
marriage and other sexual mores?

Is it immoral to drink alchohol?

for what it is worth, morals tend to be fairly close to being a simple
matter of right vs wrong in most cases,

take a look at some societies outside your own. There may be more
variation than you think.

and in the future it may well be
possible to measure and determine the rightness and wrongness of a
particular line of action (although, admittedly, I have not determined how
one would do so).

like, maybe eventually, ethics will cross the line from being philosophy to
being a science?...

almosty impossible I'd say. I think both morality and human nature
would have to be vastly changed for this to occur

back to the example of someone killing a prostitute: is their any real way a
person can morally justify killing her to save some money, if he himself had
made use of her services.

no. I'm back to socio-paths again

to take a vigilante stance, one would also need to not make use of them;
and, to make use of them, one is obligated to pay them.

you are aware that prostitutes are actually people? That killing
someone is murder except in some very exceptional circumstances?
Saving money doesn't seem to count as "very exceptional circumstances"
from where I'm standing.

If someone charges me too much for a sandwich is it ok for me to stab
them?

<--
you think?
-->

yeah.
in this case, she would be selling a service, and killing the seller to
avoid payment is essentially equivalent to theft, in addition to the act of
killing.

I doubt very much they would be charged with theft...

[killed a prostitute to avoid paying her (or him)]

<--
probably!?
-->

yes. there is a certain possibility that:
the cops will not discover the true killer

you said "if they found out I didi it". Detection isn't the issue in
this case

or, it may be possible to pay off the cops in some cases, such that,
although they know who did it, they will not make an arrest or press
charges.


<--
I find your example telling. Is it less immoral to kill a prositute
than a nun?
-->

possibly, uncertain...

seriously? Good grief. I'm guessing you're a religious person...

this is similar to how it is justified for police or government actions to
kill people, but the common citizen lacks this right,

there are various circumstances in which a citizen could legally kill
someone. Self defence, defence of someone else, use of reasonable
force to prevent the commission of an atrocious crime etc.

<snip>

 

[John Kelly]

Please, John, tell me this is all a put-on and that you're not really a
God-botherer. Please, please, please.

This thread just won't die will it. That's what happens when somebody
starts an "OT" thread. I didn't, so don't blame me.

 

[BGB / cr88192]

I was distinguishing the two, but laws do cover things like murder and
theft. In some countries they cover things like adultary and
homosexuality.


not all counties and societies agree on where the dividing line is

Is having more than one wife at the same time moral or immoral? Legal
or illegal?

it depends on the country as per the matter of legality.

as for morals, it is generally assumed that it was generally better for a
person to only have 1 wife, but many other people took multiple wives.

Christianity as a whole took it to be generally the case that only having a
single wife was acceptable, although taken literally, polygamy is only
condemned for clerical positions (and the requirement that clergy remain
celibate was a later innovation, and is not a biblical requirement...).

some places you get rocks thrown at you...

possibly, but this is uncommon...

usually, the rocks are reserved for cases of adultery (or sodomy), and not
for fornication...

AFAIK, under the law of sharia, for example, it is usually the case that the
parties are flogged, and then forced to marry.

some variants of Judaism also follow the forced-marriage rule.

this would also be the biblically correct interpretation in Christianity as
well, although it has generally (for most of history that I know of), been
relaxed to where people are usually only forced to marry if the female gets
pregnant as a result.


in recent decades, it has been relaxed much further, although I personally
disagree that this is a reasonable stance. so, my personal belief is that it
is best if people remain abstinent until marrying.

*whose* literal interpretation?

generally my own, although I hardly think this interpretation is unusual.
most of what I have read has generally expressed similar ideas.

The reason I picked Lutherans is (if I've picked the right protestant
sect) that they believe you are born already saved or not saved. What
you do in your life doesn't affect this state (maybe god can peep
ahead into your future life to make the decision). Confession and
older RCC practices like indulgences are of course not practiced by
such protestant sects.

errm, that would be Calvinists...

Lutheran and Baptist soteriology, for example, works a bit differently...


on this front, I have some of my own views about how this part works...

yes but if guilt is the cost why should I feel guilt because I've
broken *your* moral code? Not everyone agrees that sex outside
marriage is necessarily sinful or wrong. I suspect many homosexuals
don't feel guilty about some of the things they do. Why should they?

well, the moral cost remains regardless of what a person believes about the
practice, since morality and morality exist independently of the people
themselves. the best a person can do is try to study and understand what is
moral and what is immoral, as otherwise they are, effectively, walking
blind...

but, anyways, guilt (in this context) is not the same as "feeling guilty".

guilt is essentially a concept more similar to debt.
if a person is in debt, they may know it, or they may not.
a person may also feel concern over their debt, or they may continue on
living life as a party so long as they can keep getting more credit cards.

eventually though, it will catch up with them (maybe in this life, maybe
not), and this is what a person may need to be concerned over.

a person can't stay in the clear if they live a life of uncontrolled
spending.

a person need not be a debt collector, but they can at least serve as a
warning that these things are not free...

yes, I over-stated the case. Office workers "take" stationary and
don't regard it as theft.

yep. there are many small ways a person can cut corners, which is a little
different from big glaring acts...

like, people will cut corners here and there on all sorts of things, and
then act like they had not done so. other people will just look for
loopholes,
and do what they want this way.

this kind of behavior may make someone a jerk or maybe a criminal, but I
don't necessarily think it makes them a sociopath.

it is like, is every gang member who will willingly steal ones' car
stereo,
or hubcaps, or tires, a sociopath? doubtful.

agreed. They may operate their own morality. "don't steal from
friends"

possibly.

[...] nothing stops a person from being immoral, so long as they
acknowledge this, and accept the respective guilt for doing such.

<--
but should I feel guilty if I do something you view as immoral but I
don't? Do you get to decide my moral code?
-->

most people agree on most things, from what I have observed.

obvious things like murder, rape and theft. But what about sex outside
marriage and other sexual mores?

most are agreed on.
for example, Chinese also traditionally hold similar views regarding
fornication and marriage, ... even though, traditional Chinese belief is
*far* from being the same as Christianity.

Is it immoral to drink alchohol?

I say no.

it is immoral to get wasted, but drinking itself is acceptable.

it is like, if drinking were wrong, Jesus would not have likely made wine.
him going, and using his powers to make wine, for drinking, is itself
evidence that it *can't* be immoral.

similar, damn near every church has also used wine in communion and similar
as well.

and, also, there were also references, in the Bible, to Jesus drinking, ...

so, the no-alcohol people are no longer operating under biblical definitions
if they try to condemn drinking.


however, practical considerations are still needed:
if a person is an alcoholic, then they should not drink.
the problem is not that alcohol, itself, is bad, but rather that if a person
can't moderate their drinking, they themselves have a problem.

it is much like how one doesn't let a dog have chocolate:
it is not that either the dog or the chocolate are immoral, but simply that
they don't mix.
the dog will gorge themselves, they will be poisoned by it, and then they
will die.

take a look at some societies outside your own. There may be more
variation than you think.

I have had some first hand exposure to Asians, having lived in Asia (or, at
least Guam, which is geographically at least in Asia, although under US
control, and actual Americans were a strong minority).

I also knew pacific islanders (from various other islands), some people from
the PRC, ...

there is generally more in common between cultures than is different IME.

<giggle> this sounds like Asimov's psycho-history

well, I am not exactly claiming something like the 3 laws here, but at
points I had considered trying to adapt a variation of the 3 laws into an
ethical philosophy.

however, most later variations did not incorporate this.

almosty impossible I'd say. I think both morality and human nature
would have to be vastly changed for this to occur

why so?...

it doesn't require people to *be* moral, any more than now, but it may at
least be possible eventually to estimate and measure its costs, make
predictions, or maybe get valid experimental answers.

under all that exists at present, there is no real way to estimate or
exprerimentally test moral assertions, and the best one can do is make an
estimate based on cultural and societal impacts.

no. I'm back to socio-paths again


you are aware that prostitutes are actually people? That killing
someone is murder except in some very exceptional circumstances?
Saving money doesn't seem to count as "very exceptional circumstances"
from where I'm standing.

whether or not a person is a person may not itself matter regarding ethical
concerns regarding them.

a sufficient network of economic transactions may itself mirror the
structure of a moral value-network, and I am left to wonder sometimes if
maybe the systems are inter-related.

in any case though, it is far from being 1:1, as they also seem to exhibit
different properties in many cases (I am left thinking that money is not,
itself, value, but instead tends to flow towards value). so, confusing money
for value is similar to confusing water to gravity.

morals may be another manifestation of the same basic force.

so, to fully understand ethics, it may be necessarily to abstract away some
of the "human" aspects, thinking not as much in terms of the people
involved, but in terms of interconnected nodes on various graphs...

If someone charges me too much for a sandwich is it ok for me to stab
them?

<snip>

I was never claiming in all this that it was acceptable, but more as an
example of some of the considerations which could be involved.

I doubt very much they would be charged with theft...

but theft of service is still a part of the problem, since if they kill the
seller before paying they are by extension not paying for the service.

in fact, it could be argued that killing the seller is an extension of the
act of theft (since, they would kill her to avoid paying her money), rather
than theft as an extension of the act of murder (this would be something
more along the lines of killing somone and then stealing their wallet as an
afterthought...).

[killed a prostitute to avoid paying her (or him)]

<--
probably!?
-->

yes. there is a certain possibility that:
the cops will not discover the true killer

you said "if they found out I didi it". Detection isn't the issue in
this case

fair enough.

seriously? Good grief. I'm guessing you're a religious person...

yep.




there are various circumstances in which a citizen could legally kill
someone. Self defence, defence of someone else, use of reasonable
force to prevent the commission of an atrocious crime etc.

I think I mentioned this, but I meant outside of the grounds of self-defense
or similar...

police have the right to execute criminals, keep jails, ..., but the average
citizen can't legally do similar.

for example, if an average person were going and collecting criminals,
locking them in their basement, and then dispatching them against a brick
wall in their back yard, it is VERY unlikely the police would look upon this
act favorably (even if likely the same criminal were to be sentanced to
capital punishment).


similarly, an average citizen also lacks the right to declare and enforce
laws in the same way as a government, ...


in effect, citizens are more regarded as the property of governments, in a
similar way to how objects are the property of their owners, or children are
effectively the property of their parents (or, in other views, effectively
the property of the state, but are effectively leased to their parents), ...

for example, a child running away from their parents is essentially theft of
themselves from their parents, and if returned, the parents may choose to
punish them as appropriate, ... (this being why parents can punish children,
can tell them what to do, take away their possessions when they start acting
up, ...).

then, when they are older, their ownership effectively transfers to the
state, which may choose to do what they will (charge taxes, draft them into
the military, force them to perform jury duty, ...), and the person
themselves lacks any real right to complain...


or such...

 

[Stephen Sprunk]

I was distinguishing the two, but laws do cover things like murder and
theft. In some countries they cover things like adultary and
homosexuality.

They do in many places in the US, even, though modern courts void most
of those laws on the rare occasions they're actually enforced.

not all counties and societies agree on where the dividing line is

Is having more than one wife at the same time moral or immoral? Legal
or illegal?

That's a perfect example. The Bible clearly shows wise and holy men as
having several wives (or several hundred), yet today most societies
consider such behavior immoral--and imprison men for it. Sounds like
hypocrisy to me.

The best example is LDS, which originally had polygyny as a mandate to
all men--but when that blocked Utah's admission into the US, the church
suddenly changed its mind and declared it immoral. Hmm.

The reason I picked Lutherans is (if I've picked the right protestant
sect) that they believe you are born already saved or not saved. What
you do in your life doesn't affect this state (maybe god can peep
ahead into your future life to make the decision).

That's an interesting claim I've never heard before. It pretty much
throws the need for moral behavior out the window, though, if one's
actions in life have no bearing on whether they go to Heaven.

Confession and older RCC practices like indulgences are of course not
practiced by such protestant sects.

Some protestant churches/sects do offer confession (to a priest), though
it's optional. Others have "confession" as part of the weekly service,
where the congregation confesses (in their heads) to God and receive
absolution en masse.

I've never understood any of that; if God is omniscient, then he already
knows whether you feel guilt for your sins and doesn't need you to
confess them, and no mortal can save you from God's Judgment.

yes but if guilt is the cost why should I feel guilt because I've
broken *your* moral code? Not everyone agrees that sex outside
marriage is necessarily sinful or wrong. I suspect many homosexuals
don't feel guilty about some of the things they do. Why should they?

Exactly. I would feel guilty if I broke _my_ moral code, but not yours
because I never agreed to it.

obvious things like murder, rape and theft. But what about sex outside
marriage and other sexual mores?

Is it immoral to drink alchohol?

Indeed. There is a wide variation in what people consider "moral", once
you get past the big stuff. And there's even a bit of debate on the
fringe about some of the big stuff, e.g. whether it's "moral" for
soldiers to kill people in battle.

<giggle> this sounds like Asimov's psycho-history

Asimov's psychohistory gives the odds that particular large-scale events
will happen in the future, not whether small-scale events are "right" or
"wrong".

I doubt very much they would be charged with theft...

I don't know the rules in other jurisdictions, but here if you are
convicted of multiple crimes in the same "episode" the sentences are
served concurrently, so there is no reason for the DA to charge you with
anything other than the crime with the longest sentence unless they're
not confident they can actually get a conviction on it--in which case
they generally wouldn't go to trial at all, lest it hurt their
conviction rate and get them tossed out of office in the next election.

seriously? Good grief. I'm guessing you're a religious person...

You're just now picking up on that?

there are various circumstances in which a citizen could legally kill
someone. Self defence, defence of someone else, use of reasonable
force to prevent the commission of an atrocious crime etc.

Yep. At least for my jurisdiction, I can point to the specific law that
lists all the various circumstances in which it's legal to kill someone.
And then there are the circumstances in which one could kill but,
despite being guilty under the law, it is extremely unlikely that a jury
would convict in practice.

S

 

[BGB / cr88192]

They do in many places in the US, even, though modern courts void most
of those laws on the rare occasions they're actually enforced.

yep, for better or for worse...

US law does in some cases list many such acts as being immoral, although for
acts of a purely moral nature, it is unclear (and in fact doubtful) that a
legal solution is the best strategy...

so, my view:
just because something is legal does not mean something is moral, and just
because something is immoral does not mean it needs a law against it.


after all, the US already has too many, and too many stupid, laws...
like, if it were up to me, decriminalization of weed, and also removal of
the legal drinking age, would be in order (or, at least, if the drinking age
was lowered, say, to 16 or 18, and below this age, it then becomes the
parents' concern as to the matter of drinking).

however, DUI's, and other acts generally considered misconduct, would still
be prosecuted, just that the rather arbitrary "no drinking until 21" rule is
stupid IMO.

That's a perfect example. The Bible clearly shows wise and holy men as
having several wives (or several hundred), yet today most societies
consider such behavior immoral--and imprison men for it. Sounds like
hypocrisy to me.

yeah, the Bible makes no explicit requirement for it, per-se, but I remember
it saying somewhere in the NT that a person elected as a church leader
should only have one wife. (since the Bible itself says one wife, this
means, effectively, that the "no spouse" requirement for Catholics and
similar is essentially in conflict with the Bible).

granted, there was some mention of people choosing not to marry, but in
context it was more related to people serving as missionaries, and was more
started as a matter of personal choice and judgement, rather than as some
sort of requirement or in giving a higher moral status.

The best example is LDS, which originally had polygyny as a mandate to
all men--but when that blocked Utah's admission into the US, the church
suddenly changed its mind and declared it immoral. Hmm.

LDS has all sorts of other problems though, and has many conflicts both with
the Bible and with available evidence...

it is like, for example, evidence for there having been Jews:
well, there being Jews;
lots of historical landmarks in Israel;
....

evidence for Lamenites, Reformed Egyptian, ...: errm....

That's an interesting claim I've never heard before. It pretty much
throws the need for moral behavior out the window, though, if one's
actions in life have no bearing on whether they go to Heaven.

as I had noted, this is was more related to Calvinism.
there are some variants of Calvinism that, in fact, take the above
interpretation.

the more common view though is that, essentially, the person lacks free will
as to the matter, so that the saved person (elect) will have good morals
regardless (they are unable, effectively, to turn away from belief or from
keeping good morals);
similarly, the unsaved (reprobate) are simply unable to have faith or to
restrain their behavior.

this comes under the description of "points" with names like "irresistable
grace" and "total depravity" and similar...


admittedly, I don't personally believe that the Calvinist understanding is
correct on these points.


most other variants believe people are saved via good behavior or putting
faith in Jesus or similar...

Some protestant churches/sects do offer confession (to a priest), though
it's optional. Others have "confession" as part of the weekly service,
where the congregation confesses (in their heads) to God and receive
absolution en masse.

yeah, the above *is* closer to Lutheran practice (namely, having a moment
during the service where here is silence and one is to personally try to
confess anything that is bothering them in a silent prayer).

along with stand, sit, read statements all in sync, ...

I've never understood any of that; if God is omniscient, then he already
knows whether you feel guilt for your sins and doesn't need you to
confess them, and no mortal can save you from God's Judgment.

yeah, that seems reasonable enough...

I guess it is worth noting though that a person does feel guilt for their
sins:
if a person doesn't honestly feel any guilt, then any attempt at confessing
it is an empty gesture, since He will himself know if the person actually
feels guilt, or if they are simply going through the motions.


admittedly, this itself poses worry sometimes, like if one is aware that
they usually don't feel emotions all that strongly, leaving it uncertain as
to whether their heart is actually acceptable in His view. one can only have
hope I guess...

like, some people get really worked up, working themselves into a frenzy
over the matter, and others have a hard time feeling much of anything much
of the time, and personally find these other people getting all worked up
awkward, if not terrifying...

Exactly. I would feel guilty if I broke _my_ moral code, but not yours
because I never agreed to it.

yep.

this is a merit or a cost, I guess the uncertainty being whatever are the
specifics of whatver is the true moral code, or correct doctrinal
interpretations, ...

Indeed. There is a wide variation in what people consider "moral", once
you get past the big stuff. And there's even a bit of debate on the
fringe about some of the big stuff, e.g. whether it's "moral" for
soldiers to kill people in battle.

I think, it is the whole point of soldiers to kill people.
a pacifest soldier just doesn't work...


given some of the stuff present in the OT, I don't exactly think the creator
is all that big into pacifism either.

actually, I personally think many people have somewhat misunderstood both
the value and meaning of human life (they are, in fact, putting far too much
value on humans and human life).

hell, probably more people should read Joshua and Ecclesiastes, and try to
understand them for what they are saying, and maybe people will have a
better understanding of the matter.


even more extreme though is PETA-ism, which as I see it, has almost no
rational basis, apart from an (IMO) very warped and disturbed sense of the
whole "ethics" part.

but, yeah, this is along with several other groups (such as VHEMT) which
have a somewhat disturbed sense of what is "ethical"...


neither of these positions could be endorsed biblically, and more likely,
run directly contrary to biblical morality...

Asimov's psychohistory gives the odds that particular large-scale events
will happen in the future, not whether small-scale events are "right" or
"wrong".

it seems I am not familiar with this...

I don't know the rules in other jurisdictions, but here if you are
convicted of multiple crimes in the same "episode" the sentences are
served concurrently, so there is no reason for the DA to charge you with
anything other than the crime with the longest sentence unless they're
not confident they can actually get a conviction on it--in which case
they generally wouldn't go to trial at all, lest it hurt their
conviction rate and get them tossed out of office in the next election.

yeah, admittedly I am not sure of the typical amount of prison time for
various crimes in various jurisdictions.

in my case, I had considered theft first because it was the primary
motivating crime (the primary reason was, after all, a person not wanting to
part with their money), whereas the murder was only secondary (them killing
the person so as to not have to pay them).

granted, a pure theft scenario would have also been possible:
they get their pants on, distract the prostitute, and make a run for it.
I guess, this would likely be a more likely course of events, as absent a
strong emotional motivation (such as rage or panic), probably most people
will not resort to killing someone if it can be avoided (be it either for
emotional or pragmatic reasons).

You're just now picking up on that?

errm, yeah, it is not exactly like I was trying to hide it in the closet or
anything...

now, one can debate if I am a "good" representation of most religious people
(namely, Christians), but really, there are a lot of internal variations
within a religion, and a lot may have almost as most to do with a person's
psychology as their religious beliefs.


deciced to leave out a big mass related to MBTI and Socionics and
self-analysis...
others can guess where I may fit, if they really actually care.

Yep. At least for my jurisdiction, I can point to the specific law that
lists all the various circumstances in which it's legal to kill someone.
And then there are the circumstances in which one could kill but,
despite being guilty under the law, it is extremely unlikely that a jury
would convict in practice.

yep, fair enough...

 

[Nick Keighley]

"Willem" <[email protected]> ha scritto nel messaggio


but the structure in it has to come from some way of think;
laws of phisic can not be the result of one random way
they has need someone invent them and build it all

why? You just state this. You offer no argument.

 

[Nick Keighley]

This is proven: matter and anti-matter particle pairs appear in empty
space all the time.  This observed phenomenon is (believed to be) the
root cause of Hawking radiation.

However, that _doesn't_ explain why there is so much more matter than
anti-matter in our universe.  Theoretically, there should be equal
amounts, so how did the imbalance happen?

apparently there is some asymetry with respect to matter and
antimatter in the operation of the Weak Nuclear force. This tiny
imbalance causes our universe to be dominated by matter.

Also, we've figured out how to turn matter into energy, so logically it
must be possible to turn energy into matter;

yes. Sufficiently energetic gamma rays decay spontaneously into matter/
antimater pairs. CERN has some way to manufacture anti-matter (in only
tiny tiny amounts!).

however, that just
transforms the question into "where did the energy come from to create
all the matter we observe?"

quite

apparently the net energy of the universe is zero. I think
graviattional potential energy comes out as negative. But if you
really want to know about this find a news group thats more relevent!

 

[Rui Maciel]

In most Christian cultures, killing a prostitute is as immoral as killing
any other non-monastic person, and killing a monk/nun _is even more
immoral_.

It's an odd concept. As "immoral" means "violating moral principles", it would be expected that
immorality followed boolean logic. After all, there aren't degrees of immorality. Either someone
violates a moral principle or not.

Following from that, claiming that killing someone who enforces their own brand of religion is an
offence which is particularly bad does sound a bit like a self-preservation move imposed by this
particular social group's elites.


Rui Maciel

 

[Nick Keighley]

<snip>

The point I was making is that both law and morality vary from society
to society. I know you'd like to think that morality is a fixed
christian code inarient in time an space for ever. But the fact is
what people (even within you society) thinki is moral ir immoral
varies. This covers sexual mores, drug/alchohol consumption, marriage
and other things.

The biggies like murder and theft are less variable.

it depends on the country as per the matter of legality.

and morality? Is it moral to have more than one wife. There are some
mormon sects that take multiple wives. Technically illegal. Is it
immoral?

as for morals, it is generally assumed that it was generally better for a
person to only have 1 wife, but many other people took multiple wives.

"generally assumed" by whom? A few hundred million people of european
cultural descent. Some Morman sects and most of Islam think multiple
wives is perfectly legal an moral.

possibly, but this is uncommon...

usually, the rocks are reserved for cases of adultery (or sodomy), and not
for fornication...

ah, the technical subtleties eluded me.

AFAIK, under the law of sharia, for example, it is usually the case that the
parties are flogged, and then forced to marry.

which makes my point. The law has an opinion on extra-marital sex

some variants of Judaism also follow the forced-marriage rule.

this would also be the biblically correct interpretation in Christianity as
well, although it has generally (for most of history that I know of), been
relaxed to where people are usually only forced to marry if the female gets
pregnant as a result.

in recent decades, it has been relaxed much further, although I personally
disagree that this is a reasonable stance. so, my personal belief is that it
is best if people remain abstinent until marrying.

should it be legally enforced?

generally my own, although I hardly think this interpretation is unusual.

it's far from universal though (which is my point...)

most of what I have read has generally expressed similar ideas.



errm, that would be Calvinists...

ok, thanks for the correction. But my point remains. Not all
christians agree with your "literal interpretation"

Lutheran and Baptist soteriology, for example, works a bit differently...
?




well, the moral cost remains regardless of what a person believes about the
practice,

this is where the theist and the atheist part company. I don't
actually believe in your "moral cost".

since morality and morality exist independently of the people
themselves.

I think I've pretty well demonsatred that it doesn't

the best a person can do is try to study and understand what is
moral and what is immoral, as otherwise they are, effectively, walking
blind...

but, anyways, guilt (in this context) is not the same as "feeling guilty".

ah, an easy mistake for an unbeliever. "guilt" to me is an emotional
or legal state not a theological or spiritual one.

guilt is essentially a concept more similar to debt.
if a person is in debt, they may know it, or they may not.
a person may also feel concern over their debt, or they may continue on
living life as a party so long as they can keep getting more credit cards.

since I don't believe in this spiritual debt its essentially a non-
existant cost.

eventually though, it will catch up with them (maybe in this life, maybe
not), and this is what a person may need to be concerned over.

[...] nothing stops a person from being immoral, so long as they
acknowledge this, and accept the respective guilt for doing such.
<--
but should I feel guilty if I do something you view as immoral but I
don't? Do you get to decide my moral code?
-->
most people agree on most things, from what I have observed.

obvious things like murder, rape and theft. But what about sex outside
marriage and other sexual mores?

most are agreed on.

well no actually. Watch some TV sometime. Talk to people who aren't a
member of your church.

I say no.

a billion muslims disagree. So do quite a few stricter christian
sects.

it is immoral to get wasted, but drinking itself is acceptable.

similar, damn near every church has also used wine in communion and similar
as well.

nonsense. You live in a very narrow world.

well, I am not exactly claiming something like the 3 laws here,

I wasn't thinking three laws of robotics but seldon's psycho-history,
a mathematisation of mass psychology.

why so?...

because morals are not absolute. Costs and benefits cannot be measured
absolutly. Is it moral to kill one man to save ten? One child? These
things simply don't fit into quantafiable science.

back to the example of someone killing a prostitute: is their any real
way a person can morally justify killing her to save some money, if he
himself had made use of her services. [...]
to take a vigilante stance, one would also need to not make use of them;
and, to make use of them, one is obligated to pay them.

you are aware that prostitutes are actually people? That killing
someone is murder except in some very exceptional circumstances?
Saving money doesn't seem to count as "very exceptional circumstances"
from where I'm standing.

whether or not a person is a person may not itself matter regarding ethical
concerns regarding them.

as remarked earlier you people scare me sometimes. The fact that it is
a person being killed *is* entirely relevent to the ethics of the
situation.

a sufficient network of economic transactions may itself mirror the
structure of a moral value-network, and I am left to wonder sometimes if
maybe the systems are inter-related.

I'm leaving this in simply because it is breathtaking in its arrogant
disregard of anything I'd call morality.

in any case though, it is far from being 1:1, as they also seem to exhibit
different properties in many cases (I am left thinking that money is not,
itself, value, but instead tends to flow towards value). so, confusing money
for value is similar to confusing water to gravity.

you seem to be confusing money with morality. How many dollars to
excuse a murder?

morals may be another manifestation of the same basic force.

so, to fully understand ethics, it may be necessarily to abstract away some
of the "human" aspects, thinking not as much in terms of the people
involved, but in terms of interconnected nodes on various graphs...
!




yep.

that *wasn't* a compliment

I must re-read "The Handmaidens Tale". For evil to triumph etc...

<snip>

 

[Maxim S. Shatskih]

Despite the fact that many priests are Pedophiles are Child Abusers?

A very minor number of pedophiles and child abusers among the clergy (Catholic only, BTW, I don't think Calvinists, Amishes, Baptists or LDS have much, and surely the Russian Orthodox Church was not caught in such) - does not mean that the clergy is bad.

First of all, please prove even the coincidence between being a child molester and being a priest/monk.

Then please prove the cause-and-effect link between the two.

Without these evidences, the topic is bullshit. This is like a good old joke on:

"
- The governement must issue a law to imprison all Jews and bikers!
- And why bikers?
- And why Jews?
"

 

[Nick Keighley]

On 16 Aug, 13:15, "Maxim S. Shatskih" <[email protected]>
wrote:

***

In most Christian cultures, killing a prostitute is as immoral as
killing any other non-monastic person, and killing a monk/nun _is even
more immoral_. ***

I'm not supporting this argument

A very minor number of pedophiles and child abusers among the clergy
(Catholic only, BTW, I don't think Calvinists, Amishes, Baptists or LDS
have much, and surely the Russian Orthodox Church was not caught in such)
- does not mean that the clergy is bad.

I don't think it's confined entirely to the RCC. I'm pretty sure such
things have occurred in the CoE. And clergy are just people and suffer
the same human weaknesses as everyone else.

the RCC has chastity and an authoritorial tendency to cover things up.

First of all, please prove even the coincidence between being a child
molester and being a priest/monk.

yes, I'd like to see some statistics. The vast majority of child
molesters are not members of the clergy. The RCC has made mistakes,
But I think it's used as an excuse to do some RCC/christian/religion
bashing.

Then please prove the cause-and-effect link between the two.

Without these evidences, the topic is bullshit. [...]

<snip>

 

[Robert Redelmeier]

A very minor number of pedophiles and child abusers among the
clergy (Catholic only, BTW, I don't think Calvinists, Amishes,
Baptists or LDS have much, and surely the Russian Orthodox Church
was not caught in such) - does not mean that the clergy is bad.

Agreed. However, a small percentage can easily translate
into a large absolute number when the base is big enough.
One percent on thousands becomes dozens.

First of all, please prove even the coincidence between
being a child molester and being a priest/monk.

Then please prove the cause-and-effect link between the two.

Asking for proof with people is demanding prejudice. Unfortunately,
there are plausible causality linkages. It is not that catholicism
causes pedophilia, but particular structures and workings make the
RC Church relatively attractive to pedophiles:

First, the RC Church has a tremendously large span-of-control.
A very flat organization with necessarily little oversight of
subordinates by superiors. It relies heavily upon indoctrination.
Abuses are certainly possible, less so in monastic life than
in the relative isolation (from oversight) of the parishes.

Second, somewhat out of necessity, the RC Church frequently
"parachutes" prients into parishes. This grants predators instant
authority if they can survive the indoctrination. Most other
churches (christian, jewish, islam AFAIK) require the local leader
to build a following. The RC Church has a flock to tend.

Third, in forbidding all sexuality to the clergy, the RC
Church is _relatively_ less hostile to homosexuality than
other churches or society at large.


As I mentioned, these are only tendencies which have statistical
effect and prove nothing about individuals. Nor is the RC church the
only organization that suffers "adverse selection" (people choosing
a career for counter-productive side-benefits). Police forces do,
and sometimes have psych testing in an attempt to weed them out.


-- Robert

 

[Rui Maciel]

A very minor number of pedophiles and child abusers among the clergy
(Catholic only, BTW, I don't think Calvinists, Amishes, Baptists or LDS
have much, and surely the Russian Orthodox Church was not caught in such)
- does not mean that the clergy is bad.

On the other hand, if an entire organization up to the leadership conspires to cover up those crimes
and avoid prosecution while actively and intentionally violate their own moral rules that they
impose on their minions...


Rui Maciel

 

[Maxim S. Shatskih]

I was distinguishing the two, but laws do cover things like murder and

theft. In some countries they cover things like adultary and
homosexuality.

Laws are always based on some deeper things.

Among these things I can name the two a) moral tradition of the particular nation b) the logically explained and deduced statements about the "social gain", the gain of the whole society.

Item a) is natural law. Item b) is positive law.

So, if the tradition of some nation says that being a gay is a pathetic and humiliating way of life - then the legislation will _with large probability_ install a homosexuality ban law.

And, if the tradition of some nation says that adultery of the _married_ woman is evil (the Muslim tradition does this) - thus the punishment for this.

As about the punishments for sexual "adventures" of _unmarried_ girls - then IIRC Islam itself (the Shariat) is not so strict on this, but there are also _primordial tribal traditions of many Islamic people_(called "adates"), which really say - kill this girl.

Is having more than one wife at the same time moral or immoral? Legal
or illegal?

Once again - depends on religious and cultural tradition of the nation.

Nearly all Christian nations do believe in something sacred, transcendent behing the institute of marriage, and thus practice monogamy.

Nevertheless, even among Christians there were some (old LDS church) who practiced polygamy.

This is about "moral". As about "legal" - "legal" is derived from "moral" (see above), and thus, for instance, in Russia there is a criminal law (with small punishment, but criminal nevertheless) for registering a marriage by the person already in another not-yet-terminated marriage.

some places you get rocks thrown at you...

Note that mostly at girls only. I never heard that the man was punished for the adultery (unless his mistress is a queen or such).

The reason I picked Lutherans is (if I've picked the right protestant
sect) that they believe you are born already saved or not saved.
Calvinists.


agreed. They may operate their own morality. "don't steal from
friends"

Surely. Also - "don't betray".

Professional Russian criminals developed a rather serious moral code, called "the notions". This is a good old idea of _customary law_ actually.

Is it immoral to drink alchohol?

Depends on your culture. Many Protestant confessions, as also Muslims, say - yes.

you are aware that prostitutes are actually people?

And this is what the whole topic is about!

They are people. Doing immoral stuff, which is despised by many. Immoral people.

Nevertheless, in the questions of life and death, they are _the same kind of people as any others_.

More so, even in the question of property protection they are like all other people.

So, the modern Western-European-"white"-Christian civilization considers not only murder, but just getting a service and escaping the payment - to be a worse immoral deed that prostitution and adultery.

This is all about "more immoral" or "lesser immoral".

there are various circumstances in which a citizen could legally kill
someone. Self defence, defence of someone else, use of reasonable
force to prevent the commission of an atrocious crime etc.

Even "dire need" in some legislation is I think in this list.

Here "dire" means - the committed damage is lesser then the damage which would occur if the deed would not be committed.

For instance, a sea captain cannot just plain destroy the cargo - this would be a criminal case. But, in case of dire need _if the alternative is the death of some ship's crewman_ - he can destroy the cargo.

 

[Maxim S. Shatskih]

Second, somewhat out of necessity, the RC Church frequently

"parachutes" prients into parishes. This grants predators instant
authority if they can survive the indoctrination. Most other
churches (christian, jewish, islam AFAIK) require the local leader
to build a following. The RC Church has a flock to tend.

RC is also a christian church

BTW - Orthodox churches are also based on assigning the priest by the bishop, and not on local authority of the priest.