Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

L&FP 44a: What is 2 + 2, Mr Smith? (1984 as demonstration of how first duties and first truths are inextricably intertwined)

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

1984 is a classic satirical novel on the nature of tyranny in the mass media driven, information age, totalitarian surveillance state. Accordingly, it is vital to appreciate the force of the Winston Smith on the Rack scene — yes, taken from the related movie — where the issue of the self-evident truth 2 + 2 = 4 comes up:

First truths, in short, are inextricably intertwined with first duties, and both are equally self-evident. As one clear manifestation, gross injustice is always rooted in false, unreasonable, unwarranted, dishonest thinking.

In case one is tempted to imagine that this is a dismissible satirical exaggeration, kindly ponder the sickening judicial torture-murder of Czech national hero and martyr, Milada Horakova and others on trumped up treason charges, only two years after 1984 was published:

When traitors are in power, patriots are deemed traitors and are judicially murdered. (See more details at Wikipedia.)

In defence of civilisation, we must never allow clever rhetoric or confused thinking to obfuscate lessons written in blood and tears regarding self-evident first truths and duties of reason, the first steps of honest, sound reason highlighted by Cicero and many others across the ages. Even to object (much less to misguidedly attempt to prove), one is forced to appeal to the legitimate, pervasive, first principle authority of duties

  • to truth,
  • to right reason,
  • to prudence [including, warrant],
  • to sound conscience,
  • to neighbour, so too
  • to fairness and justice, etc.

The attempted denial becomes self-defeatingly absurd and the evasion (often, without realising it) becomes an enabling of injustice.

Those who neglect, ignore, dismiss or despise the hard bought lessons of sound history (paid for in blood and tears), doom themselves to pay the same coin over and over and over again. END

F/N Jun 15, a reminder on the challenge of a slide back into lawless oligarchy, what overtook formerly constitutionally democratic Czeckoslovakia, once the Nazi German State, then Stalin’s Communists took over:

It helps, to also ponder dirty-form, McFaul Colour Revolution, as compared to the SOCOM state subversion model, which I have termed the insurgency escalator:

Comments
Lots of dfferent infinities exist. Come on, doing mathematics without infinities, is like doing mathematics without the zero.mohammadnursyamsu
June 16, 2021
June
06
Jun
16
16
2021
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT
KF, you addressed nothing. You are supposed to actually do reasoning about an issue, not just say that you have a duty to reason. The evidence shows that rejection of subjectivity is the problem in society / academics, the problem is not a lack of recognition of first duties, and first truths. Still no communication here.mohammadnursyamsu
June 16, 2021
June
06
Jun
16
16
2021
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
WJM, conscience is such a commonplace of humanity that those who do not experience its pangs are understood to be seriously defective, psychopaths. Even psychopaths are typically aware that others have consciences; some look to such as guides ["you are my conscience . . ."], others seek to manipulate; hence the dark triad personality, full psychyopath form. KF PS: Dark Triad test https://www.idrlabs.com/dark-triad/test.phpkairosfocus
June 16, 2021
June
06
Jun
16
16
2021
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
The troll doubles down with more incoherence. And by the way infinity does not exist. Not even in your dreams.jerry
June 16, 2021
June
06
Jun
16
16
2021
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
Jerry said:
Again this attitude cannot exist in a world of limited resources. It would not have existed in any world up to the 1950’s.
Well, if you believe we live in a world of limited resources, your claim here is necessarily false, because I factually have that attitude in the world you believe exists. However, even if that was a valid logical position, I don't believe that I live in a world of limited resources. Under my worldview, actual resources (information) are infinite. Infinite information exists eternally.William J Murray
June 16, 2021
June
06
Jun
16
16
2021
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT
What other people experience is not a concern of mine unless what they experience, or at least say they are experiencing, affects my experience in some way that makes a difference to my enjoyment.
Again this attitude cannot exist in a world of limited resources. It would not have existed in any world up to the 1950’s. Kf describes what was necessary behaviors to get to the post 1940’s world in the West. It still currently does not exist in large parts of the world. Your enjoyments would have been severely truncated is such past worlds and today in much of the current world. My guess is that you would have been eliminated/marginalized somehow or else you would have changed your behaviors. Do you enjoy espousing nonsense? My guess is that you don’t believe any of your nonsense but are solely being a troll. That is acting like a spoiled adolescence because you want to frustrate people you don’t like. You cannot be as stupid as your comments make out. And the sad part is they continue to feed you. But that too often is what adults do with irresponsible teenagers.jerry
June 16, 2021
June
06
Jun
16
16
2021
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT
To further explain this statement:
Such considerations ("real world" examples or consequences) are entirely irrelevant in my ontology, so they make zero difference to me. You can reiterate them as you wish, but they make absolutely no difference under my ontological perspective.
Under my ontology, the "real world" is my experience. "My experience" is generated by a combination of selected sets of information processed into the full range of my experience - thoughts, feelings, physical world, etc. What other people experience is not a concern of mine unless what they experience, or at least say they are experiencing, affects my experience in some way that makes a difference to my enjoyment.William J Murray
June 16, 2021
June
06
Jun
16
16
2021
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT
KF @ 108, In order to have the set of experiences you refer to as a "conscience," I'd have to believe that it is possible for me or other people to commit a "wrong." That is not a possibility in my perspective. In my perspective, what you call an injustice cannot actually occur - to me or anyone else. IOW, that's not the way what we call "reality" works. Yes, errors exist; but "errors" are not the same category as a "wrong" in the manner we are using the word "wrong." Now, people can interpret sets of information so that they experience what feels like "injustice," or "duty," etc., In that sense, those experiences are 100% real. IOW, from my perspective, that's like some person saying they experience the Earth as being stationary and celestial objects moving through the sky, or saying that the Earth is in motion and is moving relative to other celestial objects. Those are perspectives that represent different interpretations of the information. Your arguments about "real world" particular cases, or arguments about the state of the world and the consequences of certain kinds of behavior are entirely dependent on how one interprets the information, on what I call the "reality program" they are using and operating. Such considerations ("real world" examples or consequences) are entirely irrelevant in my ontology, so they make zero difference to me. You can reiterate them as you wish, but they make absolutely no difference under my ontological perspective.William J Murray
June 16, 2021
June
06
Jun
16
16
2021
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT
WJM, for things like justice to exist, states of affairs involving relationships of morally governed creatures have to exist. In particular, justice is, expanding SB, due balance of rights, freedoms and duties. Where these imply relationships of mutual respect, support and obligation informed by neighbourliness. Moral government is massively evident from both conscience and quarrelling. Rights are mutually consistent binding moral claims that we be respected in certain ways tracing to our dignity and quasi infinite worth; this means A cannot have a right to compel B to do wrongs or parrot lies [a particularly important case of doing wrong] to support A's claims. Duties are the due diligence and acts of care that we owe ourselves, one another, the collective community, civilisation and world in support of the civil peace of justice and human thriving towards our proper ends, many of which are naturally evident. And yes, I am not elaborating a broad detailed argument of precise definition, I describe a pattern familiar from experience -- including from what is required to repair breaches -- but never perfect in this age. The Milada Horokova case is particularly instructive as a real world case. KFkairosfocus
June 16, 2021
June
06
Jun
16
16
2021
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT
I experience my life and world in terms of the enjoyment set of colors. My reactions and motivations are entirely, 100% about managing my enjoyments.
This has been covered several times. It’s the attitude of a parasite. The parasite cannot exist in a world of limited resources. If it is wide spread, it will lead to self destruction. For example, just 90 years ago anyone with this attitude would have been crushed.jerry
June 16, 2021
June
06
Jun
16
16
2021
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT
F/N: The farewell letters of judicially murdered Czech patriot, Milada Horakova https://chnm.gmu.edu/wwh/p/230.html It is said, that if it succeed, none dare call it treason. To that we may add, when traitors and misanthropes are in charge, patriots will be falsely accused of treason. KFkairosfocus
June 16, 2021
June
06
Jun
16
16
2021
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT
SB, I agree that if these things actually exist, it means the required conditions that provide for them must exist, such as God. That's the point I've been making for a while now. Duties, rights, etc. require that certain actual conditions exist.
Let’s define justice as giving everyone what they deserve or what they are “due.”
Well, we could define justice in a way where my calling the bank about an error on their part concerning my money a case of me seeking justice, Or we could call that an expectation of the "duty" of others to do the "right thing" and "truthfully" go through the books to and treat me "fairly." I can completely understand that this would be how many if not most other people interpret that behavior if I were to engage in it. However, from my perspective, it has nothing to do with any of that; my behavior is entirely, 100% about managing my enjoyment as I have explained more thoroughly in prior comments in various threads. What I and others deserve, or what I think I and others are "due," isn't even a variable in my considerations. I don't think I, or other people, are "due" anything. I don't think I, or other people, "deserve" anything. I don't think about "rights" (other than to engage in enjoyable debates about these kinds of things.) What is "right" and what is "wrong" isn't even a thing in my life. This is because, under my ontology, those kinds of things are only experiences people have because of their conscious, subconscious, or unconscious ontological commitments. What I mean by that is that it is a kind of computer program that selects and processes information a certain way. I'm not operating through the same computer program as you. Justice, duty, human rights, right and wrong, etc. are not part of the WJM ontology/epistemology experiential program. So, in that sense, I am like at least a color- blind man in your world; I don't see the "colors" you see. I don't experience them. I do not, cannot navigate my world in consideration of the colors you see because I do not see them. I'm not denying that you and KF see those colors, or that they are real colors. But, to make the color analogy more relevant, let's say I see an entirely different set of colors. Let's call your colors the "duty & rights" set, and my colors the "enjoyment" set. I experience my life and world in terms of the enjoyment set of colors. My reactions and motivations are entirely, 100% about managing my enjoyments.William J Murray
June 16, 2021
June
06
Jun
16
16
2021
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT
SB, yes, we are very after the fact as self-aware persons in a going concern world, our views are those of finite, error-prone minds, so our duties to seek truth, reason rightly and provide warrant come first and found our ability to make due diligence knowledge claims about reality including its contents, roots and history, outlook, etc. I don't know if speaking of doing due diligence -- not negligence, disregard or worse -- in regard to the Ciceronian principles might help those seeking to understand. KFkairosfocus
June 15, 2021
June
06
Jun
15
15
2021
11:03 PM
11
11
03
PM
PDT
H'mm, was someone railing as they walked away? Or, had nothing to say in answer to exposed self-contradiction? KFkairosfocus
June 15, 2021
June
06
Jun
15
15
2021
10:46 PM
10
10
46
PM
PDT
MNY, already addressed, we are subjects which gives us freedom to be rational. As we are error-prone, we need to address warrant using right reason. Warranted, credibly true (so, too, reliable) belief is knowledge, generally used weak sense eg for science. This does not denigrate our self-moved, self-aware self-hood, it recognises strength . . . we can reason, also limitation . . . error proneness, then gives tools and standards, right reason leading to warrant. KFkairosfocus
June 15, 2021
June
06
Jun
15
15
2021
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT
I don't get any satisfactory responses to my point of view. My very simple point of view. The problem is very obviously, rejection of subjectivity. All over facebook there are these people arguing like; if there is no evidence for it, then it must be thrown out. So then they throw out God. But implicitly, they also throw out everything else that is inherently subjective, including human emotions, and personal character. They are genuinely clueless about how subjectivity functions, on the intellectual level. They only accept and understand objectivity intellectually. They only have instinctive understanding of how subjectivity works, not intellectual understanding of it. So then subjectivity dysfunctions, meaning bad personal relationships, bad personal opinions, bad political opinions, bad religious opinions, bad emotional wellbeing, bad mental health. It's the obvious straightforward explanation for these kind of systemic failures like communism and nazism. Subjectivity is an exclusively creationist concept. A subjective opinion is formed by choice, and expresses what it is that makes a choice. That is the logic underlying every subjective opinion, whether it is saying that a painting is beautiful, or saying that it is wrong to kill someone. The creationist conceptual scheme: 1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion 2. Creation / chosen / material / objectivity / fact The concept of subjective opinion is validated in category number 1, the concept of objective fact is validated in category number 2. Creationism has been thrown out from academics, and with it the whole concept of subjectivity has in fact been thrown out. And that is why mental illness in universities is skyrocketing, for years now already. That is why we have all these crazy "professors" in the media, who have such bad judgement. And the crazy critical race theory. So really KF your complaining about failing the duties of right reasoning, it's besides the point. Subjectivity is where the problem is at, a failure to acknowledge it intellectually.mohammadnursyamsu
June 15, 2021
June
06
Jun
15
15
2021
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT
SB: It is the ontological grounding that explains the existence of justice as a thing, not the epistemological process by which KF and I arrive at our ontological commitments. WJM
Perhaps you directly experience “justice” and therefore (and rightfully) understand (which I agree with from that perspective) the ontological requirements for justice, rights, morality and duties
I am describing what must be the case whether I experience it or not. If such things as justice or human rights exist as abstract realities they can only be explained by the existence of a creator. They cannot be explained by my ontological commitments.
The problem is, I do not experience those things.
Irrelevant. We are discussing the necessary conditions for justice and human rights to exist as real things. Your experience or my ontological commitments have nothing to do with it. But what about your latest claim? You say that you have never experienced these things. Perhaps you did experience them without recognizing them for what they were. Why have you not made allowances for that possibility? Let’s define justice as giving everyone what they deserve or what they are “due.” (I know, I know, it is my definition, but you have provided no definition and we have to start from somewhere). Did anyone ever apologize to you for treating you badly? (I know, I know, you don’t believe there is any such thing as bad behavior, but put that aside for the moment). If an apology was “due” (or at least seemed appropriate to you) and if you received one, didn’t you experience justice in that context even if you didn’t know what you were experiencing? .StephenB
June 15, 2021
June
06
Jun
15
15
2021
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT
WJM, did you eat breakfast?Have you ever had a digestive upset? Does that count as experience? When it comes to experiences of justice, we usually take the civil peace for granted, as a fish takes water for granted. It is when there is chaotic, destructive breakdown, that we experience injustice. Milada Horakova is an extreme but sadly relevant case in point. KFkairosfocus
June 15, 2021
June
06
Jun
15
15
2021
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
SB said:
It is the ontological grounding that explains the existence of justice as a thing, not the epistemological process by which KF and I arrive at our ontological commitments.
Perhaps you directly experience "justice" and therefore (and rightfully) understand (which I agree with from that perspective) the ontological requirements for justice, rights, morality and duties. I agree that if you experience those things directly, you have identified the required ontological cause. The problem is, I do not experience those things. Maybe that makes me defective in some way. In that case, you might as well be trying to explain color to a man born blind. The only references I have to what you are trying to explain to me would be what other people claim to experience, or representations of such things in media, movies, TV shows, etc. I understand these things solely as abstract concepts, not as personal experiences. That may explain the main difficulty here.William J Murray
June 15, 2021
June
06
Jun
15
15
2021
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT
WJM :
Here’s one of the differences between how you (apparently) and I approach this discussion: I respect and even honor your perspective, and do not think there must be either something defective or deceptive about your testimony and views.
I approach each interaction with a focus on what was just said and evaluate it on that basis. Such was the case in my latest correspondences. However, if a certain behavior pattern becomes evident, I call attention to it, albeit in a gradual way. A good example would be your proclivity to change definitions on the fly or to say you don't know what certain words mean. Still, I am a great believer in new beginnings and I am ready to start fresh at any time if you are. Why not begin by addressing these two points? @21 WJM
Here’s the problem: all of that (Justice as a thing) is a perspective derived from ontological commitments. In my experience, these ontological presuppositions are so deep they are rarely, if ever, recognized as such, much less examined critically.
SB: Absolutely not. The existence of an objective truth, such as justice, depends on (not “derives from”) ontological REALITIES as they exist, not on our ontological COMMITMENTS to those realities. and @72, which is related.
Here’s the problem: all of that (the idea that justice exists as a thing) is a perspective derived from ontological commitments. In my experience, these ontological presuppositions are so deep they are rarely, if ever, recognized as such, much less examined critically.
SB: If justice exists as an abstract thing it is because there are ontological realities that ground it, not because KF or I have made an ontological commitment to those realities. One has nothing to do with the other. Let’s take a specific example: Do human rights really exist as (things)? If they do, it is NOT because I believe that God grants rights to humans who were made in the Divine image.” Such a commitment cannot in any way explain how a right could be an abstract reality. On the contrary, human rights can exist as things only if God really does grant them and only if humans are entitled to them because they have been made special in some way. Only on the ontological grounds that humans have “inherent dignity” can a case be made that they deserve to be treated fairly or that such a thing as justice actually exists. It is the ontological grounding that explains the existence of justice as a thing, not the epistemological process by which KF and I arrive at our ontological commitments. (Notice that I am not presenting a "religious" or "theological" perspective. I am simply describing the ontological conditions necessary for the existence of justice or human rights as abstract things).StephenB
June 15, 2021
June
06
Jun
15
15
2021
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT
I see that Karen also likes to argue from ignorance. Strange, that.ET
June 15, 2021
June
06
Jun
15
15
2021
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT
KF, I both respect and honor your experiences and views. This is why I always try very hard to respect and understand other people and their perspectives, and be as charitable as possible in every interaction. I completely believe that both you and I have seen, endured and have personal knowledge of some things that other people would have to just deny to maintain their sanity - which is, IMO, what the powerful people bank on. It's just too much, too disorienting, too "horrific" to contemplate, much less accept. I don't know what SB or anyone else has personally experienced. Also, my logic may be in error. My knowledge of pertinent facts is certainly far from complete. I certainly haven't thought of everything that would be possible to consider, every possible line of reasoning, every possible premise. I'm just a guy doing the best he can to make sense of his existence. I don't expect it to make sense to most other people, because they are not me and have not lived my life. I try to keep that in mind about other people, as well.William J Murray
June 15, 2021
June
06
Jun
15
15
2021
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT
WJM, yes, I have seen 4th gen civil war and a generation later I am an exile from my homeland as keeper of a document of testimony that would blow up the dominant narrative, with the explicit warning from security experts that retaliatory murders targetting family would happen within 48 hours of publication; I begged that its existence not be publicised, only to see it announced during my Dad's funeral by someone who just could not understand that there would be watchers there, all too ready to report to malevolent, utterly ruthless masters. Yes, I have personally locked horns with Communist radicals now in positions of power and influence, so I know that the Milada Horakova case is not an exception, it is baked in to Marxist ideology and activism. Yes, I know that those who have not walked under such a valley of the shadow of death can hardly bring themselves to believe that such is real, is possible, is the consistent result of radical Jacobin Revolution, and more. All of that brings back to focus the hope for reformation in the power of Ciceronian first principles and duties of reason, law, governance and government. First truths and first duties cannot be torn apart. KFkairosfocus
June 15, 2021
June
06
Jun
15
15
2021
04:03 AM
4
04
03
AM
PDT
SB @78: So, you're not just a mind reader, you can also peer into alternate realities to see what I would be thinking had my experiences been different? Wowzers! Here's one of the differences between how you (apparently) and I approach this discussion: I respect and even honor your perspective, and do not think there must be either something defective or deceptive about your testimony and views. This is how I maintain my civility and charitability. I'm also not wedded to any particular perspective because I'm always seeking to improve the useful effectiveness of my intentional agency. I explore these concepts not in an effort to talk people out of their views or even to promote my own; I do so out of the potential for finding more effective ways of thinking about the experiences I have and how to generate better (as I see it) experiences in the future. I have personal experience with what you would call egregious "injustice." The example I gave before of a judge, prosecutor and police conspiring to fabricate evidence and charges against an innocent person is a real-world, personal experience of mine. You want to talk about a "horrific" injustice? You have no idea. How about the willful murder of scores of people, including children, by government officials? How about government officials and other powerful people running child sex camps? I have a friend near 80 yrs old who was raised by members of a Satanic cult where she was abused horrifically the first 17 years of her life. Does she consider it an "injustice?" Nope. She understands her life and this world in basically the same kind of terms I do mine. I have experienced and know stuff that most people would reject out of hand because it would be too much for them to contemplate. KF knows some of what I'm talking about. We used to speak of it rather obliquely in a prior political thread. Don't even try to read my mind, SB. I don't think you would want to even visit it, much less live in it, knowing what I know, seeing what I've seen and having experienced what I have experienced. Do you think you've experienced pain? I've experienced such pain to the point of complete despair and such agony I bought a gun so I could end it when I reached the end of my capacity to endure it. You let me know when you've been tossed into a black abyss of overwhelming, inescapable soul-destroying sheer agony and come out the other side, Perhaps you have, I don't know. I would rather live in such a camp my whole life as you have described than to have had some of the experiences I have had, and knowledge I have had to endure and find a way to deal with. If I were to explain it to you, you would completely agree with me. I don't judge you negatively for your views and beliefs, SB, because I understand I cannot know what you are experiencing or have experienced. I'm also confident that you will achieve the ends you believe you are striving for, which I assume is Heaven. I'm happy for you and KF and others here in that thought. IMO, we're all brothers and sisters doing the best we can as we see it in what can be a a very baffling and challenging experience.William J Murray
June 15, 2021
June
06
Jun
15
15
2021
03:48 AM
3
03
48
AM
PDT
PPPS: To help us better understand the political dynamics behind the case and in face of accusations, I have put up U/Ds to OP, showing how the slide from constitutional democracy into lawless ideological oligarchy happens -- context for events in 1950 in Czechoslovakia, and the McFaul dirty colour revolution model.kairosfocus
June 15, 2021
June
06
Jun
15
15
2021
03:02 AM
3
03
02
AM
PDT
PPS: To the end of refocussed serious discussion, I again highlight the outline argument that has stirred such ire:
We can readily identify at least seven inescapable . . . first duties of reason: "Inescapable," as they are so antecedent to reasoning that even the objector implicitly appeals to their legitimate authority; inescapable, so first truths of reason, i.e. they are self-evidently true and binding. Namely, Ciceronian first duties,
1st - to truth, 2nd - to right reason, 3rd - to prudence [including warrant], 4th - to sound conscience, 5th - to neighbour; so also, 6th - to fairness and 7th - to justice [ . . .] xth - etc.
Likewise, we observe again, that objectors to such duties cannot but appeal to them to give their objections rhetorical traction (i.e. s/he must imply or acknowledge what we are, morally governed, duty-bound creatures to gain any persuasive effect). While also those who try to prove such cannot but appeal to the said principles too. So, these principles are a branch on which we all must sit, including objectors and those who imagine they are to be proved and try. That is, these are manifestly first principles of rational, responsible, honest, conscience guided liberty and so too a built-in framework of law; yes, core natural law of human nature. Reason, inescapably, is morally governed. Of course, there is a linked but not equivalent pattern: bounded, error-prone rationality often tied to ill will and stubbornness or even closed mindedness; that’s why the study of right reason has a sub-study on fallacies and errors. That we sometimes seek to evade duties or may make inadvertent errors does not overthrow such first duties of reason, which instead help us to detect and correct errors, as well as to expose our follies. Perhaps, a negative form will help to clarify, for cause we find to be at best hopelessly error-riddled, those who are habitually untruthful, fallacious and/or irrational, imprudent, fail to soundly warrant claims, show a benumbed or dead conscience [i.e. sociopathy and/or highly machiavellian tendencies], dehumanise and abuse others, are unfair and unjust. At worst, such are utterly dangerous, destructive,or even ruthlessly, demonically lawless. Such built-in . . . thus, universal . . . law, then, is not invented by parliaments, kings or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such; they are recognised, often implicitly as an indelible part of our evident nature. Hence, "natural law," coeval with our humanity, famously phrased in terms of "self-evident . . . rights . . . endowed by our Creator" in the US Declaration of Independence, 1776. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice, the pivot of law. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature. Where, as my right implies your duty a true right is a binding moral claim to be respected in life, liberty, honestly aquired property, innocent reputation etc. To so justly claim a right, one must therefore demonstrably be in the right. Likewise, Aristotle long since anticipated Pilate's cynical "what is truth?": truth says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not. [Metaphysics, 1011b, C4 BC.] Simple in concept, but hard to establish on the ground; hence -- in key part -- the duties to right reason, prudence, fairness etc. Thus, too, we may compose sound civil law informed by that built-in law of our responsibly, rationally free morally governed nature; from such, we may identify what is unsound or false thus to be reformed or replaced even though enacted under the colour and solemn ceremonies of law. The first duties, also, are a framework for understanding and articulating the corpus of built-in law of our morally governed nature, antecedent to civil laws and manifest our roots in the Supreme Law-giver, the inherently good, utterly wise and just creator-God, the necessary (so, eternal), maximally great being at the root of reality.
In that context, this OP has used a real world case to help us better understand how first truths and first duties are interwoven in the fabric of justice, through a contrast that exposes how horrific injustice is woven from untruth, dishonest reasoning, falsified evidence, refusal to be reasonable, cruel abuse etc. ending in judicial torture-murder. Let us learn from this grim history.kairosfocus
June 15, 2021
June
06
Jun
15
15
2021
02:46 AM
2
02
46
AM
PDT
KM, on fair comment your current behaviour is classic cognitive dissonance manifesting projection to the despised other. I am inclined to give you an opportunity to pull back to a more civil tone, so I am giving you this plea by way of a caution on behaviour. KF PS-F/N: You have already been notified on a 101 that sets out a more balanced addressing of the still lingering Internet Atheist push to try to taint and discredit the heritage of Christendom [which, like any civilisation, dating back to Nimrod's hydraulic empire in the river valleys of Mesopotamia, is decidedly a mixed blessing] and of course the ethics of the scriptures. Craig's discussion with Harris here may also help. As for the baby murderers tainted strawman accusation you have been making, I note there were indeed gods and priestcraft associated with that as normalised cultural practice, the Canaanite and similar ANE cultures, cf OT responses to Moloch. Unsurprisingly, that is part of the indictment of a culture become a plague upon the earth; a verdict uncannily similar to Rome's assessment of Carthage, essentially an evolved form of the same culture, and note what Rome found itself forced to do in response to blood feud generational warfare. When an Israelite king led war against a city and the king publicly sacrificed his IIRC 12 yo son, the Israelites withdrew in horror, so the cultural indictment fails. Then, when an apostate Israelite king did succumb to said practices, the site of his atrocities was turned into a notorious dump, Ge Hinnon, as was already mentioned in balancing accusatory views on Gehenna. Israelite culture was not a culture that normalised or rationalised deliberate specifically targetted killing of babies etc. Slander, corrected. So, the accusation you have repeated rings utterly hollow, it is an Internet Atheist atrocity story meant to be used as shut up rhetoric, it is not a reasonable discussion or an on topic response to an OP that demonstrates how self-evident first truths and self-evidently true first duties are inextricably interwoven in the fabric of justice. That such a resort is made is actually an implicit concession of the force of the point in the OP and of its relevance to sound reform of constitutional democracy towards restoration of sounder footing for law, governance and government. I add, the first linked speaks more broadly to such issues at 101 level, including helping us understand how great and good statesmen are forced to use means of fighting in which many are sent to meatgrinder battles of attrition [think, Petain and Verdun in 1916, Haig forced to start the Somme before he was ready, and forced to carry the burden with French armies in mutiny and Russia in collapse in 1917 or Eisenhower at Normandy as they fought through the hedgerow bocage country, MacArthur et al contemplating invasion of Japan proper and having enough Purple Hearts made for dead and wounded that the stock has been used in onward wars for nearly eighty years], and how justified military actions cause many innocents to die in the hellish fires of wars [think of bombing campaigns in WW2 where Churchill, Roosevelt and Truman knew that it was a nuke threshold war and that Nazi Germany, leading sci-tech power of the day, was researching nukes, where they could not say anything about it but had to act with urgency before Hitler got his hands on nukes to tip missiles or to load bombers etc], thence, what it means to find oneself fighting war with eternal blood feud cultures across the literal span of 1,000 years. (Resemblance to the current resurgence of jihad, global subjugation wars in the nuke and potential pandemic bioweapon age, is not coincidental, sadly.) Such has to be reckoned with, but again, that is in linked materials and for cause it is not within UD's remit; you who are concerned are again directed to other sites with the people with advanced qualifications on the relevant topics who have done serious research. (The very fact that Internet Atheists and fellow travellers so typically avoid serious discussion of the matter and try instead to drag layperson discussions into fights by using toxic ad hom laced strawmen set alight to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere tells us we are dealing with ruthless ideological agit prop not serious discussion.) Just to restore saner balance, here is the counsel of the principal ethical teacher of the Christian faith, in unmistakably counter-cultural, healing, transformational words:
Lk 6: 27 “But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. 29 To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic2 either. 30 Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. 31 And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them. 32 “If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. 35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. 36 Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.
This short footnote is therefore offered for record for the potentially perplexed as start points for thoughts best dealt with at other fora. I trust that this thread can now return to more reasonable and more productive discussion.kairosfocus
June 15, 2021
June
06
Jun
15
15
2021
02:18 AM
2
02
18
AM
PDT
Karen McClownnus An interesting thing is you that nincompoops/trolls try to tell people to look into their (subjective) souls and what-not for empathy for the evils of the world, but when I do I see you nincompoops as the trollish moral deviants that you are, who (really) think the murder of innocent babies is perfectly okay in the service of a “higher truth.” Gawd, the pants are down and you’re naked butts are out there for all to see. Psychopaths.
Well Karen ...you showed your real face that we had known about . Your messages about others actually say about you.Sandy
June 15, 2021
June
06
Jun
15
15
2021
01:22 AM
1
01
22
AM
PDT
An interesting thing is you that nincompoops/trolls try to tell people to look into their (subjective) souls and what-not for empathy for the evils of the world, but when I do I see you nincompoops as the trollish moral deviants that you are, who (really) think the murder of innocent babies is perfectly okay in the service of a "higher truth." Gawd, the pants are down and you're naked butts are out there for all to see. Psychopaths.Karen McMannus
June 15, 2021
June
06
Jun
15
15
2021
12:19 AM
12
12
19
AM
PDT
SB thinks that killing babies in the service of a Higher Truth is okay. No matter what you say about anyone else or any thing... SB thinks that killing babies in the service of a Higher Truth is okay. SB thinks that killing babies in the service of a Higher Truth is okay. SB thinks that killing babies in the service of a Higher Truth is okay. SB thinks that killing babies in the service of a Higher Truth is okay. Etc....Karen McMannus
June 15, 2021
June
06
Jun
15
15
2021
12:07 AM
12
12
07
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6

Leave a Reply