a question for religious affiliates

If we are going to talk about which worldview is the right one, I don't think this is that off topic. If the government decides what is ultimately right and wrong and that is your only justification from a moral standpoint, why would you be outraged if child molestation became legal?

But they have their own government and they decided it was right. How can we hold a person guilty of a crime when his government told him to do it? As you said, that's the only way to justify our actions, right or wrong, from a moral standpoint. What the country's law says is what is right or wrong. That's their law, their society. Why should a world court condemn them if that's the case? And I guess the people who hid Jews were immoral.

Our country has our laws, they have theirs.

So even though they followed their government's law, what it said was right, they were doing what was wrong?

I would hope that anyone would intervene to stop an elderly person from getting mugged because it's the right thing to do.

 

because i live in a country and time were it is, in fact illegal.....but i guess
your right about the hypothetical stuff......blah i hate hypotheticals i usually lose my train of thought with em...

first, lets look at the consiquences of having a law such as that....
-families would be warring, having molested each others kids....
-the molested kids grow up and start a revolution or petition or w/e you want to call it to make it illegal

and in between those two are thousands of events that would no doubt have a label ending with civil war....and civil war usually leads to a compromise....

if it doesnt, people will keep rebelling until the opression is stopped, unless they do not realise they are being opressed....in wich case, their is nothing speculating on the moral structure of the subject save the government, so as far as the populus would be concearned, wrong on this particular subject would be without identity, hmm....just like brushing your teeth huh....

but noone, not even opressors, like being opressed...and the people that would argue agianst that are the irrational type i was mentioning in earlier posts....

oppression = disagreement, disagreement = conflict, conflict = compromise/domination and domination = oppression.....

in the event of a world government anyways....were it was legal everywere...
and if their is another country observing these acts who they themselves cannot commit, would most likely consider calling it opression....
(osama anyone??....saddam??)

 

I'm just saying that if the country's law is the measure of all good and evil then you really have no reason to be outraged if the law changes and child molestation becomes legal.

But you would be.

That's right, but who cares? If someone is weak and I am strong, I can oppress them to my benefit, why should I care that they don't like being oppressed? It's them not me. If this is about survival of the fittest...expolit the weak.

They would call it oppression, but what right would they have to intervene and punish the ones who carried it out? It's just a different culture. Their culture says it's acceptable, our's doesn't. To each his own.

 

a countrys law ISNT the measure of all good and evil....a countries laws are the only moral backbone with any justification.....on a large scale at least.....

oppression = disagreement, disagreement = conflict, conflict = compromise/domination and domination = oppression....

theirs a reason the united nations was formed after world war 2.....and their is a reason they intervene when acts of oppression occur and i guarentee the embargo on cuba isnt going anywere untill fidel castro and any of his successors (if his brother has the balls), is out of power, though i wouldnt call that oppression(its more like monopoly with pimps).....

so go ahead, exploit the weak, most oppressors have that mentality....but when the revolution rolls around because of the disagreements the oppression caused and conflict comes into play.....youv got another cuban revolution.... another embargo and another dictator.....and possibly another world war....

 

Okay, so you would be outraged but it wouldn't have any meaning in the ultimate sense, no justification. So you should put those feelings away because the government has spoken and the real morality of the issue, the only view with any justification, has been decided.

Is it a possibility that you would be outraged because something inside of you, in your conscience, tells you that molesting children is wrong. And is it possible that this intuitive knowledge does have meaning and is the truth, despite what a government rules.

But short of avoiding conflict, there is nothing inherently wrong with oppression, genocide or anything else for that matter? If the oppressed are weak, small in number and I can get away with it...

 

holy crap, i'm glad my thread eject button worked

 

ummm....what in this univurse known to man has any meaning in the ultimate sense or real justification or whatever you want to call it....who decided the human race wernt the ones who decided this.....god?.....someone (in your terms) who is most likely nothing more than an idea?

as for this....

yes, it is a possibility their is something inside of me that says it is wrong....just like the concept of god is a possibility, and a giant bannana shitting out reality is a possibility and the funny thing is, those 6 words have just as much credibility as a thousand page book (ei:the bible).....and thats why i apply logic to my suggestions and arguments.....

but the point is they disagree with you....and if someone else disagrees with the oppression such as the united states, or the united nation....that "small group of oppressed and weak people" just grew at least 3 million strong....

the size of the group doesnt change their ideas, and if domination along with oppression is the end or starting result....and the cycle will repeat itself....people will rebel, war, and even more people will die....untill the minority is either eliminated or blindfolded through ignorance or the revolution succeeds....but if ignorance eliminates disagreement, then theirs really no problem....but oppression spawns disagreement....and the cycle starts agin

 

You said that the justification for what is right and what is wrong is what the government decides. Are you saying that this is not real justification? Can something be truly wrong even if the government says it is right?

Yes, the people getting the bad end of the deal, the oppressed, would disagree with me. But this doesn't necessarily mean I'll face a revolution. Someone could oppress another, unopposed, until the oppressed dies. The minority could be eliminated as you said. So what makes the atrocities that the nazis committed wrong? What's wrong with genocide if everyone but the victim is willing to go along with it? If there's no disruption, no revolution...

 

the point isnt that all bad regeims are either overthrown or accepted....the point is in this case some people reguardless were their from consider their laws inhumane or wrong.. and are willing to die to abolish them.....and in the case of the nazis....virtually half of the world.....i dont think hitler ever gave a speach telling his people it was wrong to not accept mass genocide.....but im almost posotive america had its share of jews in the army......

btw....thats why they use the word "liberated" when someone is refurring to a camp being seized by the allies.....but that cant be right!!!!!!!who decided freeing the jews was the right thing to do!!!!!!!...erm...the jews?...who had no probable cause for being held captive other than a philosophical argument that has no validity AT ALL...and you saw how well that argument did in america(or one in the same catigory)....were they had enough people to rebel...THEY REBELED....

so justify your oppression, destroy your oposition or watch the people prove how its wrong.....

 

So, there was nothing inherently wrong with what Hitler did, from a moral standpoint? If he had been unopposed by other countries and had the ability to carry out fully what he wanted, you think there would have been nothing wrong with that? The only thing wrong was that he failed to appease and/or destroy his oppostion. He just got sloppy or didn't have the resources.

What's wrong with genocide if everyone but the victim is willing to go along with it. Would your answer be "nothing"? I don't think that would be your answer, I would hope it wouldn't be. But this is where this rationale leads.

How can a world court condemn nazi war criminals when they followed the only morality that is justified, what their country's government deemed right? Unless, moral law exists independent of societies.

The Bible says that men have God's law written on their hearts. Man was created as a rational-moral creature. We intuitively know right and wrong. God is the standard of all things, His character is the moral standard.

If man is the measure of good and evil and not God then nothing is truly evil. There is no evil, only non-moral random events. But we know there is right and wrong, we make these distinctions every day.

 

wow....did you even read any of my posts?....im getting tired of answering the same question....AGIN and AGIN....for reals man....their the same damn questions.....

READ MY LAST POST, or the one before that

this would be the 6th or 7th time i answered this one....

who am i to say your wrong about this.....but before i go into detail about that.....answer the question this thread was started with.....id like to hear your response....

 

I just wanted to be clear about what you were saying and I didn't want to mischaracterize your position.

You said "so justify your oppression, destroy your oposition or watch the people prove how its wrong....."

So what you are saying is that there nothing inherently wrong with what Hitler did, mass murdering human beings, or any genocide for that matter, you just have to do it right and Hitler didn't do it right.

I wonder if you were one of the victims if you would hold to this position? I wonder if our government, the only justification for morality, wronged you would you feel this same way. There's nothing wrong with what they're doing to me as long as they get away with it.

If our government completely stripped you of your fundamental human rights you would have no reason to complain. If you did you'd be a hypocrite.

So you're saying that the country's government is the only one that can justify morality. The Nazis followed their country's government, yet they were not justified in what they did. I guess you think the Nazis were unfairly convicted because they were really innocent of any wrong doing.

The evidence for the God of the Bible is demonstrated in His Word, His creation and the creaturehood of man.

 

resistance always follows oppression....no matter how you do it....

hold what position?....forwardly suggesting hitler was wrong?....and i didnt say their wasnt anything wrong with our government....but you dont see us trying to take over the world or armies of 10 million soldiers at a time trying to deminish our way of life and liberate the hundreds of thousands of people we imprison for not agreeing with our philosophical ideas....

no...you dont understand...if their is no probable cause for oppression then it is unjust...says the oppressed individual with evidence that it is in fact oppression and also has evidence that is unjust

....if our government completely stipped me of my fundamental rights their would definitely be a revolution or a revolution to some extent....and i would definitely get them back....or their would not be a government....wich would also be justified in by the american constitution....and id like to think the man who created the constitution wich all american citizens would agree is fair or disagree without a reasonable doubt was a greater philosophical mind than i....

so what YOUR saying is IF the united states government

1)burns the constitution
2)somehow get the american citizens working for the army to agree with it and prevent the revolution
3)convince the same american citizens to slaughter millions of innoscent citizens because they disagree with the ongoing oppression that is everything america isnt about...
4)still has an america to govern and an army to controll after these events...

that i wouldnt be able to complain?.....our founding fathers didnt just scibble some bullshit words on a peice of paper and say, ok, everyone has to obey this paper.....they actually thought about it.....they sat down and said....how can we truley give liberty and justice to all.....and thats when the one guy in the back that got kicked out of the constitutional comittee stood up and tried to justify oppression....

yes, a countrys government is the only one that can justify morality...EXACTLY....but unfortunatly some countries governments are irrational....logically incorrect or socially bias...and this is the catigory the nazi party and wwii germany falls into....but thats because it was one mans ideas and philosophies (that had no justification as far as using jews as a scapegoat) swinging his countries resources and military weight around like a sword....

The evidence for the god of the bible is contredicted by at least 500 other bibles and religions that claim completely different theories and acts of creation including the absence of an theistic entity....are they all wrong?

 

That is doesn't answer whether there was anything inherently wrong with what Hitler did. You said "so justify your oppression, destroy your oposition or watch the people prove how its wrong....."

From your position, isn't the only thing wrong with the genocide Hitler undertook is that he didn't do it right?

Why does resistance make something wrong?

No, holding the position that the only thing wrong with what Hitler did was that he didn't do it right. Holding the position that there is nothing wrong with genocide as long as you can successfully carry it out. I think if you were on the receiving end that you might re-think this position.

So our government is flawed but what the government says is the only justification for what is right and what is wrong?

What are you trying to say when you say we are not trying to take over the world? Is that a wrong thing to do? Are you trying to suggest that Hitler was wrong in doing this? I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

Who decides probable cause? If the government rules that the oppression is just, then it is just according to your standards. If they can keep you down and avoid an uprising then there is nothing wrong with them doing whatever they want to you. They could lie, throw you in prison and let you die in there. Well, they have avoided conflict. They have avoided an uprising. The only resistance was you saying, "No, please, stop, don't" and then you never see the light of day again. They could have you killed discreetly and nobody would be the wiser. This is done in countries around the world.

They have eliminated their opposition, namely you. And there is nothing wrong with it, so I don't want to hear any complaints out of you. They carried it out correctly. There is nothing inherently wrong with it.

If your fundamental human rights are man-made, men can take them away. Who says your entitled to liberty and justice? You're not entitled to them, the constitution can be changed. If the men holding the power decide you don't get them, you don't get them. And there is nothing wrong with this. You are not justified in protesting. The government has decided, thus it's actions are justified by the only justification.

If rights are not derived from an authority higher than the state then the value of human life and our freedoms are dependent on the whims of our civil rulers. Christianity says men have certain fundamental human rights because man is created in the image of God. If God grants them, men are prohibited from taking them away. To do so would be wrong.

So, the country's government is the only one that can justify morality but Nazi Germany's government wasn't justified in what they decided. What standard are you using for this reasoning? The government is the standard. What they say is justified. Who are you to say they weren't. If an old woman is getting mugged, you have no justification in stopping it other then the country says it is illegal. Germany's government said the genocide they committed was legal.

They had no justification for what they did to Jews? They said they did. Isn't that enough?

Yes, other religions do have views that contradict Christianity. Theoretically, they could all be wrong. I have faith that Christianity is true because of the impossibility of the contrary. It explains the creaturehood of man - our mind, our morality, the laws of logic. It explains the creation in which we live. It makes sense. The Bible corresponds with reality.

 

NO, from my position, the only reason he was wrong was because he procecuted millions for nothing more than their ideas....and the argument "it was right because i say it is" just isnt good enough....

when i said destory the opposition i meant in the way hitler procecuted jews in wwii....OF COARSE the jews thought it was wrong but they had reason to beleive so....and the rest of the germans needed someone to hate for the economic distaster that was germany and somehow hitler convinced them their ideas made germany a slum country....

let me correct myself....a governments law decides that....and i highly doubt you would argue that our law and or government is perfect......

im trying to explain how irrational nazi germany was....and trying to explain how hitler was wrong in doing this is exactly what im trying to do....he was oppressing half of the world....and thats not only wrong, its stupid....

common sense...logic...rationality....if its not probable....its NOT a probable cause....

even mass murderers have rights....they would have to do alot more than "keep me down" to avoid an uprising....they would have to have evidence of a crime i didnt commit or have any involvement in....and then prove to a court beyond a reasonable doubt that their evidence is valid and correct along with disproving my alibie....and they kill people discreetly around the world because their countries laws forbid it....if it wasnt aginst the law they wouldnt care....and if they proved to a court how i was wrong, beyond a reasonable doubt....and i am in fact innoscent(and this happens every day)...that is enough to condemn me to a life in prison....but the point is, people wanted to know WHY i was going to be left to die in prison...beyond a reasonable doubt

surely they would have to have a reason.....mabey they didnt like my shoes....is that probable cause....according to the moral standards of the united states....is that a probable cause anywere?they would have to do it descreetly or disprove my arguments....in either case, is either done the right way or without identity....

every cell, faction and associate of the united nations, every political branch of the united states of america, every citizen of the united states of america, (weather they agree with it or not isnt the question) and every other country on the planet earth under a direct or inderect model government of the united states of america....(and theirs quite a few...)...along with some of the countrys that arnt....

um....yes....i am....and yes the constitution can be changed but the men holding the power get their power from the same people your "if" questions suggest they are oppressing....and thats just a civil war waiting to happen... and greater philosophical minds that both you and i formulated the united nations to prevent things like this....

and they are not justified in oppression....people give power to their governments....and if their people dont agree with them they have no power....you talk about a government like its a single person when in fact the government is just a group of citizens under the same laws and regulations as you.....unless of coarse your talking about a dictatorship, on wich case i dont need hypothetical speculation to comment on....all dictatorships as history would suggest....undergo revolution in less than 100 years....or 50 for that matter....(il change it to 60 if castro is still alive 3 years from now...)

as history would suggest.....no "ifs" here......

i guess life isnt one of them....because god killed thousands of innoscent people in egypt that had nothing at all to do with the freedom of the slaves....he killed every first born....wernt they entitled to life? one of the fundamental human rights granted by god himself....?

the bible says alot of things....half of wich contredicts itself and other parts of the bible....

 

Our posts are starting to get real long so I'll try to make this one a little more brief.

I agree that our government is far from perfect. So a country's government isn't the only justification for right and wrong.

Understood. So there is something inherently wrong with oppressing people, taking away their fundamental human rights.

You are looking at this from the perspective of a democracy, the USA, which is the example I gave so it applies. But not every country works that way, as you well know.

Even the United States in the past has denied Black Americans basic fundamental human rights. That was the governments decision. Was there nothing wrong with that? The question remains, is government justified in stripping men of their fundamental human rights?

So, what is the reason you are justified in protesting? And what is the reason they are not justified in oppressing? I just want to understand you. Is it because of the consequence of revolution or is it because there is something inherently wrong with the oppression, whether the oppressor can get away with it without revolution or not?

So, then your are not entitled to fundamental human rights if man decides to take them away.

God taking someone's life and man murdering someone are not equal. We are not God.

That's not to say that God is unjust though. He is just.

 

well isnt it the government that implements law?....it wouldnt be law if they didnt support it....but eh, il be sure to talk like a robot next time.....

yes....assuming you disagree with civil unrest....

and even then people were helping them escape and read and learn like they wernt supposed to....if it had carried on for another hundred years they would have started realising they outnumbered the slave owners 20 to 1...and i beleive the argument was that the government (none in particular) or their law, was the only justification to any moral standpoint.....and i still dont see how you cant see that....id much rather hear something like "millions of americans say so..." or "the american constitution says so"...other than "a theoretical being says so"....no wat im saying?....

human beings are highly fallable entities with different opinions and ideas....and everything we do isnt rational all the time....ie hitler.....the actions or opinions that are irrational cannot be justified beyond a reasonable doubt....and vice versa.....and im preeeetty sure the arguments for slavery were along the lines of "im above him because im white" or "i have a gun and he doesnt"......

its because of the disagreement between the two parties....one has evidence of how its wrong and the only argument the other party can give is, i dont care....im stronger than you....but of coarse if their reason its not particularly oppression....this is quite contrary to old arguments because our age tends to apply more logic when theirs would accept an argument like...hes black, and i think we both know theirs no moral or logical justification to any ideas in that catigory..

but all arguments aside...im tired of this....and i wont be responding to your next post.....so make it a closing statement....lol

 

We were starting to get somewhere but you don't want to commit to a position. You won't give a solid postition so I can know where you are coming from. You say a country's government is the only justificaton for morality, then say that a certain country's government wasn't the justification.

You say that the only reason genocide and slavery are wrong is because of the possibility of a revolution. But when no revolution occurs, you won't say that it is right and that there is nothing inherently wrong with it.

You say that you and I both know that there is no justification in oppressing someone because of their skin color. But then you say that the only justification for morality is what the government decides. So which one is it?

I'm not trying to get you to give an answer for every question that's out there. You and I as finite beings are not able to do that. I'm just saying that if you are going to hold to the view that the country's government is the only justification for morality, be prepared to take it where it leads and to stand by it. Otherwise you are holding to a view that you don't really believe and follow.

I enjoyed this discussion. Thanks.

 

well...what else is...and i didnt say their countrys government wasnt the justification....i said the countrys government was irrational in their "justification"....is that too choppy...i probly coulda worded it better....

revolution occurs because disagreement, but weather the revolution occurs or not is not the point at all....the point is theirs disagreement...reasonable disagreement....and unreasonable oppression

let me correct myself...*switches to robot mode*...their is no logical or rational arguments supporting the suggestion one is higher because of how much light their skin absorbs...but if your an atheist neo-nazi...and iv met a few....nothing but law is keeping you from killing them because of race....and if you do it anyway you have broken law, and you can be tried before a jury and sent to prison...iv never once heard of a case were someone was sent to prison because it was aginst the countrys religious views....and if its a theology we are talking about....their bible is also the law their government chooses to implement....

i dont see whats so hard to understand about that.....

im not saying other suggestions dont exist....i know about the other ten thousand bibles in existance......im just saying we dont use them to decide weather a man goes to prison for like or not and if theocracies do....their bible is law....we dont say MY religion says what you did was wrong...so your going to die in prison for it, because nothing makes your theological ideas better than someone elses....

or mabey im getting a little carried away with this logic thing....

 

Says who? According to the government and what they believe it was rational. If what the government decides is right is right then they are the final say. If they believe that a group of people are inferior and don't deserve basic human rights then according to them, they are being rational. Diffrent people hold to different beliefs.

If you don't believe they are justified, then what the government decides is not the only justification for morality.

So disagreement is what makes something like oppression or genocide wrong? Why does disagreement make it wrong? If I'm stronger then those who disagree and they don't pose a threat to me, why should I care how they feel?

And "unreasonable oppression" according to who? A Nazi would say that there is nothing unreasonable about what Hitler did. They would reason from the belief that Jews are inferior and don't deserve basic human rights. So would the proponents of American slavery in a similar manner years ago.