Whom would you rather vote for?

[Hitetlen]

Andreas Hofer:

There actually can be a question of whether murdering or robbing someone is harmful. Just because these are not generally debated does not mean you will not be able to find someone who subscribes to a philosophy in which, for varying reasons, these crimes do no harm to their “victims.”

Sorry, physical harm is not subject to disagreement. One may try to say that causing pain to a masochist is not “harm”, but something that inhibits life is harm.
Andreas Hofer:

In conflict areas such as this, American democracy says, “You lose.”

I despise the concept of democracy. The US is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. A democracy is when two wolves and one sheep vote for the dinner menu.
Andreas Hofer:

One of the greatest politicial fictions at work in our country is that politicians do not act and legislate in keeping with their personal convictions, consciences, morality, etc. Another fiction is that the government cannot legitimately legislate on moral issues, which it has a long precedent of doing (sin taxes, decency laws, age restrictions for certain content, among other things).

You are correct in a very good sense. The politicians do not even try to rise above their personal convictions, and that is one reason to despise them. And, of course, government does create all those special legislations, and I vehemently disagree with all of them. Here is another example: in some cities it is against the law to feed someone else’s parking meter. You see, what they legislate is not a harmful or neutral behavior, but something that is beneficial. Just because something is lawful, it does not make it respectable.
Andreas Hofer:

The notion that we cannot force anyone to adopt or act according to propositions he rejects is valuable, but has limits. Some people will be able, in good conscience, to do evil things which our laws say one simply may not do. Our political system, in addition for allowing our society to set standards for itself, has demarcated certain boundaries according to a somewhat enumerated collection of “inalienable rights.” This means that, no matter what a certain individual may think, his behavior will be constrained by these restrictions of rights. A right, however, can only be inalienable so long as it flows from some absolute truth.

Without absolute truth of any kind, all inalienable human rights devolve into “civil rights” created and rescinded at the will of the state according to its mechanisms for doing so. Modern American discourse often confuses human and civil rights (at least if media coverage of world events is any indication), I propose because it has lost sight of the connection to absolute reality that grounds the idea of human rights. Since America has given up the idea that there can be moral absolutes, it has given up its understanding of the distinction between the two types of right.

The quote “inalienable rights” is a wonderful expression, but it does not really mean everyone! Should sociopaths also enjoy the freedom to pursue their own path of happiness, which may be the torturing children? You see, these rights are not “inalienable” at all, and were not meant to be. They are not absolute in any sense of the word.

And another objectoin: the phrase you quoted is from the Declaration of Independence, which is not the legal document the US is founded upon, which is the Constitution. And the Constitution says nothing about “Creators” and “inalienable rights”.

At best we can say that the most desirable legal system is which provides as wide a latitude as possible, for those who are willing to respect it and which does not require unreasonable limitations on the citizens of the country. And that is pretty vague…

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Hitetlen:

Sorry, physical harm is not subject to disagreement. One may try to say that causing pain to a masochist is not “harm”, but something that inhibits life is harm.

The quote “inalienable rights” is a wonderful expression, but it does not really mean everyone! Should sociopaths also enjoy the freedom to pursue their own path of happiness, which may be the torturing children? You see, these rights are not “inalienable” at all, and were not meant to be. They are not absolute in any sense of the word.

And another objectoin: the phrase you quoted is from the Declaration of Independence, which is not the legal document the US is founded upon, which is the Constitution. And the Constitution says nothing about “Creators” and “inalienable rights”.

At best we can say that the most desirable legal system is which provides as wide a latitude as possible, for those who are willing to respect it and which does not require unreasonable limitations on the citizens of the country. And that is pretty vague…

I have to disagree with you on harm. You arbitrarily define “harmful” as referring only to physical harm. the problem is that 1) even though no one can argue about the occurrence of the physical harm it is almost certain that some individuals (even if they are demented) will not regard either their own physical harm or the physical harm they inflict on others as a negative - think of psycho-killers who consider their victims lucky to participate in what is happening; 2) if I stole $100 million in stocks and cash from Bill Gates, I highly doubt this would cause any physical harm whatsoever. In fact, if I stole $900 million it probably still wouldn’t cause him physical harm. Any many “little guys” might use this reasoning to steal from the rich. Just because they don’t think it’s wrong doesn’t mean our government can’t legislate against it.

I brought up the “harmfulness” of acts, though, not to point out that some victims might not consider the crime to harm them, but that many people who commit crimes do not think they have done anything wrong. It is from this end of the perpetrator that I wanted to point out the disparity between the perp’s “beliefs” and the legal norms enforced upon him by the law. I raised this in response to the assertions that you would endorse anything that did not cause harm and that no one shoudl be constrained by the government to accept a worldview. My whole point is that, first of all, our concepts of harm are different, and secondly, our system already does constrain its citizens to live by a worldview they may disagree with (for instance, punishing me for stealing from billionaires).

I realize that “inalienable rights” are found in the Declaration, not the Constitution, but I don’t think it can be written off because of that, especially since the men who wrote the one document were also influential in the drafting of the other and the “maiden voyage” of the system (certainly at least through Mr. Madison’s war) which set much precedent for future government. If man does not have rights that emanate from an absolute source, then every right he currently maintains for himself is really only by judicial fiat and can be rescinded by any government at will. People are free to choose such a government, but I don’t think a government that has so little respect for the human person has much business existing for very long.

The latitude built into our current system of government is not a good because it allows people to do evil, but I think it is good in that it protects people in the long term from being forced to do evil. The government, according to Paul, protects the good and punishes the wicked. A government which completely enforced the moral law would be a good one, but whatever system were in place to achieve this would run a very high and dangerous risk of being subverted (monarchy works perfectly fine until you get a bad monarch, for example) and wind up forcing people to do evil. So the best government is one that achieves justice and temporal order, while promoting the good and ensuring the individual’s freedom to choose the good.

Note that in Catholic thought, this does not mean an individual’s freedom to act as he sees fit, but a freedom to do what is truly good. The good of freedom in general, and thus possibly the freedom to do wrong, needs to be weighed against the gravity of the evil done; bare self-assertion is not a freedom that must be protected at all costs and may be constrained in the interests of justice and the commonweal.

 

[Hitetlen]

Andreas Hofer:

I have to disagree with you on harm.

Indeed it is the crux of the matter. One person may consider something harmful, while another may not. There is no absolute criterion which would be accepted by everyone.
Andreas Hofer:

You arbitrarily define “harmful” as referring only to physical harm.

That is only the first step. Let’s start from a very broad perspective: life in general. I would start with the definition that whatever promotes life is generally “beneficial or good”, whatever inhibits life is generally “harmful or bad”. You cannot do anything “for” a rock. It would be incorrect to argue that polishing rock into a pleasing shape is “good” for the rock. Also that breaking a rock into smaller pieces is somehow “harmful” for the rock.

Good, bad, beneficial, harmful, moral etc. are concepts which make no sense if applied to unliving matter. Do we agree so far?

Now, we have to consider balancing, since there is no such thing as universally beneficial or harmful. For a cactus abundant rain is harmful, for the plant impatient it is beneficial. There is a range of physical charateristics which is beneficial to each specific life form, and this range varies. Conflicts arise.

And so far we only deal with beings without consciousness. When we want to include humans, who exhibit self-consciousness, the problems are compounded. Since humans are both individuals and group-oriented creatures, yet another set of possible conflicts pop up from the wood work. What is beneficial for a member, may be harmful for other members, or for the group.

The need for balancing is overwhelming. I will stop here, and wait to see if we agree so far. No need or use to go further without some common ground. (I am somewhat uneasy, because I saw too many examples when I and the other participants in the discussion use the same word with totally different meaning.)

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Hitetlen:

Indeed it is the crux of the matter. One person may consider something harmful, while another may not. There is no absolute criterion which would be accepted by everyone.

That is only the first step. Let’s start from a very broad perspective: life in general. I would start with the definition that whatever promotes life is generally “beneficial or good”, whatever inhibits life is generally “harmful or bad”. You cannot do anything “for” a rock. It would be incorrect to argue that polishing rock into a pleasing shape is “good” for the rock. Also that breaking a rock into smaller pieces is somehow “harmful” for the rock.

Good, bad, beneficial, harmful, moral etc. are concepts which make no sense if applied to unliving matter. Do we agree so far?

Now, we have to consider balancing, since there is no such thing as universally beneficial or harmful. For a cactus abundant rain is harmful, for the plant impatient it is beneficial. There is a range of physical charateristics which is beneficial to each specific life form, and this range varies. Conflicts arise.

And so far we only deal with beings without consciousness. When we want to include humans, who exhibit self-consciousness, the problems are compounded. Since humans are both individuals and group-oriented creatures, yet another set of possible conflicts pop up from the wood work. What is beneficial for a member, may be harmful for other members, or for the group.

The need for balancing is overwhelming. I will stop here, and wait to see if we agree so far. No need or use to go further without some common ground. (I am somewhat uneasy, because I saw too many examples when I and the other participants in the discussion use the same word with totally different meaning.)

Rather than say “agree” or “disagree” to different parts of your vision, I’ll supply another one and then we can see how they compare and contrast.

While many individual acts have contingent moral value (taking human life, for instance: intentionally taking an innocent life is murder, while taking the life of an unjust aggressor can be an act of charity), there is one thing that can be said to be universally good, with a universally bad opposite. It is always good to choose God and act in accordance with His will. It is always bad to reject God and act against His will. These respectively promote and imhibit *eternal *life.

Only man is a moral agent, thus only his actions can be said to carry moral weight. I’m not sure exactly in what relation you mean that “good, bad, etc. make no sense” when applied to non-living matter. There are different ways in which these terms might be associated (say, if I use a rock for a good purpose, I have not done something good to it as in “for it,” but as I have done a something good “with” the rock, the action was something good “done to” the rock), but as far as their being moral agents or anything more than instruments, then no, those terms don’t make sense.

I think we’re dealing with differing horizons. You are occupied solely with physical/material well being, since that is where your vision ends. I am dealing primarily with spiritual well being, since my vision ends there. I think there is room for common ground in debating political theory, but I’m not sure that talking about these ultimate horizons is the best way to seek that. The Christian tradition, for instance, does see the state as existing to maintain the temporal order, and thus concerning itself with the physical well-being of its subjects, but since statesmen are first of all men and thus bound by the moral law (temporal good and order are subservient to spiritual good and order) the ultimate views of how this order can best be carried out will still normally differ between Christian and atheist.

 

[Hitetlen]

Andreas Hofer:

Rather than say “agree” or “disagree” to different parts of your vision, I’ll supply another one and then we can see how they compare and contrast.

This is a “tall order”. Our basic views differ so much that it is hard to find common ground. My suggestion is this: since the so-called eternal/transcendent/spiritual part is not a fact (otherwise there would be no need for faith), it is best left alone as far as the individual’s rights and obligations are concerned.

If your devotion is left alone to be practiced according to your desire, there can be be no interpersonal problems. Your faith does not interfere with my life, and my lack of faith does not limit your personal life.

If, however, your faith demands you of propagating your world-view and impose it on others (for example compulsory laws against abortion or homosexual relationships) then the landscape changes. I am willing to contemplate your views, but only if you can argue for them, and not just declare them ex-cathedra. The basic problem is that I do not accept anything on authority. The authority must be able to prove his assertions.

(Sometimes there is a misunderstanding about this, I will try to clear it up. Obviously, I as an individual cannot go and verify all the differents facts, theories, assertions of all the branches of science myself. In certain cases I use the epistemological shortcut of relying on “experts”, but that has nothing to do with faith. I do not accept their “testament”, because they are an authority, rather they are an authority, because I can - if I so choose - verify whatever they say. If they cannot prove what they say, they cease to be an authority.)

I am afraid we cannot do too much, due to our differences, but I hope I am mistaken.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Hitetlen:

If, however, your faith demands you of propagating your world-view and impose it on others (for example compulsory laws against abortion or homosexual relationships) then the landscape changes. I am willing to contemplate your views, but only if you can argue for them, and not just declare them ex-cathedra. The basic problem is that I do not accept anything on authority. The authority must be able to prove his assertions.

Imposition. This is the area in which I think conversation can bear the most fruit. I think we have a great deal of laws, if not most of our laws, that represent the imposition of a worldview on others. Some of them mere forbid acts that most people would not think it immoral to omit. For example, many find public nudity and sex acts immoral and indecent, so they are (with exceptions) forbidden. Not many people find it immoral to NOT be naked or have sex in public, so even though these laws represent the imposition of a foreign world view they still have not forced someone to violate their conscience (or else punish them for remaining true to it) people tend to ignore this. The imposition exists nonetheless. But why should someone have to keep his pants on just because someone else thinks it’s wrong? On the flip side, if one were to say that there can be no laws against public nudity because not everyone agrees it is immoral, then those who do find it immoral are subjected to it, and that particular world view has now been imposed upon them.

Since you seem to think abortion is not harm, I assume that means you don’t believe the fetus is a person. That’s a worldview. It’s in conflict with the world view of individuals who do believe it is a person. If abortion is illegal, there will be individuals who feel wronged because they no longer have recourse to an option they find morally acceptable. Why should the government be able to impose a world view on them? On the other hand, if it is legal, there will be individuals left without legal recourse against what they consider an unspeakable atrocity, a crime that cries out to heaven. They are forced to stand by and let great evil go entirely unpunished. Why should the abortionist’s world view be imposed upon them?

The trick is in finding the balance of not “how can we manage to never make any impositions” but “what is the acceptable amount of concessions versus impositions in a good government.” Forcing people to govern according to extreme tolerance of everything other than physical harm is forcing them to accept a worldview that these acts are the only things that harm society.

Somewhere along the way a very clever PR guru managed to convince people that secular humanism represents some sort of common denominator, when in reality is a another world view among several or even many competing world views at work in America. Our system of government requires that everyone be willing to make some concessions to imposition in order to (hopefully) ensure that no one ever gets completely imposed upon. Pretending, however, that government can only act if it will not be imposing upon someone or other only perpetuates imposition of that world view upon all those who do not share it. So I’m not advocating a theocratic United States, where everyone is forced to believe and live out Catholic teaching. I am saying that the system you think manages to avoid forcing beliefs and behaviors upon people doesn’t actually work the way you think it does.

 

[Hitetlen]

Andreas Hofer:

Imposition. This is the area in which I think conversation can bear the most fruit.

I see your points and they are good points. Since you emphasised the problem of abortion, let me answer to that argument. If someone considers abortion immoral and unacceptable, they are free not to participate, even if others do. If abortion is made illegal, the ones who object to it are forced to comply with the law. I don’t know how you feel, but to me the difference is enormous. Indeed I understand that in your view it is a “crime”, but that is not based on facts, it is your opinion.

The fetus is not a person, it is a potential person. To illustrate: an egg is not a chicken, it is a potential chicken. From eggs you can make scrambled eggs, but not a fried chicken. An acorn is not an oak tree. You can feed pigs with acorns, but you cannot make planks out of them to build a house. Someone, who was accepted to a medical university is not a doctor, he is a potential doctor.

During the growing process, both quantitative and qualitative changes take place. Where do we draw a line is subject to discussion, but to call a fertilized ovum a person is nonsense. But I don’t want to derail this into an abortion debate.

The point is truly, that we all live in a community, and we all have to sacrifice some of our personal freedoms. For example, burning rubber tires is an intrusion into the neighbor’s privacy, and so is listening to very loud music.

The problem of nudity is interesting, but of no great consequence. Many societies (in tropical climates) had no objection to nudity, it was totally acceptable. Naturally, eskimos would not wish to practice it outdoors, but they may very well practice it indoors.

Let’s take a potential problem of someone using a loudspeaker to preach against abortion. I respect his right to hold his views, I also respect his right to use a public place to express it. But this does not mean that he can use a loudspeaker in a residential neighborhood or in a commercial one. If his preaching is not excessively loud, meaning that I can simply walk away if I am not interested, that is quite all right. He may have a big sign advocating his views. That is fine as well, I can turn my head and no harm was done.

The word “harm” is indeed very generic. We have to examine each instance and make decisions based upon them. I want everyone to be as free as they can possibly be. This is why my motto is: “The right of my fist ends where your nose begins”. How to implement it in specific instances is the question to examine.

 

[seabird3579]

Hitetlen:

I."…Anyhow, the post said, that being a heathen is preferable (to the poster) to being a Calvinist (aka Presbyterian). That started me to think, and now I have a question:

Whom would you rather vote for? An atheist (heathen) or someone who belives in a deity, but maybe a different deity from yours (Muslim, perhaps) or in the same deity, but in a different manner (Baptist, Lutheran, Calvinist) Or does it matter at all?

My personal view: if I could agree with the person’s political and economic views, I would not care at all about his personal belief system. (provided he does not try to impose his belief system on others!)

When it comes to voting, their persuasion does matter somewhat, but more importantly how do they interpret the Constitution, do they see it as a vessel of the “free exercise of religion” or do they see it as the “free exercise of their religion only” — makes a difference.

Also, some groups (e.g. ACLU) see it as an opportunity to ban God from the public square. Be very careful, do a background study of the person running for office and find out their “history.”