Right to life.. right to anything?

[R_Daneel]

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.

Well, since you offered two, up front, it is obvious that there is no consensus on what constitutes a “just” society - which would be acceptable for everyone. Just for the fun of it, I could offer a third one, but there would be no point.

 

[R_Daneel]

Crime and sin are separate concepts.

Agreed.

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.

Agreed, but the word “necessary” means that there can be a moral content to a law. The infamous laws about Jews are a notable exception.

This has a number of implications, but one is that there is not a moral dilemma in obeying the law or not.

Disagree. Those aforementioned Nazi laws did carry moral connotations and therefore there was a moral dilemma associated with them.

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.

As stated above, this is not true in those cases, when the law does have moral connotatoins.

This is why “thought crimes” are not punished. There is a conduct element to every single criminal offence in common law jurisdictions AFAIK.

To be more precise, that is why “thought crimes” should not be punished.

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

Ok, elaborate on that.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Agreed, but the word “necessary” means that there can be a moral content to a law. The infamous laws about Jews are a notable exception.

Err, yes
Anyone has read Hart (which I have, and you haven’t, knows this.

Disagree. Those aforementioned Nazi laws did carry moral connotations and therefore there was a moral dilemma associated with them.

No, they didn’t. You don’t understand the point being made. Is there a moral dilemma in breaking such a law? I don’t think so.

As stated above, this is not true in those cases, when the law does have moral connotatoins.

You just haven’t understood the point being made.

To be more precise, that is why “thought crimes” should not be punished.

My comment was normative, as well as descriptive.

Ok, elaborate on that

What needs elaborating?

 

[R_Daneel]

No, they didn’t. You don’t understand the point being made. Is there a moral dilemma in breaking such a law? I don’t think so.

It depends on the moral code one subscribes to. If someone’s moral code is based upon the acceptance of an authority, that person may feel compelled to follow the law. If someone’s moral code is based upon a different system, he may feel compelled to disobey the law. There certainly is a choice, to obey or disobey the law. If that is not a moral problem, I don’t know what is.

My comment was normative, as well as descriptive.

I wish it were descriptive. Those dumb “hate-crime” laws are on the books.

What needs elaborating?

Don’t play stupid. You stated that you wish to talk about “sin” and “law”. We are done with the law. Of course, if you think that “sin” is an invalid concept, by all means, we can stop here.

 

[Doc_Keele]

It depends on the moral code one subscribes to. If someone’s moral code is based upon the acceptance of an authority, that person may feel compelled to follow the law. If someone’s moral code is based upon a different system, he may feel compelled to disobey the law. There certainly is a choice, to obey or disobey the law. If that is not a moral problem, I don’t know what is.

How can I possibly know a premise that you haven’t stated?
You don’t understand the positivist theory.

I wish it were descriptive. Those dumb “hate-crime” laws are on the books.

We were talking about “thought-crime”, not “hate-crime”.

Don’t play stupid. You stated that you wish to talk about “sin” and “law”. We are done with the law. Of course, if you think that “sin” is an invalid concept, by all means, we can stop here

Don’t play smart alec. I can’t see how anyone can find the idea that the notion of sin is related to natural law confusing. So if you would direct me to what you wish me to elaborate on, I will do so.

 

[R_Daneel]

How can I possibly know a premise that you haven’t stated?
You don’t understand the positivist theory.

Obviously, I don’t. But I do understand the possible difficulty of making a decision between obeying or disobeying a law that the person finds “unacceptable”. If the person has a very strong moral code regarding the matter, he will obey the law (if he is predominantly authority respecting) or disobey the law (if he is motivated by humanitarian reasons). But for those, whose moral code is somewhere in-between this does present an obvious dilemma.

We were talking about “thought-crime”, not “hate-crime”.

Ah, and the difference would be? The hate crime explicitly punishes the thought (intent) behind the crime.

Don’t play smart alec. I can’t see how anyone can find the idea that sin is related natural law confusing. So if you would direct me to what you wish me to elaborate on, I will do so.

Ok. What is the “natural law”? Because that is yet another nonsensical concept for me.

 

[Doc_Keele]

OK - a hate crime in the UK is where an existing crime has been motivated by hate of some sort. The criminal offence is punished, not the thought alone.

Under the positivist theory of jurisprudence, there is not necessarily any moral obligation to obey the law. We can all create “moral dilemmas” by positing strange moral codes, but these would not necessarily constitute genuine moral dilemmas in the sense philosophers use the term.

As for the issues of positvism and natural law, I don’t intend to try and teach half of jurisprudence to you. Try Wiki:thumbsup:

 

[R_Daneel]

OK - a hate crime in the UK is where an existing crime has been motivated by hate of some sort. The criminal offence is punished, not the thought alone.

Ok. Does the punishment differ if there was a “hate” as a motivation? I have no idea if there is a difference in the US, I am afraid that there might be.

Under the positivist theory of jurisprudence, there is not necessarily any moral obligation to obey the law. We can all create “moral dilemmas” by positing strange moral codes, but these would not necessarily constitute genuine moral dilemmas in the sense philosophers use the term.

Ok. One learns about the peculiarities of philosophers all the time. And every time my respect for them goes down a notch or two

As for the issues of positvism and natural law, I don’t intend to try and teach half of jurisprudence to you. Try Wiki:thumbsup:

Thanks.

 

[Doc_Keele]

At Keele, students that can’t be bothered learning the basics in preparation get kicked out of tutorials:shrug:

 

[manygift1spirit]

I have. Sorry no substantial answer was given. Shallow stuff, yes. Deep stuff, no.

For example the cathecism asserts that one can “know” about God through reason alone. Which means to me that faith is not required. Then it stops right there, giving this empty assertion. A proper way would have been to spell out, exactly, just HOW can one know about God through reason alone. It lacks the actual spelling out of the argument. So it is useless.

I apologize for appearing to take your inquiries less seriously in that my simplistic answer might have sounded patronizing. I am glad you are really deeply interested in discerning some very profound issues.

The level of detail you are looking for here is starting to bump up against the limits of my understandings (and perhaps my misunderstandings ), so just remember that free advice is worth what you pay for it . That said, note that your material says “can know” and not “will know”. That is a very wise choice of wording. It is beyond question that many people have come to know God through reason alone. However, the actual contexts, empirical scenarios, and chains of reasoning for all such people probably are as varied as the people themselves. Thus, one line of reasoning that worked for one person may not be accessible to another (this is probably one reason why reading about the lives of the saints is encouraged). So it is probably not justified to assert that God will be known by reason alone if you do A, B, and C, say.

I recognize here that in some sense I am not addressing your concern, rather saying yeah, you want to be able to do that but you can’t. My point is it’s OK that you can’t, because there are plenty of avenues available to you (remember, it can be done). If you have a detailed and specific question that you wish an answer to, check out the Ask and Apologist section here. Those are the people you should be talking to, because they have a wealth of information and resources available, and are trained at assisting just such people as yourself. Good luck.

 

[R_Daneel]

I apologize for appearing to take your inquiries less seriously in that my simplistic answer might have sounded patronizing. I am glad you are really deeply interested in discerning some very profound issues.

There was nothing at all in your previous post or this one, which would be even remotely condescending. On the very contrary, it shines with helpfulness and good will. I am grateful and honored to see it. It is much too rare to see posts of this quality.

The level of detail you are looking for here is starting to bump up against the limits of my understandings (and perhaps my misunderstandings ), so just remember that free advice is worth what you pay for it . That said, note that your material says “can know” and not “will know”. That is a very wise choice of wording. It is beyond question that many people have come to know God through reason alone. However, the actual contexts, empirical scenarios, and chains of reasoning for all such people probably are as varied as the people themselves. Thus, one line of reasoning that worked for one person may not be accessible to another (this is probably one reason why reading about the lives of the saints is encouraged). So it is probably not justified to assert that God will be known by reason alone if you do A, B, and C, say.

I see what you mean, but my understanding is a bit different. The phrase one “can know God through reason alone” I understand as “it is possible to have a line of reasoning, which only contains certain axioms and a sound logical reasoning chain, which will inevitably lead to the acceptance of ‘therefore God exists’ type of conclusion”. That kind of reasoning rests, of course, on the axioms themselves. If one accepts the axioms, then mere logic will ensure the acceptance of the conclusion. If one does not accept the axioms, then there will be no conclusion. And that is what I am missing there. To be sure, the axioms must be rational, cannot rely on faith, and they cannot postulate the desired result (cannot be circular).

I recognize here that in some sense I am not addressing your concern, rather saying yeah, you want to be able to do that but you can’t. My point is it’s OK that you can’t, because there are plenty of avenues available to you (remember, it can be done). If you have a detailed and specific question that you wish an answer to, check out the Ask and Apologist section here. Those are the people you should be talking to, because they have a wealth of information and resources available, and are trained at assisting just such people as yourself. Good luck.

Another good advice. The trouble is that I already visited that forum, and browsed it. Obviously I have not read all the threads, but in every one I read, the Apologist simply referred a link or two to some internet source. That was already disappointing, since it forced me to go one and see the links. In every instance I reached a “blah-blah-blah” type of text, which usually had nothing to do with the question asked. So I am discouraged to go and ask them. Furthermore, you have no option to ask clarification, the forun allows you to ask a question, but not a follow-up.

I would really like to conduct a conversation with a qualified theologian who is also well-versed in some branch of natural sciences. Possibly a Jesuit. I heard that they are the “cream of the crop”, well trained and open minded people. So far this wish is unfulfilled. Short of talking to God himself, having a nice and friendly fireside (not Hellfire!) chat and see how it goes.

 

[Doc_Keele]

R Daneel, I think you’ve got a rather inflated opinion of your knowledge and that you don’t need a Jesuit (who would likely make extremely short shrift of you) except to appeal to your vanity. But that’s just my opinion. How old are you?

 

[R_Daneel]

R Daneel, I think you’ve got a rather inflated opinion of your knowledge and that you don’t need a Jesuit (who would likely make extremely short shrift of you) except to appeal to your vanity. But that’s just my opinion. How old are you?

Does it really matter? But, since you asked, I am 64 years (young), have a summa cum laude PhD in applied math and economics, speak 4 languages (one of them is English - which is not my mother tongue). I used to lecture math in college (15 years), and I am also a master computer programmer (in a dozen languages) - 25 years. Also a decent but not exceptional IQ of about 160. Now, what does it matter? The proof is in the pudding. If I don’t know something I am glad to admit it, and willing to learn. However, you will have to take my word for all that. If you want to discard it as unsupported anecdotal rambling, you are most welcome to do so.

As for that hypothetical Jesuit, the result remains to be seen. There is one thing that I would not have to worry about, is the uneducated nonsense which is so very prevalent on the board. I would not have to point out the dumb assertions about “reductionism” and the oft-repeated nonsense of the alleged self-refuting nature of empiricism and the verification / falsification principles. No doubt, I would have the opportunity of learning a lot. It wuld be major fun. And, if at the end he would prove me wrong, I would be delighted to admit it.

 

[Doc_Keele]

ROTFL…
:yup:
sure you are!

…but none of these really help you in terms of philosophy and theology.
I’m having to acquire a whole new set of tools so I appreciate the lack of transferrability across disciplines.

 

[momor]

ROTFL…
:yup:
sure you are!

…but none of these really help you in terms of philosophy and theology.
I’m having to acquire a whole new set of tools so I appreciate the lack of transferrability across disciplines.

Keep working on getting those tools. Underwhelming is the only charitable description of your thoughts so far.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Keep working on getting those tools. Underwhelming is the only charitable description of your thoughts so far.

Well, I’m doing a PhD in a totally different discipline so I can’t be doing too bad:thumbsup:
Have you redefined charitable?

 

[Black_Rose]

Does it really matter? But, since you asked, I am 64 years (young), have a summa cum laude PhD in applied math and economics, speak 4 languages (one of them is English - which is not my mother tongue). I used to lecture math in college (15 years), and I am also a master computer programmer (in a dozen languages) - 25 years. Also a decent but not exceptional IQ of about 160. Now, what does it matter? The proof is in the pudding. If I don’t know something I am glad to admit it, and willing to learn. However, you will have to take my word for all that. If you want to discard it as unsupported anecdotal rambling, you are most welcome to do so.

As for that hypothetical Jesuit, the result remains to be seen. There is one thing that I would not have to worry about, is the uneducated nonsense which is so very prevalent on the board. I would not have to point out the dumb assertions about “reductionism” and the oft-repeated nonsense of the alleged self-refuting nature of empiricism and the verification / falsification principles. No doubt, I would have the opportunity of learning a lot. It wuld be major fun. And, if at the end he would prove me wrong, I would be delighted to admit it.

Why do you even waste your time here if what you said is correct? Surely you know how to interpret standard scores and it does not seem very likely you will encounter a four-sigma intellect here.

 

[momor]

I would really like to conduct a conversation with a qualified theologian who is also well-versed in some branch of natural sciences. Possibly a Jesuit. I heard that they are the “cream of the crop”, well trained and open minded people. So far this wish is unfulfilled. Short of talking to God himself, having a nice and friendly fireside (not Hellfire!) chat and see how it goes.

I can’t help you on finding a Jesuit other than to suggest checking out Catholic universities or colleges in your area to see if any are teaching there. They often teach at Catholic high schools too.

Have you ever listened to Bishop Fulton J. Sheen? He was a philosopher and theologian who had radio and TV shows in the mid 20th century. He had a real gift for teaching and speaking. I’ve listened to him often and find something new each time.
You can find about 25 hours worth of his recordings here. Scroll half way down the page for the links to the mp3s - each one is 30 min long.
bishopsheen.excerptsofinri.com/

You can’t dialog with him but if you haven’t listened to him, give him a try.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Does it really matter? But, since you asked, I am 64 years (young),

younger than i thought, the ‘eel in a bucket of slime’ comments made you sound ancient.

have a summa cum laude PhD in applied math and economics,

thats nice, many of us have a good education also. most of us in disciplines related to the subject matter, yours is not.

speak 4 languages (one of them is English - which is not my mother tongue).

and many of us speak more than 1 language.

Also a decent but not exceptional IQ of about 160.

average for this group

Now, what does it matter?

it seems to matter to you an unseemly amount

If I don’t know something I am glad to admit it, and willing to learn.

no youre not, i have seen Syntax, a graduate student in Philosophy completely tear you apart, and in his own field, while you wouldnt admit it. ive cornered you a number of times, some on issues dead for years, and you havent been able to admit it any off those either.

instead, you bluster, insult.

As for that hypothetical Jesuit, the result remains to be seen. There is one thing that I would not have to worry about, is the uneducated nonsense which is so very prevalent on the board.

thats just it, its not uneducated, youre uneducated in the subject matter, this isnt anywhere near your field.

if we were talking economic models, that would be right up your alley. but were not.

oft-repeated nonsense of the alleged self-refuting nature of empiricism and the verification / falsification principles.

so all the major, professional, philosophers of science have been wrong for the last 50 years? yeah right, you simply dont care to admit it, because it cuts the foundation out from under atheism.

empiricism is self refuting, as are verification/falsification principles, as has been demonstrated to you many times.

now that you want to claim the weaker version, you refuse to defend it because it too is long dead and you arent willing to let your cherished belief be demolished in the face of established philosophy.

cognitive dissonance.

. And, if at the end he would prove me wrong, I would be delighted to admit it.

considerinng that you never have before, even when confronted by an expert, Syntax, on issues such as the problem of induction, established for centuries. i wonder how you can make such a cliam.

 

[R_Daneel]

Why do you even waste your time here if what you said is correct? Surely you know how to interpret standard scores and it does not seem very likely you will encounter a four-sigma intellect here.

Maybe so. But so far I have met quite a few very nice, well educated people. And I was having a good time conducting a mutually profitable discussion with them.