W
- Status
K
Kardinal
Guest
I assert they are the same because such is self-evident. If you want to have a dialogue, which I am increasingly doubting, perhaps you could contribute something which might illustrate how I am mistaken?
The argument makes no sense without it. I demonstrated that very clearly. More importantly, I demonstrated very clearly, and very logically, that whether the word “all” is there, implied or not, your syllogism is invalid. It is either false premise or non sequitur.
**
Now who’s accusing the other person of saying things they did not say? I never asserted that blasphemy was not a moral evil. Quite the contrary, I assent that it is a grave moral evil. Nor did I assert anything other than that what God says is evil is evil.
What I am pointing out is that you have not made the case that it should then be illegal. Your argument so far is either based on a false Premise 2 or a non sequitor that all moral evils should be illegal. Do you have another argument to put forth?**
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
They are different statements, that should be the first clue. “should be illegal” and “must be enforced via civil law” are obviously not the same concept.
K
Kardinal
Guest
Perhaps you have noticed that in English, one can rephrase something and they end up meaning the same thing. Regardless of which you said, your argument fails to make either case. Your syllogism does not prove that blasphemy should be illegal.
It may make grammatical sense. But it makes no logical sense.
Except, again, you are attempting to argue that because society recognizes the fact that moral evil x (I believe the example you used was murder?) should be prevented, that society recognizes that moral evil y (in this case, blasphemy) should be prevented. And your argument does not support that.
No, I am not. I am simply pointing out that your argument is not logically invalid for purposes of proving that blasphemy, and all things God forbids, should be illegal.
But let us take up that argument.
Premise 1: God forbids us to worship any God but Him. (cf. First Commandment)
Premise 2: The Catholic Church, who is charged by Christ to teach in His name (Matthew 28) asserts that it should not be illegal for non-Catholics to worship a different God. (cf. CCC 2104-2109)
Conclusion: The principle that “All things that God forbids should be illegal.” is false, because God cannot contradict himself.
I did find a real problem in your argument. Now I’ve found two. The fact that you do not see it does not invalidate that problem.
N
ndeparis88
Guest
We also have the Constitution note that it is an inalienable right for the right to choose. God have us freewill, and you can not stifle that choice. Today that right is being infringed upon because when your rights are made by man they can be taken away by man.
P
PJM
Guest
ONLY if your God’s Equal
That is not the most thought -out question one can ask.
God Bless,
Pat
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
So you cannot admit that they are two different concepts?
Prove it what? True? Of course not, I would be greatly shocked if it did. This isn’t geometry. It seems to be valid as yet though, which is the point.
It would mean the same thing in Chinese. Grammar hasn’t jack to do with it.
There is no x and y to it. They are both moral evils. If moral evils are illegal because they are moral evils then it seems to follow that any thing that is a moral evil should be illegal.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
I didn’t want to take up time with this red herring either, but this makes a point about the manner in which you argue. In Premise1 G-d forbids US in Premise2 G-d does not forbid OTHERS. So the conclusion is invalid. Awesome sauce. I don’t want to keep talking about it, I just thought you should know becoming emotional or frustrated doesn’t lead to well reasoned arguments.
P
PJM
Guest
The underlying foundation of your familiar . . . oft asked in one form or another . . . original post question . . . actually springs from the very unholy ** base of the subtle . . . truly evil . . . completely . . . non-Christian . . . philosophy of . . . “live and let live” **. . . where our . . . Crucified Lord Jesus . . . the . . . Blessed Christ of God . . . and . . . His Holy Redemptive Bloodstained Cross . . . and the only true purpose of the life of mankind here on this earth . . . which is to come to know, to loveand to serve God . . . is ignored . . . cast off . . . and considered of no relevance whatsoever . . . Life lived based on this philosophy promotes no responsibility to be taken by man for the need for . . . **God Most Holy ** . . . his Creator and the Creator of this world we live in . . . and the salvation of this broken . . . darkened . . . disordered . . . sinful world we live in . . . and the fallen sinful souls of mankind . . . in all their varying degrees of decay . . . who dwell herein . . .
NICELY DONE:bible1: EPHESIANS 6:12
For our wrestling is NOT against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.. . . all for Jesus+
. . . Sacred
. . . have mercy+
Thank you:thumbsup:
K
Kardinal
Guest
Except that, as I pointed out, it is not valid.
Incorrect. Unless you include the term “all” moral evils in the dependent clause.
That is “If ‘all’ moral evils are illegal because they are moral evils, then it follows that any thing that is a moral evil should be illegal.” That statement is true and valid.
Otherwise, one could say that this moral evil is illegal because it is a moral evil, whereas that moral evil is not illegal, even though it is a moral evil. And it would be consistent in the syllogism you have presented.
As I have demonstrated (twice now), all moral evils are not illegal because they are moral evils. As the Church teaches us, moral evils which violate natural law should be illegal.
K
Kardinal
Guest
Brother, I’m going to try to give you a lot of benefit of the doubt here. You just drew a distinction between the people to whom Premise 2 applies (non Catholics) and those to whom Premise 1 applies. Premise 1 is from the Ten Commandments. I’m sure you did not mean to say that the Ten Commandments are not binding on non-Catholics?
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
No, you did not, as I pointed out
The statement is fine without the word all. It makes perfect sense.
That’s the point, one cannot say that this moral evil is is illegal and that moral evil is not. The state of being morally evil is the source of illegality. It is not illegal for me to kill in self defense, because it is not immoral. It is illegal for me to commit premeditated murder because it has the quality of being morally evil.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
Like I said, I don’t like to waste time on red herrings.
L
Lovesa
Guest
Hi; I’m afraid I’m not exactly Catholic, but I just thought I’d offer my agreement on this principle as a Christian, and offer a couple points on this.
The main point is, I suppose, the idea that Catholics have a right to impact secular law. Yes, of course. All members of a republic (i.e. The United States, the only government I know enough about to discuss) have a right to vote based on their beliefs and conscience.
However, I am not sure that many points follow. For instance, if secular laws have restricted religious freedom of various kinds, does it necessarily follow that the religious have the right to restrict the rights of those who disagree with them on moral points? The issue seems to fly in the face of the idea of the value of religious freedom, which the U.S. guarantees all its citizens. God may ask His followers not to endorse “moral evils”, but it does not seem proven that He asks that the consciences of non-believers should be compromised by religious legislation. While I cannot attest to the logical quality of the above argument, if the Catholic Catechism does assert that worshipping other Gods should not be illegal, it is logical to assume that other moral evils are not mandatorily illegal in a secular society.
Also, refusing the restriction of non-Christian religious freedom does not mean the endorsement of restrictions of Christian religious freedom. These are not mutual beliefs, as some seem to believe.
OK; I’m sorry to jump in on this, but the use of self-contained logical statements seems a little tenuous in the determination of moral action. The logic is self-contained in its setting and has no proof but itself, which seems to be a poor use of theology or of civil law.
Also, the rules for these statements, if one follows any philosophy class of later college level, seem frequently ridiculous to the uninitiated. One can take a perfectly true statement and render it indefensible by this type of logic statement, merely by merit of poor phrasing.
For instance,
- It is raining in Denver.
- Joan is in Denver.
Conclusion: It is raining on Joan.
- All potatoes are ugly.
2.Ugly things should be illegal. - John has a potato garden.
Conclusion: John’s garden should be illegal.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
No. No one who is seriously trying to make a logical statement would frame it with such holes. The correction would be:
- Every inch of the Denver sky is producing rain right now.
- Joan is at this moment standing outside, unprotected, somewhere in Denver.
- Therefore, Joan is currently being rained on.
L
Lovesa
Guest
Precisely. I mean it only to point out that, in my opinion, one should specify that all moral evils should be illegal, in the same way that one most specify that “Every inch of the Denver sky is producing rain right now.” The logic in the original statement is extremely flawed for that very reason. It may be that Joan is being rained on in the original statement, but it needs to have its holes filled, as you have done.
W
warpspeedpetey
Guest
The syllogism I made was just to illustrate that my point is logically valid. Because if the red herrings, straw men, and flag waving, I sought to limit the discussion to unemotive terms, unfortunately that did, not work. Some people seem to be under the impression that our particular republic or our constitutional views trumps G-ds moral law. Which means they do not realize that rights are necessarily the product of G-d, and that as such one cannot have a right to commit a moral evil, without claiming that they received that right from G-d. Further, our society generally agrees with this. We do recognize societies duties to prevent moral evils. To the idea that we can pick and choose what moral evils are acceptable to legitimize and which not to, I would suggest that is hypocrisy. If one is willing to accept being a hypocrite than any position become rational because we have thrown the Law of Non-Contradiction right out the window. Think about such shining examples as the Beer, legal, Weed, illegal. Abortion legal. Spanking, illegal. Homosexual activity, legal, bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, incest, etc, illegal. Welcome to the land of men making moral decisions…Its a sad state of affairs where morality is essentially a matter of popularity.
P
PJM
Guest
Excellen responce!
B
babylonsfalling
Guest
Both sides (secular and non secular) have equal rights toward trying to get their legislation passed. The problem for the non-secular side is that they’re (fortunately) outnumbered in most cases.
And the notion of their being a secular world and a non secular world is misleading. We have one world with both types of people. Secular and non secular folk live side by side in one world. There is no actual separation so it’s not like non secular folk are affecting the “secular world”, it’s both parties trying to affect the one world that we both live in.
L
Lovesa
Guest
Dictionary.com says a red herring is “something intended to divert attention from the real problem or matter at hand; a misleading clue”.
How is pointing out flawed logic by changing the words a red herring? By framing the argument in a self-contained manner the person presenting said argument lays upon him or herself the responsibility to make sure it contains no logical flaws. If the intent was to avoid emotionalism, it did not come across, it would seem. Also, could your refusal to address your claimed logical fallacy simply be dodging the question?
In reference to the argument, without the framing, is the assumption that just because these rights come from God (and let’s assume they do) that God’s laws must be laws in said nation? What, then, happens to the religious freedom the catechism seems to promote? What happens to the rights of people who are not religious? Nowhere does God give Christians the right to force their beliefs on others, and banning things like gay marriage isn’t a matter of violating, say, the right to marry, but on the right of individuals to define marriage according to their religious views.
I’d have to agree that too much is being made of the distinction. God gave people free will for a reason, and if the secular world also votes on such matters and laws that seem ungodly to some are passed, the majority has spoken. That’s what democracy is.
- Status