Right to life.. right to anything?

[Doc_Keele]

Arbitrary distinction, at the whim of the lawmakers. Consider, there are local ordinances which criminalize the feeding of someone else’s parking meter. Such an act carries a fine (a form of punishment). Yet, the action is not harmful to the person whose meter expired, actually it is beneficial. Yet, the act is criminalized because it interferes with the goverment’s desire to collect more more money through imposing fines. Laws are mostly arbitrary. Some are more useful than others

No, it’s certainly not an arbitrary distinction, although it is certainly hard to understand why some criminal offences are created. To understand the distinction, we need to understand the purpose of criminal punishment. Let’s see how you do.

Multiple purposes. Discouragement for others, retribution come to mind. Also the prevention of of repeating the same act by the same person

Multiple purposes doesn’t cut it. There’s not many reasons, if you actually knew them you could list them all. 2 reasons doesn’t count as “multiple”.

 

[R_Daneel]

Multiple purposes doesn’t cut it. There’s not many reasons, if you actually knew them you could list them all. 2 reasons doesn’t count as “multiple”.

It was three, in the first place. The list is not exhaustive. Why don’t you provide your list?

And answer my question to you: If God commands you to commit a murder (or a whole-scale genocide) and you comply, it is criminal act, but not a sin. If you refuse the command you will be innocent of the crime, but you would be sinful (and possibly subject to eternal punishment for rejecting God). How do you reconcile these? The good old Euthyphro dilemma returns…

 

[Doc_Keele]

It was three, in the first place

I thought you’d say this - but actually there was only two, but you repeated one.

The list is not exhaustive. Why don’t you provide your list?

The list is not very long. If you don’t understand the reasons for criminal punishment, how can you understand criminal law?

And answer my question to you: If God commands you to commit a murder (or a whole-scale genocide) and you comply, it is criminal act, but not a sin. If you refuse the command you will be innocent of the crime, but you would be sinful (and possibly subject to eternal punishment for rejecting God). How do you reconcile these? The good old Euthyphro dilemma returns…

God couldn’t command us to murder or sin in any other way. If God could ask us to sin (and he couldn’t), it would still be a sin. Look at Abraham and Isaac.

There’s no moral dilemma if God’s commands means that we must commit a crime. Have you heard of Herbert Hart?

 

[R_Daneel]

I thought you’d say this - but actually there was only two, but you repeated one.

I said that it would discourage others (1) and prevent the same person from committing it again (2), I also mentioned retribution (3). Where is the repetition here?

The list is not very long. If you don’t understand the reasons for criminal punishment, how can you understand criminal law?

Well, you could spell it out. Upon reflection, I can see one, consolidated reason for it - which would include those three I mentioned. To allow the society to function as smoothly as possible. However, this ideal is not realized in practise. Which is too bad.

God couldn’t command us to murder or sin in any other way. If God could ask us to sin (and he couldn’t), it would still be a sin. Look at Abraham and Isaac.

Last time I checked he **ordered **the Jews to kill all the men, women, children and the livestock of the Amelekites for offending him. (He also ordered them to keep the virgins for themselves.) But I am glad you brought up the most horrifying story in the Bible. On one hand there is the commandment which prohibits murder. On the other hand he ordered Abraham to kill Isaac and that would have been intentional murder. And you say that there is no dilemma here?

There’s no moral dilemma if God’s commands means that we must commit a crime. Have you heard of Herbert Hart?

No. Since you mentioned, I looked him up. What is your point?

 

[Doc_Keele]

OK, you obviously don’t understand that two of your answers were the same, namely concerning deterrence (unless it’s just that you worded yourself extremely poorly). Never mind
Actually the smooth running of society isn’t a justification.
Deterrence, retribution, incapacitation, rehabilitation, reparation, denunciation - that’s the ones I can think of off the top of my head. If not exhaustive, pretty close to it.
You misunderstand the story of Abraham and Isaac (and the other Biblical stories you mention). My point remains that God cannot order us to sin.
OK, so you don’t know about Herbert Hart. Only the most important person in jurisprudence in the 20th century:shrug:

 

[R_Daneel]

Actually the smooth running of society isn’t a justification.

It is as far as I am concerned.

Deterrence, retribution, incapacitation, rehabilitation, reparation, denunciation - that’s the ones I can think of off the top of my head. If not exhaustive, pretty close to it.

For their own sake? Or for the ulterior motive of producing a a smoothly working society?

You misunderstand the story of Abraham and Isaac (and the other Biblical stories you mention).

Really? How easy to say.

My point remains that God cannot order us to sin.

Precisely. Since sin is disobedience to God, it would be sin not to murder if God commands it. Which is contradictory to the “thou shalt not kill”.

OK, so you don’t know about Herbert Hart. Only the most important person in jurisprudence in the 20th century:shrug:

Appeal to authority?

 

[Doc_Keele]

It is as far as I am concerned

Irrelevant!

For their own sake? Or for the ulterior motive of producing a a smoothly working society?

A just society should be a smoothly running society (but so are many unjust totalitarian societies), but “smooth running” is not a justification.

Really? How easy to say.

Sure is! Actually God was testing his faith, and he never actually commanded Abraham to kill his son.

Precisely. Since sin is disobedience to God, it would be sin not to murder if God commands it. Which is contradictory to the “thou shalt not kill”

Straw man argument. The commandment is better rendered as “Thou shalt not murder”.

Appeal to authority?

You don’t know what an appeal to authority is then!
Have I even quoted HLA Hart yet? No. So how can I be appealing to Hart’s authority. In any case, not all “appeals to authority” are logical fallacies.

 

[R_Daneel]

A just society should be a smoothly running society (but so are many unjust totalitarian societies), but “smooth running” is not a justification.

Ok, so are those laws to establish a “just” society? How you you define what “just” is, without resorting to a circular argument?

Sure is! Actually God was testing his faith, and he never actually commanded Abraham to kill his son.

Testing is nonsense for an all-knowing being. And you keep glossing over the fate of the Amelekites…

Straw man argument. The commandment is better rendered as “Thou shalt not murder”.

I quoted as it is. Let it be your way. God ordered not to commit murder, and then he ordered wholescale murder. And you still do not see the problem?

Have I even quoted HLA Hart yet?

Go ahead and quote him.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Ok, so are those laws to establish a “just” society? How you you define what “just” is, without resorting to a circular argument?

You’re using the concept of a circular argument in the wrong context. Do you really need a definition of “just”?

Testing is nonsense for an all-knowing being. And you keep glossing over the fate of the Amelekites…

Amalekites…
Who said the testing for the sake of God? I know the rationale for the ordered destruction of the Amalekites. It’s not a major issue for me.

I quoted as it is. Let it be your way. God ordered not to commit murder, and then he ordered wholescale murder. And you still do not see the problem?

You need to study the Bible to learn why God ordered the destruction of the Amalekites. Exegesis as opposed to eisegesis. It’s easy enough to find.
God did not order murder.

Go ahead and quote him

I think we’d better get over the problems with the basics you have first, before we get on to advanced concepts

 

[R_Daneel]

You’re using the concept of a circular argument in the wrong context. Do you really need a definition of “just”?

Yes. Go ahead.

Amalekites…

Thank you. I should have looked it up, but I relied on my old memory. Shame, shame…

Who said the testing for the sake of God?

For whom then?

I know the rationale for the ordered destruction of the Amalekites. It’s not a major issue for me.

Awesome. It is not a major issue for you? What a deep analysis.

You need to study the Bible to learn why God ordered the destruction of the Amalekites. Exegesis as opposed to eisegesis. It’s easy enought to find.
God did not order murder.

Does genocide sound better?

I think we’d better get over the problems with the basics you have first, before we get on to advanced concepts

Condescending, eh?

 

[Doc_Keele]

Yes. Go ahead

You can look it up.

For whom then?

who do you think?

Condescending, eh?

Just recognizing the situation:shrug:

I’m not prepared to walk you through jurisprudence or correct you on your deficient Biblical knowledge. You can read “Difficulties in the Bible” by AW Tozer if you really want to find out the apologetics for the slaughter of the Canaanites.

 

[momor]

Doc Keele,
Your baiting is most unattractive and tiresome. I was interested in the points you were trying to make, but now I think you don’t actually have any.

 

[Doc_Keele]

I do, it’s just R Daneel is putting up a smokescreen:shrug:

I was trying to get onto the reasons why “bad thoughts” are not a crime but are potentially a sin.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So God is simply an extended thought-police. A peeping Tom. Even judging your thoughts, your emotions, which are involuntary, and which you never intend to put into practice. As I said many times before. no matter how I tried, I could not be as disrespectful toward God as you are.

you can choose to not have hateful thoughts. you can choose not to lust. it isnt easy, your first reaction may be involuntary, but because its involuntary its not a sin, all the other hateful thoughts and so forth, they are entirely preventable, should you but bend your will to it.

And that is what should be the case. This whole hate-crime concept is a horrible mistake. Just because some idiot politicians come up which some newly concocted lunacy, it does not make those ideas valid.

i agree, but it does go to show that just about everyone thinks hate is evil:shrug:

 

[R_Daneel]

Doc Keele,
Your baiting is most unattractive and tiresome. I was interested in the points you were trying to make, but now I think you don’t actually have any.

Thank you again. Your points are welcome.

 

[R_Daneel]

You can look it up.

It would not be prudent. You offered the concept of “just society”, you give the definion for it.

I was trying to get onto the reasons why “bad thoughts” are not a crime but are potentially a sin.

Then don’t beat around the bush, just do it. Mormor is right, you keep taunting and baiting. I am not interested in waiting forever.

 

[Doc_Keele]

t would not be prudent. You offered the concept of “just society”, you give the definion for it.
Then don’t beat around the bush, just do it. Mormor is right, you keep taunting and baiting. I am not interested in waiting forever.

As say, you keep on putting up a smokescreen by asking for something you can get from a dictionary or diverting onto the subject of the Amalekites

You weren’t waiting at all.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Thank you again. Your points are welcome.

:cringe:

 

[Black_Rose]

It would not be prudent. You offered the concept of “just society”, you give the definion for it.

Then don’t beat around the bush, just do it. Mormor is right, you keep taunting and baiting. I am not interested in waiting forever.

Let’s use these two:

Right: A just society offers liberty to its citizens defined as non-intervention in their personal affairs. The state primarily serves as a nightwatchmen to protect the rights of its citizens such as property and does not use its power in the economic realm leaving domestic economic affairs alone. It regards its citizens as responsible, sovereign people who should not be seen as means to an end where the state can violate their rights for a the “common good”.

Left: A just society offers to provision of public goods to its citizens in a conscious attempt to reduce the suffering its citizens experience funding these activities through taxation. The state uses its authority to protect the weak from the strong.

 

[Doc_Keele]

OK, to get onto the point I have been trying to make for some time…
Crime and sin are separate concepts.
The predominant theory of jurisprudence is positivism, and Hart (I will refer to his work now) maintains that there is no necessary moral content to the law. This has a number of implications, but one is that there is not a moral dilemma in obeying the law or not. It also justifies punishment by the fact that moral actors can choose to avoid the consequences of breaking the law by conforming their behaviour to the law. This is why “thought crimes” are not punished. There is a conduct element to every single criminal offence in common law jurisdictions AFAIK.

This does not apply to sin, which is based on the concept of natural law.