Why There Is (And Should Be) No Legal Right To Transgender Protections

_{William Murray

May 16, 2016

Constitution, Culture, governance, Laws, Legal, Philosophy, Psychology, Society}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Transgenderism is when a person considers themselves to internally be the opposite sex of their physical body. They mentally “self-identify” in contradiction to the physical fact of their body sex. Transgender law advocates insist that self-identified “transgenders” be given legal right to have unfettered access to all public facilities currently reserved for one sex or the other (male and female restrooms, lockers, showers, women’s shelters, etc.) Obama has recently decreed that all schools that do not fully adopt transgender protections and policies will face the revocation of federal funding.

Usually, when a person believes they are something in contradiction to the physical facts (such as believing one is Napoleon, or believing one is a horse), we call that view delusional, because it is a persistent belief held in contradiction to physical facts. Believing that one is a “female” trapped in a male’s body is to consider female-ness something other than what it is, which is a designation based on physical facts. A man can have personality traits that are more in line with what are generally considered the personality traits of females, but having such personality traits doesn’t in fact make them a female “trapped” in a man’s body; it just makes them a man with some personality/psychological traits that are more generally considered to be that of females.

Should men (or women) be free to exhibit personality traits that are more in line with the opposite sex? Should they be allowed to dress like the opposite sex? Certainly. No one is arguing against that. However, should such people have the right to be legally accepted as actually being the opposite sex, for all legal intents and purposes? Should public institutions be forced to view them as the sex they personally identify with by allowing them full legal access to public facilities of the opposite sex?

This boils down to a simple question: should self-identifying personality traits that contradict physical facts be enforceable in the public sector as if those personality traits were physical facts? If a man self-identifies as a woman, should they be given access to all female-specific services and facilities? Should they be able to fill out employment forms and government forms, such as the census, as the opposite sex? Should public-funded school sports teams be required to allow men into women’s sports because they self-identify as women?

Logically, where does the right to self-identify in contradiction to physical facts end? Can I self-identify as a different race? A different age? Can I self-identify as having skills I physically do not have, as having talent I do not possess? Should the law force everyone to accept whatever anyone self-identifies as, regardless of what the physical facts are?

The reason transgenderism is not, and should not be, a legally protected right is because it is a set of personality/psychological traits where a person subjectively, mentally sees him- or herself as something they physically are not, or perhaps because they wish to display a personality that is somewhat in contradiction to social norms concerning gender. Society cannot legally enforce individual personality traits as if those traits represented physical reality or else chaos will ensue. Actual law must be grounded in physical reality, not in individual conceptions of self or individual personality traits. Society cannot, and should not, force everyone to treat such personality traits as if those personality traits represent physical reality. If a 40 year old man “sees himself” as a 4 year old child, am I legally bound to treat him as such? If a stranger insists they are my child or my parent, should such a personality trait have legal force?

These are not “slippery slope arguments”, these are the logical entailments of giving personality/psychological traits (that are in contradiction to physical facts) the full support and force of law. It is outright insanity. It is not a “civil rights” issue at all; it is attempting to break down any valid meaning to any law or right whatsoever if people can simply “self-identify” in contradiction to physical facts.

Comments

DS, one should respond appropriately to one's sex and to relevant moral governance. KFkairosfocus_{May 21, 2016
May
05
May
21
21
2016
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

KF,
DS, I think gender as commonly used in contexts such as this is rather too ideologically loaded. I normally speak to sexuality as an aspect of personal identity; logically leading to appropriate sexually tied roles under the core principles of the natural moral law.
Are you then in agreement with:
While one’s physical body does not determine one’s sexuality, one should choose the sexuality which “matches” one’s physical body (exceptional cases such as intersex aside).
daveS_{May 21, 2016
May
05
May
21
21
2016
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

Mung: "Of course it’s going to be controversial. There’s no reason to think that the prohibition against murder in Judaism is somehow better or worse than the prohibition against murder in Christianity or Islam, and vice versa." What about the prohibition against taking the Lord's name in vain, or of having no graven images? These are part of the moral assemblage of Judeo-Christian faiths, but not in all faiths. Homosexuality is a sin in some, not in all. Not eating pork is part of the moral assemblage in some but not others. "Who exactly is claiming moral superiority?" I never said that anyone is claiming this. I am saying that people think this. Because of its connotation with racism, superiority may be an emotionally charged word, but how else would you term it. You could take the PC approach and say that individuals think that the moral assemblage of their faith is better aligned with truth (natural law, whatever) than others, but how is that any different than saying that they think it is superior?clown fish_{May 21, 2016
May
05
May
21
21
2016
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

KairosFocus: "Notice how, above, you consistently substitute individual or collective opinion for warranted truth?" Since my personal side discussion with Vividbleu was all about individual and collective opinion; 100% about opinion; absolute about opinion; exclusively about opinion, how can I possibly be substituting it for warranted truth. Or are you suggesting that I can't have a personal opinion about what you claim to be a "warranted truth". It's nice to know that you are the thought police here. Really, if you want to contribute substantively to this discussion, you really have to pay attention to the words being written. "The issue is not undue controversy but persistent rhetorical reframing on your part that becomes, with all due respect, fallacious." I have already pointed out, twice, why my comments have not been persistent rhetorical reframing. My little side discussion with Vividbleu may be off topic, but there are two clear facts in play. 1) I wasn't the one who started the off topic discussion. 2) If our little discussion is off topic, which I have clearly stated that it is, what exactly am I persistently reframing? Given the accusational tone of your first two paragraphs, can you give me any reason why the rest of your huge post is worth reading?clown fish_{May 21, 2016
May
05
May
21
21
2016
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

By the way, in the Christian tradition at least the moral law is part of nature and has nothing to do with the Christian faith. Do yes, again, the claim is controversial.Mung_{May 21, 2016
May
05
May
21
21
2016
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT}

I am only saying that we all, regardless of our faith, think that the assemblage of morals espoused by our faith is superior to those of other faiths. To be completely honest, I didn’t think that this would be controversial.
Of course it's going to be controversial. There's no reason to think that the prohibition against murder in Judaism is somehow better or worse than the prohibition against murder in Christianity or Islam, and vice versa. Who exactly is claiming moral superiority?Mung_{May 21, 2016
May
05
May
21
21
2016
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT}

DS, I think gender as commonly used in contexts such as this is rather too ideologically loaded. I normally speak to sexuality as an aspect of personal identity; logically leading to appropriate sexually tied roles under the core principles of the natural moral law. And people with unusual medical conditions should be recognised as such and treated with dignity. KF PS: The W is for Winston, yes that one. And the circumstance is at the time of his marriage.kairosfocus_{May 21, 2016
May
05
May
21
21
2016
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

KF,
DS, the linked book lays out a considerable case with evidence regarding sexuality and the degree to which such is genetically (or hormonally etc) stamped beyond our ability to control; drawing on a significant body of evidence that the idea that one is under genetic compulsion beyond responsible choice is ill-founded.
Yes, that was what I thought you believed. Do you agree with the following: While one's physical body does not determine one's gender identity, one should choose the gender identity which "matches" one's physical body (exceptional cases such as intersex aside). Edit:
(And yes, I am aware of the unusual underwear choices made by some who otherwise dress conventionally; including as a possible borderline case a certain justly famed Englishman, WSC.)
I don't know who WSC is, but anyway that might be TMI for this venue.daveS_{May 21, 2016
May
05
May
21
21
2016
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

DS, the linked book lays out a considerable case with evidence regarding sexuality and the degree to which such is genetically (or hormonally etc) stamped beyond our ability to control; drawing on a significant body of evidence that the idea that one is under genetic compulsion beyond responsible choice is ill-founded. I do not think mental illness is properly a primary descriptive, though it is clear that enmeshing, habituating patterns of behaviour are far easier to enter into than to get out of; cf. the 12 step life recovery approach. (Such may then be a proper focus of helping professions, never mind PC codes that are being imposed.) Yes, yet another slippery, dangerous slope. I suggest that the clothes one wears and the apparent sexual identity one projects to the public by trying to appear male or female are patently linked to choices made day by day starting with what one puts on from the clothes closet. (And yes, I am aware of the unusual underwear choices made by some who otherwise dress conventionally; including as a possible borderline case a certain justly famed Englishman, WSC.) Likewise, if one goes to the extreme of surgical and/or chemical alteration of one's body, that too is an act of choice. We need to look very carefully at where we are heading as a civilisation. KFkairosfocus_{May 21, 2016
May
05
May
21
21
2016
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

KF, From the FYI-FTR:
Nor, can it be fairly, responsibly argued that “my genes MADE me do it.” (That claim, under false colours of science, and spread far and wide by the media and education systems, has done much harm.)
This seems to me to be somewhat opposed to the notion, which I gather you hold, that transgender people are doing something wrong and/or are mentally ill in view of the fact that they are "disobeying" their genes and other physical aspects of their bodies.daveS_{May 21, 2016
May
05
May
21
21
2016
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT}

CF, Pardon some reflections. The issue is not undue controversy but persistent rhetorical reframing on your part that becomes, with all due respect, fallacious. Notice how, above, you consistently substitute individual or collective opinion for warranted truth? (The issue would then be whose might and manipulation prevails, and you are obviously in the lists in favour of the radically relativist, nominalist politically correct "progressivist" views of our day that are keyed to lab coat clad evolutionary materialistic scientism and its fellow travellers.) I instantly point to the nihilistic implications of such might and manipulation make 'right' etc. Yes, a commonplace since Plato trumpeted his warning in The Laws Bk X, 2350 years ago; or at least, such should be a commonplace. (What, you never heard of such before? From one of the top ten thinkers of our civilisation? H'mm, what does that tell us about how dumbed down we have collectively become by being cut off from a true and fair view of the history of key ideas connected to pivotal institutions and issues in our civilisation -- the famous seven mountain commanding heights of community life?) Likewise, I will again point out that evolutionary materialistic scientism is inherently and irretrievably self-falsifying and lacks a world root level IS capable of bearing the weight of OUGHT. Insofar as its fellow travellers seek to conform to this yardstick, they also will fall under the same problem of measuring truth and right by a yardstick that is based on falsity. Modelling theory and the logic of implication tell us that a false framework may yield correct results in some cases but will also yield false ones. At crucial points, if we are judging based on imposed falsity we will reject the truth that cuts across such falsity. That would be typical for cases where the truth is somewhat abstract or else where we are dealing with consequences that are not yet realised. (Thus BTW the tendency to dismiss slippery slope cascades of consequences as fallacy without serious examination. Typically, based on being ever so wise in one's own eyes. Machiavelli warned of the consequences in his remark on political hectic fever. Political disorders, like that fever, are at the first fairly easy to cure but hard to diagnose to the satisfaction of all; but when at length the course of the complaint is manifest to all, it is far too late to cure. That is, the body politic is now unavoidably headed for a crash with reality at the foot of a slippery slope. For want of a nail, the shoe was lost, so the horse, the man and the day of battle in turn; and so the cause was lost. For want of something seemingly so trivial as a nail in a shoe for the horse of just one crucial man carrying a decisive message at a critical point in a battle.) Truth is far harder and unflinching in its demands: it says of what is that it is, and of what is not, that it is not. And in cases where truth is not obvious, sound knowledge becomes pivotal. That is, well warranted, credibly true belief. Yes, yet another point where the much despised faith surfaces in reasoning and knowledge. Hence BTW the importance of worldview level analysis in grounding our understanding of ourselves and our world. And the discipline to move beyond rhetorical talking points to warrant anchored at world root level. FYI, debate is that dark art that makes the worse appear the better case and the better the worse, therein supported by rhetoric, the art of persuasion -- not sound grounding. Where also, in an age where every man does what is right in his own eyes, it is all too easy for us to be caught up in agendas where we neither discern the goals nor the likely consequences. And it is then quite natural to seek out those who flatter and tickle our ears with what is popular, what we want to hear and imagine is so for we wish it so. Such . . . sadly . . . is the context of our day -- yes, yet another reason to be concerned over marches of folly. A day in which by contrast a sound person would instead consistently seek to anchor things connected to the civil peace of justice -- an inescapably moral context: in the community there is an order that duly balances rights, freedoms and responsibilities in pursuit of the long term good for one and all -- to sound, foundational premises. Licence (the self-centred abuse of freedom that refuses to strike the due balance) and lawfare (usurpation of the sword of justice to impose agendas on targets under colour of law) are enemies of the civil peace of justice. So, no, to divert focus to a clash of opinions on topics of controversy and jump to or rhetorically suggest the implied conclusion that there is no underlying objective basis for decision is a dangerously flawed approach. Instead, go to the roots. Are we inescapably governed by OUGHT -- yes, even in argument we are forced to understand that we are impelled by the oughtness of truth and avoidance of error and falsity. In the which the guiding impulse is provided by the voice of conscience. Which is a major mental faculty, and which raises the point that to infer or imply that conscience on the whole is delusional about this central message then grand delusion stands let loose in our world of reasoned thought, undermining credibility of mind. In short, we must accept the testimony of conscience on this pivotal matter on pain of absurdity. We live in a world in which we credibly are responsibly and rationally free, morally governed and so under the rule of OUGHT. The rule of evident core principles of a moral law of our nature. So also, a world in which at world-root level (the bridge cannot be effected at any subsequent level) there must be an IS capable of sustaining the weight of OUGHT. And after centuries of debates, it is clear that there is only one serious candidate: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of our respect, loyalty and the reasonable service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature. If you would doubt or dismiss this, simply provide a viable alternative: ___________________ (Predictably, you cannot.) In that context, we can make sense of evil and of sometimes seemingly strange or unappealingly constraining moral rules in that further light. Namely, evil is the privation, frustration, wrenching out of proper end of what is good by nature of creation. So, we may discern the good and right from the bad and evil by its perverse tendencies that will also strongly tend to undermine the good ends that are evident to a reasonable mind. Often, such will not be instantly obvious, it sets up a seemingly attractive but slippery slope that leads to a hard crash with reality. That is the context of Kant's categorical imperative: evils use other persons as means to our ends, frustrating or wrenching out of course their proper fulfillment of their natural and good ends. Likewise, evils parasite off the general good, i.e. they profit from being the exception not the rule. Were lying and cheating or thievery and murder to become the rule, damage and harm would spread across the whole community, breaking it down. This also obtains for the sexual order of our being. It is quite evident that maleness and femaleness are complementary and are connected inherently to reproduction. Where, sound upbringing of children requires stable, committed families based on lifetime covenant of man and wife, mother and father. Where, families and clans come together in communities to further stabilise and protect this central end of humanity through the civil peace of justice. When sexual attitudes, thoughts, expressions and behaviours are wrenched out of this context and are twisted away from such ends, it brings ever increasing privation to these ends. That holds for general sexual promiscuity, it holds for the porn plague, it holds for the divorce game, it holds for mass abortion, it holds for the attempts to warp our understanding of the proper use of sex organs under false colour of law and love, it holds for attmpts to warp the definition of marriage under colour of law, it holds for the latest agenda item, to warp sense of sexual identity itself, equally under false colour of law. Nor, can it be fairly, responsibly argued that "my genes MADE me do it." (That claim, under false colours of science, and spread far and wide by the media and education systems, has done much harm.) So, it is time to re-think; lest we find ourselves so far down mutually opposed slippery slopes that a hard crash with reality becomes inevitable. And frankly, I have my doubts that such a crash can now be averted. Too many institutions have become too warped and manipulating. But maybe we can soften the impact somewhat. Maybe. KFkairosfocus_{May 21, 2016
May
05
May
21
21
2016
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT}

Eugen: "Not expert on this Fish but I think Christian morals demands are high. How much we comply is different story. We all struggle with our sins…" I am not suggesting otherwise. I am only saying that we all, regardless of our faith, think that the assemblage of morals espoused by our faith is superior to those of other faiths. To be completely honest, I didn't think that this would be controversial. Regardless of our faith, don't we think that ours is superior (more closely aligning to the truth) than others? If not, why are you Christian and not Muslim, Hindu, Buddist, or Jewish? Assuming, of course, that you are Christian.clown fish_{May 20, 2016
May
05
May
20
20
2016
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

Not expert on this Fish but I think Christian moral demands are high. How much we comply is different story. We all struggle with our sins... “The mind commands the body and is instantly obeyed. The mind commands itself and meets resistance.” -- Augustine of HippoEugen_{May 20, 2016
May
05
May
20
20
2016
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

Vividbleu: "Do you think truth is superior to falsehood?" I would say that is a given.clown fish_{May 20, 2016
May
05
May
20
20
2016
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT}

Clown Since everyone seems to be responding I guess I can as well. This really has been my first opportunity all day , have been slammed at work going full bore . I would answer your question this way. If truth is superior to falsehood ,yes. Do you think truth is superior to falsehood? Vividvividbleau_{May 20, 2016
May
05
May
20
20
2016
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

Phinehas, I admit that my wording may have caused confusion. I am not saying that Christians (or Hindus, etc.) think that they are personally superior to those of another faith. I am just saying that when people adopt a faith, they do so because they believe that the assemblage of moral positions that their faith proclaims is superior to the assemblage proclaimed by other faiths. If they didn't then they might as well have flipped a coin to make their choice. Whether or not the person can live up to the Morals supported by their faith is something completely different.clown fish_{May 20, 2016
May
05
May
20
20
2016
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

clown fish: The theme of Hebrews is how Christianity is "better" in some regards. You should give it a read if you are interested. This is much different than saying that a Christian is better than any other person. As Paul points out in Romans, "There is no difference. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." I do think it might be your use of the word "superior" that is problematic. As Jesus said during the Sermon on the Mount, "Happy are those who know they are spiritually poor." This is the opposite of a "superior" approach. The words and example of Jesus strongly emphasize the importance of humility.Phinehas_{May 20, 2016
May
05
May
20
20
2016
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

Eugen: "ClownFish, you really are obsessed with homosexuality. Just like Effigy and Inquisitor were. Hmmm?" Hmmm, commenting about homosexuality on a thread about transgendered. What a novel concept.clown fish_{May 20, 2016
May
05
May
20
20
2016
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

ClownFish, you really are obsessed with homosexuality. Just like Effigy and Inquisitor were. Hmmm?Eugen_{May 20, 2016
May
05
May
20
20
2016
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

KairosFocus, does that mean that you won't answer any of my questions? Here, let me repeat them:
Question 1) Do you believe that the Christian position on homosexuality is superior to those of Hindu and Native faiths? Question 2) Do you think that a Hindu or a Native North American might think that the position of their faith on homosexuality is superior to the Christian one? Question 3) Outside of civil disobedience, do you think that it is OK for someone to knowingly break the law? And for government to know about this and do nothing about it?
These are not complicated questions, and can be answered with a yes or no.I can't answer the first question because it is asking what you believe and I would never presume to speak for you. But here are my answers to the other two. 2) Yes 3) No and No. The last one is directly relevant to this OP.clown fish_{May 20, 2016
May
05
May
20
20
2016
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT}

F/N: Just as a reminder, what I am talking of in a Judaeo-Christian frame of thought, pointing to the evident core principles of the natural moral law:
normally responsive people will at least grudgingly respect the following summary of such core, conscience attested morality from the pen of Paul:
Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . . Rom 13:8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong [NIV, "harm"] to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. [ESV]
Where, John Locke, in grounding modern liberty and what would become democratic self-government of a free people premised on upholding the civil peace of justice, in Ch 2 Sec. 5 of his second treatise on civil Government [c. 1690] cites "the judicious [Anglican canon, Richard] Hooker" from his classic Ecclesiastical Polity of 1594 on, as he explains how the principles of neighbour-love are inscribed in our hearts, becoming evident to the eye of common good sense and reasonableness: . . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8 and alluding to Justinian's synthesis of Roman Law in Corpus Juris Civilis that also brings these same thoughts to bear:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.] We may elaborate on Paul, Locke, Hooker and Aristotle, laying out several manifestly evident and historically widely acknowledged core moral principles for which the attempted denial is instantly and patently absurd for most people -- that is, they are arguably self-evident moral truths. For instance:
1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought.
(This is manifest in even an objector's implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right. Not even the hyperskeptical objector can escape this truth. Patent absurdity on attempted denial.)
2] Second self evident truth, we discern that some things are right and others are wrong by a compass-sense we term conscience which guides our thought. (Again, objectors depend on a sense of guilt/ urgency to be right not wrong on our part to give their points persuasive force. See what would be undermined should conscience be deadened or dismissed universally? Sawing off the branch on which we all must sit.)

3] Third, were this sense of conscience and linked sense that we can make responsibly free, rational decisions to be a delusion, we would at once descend into a status of grand delusion in which there is no good ground for confidence in our self-understanding. That is, we look at an infinite regress of Plato’s cave worlds: once such a principle of grand global delusion is injected, there is no firewall so the perception of level one delusion is subject to the same issue, and this level two perception too, ad infinitum; landing in patent absurdity.

4] Fourth, we are objectively under obligation of OUGHT. That is, despite any particular person’s (or group’s or august council’s or majority’s) wishes or claims to the contrary, such obligation credibly holds to moral certainty. That is, it would be irresponsible, foolish and unwise for us to act and try to live otherwise.

5] Fifth, this cumulative framework of moral government under OUGHT is the basis for the manifest core principles of the natural moral law under which we find ourselves obligated to the right the good, the true etc. Where also, patently, we struggle to live up to what we acknowledge or imply we ought to do.

6] Sixth, this means we live in a world in which being under core, generally understood principles of natural moral law is coherent and factually adequate, thus calling for a world in which OUGHT is properly grounded at root level. (Thus worldviews that can soundly meet this test are the only truly viable ones. if a worldview does not have in it a world-root level IS that can simultaneously ground OUGHT, it fails decisively.*)

7] Seventh, in light of the above, even the weakest and most voiceless of us thus has a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of fulfillment of one’s sense of what s/he ought to be (“happiness”). This includes the young child, the unborn and more. (We see here the concept that rights are binding moral expectations of others to provide respect in regards to us because of our inherent status as human beings, members of the community of valuable neighbours. Where also who is my neighbour was forever answered by the parable of the Good Samaritan. Likewise, there can be no right to demand of or compel my neighbour that s/he upholds me and enables me in the wrong — including under false colour of law through lawfare. To justly claim a right, one must first be in the right.)

8] Eighth, like unto the seventh, such may only be circumscribed or limited for good cause. Such as, reciprocal obligation to cherish and not harm neighbour of equal, equally valuable nature in community and in the wider world of the common brotherhood of humanity.

9] Ninth, this is the context in which it becomes self evidently wrong, wicked and evil to kidnap, sexually torture and murder a young child or the like as concrete cases in point that show that might and/or manipulation do not make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘worth,’ ‘justice,’ ‘fairness,’ ‘law’ etc. That is, anything that expresses or implies the nihilist’s credo is morally absurd.

10] Tenth, this entails that in civil society with government, justice is a principal task of legitimate government. Thus also,

11] Eleventh, that government is and ought to be subject to audit, reformation and if necessary replacement should it fail sufficiently badly and incorrigibly.

12] Twelfth, the attempt to deny or dismiss such a general framework of moral governance invariably lands in shipwreck of incoherence and absurdity. But that does not mean that the attempt is not going to be made, so there is a mutual obligation of frank and fair correction and restraint of evil. _________________

* F/N: After centuries of debates and assessment of alternatives per comparative difficulties, there is in fact just one serious candidate to be such a grounding IS: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. (And instantly, such generic ethical theism answers also to the accusation oh this is “religion”; that term being used as a dirty word — no, this is philosophy. If you doubt this, simply put forth a different candidate that meets the required criteria and passes the comparative difficulties test: _________ . Likewise, an inherently good, maximally great being will not be arbitrary or deceitful etc, that is why such is fully worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. As a serious candidate necessary being, such would be eternal and embedded in the frame for a world to exist at all. Thus such a candidate is either impossible as a square circle is impossible due to mutual ruin of core characteristics, or else it is actual. For simple instance no world is possible without two-ness in it, a necessary basis for distinct identity inter alia.

These are start points, in a context where for instance evil can be recognised as the privation, frustration, wrenching out of purpose of the good. KFkairosfocus_{May 20, 2016
May
05
May
20
20
2016
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

CF, Enough has been said in the main. What is law? What is its nature and purpose? Is it possible for things to be established under colour of law that are in fact wrongful? What is wrong or evil, apart from the privation, frustration, wrenching out of purpose of the good? Who then is responsible for instituting injustice and evil and giving it false colour of law? How does one judge such, apart from the manifestly evident core principles of the natural moral law, once one can see that might and manipulation make 'right' etc is a nihilistic monstrosity? Failing such a higher and rationally intelligible law, on what basis apart from nihilism, and imposition of power overtly or by manipulation, do we have for reform? Do you understand the matches that have been carelessly tossed into play in our civilisation in recent times, and what is a now highly likely outcome? KFkairosfocus_{May 20, 2016
May
05
May
20
20
2016
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT}

KairosFocus: " It remains the case that when a novel right such as is in the OP is put forth, it needs to be shown that there is a manifest being in the right, which has plainly not been met. KF" Outside of civil disobedience, do you think that it is OK for someone to knowingly break the law? And for government to know about this and do nothing about it?clown fish_{May 20, 2016
May
05
May
20
20
2016
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

KairosFocus: "CF, nope at worldview level everyone has a burden of warrant on comparative difficulties [one that for instance evolutionary materialism and its fellow travellers cannot meet, never mind the aura of dominance projected by dressing it up in the lab coat], and in fact you have been given links already that take you to reasonable 101 level discussions." What does any of this have to do with my argument that regardless of the faith we believe in, we consciously or subconsciously believe that its moral positions are superior to those of other faiths? If you disagree with this, make your point. Or answer my previous question:
Fact 1) Judeo-Christian faith believes that homosexuality is a sin. Fact 2) Hindu faith does not believe that homosexuality is a sin. Fact 3) Many North American Indian faiths do not consider homosexuality a sin. In some, homosexuals are even afforded special status in the community. Given these facts (if it makes you more comfortable to call them assumptions rather than facts, go right ahead), answer these two questions as honestly as you can. Question 1) Do you believe that the Christian position on homosexuality is superior to those of Hindu and Native faiths? Question 2) Do you think that a Hindu or a Native North American might think that the position of their faith on homosexuality is superior to the Christian one?
clown fish_{May 20, 2016
May
05
May
20
20
2016
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

CF, nope at worldview level everyone has a burden of warrant on comparative difficulties [one that for instance evolutionary materialism and its fellow travellers cannot meet, never mind the aura of dominance projected by dressing it up in the lab coat], and in fact you have been given links already that take you to reasonable 101 level discussions. I repeat, truth comes first and grounds onward argument, it is not a matter of totting up opinions and saying see there is no agreement so there is no basis for grounding claims -- that is an irrelevancy as e.g. we know to undeniable certainty that error exists, so both truth and error exist and knowable truth exists, leading to the need to ground claims. You obviously have not taken such seriously enough to respond substantially, and the suggestions in your remarks (and the wider contexts of the intent of those who argue using those sort of points) are clear enough. It remains the case that when a novel right such as is in the OP is put forth, it needs to be shown that there is a manifest being in the right, which has plainly not been met. KFkairosfocus_{May 20, 2016
May
05
May
20
20
2016
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

KairosFocus: "that is being rational, it is not being arrogant..." Where have I suggested that anyone is being arrogant? "And that point holds just as much for core reality, core morality and core theology or philosophy as for core mathematics — and if you wish to deny existence of core knowable truths for such, that is a serious claim that requires warrant — a burden which I confidently assert you cannot meet." It is not my burden to meet. The burden of proof is on those who are asserting that something exists. "Where, in addition to dealing with the tangential suggestions clearly meant to paint the Christian faith in unfavourable colours..." Again with the false accusations of my intent, even though I have clearly explained what they are. I will try once more to explain what Vividbleu and I were honestly and fairly discussing, without false accusations of intent on either side. I am simply saying that anyone who follows a faith, whether it be religious or otherwise, must consciously or subconsciously feel that the moral positions of their faith are superior to the moral positions of another. I am not claiming that a person is saying, or thinking, that the positions of the other faiths are immoral or bigoted. I will demonstrate this with a simple example: Fact 1) Judeo-Christian faith believes that homosexuality is a sin. Fact 2) Hindu faith does not believe that homosexuality is a sin. Fact 3) Many North American Indian faiths do not consider homosexuality a sin. In some, homosexuals are even afforded special status in the community. Given these facts (if it makes you more comfortable to call them assumptions rather than facts, go right ahead), answer these two questions as honestly as you can. Question 1) Do you believe that the Christian position on homosexuality is superior to those of Hindu and Native faiths? Question 2) Do you think that a Hindu or a Native North American might think that the position of their faith on homosexuality is superior to the Christian one?clown fish_{May 20, 2016
May
05
May
20
20
2016
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

CF, you are dealing with a worldview level question and the foundational issue always comes before any argument that depends on it. 2 + 2 = 4 is an instance of self evident truth. It is not a matter of opinion where any view is as good as another, e.g. 2 + 2 = 6. Once foundational truth is established, it takes proper precedence in our thought and action if we are wise; that is being rational, it is not being arrogant. And that point holds just as much for core reality, core morality and core theology or philosophy as for core mathematics -- and if you wish to deny existence of core knowable truths for such, that is a serious claim that requires warrant -- a burden which I confidently assert you cannot meet. Where, in addition to dealing with the tangential suggestions clearly meant to paint the Christian faith in unfavourable colours, you have to deal with manifestly evident core principles of the natural moral law. Including that before one may properly assert a right, one must manifestly be in the right lest s/he demands to impose on others that they enable, approve of or participate in wrongs. That is, "respect for others" cannot properly extend to implicitly demanding enabling or approving or participating in wrong . . . a matter that very specifically holds for those seeking to use lawfare to impose on Christians and others who stand by the historic natural law. Likewise, for radical subjectivism or relativism and associated extreme nominalism that wrenches key terms (right, wrong, truth, meaning, value, natural law, marriage, sex male, female etc) into abracadabra words whose meaning is changed at whim of might and manipulation . . . i.e. nihilism. Which concerns are very much on the table in the case in the OP and linked matters. KFkairosfocus_{May 20, 2016
May
05
May
20
20
2016
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT}

KairosFocus: "CF, you first need to address the pivotal issue of foundational, worldview level touchstone decisive truth, as was discussed in 308." Irrelevant with regard to my discussion with Vividbleu. All we are talking about is whether a person with a certain faith (any faith, even if it is not religious) believes, either consciously or subconsciously, that the moral positions of their faith are superior to the moral positions of other faiths. I argue that not only is this basic human nature, but that it is an essential element of any faith. "The reframe and taint rhetorical game becomes a smokescreening and deflection tactic. KF" Unjustly and inaccurately attributing intentions to others is an extremely weak form of argument. Not to mention being counter to the desire for civil discourse. If you continue to do so, I will simply refuse to respond to you and limit my discussion to those who demonstrate an ability to show a modicum of respect towards those they disagree with.clown fish_{May 20, 2016
May
05
May
20
20
2016
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

DS, endless chaining . . . where endlessness is to be taken seriously. Warrant -- much broader than mathematical proof -- compounds the issue. This is a philosophical challenge. KFkairosfocus_{May 20, 2016
May
05
May
20
20
2016
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

KF,
DS, we have been down the line over and over, chained warrant to K faces onward endless warrant compounded by our finitude and fallibility. KF
Well, I don't recall ever getting into warrant and fallibility in those discussions. The sticking points were coming to terms on rather clear-cut mathematical concepts such as order types, as well as simply understanding what is purported to occur in the thought experiment(s).daveS_{May 20, 2016
May
05
May
20
20
2016
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply