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
Zachriel, appeals to empathy, historically, have not been sufficient to ground OUGHT enough to develop or restore the civil peace of justice. Do not forget that there have been within living memory in highly established states, of law that outlawed people deemed subhuman and made them targets of genocide. And empathy is an appeal to relativist, subjective opinion, notoriously inadequate as an IS grounding OUGHT. What ones experience and empathy can do is to open one's eye to see the force of the moral government of ought and what it implies, but that is a very different matter. KFkairosfocus
August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT
Zachriel, The dictionaries cited suffice to make my point. Absence of a state is anarchic indeed, but one can have law and leadership (especially on the way to state formation). I long since indicated that my usage was primarily shaped by history. Once I realised that there would be confusions, I switched to the more specific but unusual term and suffix to fit in with that. Ponder the call made to Samuel the Priest and guardian of the Mosaic legal tradition [law and settlement with leaders emerging from time to time in response to crisis but no institutionalised state: every man did what was right in his own eyes . . . ], for a king; which was actually cited when I quoted the warning he made on how abusive and oppressive a king would become. KF
PS: A Monarchy would be a state, an emerging leader who draws a following towards a state is not the same. And if a monarch rules by decree that is a form of law -- indeed, cases brought to a monarch sitting as judge [think, I appeal from lower magistrates to Caesar's seat of Judgement, maybe 9 years after Gallio's ruling and precedent] are for the purpose of adding to the corpus of law, oral and/or written. An autocratic emerging leader (for instance) can exist in a situation without an existing legal tradition, or in one where there is. If you have enough institutionalisation to have clan elders, convocations of same and oral, customary standard rulings on cases, you have oral law and oligarchy but not a unified state.kairosfocus
August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT
kairosfocus: I am highlighting that your provided definition is not a lock-up.
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.
kairosfocus: have pointed out, no state, no law, no leadership as the relevant anarchic states on each axis.
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, but you don't seem to have your listening ears on.
drc466: He asks you why, again. What do you tell him?
We might appeal to empathy. "How would you feel if someone treated you that way?" However, that only works if the person actually feels empathy, if they place a value on others.Zachriel
August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT
I only have a moment and haven't read all replies yet, but . . .
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 . . .
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". But that would hold equally for both sports, while in fact the lines are drawn in quite different places respectively. "Don't step on the white line," however, isn't the rule itself, but only an easy maxim to help one know how to abide by the rule in any situation.Brent
August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT
DRC, 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. KFkairosfocus
August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
12:59 AM
12
12
59
AM
PDT
TT,
I first must give a warning on language.
Second, it is clear that you did not address the immediately following point:
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.
In short, I pointed to the pivotal issue: grounding, at world-root level.
That is, OUGHT is grounded in root reality, IS, unless it is ultimately a delusion that we find ourselves under the binding duties of OUGHT (as opposed to the IS of how we may actually behave).
Where, such a pervasive delusion would bring us straight into general delusion and collapse of rationality. Such may be set aside on grounds that we have far more confidence in our rationality than in a notion that would undermine it. And in fact, we cannot live on the premise of grand delusion.
Why should we acknowledge others to be as we are, of similar value and holding parallel rights to expect respect is itself an issue, pointing to our ultimate nature. To world-roots.
Linked, why should we respect their rights claims beyond fear of retaliation is an issue that sets aside nihilism and also points deeper.
Where, our choices at root level are infinite regress, circularity or an ultimate. Circularity and infinite regress fail and force us to look to the question of the ultimate. (And onwards, comparative difficulties across major alternatives: factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power being three key points here.)
Which is the point of the question, the IS that grounds OUGHT.
And, on ontological, cosmological, moral and other considerations, the candidate to beat, is patently of ultimate significance and relevance: the inherently good Creator-God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of ultimate loyalty and of the reasonable service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature.
(Onlookers: A candidate, BTW, for which it is not to be overlooked that no objectors have put up a serious alternative.)
KFkairosfocus
August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
12:56 AM
12
12
56
AM
PDT
DRC466, how is your IS-OUGHT gap any different if there is an "objective" moral OUGHT mandated by god? My friend is still just as likely to keep the money whether I tell him the GR suggests that he return it or if god suggests that he return it. Is it possible that GEM's IS-OUGHT is just [snip-language warning, KF], and not of any real value in the real worldtintinnid
August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT
tin,
why do we have to add an extra layer of your IS-OUGHT nonsense to it?
You find a wallet on a crowded street. It contains $500 in cash, along with driver's license, credit cards, etc. The GR would say you give the money back. You do so, because you've decided to follow the GR.
Your friend finds the same wallet. He decides to take the money. You tell him he should give it back. He asks you why. You tell him he should follow the GR. He asks you why, again. What do you tell him?
Regardless of your answer, you've just had to leave the IS, and move to the OUGHT. The GR is not an OUGHT. An OUGHT is still necessary, unless you think no-one in the world will ever ask you, "Why?"drc466
August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT
KF:" The problem is that it itself is not foundational, it is not a world-root IS that grounds OUGHT."
Assertion. Not fact. I asked you to explain why the GR does not bridge this gap. Not to condescend to me because I don't accept your assertion.
If society (secular or otherwise) can not persevere without people more or less following some version of the GR, (which it cant't) why do we have to add an extra layer of your IS-OUGHT nonsense to it? I don't mean to offend, but how wrong can we go if we follow "do unto others as we would have them do unto us"?
If you can provide me an example where this would not work, I would be glad to hear it. Because I have plenty of examples where deviating from this has had dire consequences. Do you really want me to itemize them?tintinnid
August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT
TT, SS' problem is not whether the GR is indeed a good guide to moral life, when informed by some common sense and basic virtue. The problem is that it itself is not foundational, it is not a world-root IS that grounds OUGHT. 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. KF
PS: BTW, in the positive, do good to neighbour as you would have neighbour do to you, in our civilisation, this rule is deeply Judaeo-Christian. But in fact it reflects a creation order law in our hearts that starts from self recognition of responsible freedom and value such that one is owed respect in certain ways that define rights. Justice arises when we realise that others are of like nature, freedom and worth -- itself a serious issue -- so there is a mutuality of duties. Thus the civil peace of justice arises as duly balancing rights, freedoms and responsibilities. But at this point we see that we have not bridged from IS to OUGHT at world-foundation level. Which is the original challenge. And the only serious candidate is as was noted.kairosfocus
August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT
Zachriel, I am highlighting that your provided definition is not a lock-up. KF
PS: You seem insistent on not noticing that to make things more specific thus technically clearer I have switched to anarchic [though that is a less familiar term and -ic is an oddish suffix], and have pointed out, no state, no law, no leadership as the relevant anarchic states on each axis. This from the first. Put the three together and you get full anarchic chaos [full anarchy not just a trend or reflective of etc], the repeller pole. There are sufficient cases in point to show why this makes good sense. Assassination of a ruler is a notorious dirty political move for a reason, for instance. breakdown or absence of law has obvious implications. Likewise, disintegration or absence of a state. Mix all three and things get hairy indeed.kairosfocus
August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus, I admit to not reading Hume, or Locke, or Hooker, or Plato. But I would love to hear you explain the IS-Ought gap without referring to some philosopher. Living or dead.
I think that SS makes many good points. And the golden rule, which is not christian, or judeo-christian in nature, is an excellent one. If I don't want (people to treat me poorly (IS) I should (OUGHT) to treat other people well. To me, this is a requirement of living within society. If I want to try to live "outside" of society, that is my choice. But the consequences to my decision will be decided by society, not religion, or any IS-OUGHT nonsense.tintinnid
August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT
kairosfocus: In short, nope not just absence of a state [in the sense of a government], but including broader absence and breakdown.
Oh, gee whiz. Throwing every possible definition at it is not an argument. When discussing political theory, anarchy refers to the absence of government.
Furthermore, it's clear from your latest comments that your use of the term "anarchy" means something different in each of the three dimensions. No wonder it doesn't make sense! You read the word "anarchy" in each of the scales and it means something different to you each time! Makes perfect sense!Zachriel
SS,
The Golden Rule is completely incapable of bridging the IS-OUGHT gap, for a multitude of reasons:
1) What is the foundation for the GR, other than "sounds good to me?" Why is it any better as an IS-OUGHT gap bridge than, say, "Do unto others before they do unto you"? or "Don't do anything"? After all, having others treat you the same way you want to be treated works out well for you - but stealing all their stuff and running away might work better, especially if you're poor and they're rich!
2) "Reciprocity" fails as a moral foundation, for the simple reason that no two people want the same thing for themselves. If an extrovert and an introvert walk into a room, what is the moral good - to start a conversation, or to leave the other person alone? Whose moral code prevails? Is it morally correct for the extrovert to start badgering the introvert? Is it morally correct for the introvert to treat the extrovert like a leper? After all - that is how they themselves would wish to be treated!
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" if your criteria is "I wouldn't want to be punished, so I shouldn't punish them"? When the morally right thing, whether for society's sake, or for the good of the recipient, is punishment?
4) If the GR is good, why isn't a different formulation better? Like, "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them"? Or, "Do unto others as their mother would do unto them"? I suppose you could argue that you only know what you want, not what they/their mothers want - but now you are elevating your desires above theirs, which is contradictory to the stated goal of the GR. What a muddle.
5) The GR misses an entire subset of IS-OUGHT considerations. What about when no other individual is involved? Are there no IS-OUGHT considerations for actions taken alone? Do we declare suicide, self-mutilation, etc. out of consideration? What about if animals are involved? Do we elevate animals' rights to that of humans and apply the GR, or do we still get to kill and eat them for food if we are hungry? And does the IS-OUGHT formulation change if we are hunting for sport only?
I don't think reciprocity is a very good IS-OUGHT solution.drc466
August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
kairosfocus: I suggest that anarchic due to absence of a state is not the same as anarchy outright.
Anarchy is normally *defined* as the absence of government.
kairosfocus: you may have despotism where the decree of one person is law of life or death but it changes with his mood.
That's not anarchy, but a monarchy acting arbitrarily.
kairosfocus: You can have a state without law, you can have law without a unified state or with a failed state.
That's right. And if you have a state without law, that doesn't make it anarchy. An example would be of a government (whether monarchy or democracy) that makes ad hoc decisions.
Hence, your cubic analysis is flawed. The three dimensions are not independent, and they don't all peg out at anarchy, as is shown in the diagram.Zachriel
August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
redwave @20
Within and for the statements given, ground, obligation, imperative, fact, foundation, are contingent on the means of survival and are therefore not fundamental principles...
Most moral decisions are context laden.
Is it immoral to saw off the leg of a stranger without the stranger’s consent?It Depends. Is it torture? Or life-saving surgery on an unconscious person? One is immoral, the other is not. In this instance, the moral valence of the act is very contingent.
The only fundamental principle needed is the injunction to do no unjustified harm to others. If you want to add that topic, just let me know. I have something I’ve posted on this site several times to work as a starting point.
Answer: Sadomasochism in pedophilia.
Certainly not. Everything in pedophilia would violate the rules I’ve described. Pedophilia cannot be consensual in the first instance (per the GR at least), so a nice glass of cool water in pedophilia is still immoral. Since minors cannot consent even to “ordinary” sexual contact, sadomasochistic contact is yet another thing a minor cannot consent to (per the GR at least).
Let me be clear; my comments about the GR and reciprocity are not by any means the totality of a valid moral system; nor have I intended them to be.
The context established by the earlier comments on this thread is clear: the GR, fairness, and reciprocity are able to bridge the gap kairosfocus frets about: the “gap” between ought and is.
A fuller discussion of moral systems has occurred elsewhere on this site; if you want, we could revisit the topic here, kairosfocus permitting of course.
sean s.sean samis
August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT
kairosfocus I don’t disagree with your #19. The GR lacks a threat of punishment. One should just behave as the Rule commands. This is a trait many Christian “rules” also share.
So your comment #19 seems to lack an issue with my position. Did I miss something?
sean s.sean samis
August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT
Sean Samis. "The Golden Rule is more than adequate to ground moral obligation. ... The naturally sensed imperative is based on the mutual and reciprocal need of all persons for the means of survival. ... The fact of our interdependence and vulnerability grounds this moral imperative. No further foundation is needed."
Within and for the statements given, ground, obligation, imperative, fact, foundation, are contingent on the means of survival and are therefore not fundamental principles. One can make contingent claims, using common linguistic constructs, yet the contingency persists without underlying fundamental principles ... fundamental principles are a ground for contingency. In other words, there exists a shifting foundation with uncertain factual content, no real command (imperative), only situational obligation, and a sink-hole laiden grounding in terms of survival as a primary need. Survival, and the means of survival, is only mutual and reciprocal when one can not survive alone, to live another day ... survival is dependent on time and circumstance. And imputing 'survival' with an absolute embedded driving force is counterfactual to materialism's contingent claims.
Sean Samis. "Name for me just one act which would be in strict compliance with the Golden Rule and everything else I’ve said but which would still be obviously immoral."
Answer: Sadomasochism in pedophilia.redwave
August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT
Sean, Ought obtains without enforcement or even likelihood of possible retaliation, it obtains even when the law in force is wrong; indeed it is what reformers appeal to. And as you just added on possible future judgement, ought is binding without reference to such (where, too, eternal judgement is not a retaliation, just as sentence and sanction of a court are not mere revenge). That law may have sanctions is not the same thing as what ought and particularly the ought of justice, is. KFkairosfocus
August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
kairosfocus @16
Big difference, and one that tends to suggest: restraint in anticipation of possible retaliation, i.e. a form of might makes right.
This is a core part of Christian morality also; fear of your God’s retaliation.sean samis
August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT
kairosfocus @16
You are still not really addressing OUGHT.
I have. What is missing?
sean s.sean samis
August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT
... and @13 I forgot: this is in the Lord’s Prayer too:
Matthew 6:12
And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
sometimes also said as;
And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.
sometimes also said as;
And forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sinned against us.
sean s.sean samis
August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
SS:
One need not believe in a deity to see the value of Shakespeare’s point. Fairness (reciprocity) is doing unto others that which WE WANT others to do unto us. And our “want” makes our “doing” obligatory [--> prudent].
Big difference, and one that tends to suggest: restraint in anticipation of possible retaliation, i.e. a form of might makes right.
You are still not really addressing OUGHT.
KFkairosfocus
August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
Zachriel,
I wonder if you are using a tablet or smartphone, and the image is not updated. If you do not see a cite from Magna Carta, your image file is out of date.
Next, I suggest that anarchic due to absence of a state is not the same as anarchy outright. It trends there but is not there yet.
Likewise, you may have despotism where the decree of one person is law of life or death but it changes with his mood. That is not anarchy but it is tyrannical or better -- less familiar - despotic.
It is possible to have a king with in principle absolute power but the existence of a corpus of law and linked previous decisions (oral and/or written) may constrain behaviour towards fair-minded govt.
This can also shade over into parliaments that hold joint sovereignty [and which may not be wholly democratic], where any legislation may be of constitutional character. BTW, this is currently so for the UK, which has no one written, supreme constitutional law or document. Indeed aspects of Magna Carta are still in force, though most are superseded or have become utterly outdated.
Constitutional democracy is the next step along.
Beyond we can see the anarchic case of no law or no effective law in a region, beyond that of nature. This invites despotism.
You can have a state without law, you can have law without a unified state or with a failed state. You can have collapse or absence of both law and the state.
and in absence of leadership you have the complete chaotic circumstance in mind.
Even without state and law, potentially dominant leadership likely to gain support and take power can have a restraining effect. (People do reckon with, what if X emerges as a king and modify present behaviour in light of future possibilities. They may also try to assassinate X.)
KFkairosfocus
August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
Brent @9
It might be a good idea to do to others what you’d have them do to you, but that isn’t morality at all.
If, as kairosfocus’s many comments imply, if morality is the “OUGHT”, if morality is a system of rules to tell us what we “OUGHT” to do, then fairness is a basis for morality.
If we do things because we think a deity commanded it and we don’t want to be punished, then moral acts under that system are in fact selfishness. Heaven and Hell are part of a reward system. Even in kairosfocus’s account, we do good things for ourselves; left to that we’re still being immoral and selfish even under a theistic moral model.
A morality that is founded on fairness and reciprocity can’t be worse if the results are the same.
It’s fairness that is the point here. It’s hard to see the distinction because, thankfully, we all agree, generally, about fairness, which is only worked out in “doing unto others . . .”
It’s hard to see the distinction because the results are the same. The only distinction is that my model is based on something we can all see and evaluate whereas a theistic model is based on something no one can see or evaluate.
It’s funny that you say the gap is easily bridged, and then take the massive leap from reciprocity to morality.
It’s not a great leap. It’s a tiny step.
Our jails are full to the brim with those who were put there being very reciprocal. Reciprocity plays nicely on the evil side of the tracks just fine.
Name me one person who we would put into prison for obeying the Golden Rule. I’ve been quite clear: reciprocity is not about doing unto others WHAT THEY DID TO YOU. That’s revenge, or vigilantism. I’ve been clear that reciprocity is what the GR defines. We don’t put people in prison for that.
Name for me just one act which would be in strict compliance with the Golden Rule and everything else I’ve said but which would still be obviously immoral.
The Golden Rule tells us how to act fair, not what fairness is, nor even whether or not it is obligatory to be fair.
That’s just foolish. The GR is not intended to teach us “what fairness is”; the GR tells us how to behave. “Fairness” is a term for that kind behavior; so is “reciprocity”. It’s as good a morality as we could find.
And the language of the GR is simple: “DO ...” In case you’ve forgotten your English grammar, starting a sentence with the word “DO” is to employ the imperative form of the verb “to do”; it is the exact form of a command. Commands communicate obligation. The imperative language of the GR most decidedly makes it clear that its instructions are obligatory.
And if that’s not enough for you, there are also those quotes from Locke and Aristotle included in my comments. The GR does not stand alone and the obligation is well communicated. Shakespeare has a nice quote on the topic too:
"... we do pray for mercy,
and that same prayer doth teach us all to render the deeds of mercy."
— Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice; Act IV, Sc. I
One need not believe in a deity to see the value of Shakespeare’s point. Fairness (reciprocity) is doing unto others that which WE WANT others to do unto us. And our “want” makes our “doing” obligatory.
sean s.sean samis
August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
kairosfocus: state power does not at all imply law...
So we can have a state without law.* As anarchy is absence of a state, a state without law is not anarchy.
* (A simple example is where all matters are brought before the king, who decides each on a case-by-case basis, Solomon-style.)Zachriel
August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT
Brent (attn SS): thoughtful points, the tendency is to implicitly bring ought back in without facing the world foundation challenge. KFkairosfocus
August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT
Zachriel, state power does not at all imply law, though we normally have law when there is a state or even by culturally enforced customs without a state as such. Absence of state power is not a synonym for absence of law. Lawfulness is not synonymous with "amount" of government. Law does not scale from rigid to arbitrary. Law frames can be despotic-decree oriented, corpus of laws (with emphasis on incremental change based on the existing body . . . cf Corpus Juris Civilis), constitutional-democratic, and of course absence (apart from laws of nature) which is anarchic. Leadership is also distinct. KF
PS: I add, in my native land, we have a Constitution with ordinary clauses, entrenched clauses and deeply entrenched clauses [--> one of the chief drafters fought in the trenches of WW 1], that are increasingly difficult to amend. That is meant to protect a core.kairosfocus
August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
SS,
Locke’s answer is that nature imposes a natural duty of treating others with the same care we want them to treat us. Because we are all equally human, natural reason directs us clearly on this matter.
Sean, do you remember when I told you that, at the back of every attempt to ground morality naturally, in man, that it would ultimately smuggle in an unspoken morality to rest upon? That's exactly what you've done.
It might be a good idea to do to others what you'd have them do to you, but that isn't morality at all. The real moral point you've smuggled in is that it is unfair to treat others poorly when we'd not like to be treated that way ourselves (EDIT: actually, even if we did want to be treated that way ourselves for some perverse reason). If it wasn't for our feelings of fairness at root, it is in fact selfishness to "do unto others." What I do may benefit others, but in your account I only do it for myself. And if we leave it at that, we agree that I'm still being immoral, still being selfish.
It's fairness that is the point here. It's hard to see the distinction because, thankfully, we all agree, generally, about fairness, which is only worked out in "doing unto others . . ."
Hume’s exaggerated “gap” is easily bridged by reciprocity. We are obligated to behave morally because we want to be treated morally. We cannot expect others to treat any of us better than we treat others.
It's funny that you say the gap is easily bridged, and then take the massive leap from reciprocity to morality. No one thinks of those terms as synonymous. Our jails are full to the brim with those who were put there being very reciprocal. Reciprocity plays nicely on the evil side of the tracks just fine. Morality??? Not for a moment.
This ain’t rocket science. It’s an ancient idea we call “The Golden Rule”.
The Golden Rule tells us how to act fair, not what fairness is, nor even whether or not it is obligatory to be fair.Brent
