Sometimes the name of a book is just waaaaay cool, and King Alfred’s Book of Dooms takes the prize.
But that (while showing that I am not totally immune to the coolness factor 😉 ) is besides the main point.
The main issue is that for several weeks now, we have been dealing with radical secularism and its agenda for law, the state and justice. Especially, in light of the triple challenge of state power, lawfulness and sound leadership:
U/d b for clarity, nb Nil
What is justice, what is its foundation, and — where Alfred the Great and his Book of Dooms come in — how was this emplaced at the historical root of the Common Law tradition that the law and state framework of the English-speaking Peoples is built upon.
I think a good way to look at this is to headline an overnight comment [ed, let’s snip names as superfluous to main purpose, apologies extended]:
__________
>>The pivotal issue is justice vs power and does might make right.
King John at the sealing of Magna Carta, Runnymede on the Thames, June 15, 1215 (HT: Royal Mint)
Let’s go back to Runnymede, S Bank of the Thames, June 15, 1215.
The rebel barons are there, king John is there, full civil war is in the air, and Stephen Langton, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has composed the charter.
[Yes, X the Chief of the Lords Spiritual, to give the name currently used in parallel with the Lords Temporal (i.e. of the House of Lords) . . . and one of the terms was a council of 25 Barons to oversee the Charter, which was the ancestor to parliaments and congresses.]
When boiled down, the heart of the charter that makes it relevant 800 years later, is this . . . and the numbers come from Blackstone:
+ (39) No free man
[–> recognition of freedom, the further question is, who shall be free]
shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions
[–> recognition of rights including property],
or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him
[–> policing power & the sword of state subordinated to justice],
or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals
[ –> peers, i.e. trial by jury of peers]
or by the law of the land
[–> rule of law, not decree of tyrant or oligarch].
+ (40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.
[–> integrity, lawfulness and legitimacy of government rooted in the priority of right and justice]
And yes, X, these come from the pen of the Archbishop of Canterbury. They hark back to the Christian king, Alfred the Great and the Book of Dooms, which — as was cited in 57 above but ignored — literally starts the British Common Law tradition by citing the decalogue and other framework law from the Pentateuch.
I wonder why we never hear that when we hear of some atheistical secularist zealots screaming theocracy and trying to rip those lessons out of any place where they may tell the other side of the story on how we got to modern liberty and democracy?
Let me remind X of the wisdom of Bernard Lewis, as he counselled us on the brink of the rising war of civilisations, in his epochal 1990 essay, The Roots of Muslim Rage:
. . . The accusations are familiar. We of the West are accused of sexism, racism, and imperialism, institutionalized in patriarchy and slavery, tyranny and exploitation. To these charges, and to others as heinous, we have no option but to plead guilty — not as Americans, nor yet as Westerners, but simply as human beings, as members of the human race. In none of these sins are we the only sinners, and in some of them we are very far from being the worst. The treatment of women in the Western world, and more generally in Christendom, has always been unequal and often oppressive, but even at its worst it was rather better than the rule of polygamy and concubinage that has otherwise been the almost universal lot of womankind on this planet . . . .
In having practiced sexism, racism, and imperialism, the West was merely following the common practice of mankind through the millennia of recorded history. Where it is distinct from all other civilizations is in having recognized, named, and tried, not entirely without success, to remedy these historic diseases. And that is surely a matter for congratulation, not condemnation. We do not hold Western medical science in general, or Dr. Parkinson and Dr. Alzheimer in particular, responsible for the diseases they diagnosed and to which they gave their names.
Yes, a more balanced view of Christendom and its heritage is both possible and advisable, even as we foolishly stand on the crumbling brink of an abyss.
Surely, those wonderful multibillion dollar media empires have research staffs and can investigate the history I have highlighted?
Look, it is as close as Google and even Wikipedia, much less the British Library and the like.
Or is it that they willfully suppress the truth that not only directly through the Bible but literally in the opening words of Alfred the Great’s Book of Dooms, the decalogue is the foundation of the common law tradition on which the freedom and just government of the English Speaking Peoples — I here allude to Churchill — rests?
Including, for the United States of America?
For shame!
Yes, those very same ten commandments that [radical secularists] would rip out of any place of honour or respect near any Court.
Lest we overlook, let me cite from Alfred’s Book of Dooms:
Dooms.
The Lord was speaking these words to Moyse [= Moses], and thus quoth;
I am the Lord thine God. I led thee out of the Egyptians’ lands, and of their
Oklahoma, US 10 Commandments Monument banned by the State Supreme Court in a 2015 decision
bondage [–> slavery].
1. Love thou not other strange gods ever me.
2. Call not thou mine name in idleness, for that thou art not guiltless with me, if thou in idleness callest mine name.
3. Mind that thou hallow the rest-day. Work you six days, and on the seventh rest you. For that in six days Christ wrought heavens and earth, seas, and all shapen things that in them are, and rested him on the seventh day: and for that the Lord hallowed it.
4. Honour thine father and thine mother that the Lord gave thee : that thou be the longer living on earth.
5. Slay thou not.
6?. Commit thou not adultery.
7. Steal thou not .
8. Say thou not leasing witness.
9. Wish not thou thy neighbour’s goods with untight.
10. Work thou not to thyself golden gods or silvern. [–> scan not guaranteed 100%]
11. These are the dooms that thou shalt set them . . . .
49. These are dooms that the Almighty God himself was speaking to Moses, and bade him to hold, and, since the Lord’s onebegotten son, our God, that is, healing Christ, on middle earth came [–> “In the year of our Lord . . .” and now you know where “middle earth” comes from], he quoth that he came not these biddings to break nor to forbid, but with all good to eke them, and mild-heartedness and lowly-mindedness to learn [ –> teach, Alfred here alludes to and enfolds in the foundations, the Sermon on the Mount of Matt 5 – 7]. Then after his throes [sufferings], ere that his apostles were gone through all the earth to learn [teach], and then yet that they were together, many heathen nations they turned to God. While they all together were, they send erranddoers to Antioch and to Syria, Christ’s law to learn [teach]. When they understood that it speeded them not, then sent they an errand-writing to them. This is then that errand-writing that the apostles sent to Antioch, and to Syria, and to Cilicia, that are now from heathen nations turned to Christ.
The apostles and the elder brethren wish you health. And we make known to you, that we have heard that some of our fellows with our words to you have come, and bade you a heavier wise [way or law] to hold, than we bade them, and have too much misled you with manifold biddings, and your souls more perverted than they have righted. Then we assembled us about that, and to us all it seemed good, that we should send Paul and Barnabas, men that will their souls sell [give] for the Lord’s name. With them we sent Judas and Silas, that they to you the ilk [same] may say. To the Holy Ghost it was thought and to us, that we none burden on you should not set, over that to you was needful to hold, that is then, that ye forbear that ye devil-gilds [idols] worship, and taste blood and things strangled, and from fornication, and that ye will that other men do not to you, do ye not that to other men. [–> Yes, the Golden Rule of Moshe, of Yeshva and of Paulo, Apostolo Mart, is right there too.]
From this one doom a man may think that he should doom [judge] every one rightly: he need keep no other doom-book. Let him thmk [take care] that he doom to no man that he would not that he doom to him, if he sought doom over him. [–> This is essentially the point that Locke cited from “the judicious [Anglican Canon, Richard] Hooker [in his Ecclesiastical Polity 1594+]” when in his 2nd treatise on civil gov’t, he grounded the rights – lawfulness principle at the heart of modern liberty and democracy, cf. OP and here]
Since that, it happened that many nations took to Christ’s faith; there were many synods through all the middle earth gathered, and eke throughout the English race, they took to Christ’s faith, of holy bishops’, and eke of other exalted witan [wise men]. They then set forth, for their mild-heartedness, that Christ learned [taught], at almost every misdeed, that the worldly lords might, with their leave, without sin, at the first guilt, take their fee-boot that they then appointed; except in treason against a lord, to which they durst not declare no mild-hearted ness, for that the God Almighty doomed none to them that slighted him, nor Christ God’s son doomed none to him that sold him to death, and he bade to love a lord as himself. They then in many synods set a boot for many misdeeds of men ; and in many synod books they wrote, here, one doom, there, another.
I then, Alfred king, gathered these together, and bade to write many of those that our foregoers held,—those that to me seemed good: and many of those that seemed not good, I set aside with mine witan’s counsel, and in other wise bade to hold them: for that I durst not venture much of mine own to set in writing, for that it was unknown to me what of this would be liking to those that were after us. But those that I met with either in Ine’s days mine kinsman, or in Offa’s, king of Mercia, or in Ethelbryte’s that first took baptism in the English race,—they that seemed to me the lightest, I gathered them herein and let alone the others.
I then, Alfred, king of the West Saxons, shewed these to all mine witan, and they then said that that all seemed good to them to hold . . .
That, is where it begins, this is the actual foundation on which Common Law, modern liberty and Democracy were built.
Moyse, Yeshva, James and the gathered Apostles and Elders in the Jerusalem Council of Ac 15, AD 48/9, the teachings of Missionary Bishops and Witan made mild-hearted by the power of the gospel.
And yet, this is not in our history books, it is not in the mouths and hearts of our talking head pundits, it is not in our media, I daresay it is likely not in our Law-Schools (I hope, it is in some few).
For shame!
Let us show respect for those who laid the foundations that many would now so ignorantly undermine and toss on the rubbish heap in rage against “religion,” fed by one sided litanies against the sins of Christendom and smug confidence in the superiority of radical secularism . . . all, duly dressed up in a lab coat? (For in the madness of scientism, so many have been deluded to imagine, that “science is the only begetter of truth”; a claim that refutes itself for it is a philosophical claim and cannot stand its own test. But, we must not look behind the curtains to see who is pulling the strings . . . )
Have the decency to listen to the wisdom of the past and to respect lessons bought hard, with blood and tears!
And the ghosts of — what, coming on 200 million victims of radical secularist and neopagan-influenced tyrannies of the century just past — join in the chorus warning you against a stubbornly mad march of folly.
Anyway, back to justice.
What is it, why is it so important, where does it come from, why should we pay it any heed?
Justice lawfully and duly balances rights, freedoms and responsibilities in the community, the blessed nation with limited and legitimate government, under God.
The root and foundation and chief champion of Justice.
Yes, the one who so many despise today, who inspired Micah:
Micah 6:8 He hath shewed thee,
O man,
what is good;
and what doth the Lord require of thee,
but to do justly,
and to love mercy,
and to walk humbly with thy God? [KJV]
But, we run ahead.
Justice duly balances rights, freedoms and responsibilities, requiring the active support of citizen and state alike.
Where, a responsibility is plainly a duty, an OUGHT.
Where again, a right is a binding morally grounded expectation for respect in one’s life, liberty, innocent reputation and more.
Again, it points to OUGHT, to our being under moral government.
And where freedom or liberty is well summed up in Webster’s 1828 dictionary (written before the revisionists could get their hands on the dictionaries):
LIB’ERTY, noun [Latin libertas, from liber, free.]
1. Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or mind. The body is at liberty when not confined; the will or mind is at liberty when not checked or controlled. A man enjoys liberty when no physical force operates to restrain his actions or volitions.
2. Natural liberty consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government.
3. Civil liberty is the liberty of men in a state of society, or natural liberty so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation. A restraint of natural liberty not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression. civil liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others, which exemption is secured by established laws, which restrain every man from injuring or controlling another. Hence the restraints of law are essential to civil liberty
The liberty of one depends not so much on the removal of all restraint from him, as on the due restraint upon the liberty of others.
In this sentence, the latter word liberty denotes natural liberty
4. Political liberty is sometimes used as synonymous with civil liberty But it more properly designates the liberty of a nation, the freedom of a nation or state from all unjust abridgment of its rights and independence by another nation. Hence we often speak of the political liberties of Europe, or the nations of Europe.
5. Religious liberty is the free right of adopting and enjoying opinions on religious subjects, and of worshiping the Supreme Being according to the dictates of conscience, without external control.
6. liberty in metaphysics, as opposed to necessity, is the power of an agent to do or forbear any particular action, according to the determination or thought of the mind, by which either is preferred to the other.
Freedom of the will; exemption from compulsion or restraint in willing or volition.
7. Privilege; exemption; immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant; with a plural. Thus we speak of the liberties of the commercial cities of Europe.
8. Leave; permission granted. The witness obtained liberty to leave the court.
9. A space in which one is permitted to pass without restraint, and beyond which he may not lawfully pass; with a plural; as the liberties of a prison.
10. Freedom of action or speech beyond the ordinary bounds of civility or decorum. Females should repel all improper liberties.
To take the liberty to do or say any thing, to use freedom not specially granted.
To set at liberty to deliver from confinement; to release from restraint.
To be at liberty to be free from restraint.
Liberty of the press, is freedom from any restriction on the power to publish books; the free power of publishing what one pleases, subject only to punishment for abusing the privilege, or publishing what is mischievous to the public or injurious to individuals.
First occurrence in the Bible(KJV): Leviticus 25:10
In short liberty is also deeply rooted in the moral government of OUGHT, and the insight that we are responsibly free rational creatures.
So, the pivotal issue is what grounds OUGHT, how comes we are under its government, under moral law?
Surely, not the cynically nihilistic and amoral credo, that might and manipulation make ‘right.’
Such, is patently absurdly self-refuting; as, the very point at stake is that might and manipulation generally make wrong, not right.
Indeed they obviously lead us straight down the vortex of tyranny.
This brings us right up against the IS-OUGHT gap and to the challenge that we must find an answer. And, post Hume, it is clear that this can come at only one level: World- Roots, World- Foundations.
If we deny that we are under moral government, it is not only that might and manipulation usually make for wrong, but that the irresistible sense that we are under government of ought would imply that we are under a grand delusion. That is, we undermine rationality and responsible freedom, that is, this view self-refutes and self-falsifies by undermining rationality itself.
We know ourselves to be rational above all else and have no good reason to reject the testimony of hearts, minds and consciences that we are under moral government, under moral law. Moral law that can only have its source in a world-foundational is.
Pace, Dawkins and his self-falsifying declamations:
In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference . . . . DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. [ “God’s Utility Function,” Sci. Am. Aug 1995, pp. 80 – 85.]
Pace, Crick and his self-falsifying Astonishing Hypothesis:
. . . that “You”, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.
Pace, Provine and his undermining of morality and responsible freedom:
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . .
The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will . . .
All these and many more of like ilk only succeed in showing that evolutionary materialism and its fellow travelers are self-falsifying on pain of the fallacy of grand delusion.
No, after centuries of debates there is but one serious candidate to be the IS that grounds OUGHT, thus justice:
the inherently good Creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of ultimate trust and loyalty, worthy of the reasonable — not irrational or superstitious or blind — service of doing the good in accord with our evident, manifest nature. (And this implies that per Lincoln, insistently calling the tail of a sheep a leg has no power to magically increase the number of its legs to five, not even when the magical incantation is solemnly pronounced by black robed judges operating under colour of law and abusing or usurping the power to interpret constitutional instruments.)
That is the real challenge, morality, ontology and cosmology join with one voice to point to the roots of moral government and they point where ever so many in our day refuse to go.
Even, if they have to stop their ears, shut their eyes, silence conscience and heart then cling to absurdities to do so.
Our civilisation is on a determined march of folly over a cliff, and it will take a miracle to turn it back before it is too late.
Those who refuse to learn the lessons of history bought over centuries with much blood and tears, doom themselves to learn the same over and over again, at much the same apalling price.>>
___________
So, where are we? Why?
Where are we headed?
What should we now do, how?
Have we done wisely?
Perhaps, the last word should belong to Jesus: wisdom is justified by her children.
Let us ponder. END
Comments
kairosfocus: I draw your attention again to what you have not conceded to date, that on realising that an objector could misunderstand, I changed terms to use a rarer but more precise term for what I wanted to communicate.
Yes, but it doesn't save your cubic analysis from incoherence.
kairosfocus: (a) absence of state power is of like character to and trends towards full anarchic chaos aka anarchy,
In political science, anarchy is *defined* as the absence of state power.
Anarchy is not another name for chaos.
kairosfocus: (b) absence of law is similarly but distinctly is of like character to and trends towards full anarchic chaos aka anarchy,
No. The absence of law is not necessarily anarchy. A government making all decisions ad hoc is not based on law, but is not anarchy.
Anarchy is not another name for chaos.
kairosfocus: (c) absence of effective overall political leadership in a relevant zone, similarly but also distinctly is of like character to and trends towards full anarchic chaos aka anarchy.
Absence of political leadership is not necessarily anarchy. A pure democracy has no political leadership, but is not anarchy.
Anarchy is not another name for chaos.
The cube shows “three distinct specific scales” in three distinct specific dimensions. Yet, we know the scales are not independent, because they all have anarchy at one end. In addition, you have stated that all three have to be set to anarchy, for the society to be in anarchy, when the diagram clearly shows it only takes one scale to be anarchy. That's why it is incoherent.
Elsewhere, you claimed that this renders the standard political spectrums obsolete, which isn't the case, even if the cubic analysis wasn't incoherent. The egalitarian-hierarchical (left-right) scale is still of paramount importance in modern society. Just consider the difference in say over global decisions between the average American and a farmer in, say, Malawi.Zachriel
August 13, 2015
August
08
Aug
13
13
2015
02:48 PM
2
02
48
PM
PDT
Onlookers, observe how the historic significance of Alfred's Book of Dooms has been noticeably side-stepped in the comments. KFkairosfocus
August 13, 2015
August
08
Aug
13
13
2015
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
Zachriel,
the strawman caricature and predictable rhetorical pummelling based on word games predictably continue.
I draw your attention again to what you have not conceded to date, that on realising that an objector could misunderstand, I changed terms to use a rarer but more precise term for what I wanted to communicate.
As I just summarised:
In response to your collective’s earlier point I adjusted to clarify, shifting — within a day IIRC — to the rarer word, anarchic.
Precisely to imply that separately:
(a) absence of state power is of like character to and trends towards full anarchic chaos aka anarchy,
(b) absence of law is similarly but distinctly is of like character to and trends towards full anarchic chaos aka anarchy,
(c) absence of effective overall political leadership in a relevant zone, similarly but also distinctly is of like character to and trends towards full anarchic chaos aka anarchy.
I hope your collective can see the balance I am seeking to achieve: a three-legged stool if you will. It can with difficulty not totally collapse with loss of one or two legs, but cannot stand if all three are knocked out.
And loss of even one leg tends to male it fall.
I have shown, or can reasonably point out that each is distinct, but tends towards the same effect, and that as each aspect moves to anarchic state the degree of anarchic chaos credibly increases, culminating in a case where all three are in that state, ending then at the repeller pole.
The dynamical element is then that there is a tendency to rebound towards the vortex of tyranny.
And yes, the whole model I put up indicates that tyrannical domination is a strong tendency of political systems that has to be deliberately, collectively resisted and restrained, especially in the face of crisis or chaos.
It is in that context that I am pointing out that limited, constitutional democratic government, broader governance and leadership have to be nurtured and guarded, to stabilise it against that tendency.
And, I am implying that that requires a concerned, virtue-minded public characterised by people that share a common identity/heritage, are literate, informed by a free, diverse and responsible press [and I give print priority], soundly understand relevant history, civics and underlying worldviews issues.
And again (with examples):
still you do not acknowledge that in interests of clarity I shifted usage to a rarer but key word for the scales, anarchic something like eight days back once I realised that the original diagram was prone to misinterpretation or misunderstanding, also putting in a point on the state scale, the fair-minded state with a citation of Magna Carta that amplifies. I suggest that any definitional authority that holds that absence of an institutional state and so of its power equals anarchy is wrong. There is no current international state with global power and there is no recognised global political leader [never mind what some may think of the UN . . . ] but a corpus of international law with roots in ius gentium shows that the situation is not anarchy, aka the chaotic war of all against all with shifting coalitions from moment to moment to gang up against the latest victim. To an extent it is anarchic, trending to break down, but it is not anarchy. Similarly, at national level, there may be bodies of oral or even written law restraining outright anarchy in the face of absence or breakdown of state power and recognised leadership. But in such inherently unstable conditions, the trend is for someone to want to seize power and create a state apparatus that gives unrestricted control, usually in the name of restoring order.
Dictionary:
CED:
-ic
suffix forming adjectives
1. of, relating to, or resembling See also -ical: allergic; Germanic; periodic.
2. (Elements & Compounds) (in chemistry) indicating that an element is chemically combined in the higher of two possible valence states Compare -ous2: ferric; stannic.
[from Latin -icus or Greek -ikos; -ic also occurs in nouns that represent a substantive use of adjectives (magic) and in nouns borrowed directly from Latin or Greek (critic, music)]
AmHD:
an·ar·chic (?n-är?k?k) or an·ar·chi·cal (-k?-k?l)
adj.
1.
a. Of, like, or supporting anarchy: anarchic oratory.
b. Likely to produce or result in anarchy.
2. Lacking order or control: an anarchic state of affairs in the office; an anarchic mobile sculpture.
an·ar?chi·cal·ly adv.
I think that the reasonable and reasonably attentive person can see what is going on, and why I have had to say this is a strawman fallacy being insisted upon because of underlying hostility to the dynamic analysis being offered, not any grave fault in the dynamics and underlying insights on history itself.
This is of course reflective of the much wider pattern of all too common objector behaviour in the debates over design theory: distractive red herrings, led away to strawman caricatures, typically soaked in ad hominems and ignited in ways that cloud, confuse poison and polarise the atmosphere for discussion and understanding.
KFkairosfocus
August 13, 2015
August
08
Aug
13
13
2015
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT
kairosfocus: you just set up and knocked over a strawman caricature of what I have said.
Our objection is with your cube. You have admitted that even though your cube shows “three distinct specific scales” in three distinct specific dimensions, you aren’t talking about “three distinct specific scales”. Your cubic analysis is consequently incoherent, and certainly doesn't replace the standard political spectrums as you claimed elsewhere.
Apparently, it's just a sweep of the hand diagram, and not meant to be considered as an actual analysis.Zachriel
August 13, 2015
August
08
Aug
13
13
2015
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
Zachriel, you just set up and knocked over a strawman caricature of what I have said. And still you do not acknowledge that in interests of clarity I shifted usage to a rarer but key word for the scales, anarchic something like eight days back once I realised that the original diagram was prone to misinterpretation or misunderstanding, also putting in a point on the state scale, the fair-minded state with a citation of Magna Carta that amplifies. I suggest that any definitional authority that holds that absence of an institutional state and so of its power equals anarchy is wrong. There is no current international state with global power and there is no recognised global political leader [never mind what some may think of the UN . . . ] but a corpus of international law with roots in ius gentium shows that the situation is not anarchy, aka the chaotic war of all against all with shifting coalitions from moment to moment to gang up against the latest victim. To an extent it is anarchic, trending to break down, but it is not anarchy. Similarly, at national level, there may be bodies of oral or even written law restraining outright anarchy in the face of absence or breakdown of state power and recognised leadership. But in such inherently unstable conditions, the trend is for someone to want to seize power and create a state apparatus that gives unrestricted control, usually in the name of restoring order. KFkairosfocus
August 13, 2015
August
08
Aug
13
13
2015
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
MW3:
Thanks for making an effort to work through and respond.
I would suggest that two many radical proposals turn on their being no morally governed core responsible freedom and stable nature for humanity.
My response pivots on Lincoln: saying the tail of a sheep is a leg and insisting, therefore a sheep has five legs and you are an ignoramus or worse to question the redefinition, is patent folly.
A tail cannot properly function as a leg as it hath not the characteristics or nature of a leg.
Yes, sometimes, saying A is A is an important thing to do when many are caught up in the press of the demand that NOT-A be accepted as A.
Just so, playing at word games, manipulation, pushing agendas under false colour of law and intimidation of those who question or object are collectively a march of folly.
Yet another.
The poor deluded sheep who surrenders one of his real legs in hopes of using the tail as a leg is doomed to fail.
Word magic cannot work in the face of hard reality, but it may well lead the manipulated into a march of folly that someone hopes to profit from.
It is time for sound thinking.
And BTW, in the Jidaeo-Christian context, one of the reasons why the GR is set in the prior context of another moral principle of like order -- to love and serve the inherently good Creator God whole-heartedly and whole-mindedly -- is that it sets response to the needs and claimed rights of neighbour in the light of our evident nature as responsibly free embodied human beings created in family (male, female, husband, wife, mother, father and children) for community and nationhood under God.
Notice, Jesus said that the Law and the Prophets hung on BOTH these commandments.
VJT makes a key point in a parallel thread that in effect as God is the necessary being root of reality, without him, there is no reality of a world with morally governed creatures, so no world to then talk about anything goes amorality.
The is-ought gap issue goes deep indeed.
To the root of reality.
KFkairosfocus
August 13, 2015
August
08
Aug
13
13
2015
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
kairosfocus: irrelevant to my query.
Your query? You posted a cube, which shows “three distinct specific scales” in three distinct specific dimensions. After nine days of discussion, you now claim that, even though your cube shows “three distinct specific scales” in three distinct specific dimensions, that you aren't talking about “three distinct specific scales".
kairosfocus: (a) absence of state power is of like character to and trends towards full anarchic chaos aka anarchy,
Absence of state power is anarchy, by definition. In political science, anarchy isn't necessarily chaotic, such as in anarcho-capitalism.Zachriel
August 13, 2015
August
08
Aug
13
13
2015
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT
Zachriel,
irrelevant to my query.
In response to your collective's earlier point I adjusted to clarify, shifting -- within a day IIRC -- to the rarer word, anarchic.
Precisely to imply that separately:
(a) absence of state power is of like character to and trends towards full anarchic chaos aka anarchy,
(b) absence of law is similarly but distinctly is of like character to and trends towards full anarchic chaos aka anarchy,
(c) absence of effective overall political leadership in a relevant zone, similarly but also distinctly is of like character to and trends towards full anarchic chaos aka anarchy.
I hope your collective can see the balance I am seeking to achieve: a three-legged stool if you will. It can with difficulty not totally collapse with loss of one or two legs, but cannot stand if all three are knocked out.
And loss of even one leg tends to male it fall.
I have shown, or can reasonably point out that each is distinct, but tends towards the same effect, and that as each aspect moves to anarchic state the degree of anarchic chaos credibly increases, culminating in a case where all three are in that state, ending then at the repeller pole.
The dynamical element is then that there is a tendency to rebound towards the vortex of tyranny.
And yes, the whole model I put up indicates that tyrannical domination is a strong tendency of political systems that has to be deliberately, collectively resisted and restrained, especially in the face of crisis or chaos.
It is in that context that I am pointing out that limited, constitutional democratic government, broader governance and leadership have to be nurtured and guarded, to stabilise it against that tendency.
And, I am implying that that requires a concerned, virtue-minded public characterised by people that share a common identity/heritage, are literate, informed by a free, diverse and responsible press [and I give print priority], soundly understand relevant history, civics and underlying worldviews issues.
Especially in a day when such are under relentless attack by ruthless radical agendas.
KFkairosfocus
August 13, 2015
August
08
Aug
13
13
2015
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT
kairosfocus: why do you continue to insist on something that is not so, actually never was given that I spoke to states on three distinct specific scales?
Because your cube shows "three distinct specific scales" in three distinct specific dimensions. Otherwise, there's no point to the diagram.Zachriel
August 13, 2015
August
08
Aug
13
13
2015
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT
Took a lot longer than anticipated to get through all of the comments and some of the links, but I'd like to contribute an albeit abridged reply to those commenters and fellow lurkers who might be content to ground their version of the GR in "Rational" moralism. I'd echo the defenders of an objective Lawgiver and the resulting categorical imperatives. Grounding one's morality in the hope of fairness that the GR will magically or "karmically" produce reciprocity does not then also justify one's oughtness. This is really only glorified selfishness...yes, I know the charge has been made that Christian morality is also based on a fear of punishment, but that charge is groundless...and uniquely so in Judeo-Christianity....I'll get to that.
DRC466 made my point in part by asking by whose OUGHT should we operate...the introvert or the extrovert...the stoic or the hedonist...is the hermit safe from the GR? I'd suggest going no further than today's politics to prove the point. We find three great examples of groundless morality wreaking havoc on modern society.
The theory was posed that ethics/societal GR laws are a product of history and comparative analysis of cultures...that a community evolves through survival to apply consensus when approaching morality...or better consensus of cultures on what "evil" ought to be avoided to live together.
Three examples:
Abortion- both sides of the argument believe themselves to be following the GR. Pro-abortionists would appeal to the universal freedom of choice. To prevent a woman from having an abortion would violate the GR. Pro-lifers would argue that one cannot have choice without first having the right to life, and simple volitional choice is constrained in many ways in a republic of laws, especially one grounded as KF has more than adequately demonstrated...murder being one of the biggies constrained by law!
LGBTQ.../redefinition of marriage- both sides again believe themselves to be following the GR. Pro-alternative lifestyle folks would conjure something reduced to, at best, "live and let live", and, at worst, "all behavior is equally moral/amoral." To deny or disapprove of anything outside of male/female reproductive sexuality violates their GR. Those opposed to anti-hetero behavior argue that family as defined by the "live and let live" is destroyed, and society will soon follow....further that their GR would require they seek to help those in an anti-hetero situation as the behavior is viewed as sado-masochistic...that they would also wish others would help them out of their sado-masochistic behavior. Of course, logically, if survival is the grounding for GR, then all non-hetero behavior is, at base, anti-evolutionary, as no progeny equals extinction...no society...no GR to glean...and, therefore, evil...at least according to above "rational moral" view.
Marxism- Throngs of brainwashed kids are flocking to Bernie Sanders' unabashed Socialist flag-flying. Marxist GR would be "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." Marx grounded his GR on an oughtness, a twisted pseudo-scientific rationale, to be sure. The supporter would argue that it's right or not evil to take the fruits of another man's labor, especially for survival, while the one who's property is taken would argue that this violates his own GR in that he has a right to keep what he has earned from his labors. I realize that I'm oversimplifying here, but the point is quite clear.
If you cannot ground your GR in an objective truth, subjectivity breeds disagreement, dissenting opinions on who's GR is the right GR, as DRC466 was pointing out.
Back to the selfishness in Christian morality. KF mentioned it, but I'll expand slightly on this point. Christianity has two modes of existence after death: eternity with God, eternity without God. Our behavior, our assent to a moral code has no bearing on which condition we will find ourselves. We do not fear Hell in the sense that a murderer fears death row or torture. The root of the Christian message is that Christ paid the penalty that, without that payment, would have meant that ALL would be eternally separate from God...ALL would have fallen short having done what we thought was good in our own eyes, in our own sophisticated little GR. A Christian's "rewards" are a resultant perseverance while still in this world, a conscious act of conforming our will to God's Will because we desire it, not out of fear or selfishness but of thanksgiving and graciousness.
It was asked why should the wallet finder's friend be convinced just because the God of the Bible says so. One poster here said he would need God to come to him face-to face and tell him what's what. My belief in the Bible is derived in the main from calls to authenticity by prophesy....the only way besides a face-to-face that has any true validation.
God agrees with your skepticism.
Modern man has been content to seek out wisdom and knowledge from ancient texts, to rely on them for building up societies and their expression of their GR. Would you deny the prophesies of the Bible the same respect? In one-way linear time, God gave many men words of predictive authentication. They objectively predicted events in very specific terms, terms that, if found to be objectively untrue, would be objective proof worthy of incredulity and stoning. So, assumptions over the subjectivity of Christianity is objectively groundless...unless you would choose to deny all of history simply because it didn't happen to you, face-to-face.
I would agree with the poster that much of the emanations from modern GRs across the world are found to be universal, to have been separately derived in disparate cultures. God agrees with that as well. Natural law is said to have been "written on the hearts of man." Written, but not grounded on man. Man is but that which has been written upon. And, we choose to base our oughts quite often on what we think is good in our own eyes.
The hermit busy in the woods cutting off his leg for pleasure is still doing evil even if he believes he wouldn't ever interfere if he one day came upon another hermit doing the same.mugwump3
August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
11:36 PM
11
11
36
PM
PDT
Zachriel, why do you continue to insist on something that is not so, actually never was given that I spoke to states on three distinct specific scales? (I long since conceded that a confusion was possible and so chose a much less common word to mark the distinction more clearly and modified the diagram, as has been repeatedly stated to you, to absolutely no effect.) KF
PS: Likewise where did you ever get the idea that I suggested or said that a monarch ruling by decree represents an anarchic state rather than the opposite end of the scale, i.e. law based on decree? (I would take it that decrees have legal force in areas where a monarch holds effective power. We may not like the how of the law but that is law not its absence.)kairosfocus
August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT
kairosfocus: I would suggest that anarchy (and much as I already clipped from relevant dictionaries) implies absence of state, effective framework of law, and accepted or de facto leadership.
So it requires all three, and that means that each dimension can't have an end-point in anarchy. Your cubic analysis is inconsistent.
kairosfocus: That is no effective governmental services [note my emphasis], leading to chaos.
In political theory, anarchy is not the same as chaos. Such positions include anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism, for instance.Zachriel
August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
SS,
First, rational is not a synonym for materialistic, indeed it can be shown that materialism is self-referentally incoherent.
Next, the issue is to ground not to articulate, OUGHTNESS.
What is harm, what is evil, why i/l/o what they are, are they unacceptable, ought-nots?
Why should X acknowledge SS' scheme of ought-nots, and obey them? To earn brownie points from SS and those like him? To hopefully avoid retaliation? To seek to spark reciprocity?
Especially, where X has enough power that SS' views can be brushed aside, what claim do they have on X?
(In short you are implicitly assuming what you need to ground: why we are under moral government of OUGHT. You seem to acknowledge the government, but have no adequate foundation for it. To adequately ground it, you need a world-foundational IS . . . something that is necessarily there if a world IS, and which is simultaneously a source of good and ought. Otherwise, you will forever be bringing in a groundless OUGHT, in effect begging the question.)
KFkairosfocus
August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT
Zachriel, I would suggest that anarchy (and much as I already clipped from relevant dictionaries) implies absence of state, effective framework of law, and accepted or de facto leadership. That is no effective governmental services [note my emphasis], leading to chaos. Absence of one or more of these factors is anarchic, but not as bad as the case where all three are missing. And, as I put it a monarch ruling by decree is not equal to an absence of law. The monarchy implies presence of leadership, may imply at least first elements of a state sector, and power of decree would imply at least emerging law, though that may well be tyrannical. That is sufficient for relevant purposes. KFkairosfocus
August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT
drc466, I appreciate your comments @52. For myself, I am very doubtful about both of your axioms. But that is a discussion for another time.
I do have a definition of ‘good’ but it never came up before in this thread.
I don’t think there is any OBJECTIVE definition of ‘good’ THAT WE KNOW OF. You may think your definition is objective, but only because that is your subjective preference. It’s not objective just because you are really, really sure it is.
Only a god would be able to tell me the objective definition of ‘good’, and no god has ever spoken to me. Everything I know about gods comes from humans whom we should not trust too much.
Let me repost (with a few edits) something I’ve posted on this site before:
A Rational Moral System
First of all, I prefer the term rational moral system, not “materialistic ...” and I will refer to it that way here.
The “materialistic” beginnings of a moral system are very basic: we are material, living creatures who are vulnerable to injuries, age, ignorance, and other weaknesses. Nature has made us social creatures that generally do best living in stable communities. We are capable of acquiring some knowledge and some foresight. All simple facts.
Theists frequently assert that if there were no deity, there could be no morality. But it is useful to flip that over: given the moral systems we have, if there are no deities, where did these moral systems come from? Absent any deity, they are most likely the product of tens of thousands of years of experience humans have dealing with the problems of living together in families, clans, tribes, and communities.
Differences in moral systems can be understood simply as the different solutions different cultures came up with to solve the moral issues that all human communities experience. Rational persons have come to expect natural processes to be characterized by a certain degree of variation. Absent any deity the process of creating moral systems is entirely natural.
Many people focus on the differences between these various moral systems and determine that there’s little useful to learn from their comparisons. Others focus on the things these moral systems do have in common and find the basis of a rational, debiased “natural law” system. I favor that last approach myself.
There occurs a long, complex story of comparative religion, psychology (how the mind works) and sociology (how humans and communities behave). This forum does not need the burden of that here, only the results matter here.
The net result:
I believe there are just two basic rules to any valid, rational moral system:
1. Do No Evil. (Evil is defined below).
2. Do unto others that which you would have them do unto you. This is the Golden Rule, of course
Evil is any act with respect to another person which
1. causes or threatens to cause Harm,
2. is Intentional and
3. is Unnecessary.
Harm: any physical injury, financial loss, or impairment of liberty; or a substantial risk of any of these against the express consent of the one harmed or placed at risk.
Intentional: includes premeditation, recklessness, or unreasonable negligence.
Unnecessary: not justified by mitigation or prevention of other, greater harms or injustice; nor justified by the uncoerced and knowing consent of the one harmed.
There was a time when I would add at this point that this morality “probably covers more than 80% of genuine evil”. But so far, no one has ever given me an example of some obviously evil act that would escape these rules, so now I will say that these rules cover more than 90% of all genuine evil.
It is a good starting point. I do not claim it is complete. Suggestions will be considered.
Having defined Evil, what is Good? Good is a category of not-evil behaviors and results which are not generally definable beyond saying that good is a non-overlapping set with evil. What is evil is never good, what is “good” for X might not be “good” for Y. Obviously there can exist a large category of behaviors and results which are not clearly good, but are not evil.
Objective definitions of “good” are a mirage because even things that seem obviously good (necessities like food, water, air, shelter, security) can become not-good by being excessive or restricting or otherwise harmful. Which leaves us with: what makes something “good” simply has no generally applicable, objective answer; every person has a right (a liberty) to decide that for themselves. As long as they Do No Evil, they have a right to decide for themselves what is the good.
Definitions of “good” are usually reducible to “something not bad”. Generally that is a good-enough definition. There is a reason that the most commonly shared moral concepts are best characterized as “Thou shalt not”s. It is often clearer to simply determine what to avoid or prohibit than to try to list all the things we must or should do.
Worse yet, seeking an “objective” definition of good is often a pretext to evil: “objective good” can be used as a weapon with which to deprive others of their liberties (which is a harm). Compelling others to do things because someone claims these things are “objectively good” is a key to tyranny. Forbidding evil behaviors is clearer and less prone to abuse.
This is as far as I am going to go for now. If I had more time, I’d write something briefer. Most of the above is just cut and paste with a bit of editing to clean it up or fit it to the context of this thread. Basically, this is nothing new.
Please notice that none of this relies on or even considers “personal preferences”. Morality is not about wants, it’s about needs.
I invite your comments.
sean s.sean samis
August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
kairosfocus: many monarchs did not/do not play the absolutist tyrant
Nonetheless, it's not anarchy.
That doesn't address the issues we raised with your cubic analysis. We even numbered the points so you couldn't miss them.
1. The standard usage of anarchy in political science is “absence of government”, consistent with other such terms, such as monarchy, oligarchy, ochlocracy.
2. You failed to clarify your usage. You provided a bunch of definitions without saying which one you meant.
3. Your usage in your cubic analysis seems to be inconsistent, with anarchy meaning one thing on one dimension, another on a different dimension.
You’ve also agreed that you can have a state without law, such as a king who makes decisions on a case-by-case basis, Solomon-style. If it’s a monarchy, then it’s not anarchy!
an-arch, no ruler
mon-arch, one ruler
We’ve suggested a few changes that would make your cubic analysis coherent, which you have also ignored.Zachriel
August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT
ss @48,
I initially had a much longer post, where basically I point out that your responses never answer the question, "why is reciprocity 'right'" (to use your word). However, I deleted most of it so as not to lose focus on my main response, kept here:
In fairness, ss, I believe I understand your viewpoint - my axioms are "God IS" and "The Bible is His Word", while your axiom is "reciprocity is a good thing". Where we will have to agree to disagree, though, is that I am pretty sure I can provide significant evidence and support for both of my axioms, while I don't believe you can for yours - because you don't even have an objective definition of good. Which is the missing OUGHT.drc466
August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
01:22 AM
1
01
22
AM
PDT
Brent @35
I think an easy way to see that the Golden Rule is not morality itself is to take any one of the moral imperatives and flip it. So, say that selfishness is moral instead of unselfishness. Would the Golden Rule change? No. We would simply think that being selfish was a part of doing unto others . . .
Two things:
1. The GR is not a full morality of itself; I’ve never said it was. I’m prepared to discuss that if you like.
2. If you flip moral imperatives then even the theistic rule will fail. If selfishness is regarded as mandated by God, then selfishness will be morally required.
Look at, for instance, basketball and American football. They both have rules that say you must not go out of bounds. The GR equivalent would be, say, “Don’t step on the white line”...
Since the GR is about reciprocity, the GR in basketball or football would be a rule that both teams have to follow all the rules.
sean s.sean samis
August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT
kairosfocus @29,
The problem is that [the GR] itself is not foundational, it is not a world-root IS that grounds OUGHT.
You have said things to this effect many times and in many different ways, but the factual nature of our human needs is as foundational as anything can be. You ask this question many times and they mean nothing greater than what I propose. An obligation founded in the reality of the human condition is as well-grounded as any could be.
Ask, why OUGHT we to recognise, respect, love and treat neighbour as self — apart from fear of retaliation etc?
tintinnid answered this well @42.
We ought to recognize, respect, love, and treat our neighbors well because that encourages them to do the same to us. Reciprocity and the GR is not about fear of retribution as much as it’s about setting a good example for others.
Where does moral government come from beyond might and manipulation make ‘right’? That is a far deeper issue.
Moral government comes from doing what’s right because it is right and because we want others to do right. The GR councils doing right not out of fear of retaliation but because we cannot expect others to treat us better than we treat them; we do good to encourage others to do likewise.
@44, kairosfocus replied to tintinnid:
We may invite reciprocity, but in fact such and remonstrance are too often not enough, and do not serve as a ground for OUGHT.
This requires an explanation. It makes no sense. Appeals to God’s moral commands have proven inadequate quite often.
Continuing @29, kairosfocus wrote,
But at this point we see that we have not bridged from IS to OUGHT at world-foundation level.
I think, in this matter you are seeking after something that really does not matter that much. These distinctions may matter to ivory tower types, but in the rough and tumble of real life, they matter little or not at all. Reciprocity and the GR bridge the is-ought gap quite well.
@33 kairosfocus wrote,
...why should we respect their rights [of others] beyond fear of retaliation is an issue that sets aside nihilism and also points deeper.
Forget retaliation. We should respect our neighbors’ rights because we cannot hope to have ours safe if theirs are not. That is not fear of retaliation; it is recognition of our mutual interests.
(Onlookers: A candidate, BTW, for which it is not to be overlooked that no objectors have put up a serious alternative.)
This is flatly false. You spend much time commenting on my suggestion; that shows it is a serious option. You don’t like it, but that’s just your preference.
@34 kairosfocus wrote,
... a good test case. Why OUGHT we to act towards neighbour with an intent to cherish and nurture, instead of doing what we can readily get away with.
Because that is how we want to be treated (to be cherished and nurtured), and how we want others to behave; so we are obligated to act that way ourselves.
sean s.sean samis
August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT
tintinnid @32
DRC466, how is your IS-OUGHT gap any different if there is an “objective” moral OUGHT mandated by god?
It’s really not.
And that’s not to mention that there is NO OBJECTIVE MORAL RIGHT unless God tells this to you face-to-face. Otherwise it is just the opining of other humans.
sean s.sean samis
August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT
drc466 @24
1) What is the foundation for the GR, other than “sounds good to me?” ...
“Sounds good to me” is nothing like the GR. “Sounds good to me” is “Do unto others as you please”; not “... as you want them to do unto you.” Based on your other examples, you don’t understand the GR.
2) “Reciprocity” fails as a moral foundation, for the simple reason that no two people want the same thing for themselves. ...
Again: you don’t understand the GR. It’s not about what people want or prefer; the GR is about what people need or need to avoid.
There is no moral requirement to engage in conversation or to remain silent. Obviously it’s wrong for one person to badger another for anything less than necessity. Again, if you actually understood the GR you’d not pose such irrelevant or trivial questions.
3) The GR fails to define morality at a group level, and at the “tough love” level. How do you impose a system of punishment as “morally good”...
You overlook the facts. If only the criminal’s position is considered (or only the victim’s), then no system of punishment is morally tenable. But the full truth is that none of us would want someone who harmed us to escape unpunished, so reciprocity demands we accept punishment if we do wrong.
5) The GR misses an entire subset of IS-OUGHT considerations. What about when no other individual is involved? ...
Animals are “other individuals”; their life-needs are as considerable to us as the life-needs of other humans. The moral quandary of eating animals has no easy answer. Even Christians struggle with that one. I am sure you have a definite answer, but many Christians do not.
As for the infliction of harm on one’s self, unless you are a hermit there are others whose lives are affected by your actions; the GR commands consideration of their welfare.
Likewise, since no sane person would want to be abandoned to their fate if they became mentally ill, the GR commands that society not do so.
All that said, if our lives are ours, then those who desire to harm themselves and whose sanity is not otherwise in doubt (if such a thing is even possible) have the right to do with themselves as they wish.
@31, you asked a question ending with:
He asks you why. You tell him he should follow the GR. He asks you why, again. What do you tell him?
Since it’s well established that you don’t understand the GR, let me explain: I’d tell my friend that that if I lost this wallet I’d want it returned, and so would he in that situation. None of us can expect others to return our wallet to us if we are not willing to return their wallet to them.
You might tell him he should obey the bible and return it. He asks you why, again. What do you tell him?
The GR is not an OUGHT. An OUGHT is still necessary, unless you think no-one in the world will ever ask you, “Why?”
We ought to do what’s right because we cannot expect others to do right if we are not willing to do it ourselves. That’s just another way of rendering the GR.
sean s.sean samis
August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT
Zachriel, many monarchs did not/do not play the absolutist tyrant, historically they tend to fit with oligarchic systems and bodies of law accumulated much as Justinian's Jurisconsults summarised . . . often, based on that very work. And yes, across time decrees necessarily will frame a legal system as the need for precedent and delegation arises, but that is down the line from rule by decree case by case that begins the process. Actually Exodus 18, famously, shows that in action, with the Israelites -- though Moshe had been trained as a prince of Egypt. KFkairosfocus
August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT
kairosfocus: Absence of a state is anarchic indeed, but one can have law and leadership (especially on the way to state formation).
Yes.
kairosfocus: And if a monarch rules by decree that is a form of law
By that standard, your dimensions are not independent. In any case, if a monarch rules each case ad hoc, then it is not law as normally construed.Zachriel
August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
F/N 3: Cicero in his The Laws, echoing Plato's method of a dialogue on The Laws, opening remarks in which he goes to the heart of law and lawfulness:
____________
http://www.nlnrac.org/classical/cicero/documents/de-legibus
>> . . . M: And indeed correctly. For recognize that in no subject of argument are more honorable things brought into the open: what nature has granted to a human being, how many of the best things the human mind encompasses, what service we have been born for and brought into light to perform and accomplish, what is the connection among human beings, and what natural fellowship there is among them. When these things have been explained, the source of laws and right can be discovered.
[17] A: So you don’t think that the discipline of law should be drawn from the praetor’s edict, as many do now, or from the Twelve Tables [archaic set of basic Roman laws], as earlier men did, but from within the profoundest philosophy?
M: In fact, Pomponius, in this conversation we are not seeking how to safeguard interests in law [ius], or how to respond to each consultation. That thing may be a great matter, and it is, which formerly was undertaken by many famous men and is now undertaken by one man of the highest authority and knowledge [Servius Sulpicius]. But in this debate we must embrace the entire cause of universal right and laws, so that what we call civil law [ius] may be confined to a certain small, narrow place. We must explain the nature of law [ius], and this must be traced from human nature. We must consider laws by which cities ought to be ruled. Then we must treat the laws [ius] and orders of peoples that have been composed and written, in which what are called the civil laws [ius] of our people will not be hidden.
[18] Q: Truly, brother, you trace deeply and, as is proper, from the fountain head of what we are asking about. Those who hand down the civil law [ius] differently are handing down not so much ways of justice as ways of litigating.
M: That is not so, Quintus: ignorance of the law [ius] is conducive to more lawsuits than knowledge of it. But this later; now let us see the beginnings of law [ius].
Therefore, it has pleased highly educated men to commence with law—probably correctly, provided that, as the same men define it, law is highest reason, implanted in nature, which orders those things that ought to be done and prohibits the opposite. The same reason is law when it has been strengthened and fully developed in the human mind. [19] And so they think that law is prudence, the effect of which is to order persons to act correctly and to forbid them to transgress. They also think that this thing has been called [from] the Greek name for “granting to each his own,” whereas I think it comes from our word for “choosing.” As they put the effect of fairness into law, we put the effect of choice into it. Nevertheless, each one is appropriate to law. But if it is thus correctly said, as indeed it mostly and usually seems to me, the beginning of right should be drawn from law. For this is a force of nature; this is the mind and reason of the prudent man; this is the rule of right and wrong. But since our entire speech is for the people’s business, sometimes it will be necessary to speak popularly and to call that a law which, when written, consecrates what it wants by either ordering [or forbidding], as the crowd calls it. In fact let us take the beginning of establishing right from the highest law, which was born before any law was written for generations in common [corrupt text here] or before a city was established at all . . . >>
____________
Law as the rule of justice in light of our evident nature, evident to the rational, responsibly free, which properly guides conduct. Which is then more or less well echoed in our understanding and legislation or rulings, precedents etc.
Whence, the general respect for the corpus of decisions rendered across time as embodying more or less a working replica.
But, open to genuine reform, not the mere push and pull of might and manipulation make 'right.'
KFkairosfocus
August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
TT: We may invite reciprocity, but in fact such and remonstrance are too often not enough, and do not serve as a ground for OUGHT. The only thing that will fill the required bill of characteristics post Euthyphro [is the good merely the caprice of the gods backed up by their will to power or is it independent of the gods? . . . ], is an IS that is necessary, is world-foundational and inextricably intertwines both IS and OUGHT or more properly the goodness that is the fountainhead of ought; this points to necessary, maximally great and root of being. It is not just Hume who lurks in these waters. KFkairosfocus
August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT
TT: I abide by the broken window theory. Opening the door a crack to those inclined to pull discussion down into a sewer in a highly contentious context is not sound. KFkairosfocus
August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
KF: "Ask, why OUGHT we to recognise, respect, love and treat neighbour as self — apart from fear of retaliation etc? Where does moral government come from beyond might and manipulation make ‘right’? That is a far deeper issue."
Yes, fear of retaliation is one aspect of it. But I notice that you conveniently ignore the possibility of reciprocity. My neighbour is more likely to respect my property if I respect his. We have brains that allow us to reason. I know that I am more likely to lead a pleasant existence if I am pleasant towards others. It's not rocket science.
How we behave in society will influence how we are treated. I don't see any IS-OUGHT gap here.
"[snip-language warning, KF]"
Are you serious? The term I used is not considered bad language. It is just a different way of saying "nonsense". But it's your OP and your rules. I will respect them.tintinnid
August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
FYI, Avi Sion -- always worth a read or two: http://www.thelogician.net/ -- on the IS-ought issue:
___________
http://www.thelogician.net/6_reflect/6_Book_1/6a_chapter_07.htm
>>Hume questions the possibility of deriving prescriptive statements, which tell us what we ought to do or not do, from descriptive statements, which tell us the way things are or are not. The distinction between these two sorts of statement is in his opinion so radical that one cannot be reduced to the other. This means effectively that moral or ethical propositions have no formal basis in fact, i.e. they cannot be claimed as true in an absolute sense. There is no logical way, in his view, to deduce or induce an “ought” from an “is”.
Prescriptive statements are then, according to Hume, at best just practical advice on how to pursue our self-interest and the interests of the people we value (or more broadly, sympathize or empathize with). This is a kind of pragmatism or utilitarianism, in lieu of heavier moral notions of duty or obligation. In this way, ethics is made essentially amoral – an issue of convenience, a mere description of the ways we might best pursue our arbitrary values. The implication is one of relativism and convention . . . .
The issue raised is primarily formal. What are prescriptive propositions and how do they relate to descriptive ones? The obvious answer to the question would be that prescriptions relate ends to means. I ought to do (or not-do) this if I want to (or not-to) obtain or attain that. The ‘ought’ (or ‘should’ or ‘must’) modality is essentially the bond in a specific kind of if-then proposition, with a desire or ‘value’ as antecedent and an action or ‘virtue’ as consequent.
Such if-then propositions are not themselves descriptive, but are deductively derived from descriptive forms. When we say “if we want so and so, then thus and thus is the way to get it”, we are affirming that “thus and thus” is/are cause(s) of “so and so”[2]. The latter is a factual claim, which may be true or false. It follows that the prescriptive statement can also be judged true or false, at least in respect of the correctness of the connection implied between its antecedent and consequent . . . .
But how can we ever know whether any of our values are valuable in an absolute sense? This is Hume’s query, and it is quite valid. But his conclusion that values are formally bound to be arbitrary (i.e. cannot be deduced from plain facts) is open to challenge.
Our task is to show that we can arrive somehow at categorical imperatives[3], i.e. ethical standards that can ground and justify all subsequent conditional imperatives. One conceivable way to do so is to use a dilemmatic argument: ‘Whether you want this or that or anything else, the pursuit of so and so would in any case be a precondition’.
Something is an absolute value if it is necessary to the pursuit of any and all arbitrary values one personally opts for. A relative value can be by-passed in the pursuit of other relative values, but an absolute value is one presupposed in every pursuit and must therefore be respected unconditionally.
Are there any such absolute values? Clearly, yes. An obvious such value is life itself: if one lacks life, one cannot pursue anything else; therefore life must be protected and enhanced. Another absolute value is the self – if the soul is the source of all our actions, good or bad, then the soul’s welfare is an absolute value. Whatever one wants, one needs the physiological and psychological means that make such pursuit at all possible – viz. one’s bodily and mental faculties. And most of all, one needs to be present oneself!
These are obvious examples. What do they teach us? If we wish to understand, use and validate ethical propositions, we have to realize what makes all such discourse possible and necessary. A simple illustration and proof of that is that if I tell you ‘don’t follow any ethical doctrine’, I am uttering an ethical doctrine, and therefore committing a self-contradiction.
Ethical propositions do not apply to inanimate objects. They apply only to living beings, because only such entities have anything to win or lose. But to apply them to all living beings is not correct, for though plants, insects and lower animals can objectively be said by us to have values, their functioning is either automatic or instinctive, and they cannot understand or voluntarily apply ethics . . . . to engage at all in ethical discourse, humans have to study and take into consideration their nature, their true identity. They have to realize their biological and spiritual nature, the nature of their physical-mental organism and the nature of their soul. Moreover, since biology and spirituality relate not just to the individual in isolation, but to larger groups and to society as a whole – ethics has to be equally broad in its concerns.
If this large factual background is ignored in the formulation of ethical propositions, one is bound to be arbitrary and sooner or later fall into error.>>
____________
In short, much more there than meets the superficial eye or what one looking for a handy quip would desire.
Ethics is irreducibly complex (and sometimes abstruse) and engages issues as to whether we are responsibly free, have essential natures, have generic purpose and particular calling (that stuff a bout a right of pursuit of happiness) and more.
And in a civil society context, the civil peace of justice is right in the middle of these issues.
Food for thought,
KFkairosfocus
August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
F/N 2: The opening words of the Institutes, too often omitted in online presentations thereof:
_______________
>>Prooemium
In the Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ
The Emperor Caesar Flavius Justinian, conqueror of the Alamanni, the Goths, the Franks, the Germans, the Antes, the Alani, the Vandals, the Africans, pious, prosperous, renowned, victorious, and triumphant, ever august,
To the youth desirous of studying the law:
The imperial majesty should be armed with laws as well as glorified with arms, that there may be good government in times both of war and of peace, and the ruler of Rome may not only be victorious over his enemies, but may show himself as scrupulously regardful of justice as triumphant over his conquered foes.
With deepest application and forethought, and by the I blessing of God, we have attained both of these objects. The barbarian nations which we have subjugated know our valour, Africa and other provinces without number being once more, after so long an interval, reduced beneath the sway of Rome by victories granted by Heaven, and themselves bearing witness to our dominion. All peoples too are ruled by laws which we have either enacted or arranged. Having removed every inconsistency from the sacred constitutions, hitherto inharmonious and confused, we extended our care to the immense volumes of the older jurisprudence; and, like sailors crossing the midocean, by the favour of Heaven have now completed a work of which we once despaired. When this, with God's blessing, had been done, we called together that distinguished man Tribonian, master and ex-quaestor of our sacred palace, and the illustrious Theophilus and Dorotheus, professors of law, of whose ability, legal knowledge, and trusty observance of our orders we have received many and genuine proofs, and specially commissioned them to compose by our authority and advice a book of Institutes, whereby you may be enabled to learn your first lessons in law no longer from ancient fables, but to grasp them by the brilliant light of imperial learning, and that your ears and minds may receive nothing useless or incorrect, but only what holds good in actual fact. And thus whereas in past time even the foremost of you were unable to read the imperial constitutions until after four years, you, who have been so honoured and fortunate as to receive both the beginning and the end of your legal teaching from the mouth of the Emperor, can now enter on the study of them without delay. After the completion therefore of the fifty books of the Digest or Pandects, in which all the earlier law has been collected by the aid of the said distinguished Tribonian and other illustrious and most able men, we directed the division of these same Institutes into four books, comprising the first elements of the whole science of law. In these the law previously obtaining has been briefly stated, as well as that which after becoming disused has been again brought to light by our imperial aid. Compiled from all the Institutes of the ancient jurists, and in particular from the commentaries of our Gaius on both the Institutes and the common cases, and from many other legal works, these Institutes were submitted to us by the three learned men aforesaid, and after reading and examining them we have given them the fullest force of our constitutions.
Receive then these laws with your best powers and with the eagerness of study, and show yourselves so learned as to be encouraged to hope that when you have compassed the whole field of law you may have ability to govern such portion of the state as may be entrusted to you.
Given at Constantinople the 21st day of November, in the third consulate of the Emperor Justinian, Father of his Country, ever august.
Book I
Title I
Of Justice and Law
Justice is the set and constant purpose which gives to every man his due. Jurisprudence is the knowledge of things divine and human, the science of the just and the unjust.
Having laid down these general definitions, and our object being the exposition of the law of the Roman people . . . >>
_______________
If this sounds in many respects like what we see in Alfred's Book of Dooms and even in US Founding Documents, it should.
KF
PS: Of course the question always is to what extent was the Roman Law Christianised, and to what extent was relevant Christian ethics compromised.kairosfocus
August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
06:08 AM
6
06
08
AM
PDT
F/N: Justinian's Institutes, Bk I, Of Persons; from the built-in textbook in Corpus Juris Civilis (as in, a clue as to why I have spoken of a corpus of law as opposed to a Constitution):
_____________
>>II. Natural, Common, and Civil Law.
The law of nature is that law which nature teaches to all animals. For this law does not belong exclusively to the human race, but belongs to all animals, whether of the earth, the air, or the water. Hence comes the union of the male and female, which we term matrimony; hence the procreation and bringing up of children. We see, indeed, that all the other animals besides men are considered as having knowledge of this law. [--> Note, example no 1 of law of nature]
1. Civil law is thus distinguished from the law of nations. Every community governed by laws and customs uses partly its own law, partly laws common to all mankind. The law which a people makes for its own government belongs exclusively to that state and is called the civil law, as being the law of the particular state. But the law which natural reason appoints for all mankind obtains equally among all nations [--> defines law of nature in a legal context and draws out how lawfulness is the application of enlightened reason to circumstances of moral government and support of the civil peace of justice], because all nations make use of it. The people of Rome, then, are governed partly by their own laws, and partly by the laws which are common to all mankind. We will take notice of this distinction as occasion may arise.
2. Civil law takes its name from the state which it governs, as, for instance, from Athens; for it would be very proper to speak of the laws of Solon or Draco as the civil law of Athens. And thus the law which the Roman people make use of is called the civil law of the Romans, or that of the Quirites; for the Romans are called Quirites from Quirinum. But whenever we speak of civil law, without adding the name of any state, we mean our own law; just as the Greeks, when "the poet" is spoken of without any name being expressed, mean the great Homer, and we Romans mean Virgil.
The law of the nations is common to all mankind, for nations have established certain laws, as occasion and the necessities of human life required. Wars arose, and in their train followed captivity and then slavery, which is contrary to the law of nature; for by that law all men are originally born free. Further, by the law of nations almost all contracts were at first introduced, as, for instance, buying and selling, letting and hiring, partnership, deposits, loans returnable in kind, and very many others.
3. Our law is written and unwritten, just as among the Greeks some of their laws were written and others were not written. [--> this is the E, Gk-speaking remaining part of the Roman Empire, 535 AD] The written part consists of leges (lex), plebiscita, senatusconsulta, constitutiones of emperors, edicta of magistrates, and responsa of jurisprudents [i.e., jurists].
4. A lex is that which was enacted by the Roman people on its being proposed by a senatorian magistrate, as a consul. A plebiscitum is that which was enacted by the plebs on its being proposed by a plebeian magistrate, as a tribune. The plebs differ from the people as a species from its genus, for all the citizens, including patricians and senators, are comprehended in the populi (people); but the plebs only included citizens [who were] not patricians or senators. Plebiscita, after the Hortensian law had been passed, began to have the same force as leges.
5. A senatusconsultum is that which the senate commands or appoints: for, when the Roman people was so increased that it was difficult to assemble it together to pass laws, it seemed right that the senate should be consulted in place of the people.
6. That which seems good to the emperor has also the force of law; for the people, by the Lex Regia, which is passed to confer on him his power, make over to him their whole power and authority. Therefore whatever the emperor ordains by rescript, or decides in adjudging a cause, or lays down by edict, is unquestionably law; and it is these enactments of the emperor that are called constitutiones. Of these, some are personal, and are not to be drawn into precedent, such not being the intention of the emperor. Supposing the emperor has granted a favor to any man on account of his merit, or inflicted some punishment, or granted some extraordinary relief, the application of these acts does not extend beyond the particular individual. But the other constitutiones, being general, are undoubtedly binding on all.
7. The edicts of the praetors are also of great authority. These edicts are called the ius honorarium, because those who bear honors [i.e., offices] in the state, that is, the magistrates, have given them their sanction. The curule aediles also used to publish an edict relative to certain subjects, which edict also became a part of the ius honorarium.
8. The answers of the jurisprudenti are the decisions and opinions of persons who were authorized to determine the law. For anciently it was provided that there should be persons to interpret publicly the law, who were permitted by the emperor to give answers on questions of law. They were called jurisconsulti; and the authority of their decision and opinions, when they were all unanimous, was such, that the judge could not, according to the constitutiones, refuse to be guided by their answers. [--> Corpus Juris was drafted as a pruned, somewhat Christianised synthesis at Imperial direction, by Jurisconsults]
9. The unwritten law is that which usage has established; for ancient customs, being sanctioned by the consent of those who adopt them, are like laws.
10. The civil law is not improperly divided into two kinds, for the division seems to have had its origin in the customs of the two states, Athens and Lacedaemon. For in these states it used to be the case, that the Lacedaemonians rather committed to memory what they observed as law, while the Athenians rather observed as law what they had consigned to writing, and included in the body of their laws.
11. The laws of nature, which all nations observe alike, being established by a divine providence, remain ever fixed and immutable. But the laws which every state has enacted, undergo frequent changes, either by the tacit consent of the people, or by a new law being subsequently passed.>>
_____________
I trust this provides some further context of my thought, and a context that is still very much live today in jurisdictions that base law on Roman Law directly or through the further synthesis of Napoleon -- including IIRC Louisiana in the USA due to its French roots. Also, Guyana in the Anglophone Caribbean, likely due to Dutch influence . . . I failed to inquire specifically on that when I was informed, many years past.
The new Caribbean Court of Justice has some very interesting influences and currents.
KFkairosfocus
