Ethics
Moderator: Major
Ethics
Unfortunately I have this disease called ethics. I believe that there are certain principles which are true, by nature. Murder, Thievery, Adultery, Lies, coveting, Dishonoring family, all of it, abhorrent (these are all selfish). No amount of consenting can make it right. It is wrong, to the core.
The American Government's purpose is to enforce right-ness:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union ,
establish Justice ,
insure domestic Tranquility ,
provide for the common defence ,
promote the general Welfare , and
secure the Blessings of Liberty
to ourselves and our Posterity , do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
--The constitution
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
-- Note: These aren't two seperate laws, but are joint and descriptive of Laws. They are God's Law which he established in nature: God->Nature->Laws. The nature of each thing derives from the former.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights , that among these are life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends , it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form , as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
--Note: It is not right for people to simply alter Laws, only when the state becomes Destructive to the Natural order, that is the state violates the Law with it's laws. The Law is unchangable, it is the laws which are changable and they ought to match the unchangable. It finds its roots in Platonic and Western ideas. That there are ideals or forms or perfection. The world is orderly, not chaotic.
These are the foundations, of government. I can find many more for you, but I chose the two principally formative documents in the United States. The idea is this: God ordained Truth. Men establish government to secure Truth among men. So much emphasis goes into: "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" they forget the purpose of government. They turn the purpose in on itself and simply say that it is the will of the people. Which is silly. You cannot establish false order. It would be like trying to do science without rules, principles, or with the purposes of each thing in mind.
Dishonor. I selected this word purposefully. Although it is only used once, and then only at the very end, I would argue that it may be used as an organizing principle, or summary of the Declaration of Independence. Their justification for breaking with the king is a break of honor (i.e. honor is a type of contract. Just as a parent and child relate, so too does a king and people. the constitution is a document handling that very question, "What happens if the authority is bad?" ). Take a look:
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. ? And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence , we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor .
--Basically, they appeal to God. Basically, "we know the king, he had rights over us, but he breached honor, therefore we appeal to God who gave the king his place, and rely on his support" These men were Christians, and they claimed it: with only a couple exceptions and even they accepted Christianity on principle. The Bible tells us that all authourity is derived from God. they were appealing to God, and saying that it was the king who broke trust.
-------------
Actually Quackswindler, believe it or not, it does. Many schools omit the references because it refers to "God" It is called historical revisionism. I solemnly recommend you figure out if and why they would lie to you (or 'revise' documents, there really is zero difference). Do Google searches and find the originals. People will almost invariably leave out details or gloss over them. Basically society teaches you to think up an idea and fit the text to support your idea. We often forget that the authors are actually communicating real ideas.
The Americans thought that mass amounts of people could do a better job of finding out what is really true. i.e. There are actually scientific laws concerning 'good' it isn't just a chaotic state out of which we try to find order.
The American Government's purpose is to enforce right-ness:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union ,
establish Justice ,
insure domestic Tranquility ,
provide for the common defence ,
promote the general Welfare , and
secure the Blessings of Liberty
to ourselves and our Posterity , do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
--The constitution
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
-- Note: These aren't two seperate laws, but are joint and descriptive of Laws. They are God's Law which he established in nature: God->Nature->Laws. The nature of each thing derives from the former.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights , that among these are life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends , it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form , as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
--Note: It is not right for people to simply alter Laws, only when the state becomes Destructive to the Natural order, that is the state violates the Law with it's laws. The Law is unchangable, it is the laws which are changable and they ought to match the unchangable. It finds its roots in Platonic and Western ideas. That there are ideals or forms or perfection. The world is orderly, not chaotic.
These are the foundations, of government. I can find many more for you, but I chose the two principally formative documents in the United States. The idea is this: God ordained Truth. Men establish government to secure Truth among men. So much emphasis goes into: "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" they forget the purpose of government. They turn the purpose in on itself and simply say that it is the will of the people. Which is silly. You cannot establish false order. It would be like trying to do science without rules, principles, or with the purposes of each thing in mind.
Dishonor. I selected this word purposefully. Although it is only used once, and then only at the very end, I would argue that it may be used as an organizing principle, or summary of the Declaration of Independence. Their justification for breaking with the king is a break of honor (i.e. honor is a type of contract. Just as a parent and child relate, so too does a king and people. the constitution is a document handling that very question, "What happens if the authority is bad?" ). Take a look:
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. ? And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence , we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor .
--Basically, they appeal to God. Basically, "we know the king, he had rights over us, but he breached honor, therefore we appeal to God who gave the king his place, and rely on his support" These men were Christians, and they claimed it: with only a couple exceptions and even they accepted Christianity on principle. The Bible tells us that all authourity is derived from God. they were appealing to God, and saying that it was the king who broke trust.
-------------
Actually Quackswindler, believe it or not, it does. Many schools omit the references because it refers to "God" It is called historical revisionism. I solemnly recommend you figure out if and why they would lie to you (or 'revise' documents, there really is zero difference). Do Google searches and find the originals. People will almost invariably leave out details or gloss over them. Basically society teaches you to think up an idea and fit the text to support your idea. We often forget that the authors are actually communicating real ideas.
The Americans thought that mass amounts of people could do a better job of finding out what is really true. i.e. There are actually scientific laws concerning 'good' it isn't just a chaotic state out of which we try to find order.
Re: Ethics
everything in the world is a gray area, so why are we wasting our time interpreting what is right or wrong? and what right do WE have to determine this? well, right and wrong is really a product of culture, and this culture is more pu$$y than knee-deep spice girls.
Re: Ethics
Too long, I read the first 3 paragraphs and say: shush meliza.
Re: Ethics
you answer your own question. we NEED to "waste time" interpreting right from wrong because as you say, we have no right to determine this for others and enforce it on them with our millitary. the only reason our government gets away with being so ridiculously corrupt, and the reason we will have permanent millitary bases in the middle east, is because we are all trained to feel that its not our problem or business to worry about it.glory wrote:why are we wasting our time interpreting what is right or wrong? and what right do WE have to determine this?
- BardockSGE
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 12:07 am
- Location: Noob from Boundless Sea.
Re: Ethics
How much of this do you get off wikipedia.
Re: Ethics
Who is QuackSwindler?
And actually, many of the Founding Fathers were Deist, although some were Christian. Most of the main points in the post still stand under that philosophy, though.
KG
And actually, many of the Founding Fathers were Deist, although some were Christian. Most of the main points in the post still stand under that philosophy, though.
Seriously, read the post first. It refers to the fact that our government is based on the concept of "Truth", i.e. NOT everything is a gray area. If you're going to spout your anarchist views, at least provide a reasonable defense, not just "this is how it is".glory wrote:everything in the world is a gray area, so why are we wasting our time interpreting what is right or wrong? and what right do WE have to determine this? well, right and wrong is really a product of culture, and this culture is more pu$$y than knee-deep spice girls.
KG
Re: Ethics
yeah, i prolly shoulda read the first post...but its hella long -_-KG wrote: Seriously, read the post first. It refers to the fact that our government is based on the concept of "Truth", i.e. NOT everything is a gray area. If you're going to spout your anarchist views, at least provide a reasonable defense, not just "this is how it is".
KG
Re: Ethics
You think Wikipedia would have anything that shows SUPPORT for the nation?BardockSGE wrote:How much of this do you get off wikipedia.
pffft. Please.
I have my rare philisophical moments.
-Meliza
Re: Ethics
"The" nation? Ah, yes. I forgot. There is only one.Meliza- wrote:You think Wikipedia would have anything that shows SUPPORT for the nation?BardockSGE wrote:How much of this do you get off wikipedia.
pffft. Please.
I have my rare philisophical moments.
-Meliza
It's not the purpose of Wikipedia to support anything. On the contrary. (I'm not claiming Wikipedidia succeeds in this)
In response to your first post:
Everything's gray.
Separaton of state and chruch FTW. Seriously.
Re: Ethics
Is this an absolute statement that nothing is absolute?MadAce wrote: Everything's gray.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."MadAce wrote: Separaton of state and chruch FTW. Seriously.
The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the First Amendment, and "no law respecting an establishment of religion" is a long ways from "no law respecting religion". The particular phrase "separation of church and state" was only used by the US Supreme Court in 1878. The idea of the Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of laws is also something that does not appear in the Constitution, interestingly enough.
KG
Re: Ethics
Of course it's grey if I say "everything's gray".KG wrote:Is this an absolute statement that nothing is absolute?MadAce wrote: Everything's gray.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."MadAce wrote: Separaton of state and chruch FTW. Seriously.
The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the First Amendment, and "no law respecting an establishment of religion" is a long ways from "no law respecting religion". The particular phrase "separation of church and state" was only used by the US Supreme Court in 1878. The idea of the Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of laws is also something that does not appear in the Constitution, interestingly enough.
KG
In the "The US isn't actually a democracy..."-department I can add:
"In God We Trust".
Re: Ethics
No, we're a representative republic. Pure democracy has been tried and has failed ever since ancient Athens, so we want none of it.MadAce wrote:In the "The US isn't actually a democracy..."-department I can add:
"In God We Trust".
KG
Re: Ethics
I knew I was going to get this crackpot answer. I always get it! usually after I just bashed democracy and its insanity to bits.KG wrote:No, we're a representative republic. Pure democracy has been tried and has failed ever since ancient Athens, so we want none of it.MadAce wrote:In the "The US isn't actually a democracy..."-department I can add:
"In God We Trust".
KG
The US is a democracy. Whether you like it or not. I never claimed to be a pure democracy. Thank God it isn't.
Re: Ethics
pure democracy in Athens? Not allowing women and slaves to vote is pure?KG wrote:No, we're a representative republic. Pure democracy has been tried and has failed ever since ancient Athens, so we want none of it.MadAce wrote:In the "The US isn't actually a democracy..."-department I can add:
"In God We Trust".
KG
Re: Ethics
Pure democracy is direct voting on state laws and issues by the voting populace. A republic has the voters elect officials, who then create the laws. Neither has anything to do with who is doing the voting, provided it's not class based (which would be an aristocracy). Under your argument, unless you also let children, felons, the mentally unstable, and possibly your pet dog vote, it's not a pure democracy.-nox- wrote:pure democracy in Athens? Not allowing women and slaves to vote is pure?KG wrote:No, we're a representative republic. Pure democracy has been tried and has failed ever since ancient Athens, so we want none of it.MadAce wrote:In the "The US isn't actually a democracy..."-department I can add:
"In God We Trust".
KG
KG
Re: Ethics
Pure democrocy can only work efficeantly in small populations.
Re: Ethics
thats partially true...same thing goes for most utopian society ideas...Meliza- wrote:Pure democrocy can only work efficeantly in small populations.
vaginal fungus.
Re: Ethics
may I ask you how you think slavery is not class based? Excuse me if I'm wrong but I do believe the Athenians considered slaves as inferior, just like they considered women inferior. That's a class system to me, just like the fact that your family had to be athenian for a couple of generations (I believe it was three generations) before you could vote is class system (athenians > foreigners).KG wrote:Pure democracy is direct voting on state laws and issues by the voting populace. A republic has the voters elect officials, who then create the laws. Neither has anything to do with who is doing the voting, provided it's not class based (which would be an aristocracy). Under your argument, unless you also let children, felons, the mentally unstable, and possibly your pet dog vote, it's not a pure democracy.-nox- wrote:
pure democracy in Athens? Not allowing women and slaves to vote is pure?
KG
Re: Ethics
...-nox- wrote:may I ask you how you think slavery is not class based? Excuse me if I'm wrong but I do believe the Athenians considered slaves as inferior, just like they considered women inferior. That's a class system to me, just like the fact that your family had to be athenian for a couple of generations (I believe it was three generations) before you could vote is class system (athenians > foreigners).KG wrote:Pure democracy is direct voting on state laws and issues by the voting populace. A republic has the voters elect officials, who then create the laws. Neither has anything to do with who is doing the voting, provided it's not class based (which would be an aristocracy). Under your argument, unless you also let children, felons, the mentally unstable, and possibly your pet dog vote, it's not a pure democracy.-nox- wrote:
pure democracy in Athens? Not allowing women and slaves to vote is pure?
KG
Are you arguing with the "pure" or the "democracy" part? I added "pure" to clarify the distinction between a democracy and a republic, which people mistakenly call a "democracy" despite the fact it is only a system with some democratic elements. If you want to argue that a democracy isn't "pure" unless it lets everyone in it can vote, go to town, but that's a different point. I think you might end up in the absurd position of calling America before the Civil War and women's rights an aristocracy, though.
If you disagree that Athens was strictly a democracy, you're still missing my point. Athens allowed any male Athenian (who was not a slave, but irregardless of other qualifications) to vote directly on laws, making it a democracy, whereas medieval Europe had aristocracies, which limited any ruling power to a far smaller select ruling class, meaning class based on wealth and birth. America is not a democracy, since the general population does not vote on laws, but still has the power to affect laws by voting for representatives.
KG
Re: Ethics
general population votes on propositions and such ^^KG wrote: America is not a democracy, since the general population does not vote on laws, but still has the power to affect laws by voting for representatives.
KG
Re: Ethics
did you even read what I wrote? I'm arguing that considering women and slaves and foreigners (yes foreigners) as inferior and therefore not allowing them to vote is a class system. The conclusion if this makes it a pure democracy, 'normal' democracy or aristocracy is not mine but yours, I used your definition and based it on your claims.KG wrote:...-nox- wrote:may I ask you how you think slavery is not class based? Excuse me if I'm wrong but I do believe the Athenians considered slaves as inferior, just like they considered women inferior. That's a class system to me, just like the fact that your family had to be athenian for a couple of generations (I believe it was three generations) before you could vote is class system (athenians > foreigners).KG wrote:Pure democracy is direct voting on state laws and issues by the voting populace. A republic has the voters elect officials, who then create the laws. Neither has anything to do with who is doing the voting, provided it's not class based (which would be an aristocracy). Under your argument, unless you also let children, felons, the mentally unstable, and possibly your pet dog vote, it's not a pure democracy.
KG
Are you arguing with the "pure" or the "democracy" part? I added "pure" to clarify the distinction between a democracy and a republic, which people mistakenly call a "democracy" despite the fact it is only a system with some democratic elements. If you want to argue that a democracy isn't "pure" unless it lets everyone in it can vote, go to town, but that's a different point. I think you might end up in the absurd position of calling America before the Civil War and women's rights an aristocracy, though.
If you disagree that Athens was strictly a democracy, you're still missing my point. Athens allowed any male Athenian (who was not a slave, but irregardless of other qualifications) to vote directly on laws, making it a democracy, whereas medieval Europe had aristocracies, which limited any ruling power to a far smaller select ruling class, meaning class based on wealth and birth. America is not a democracy, since the general population does not vote on laws, but still has the power to affect laws by voting for representatives.
KG
Besides that, I very much disagree that Athens was strictly a democracy. Unless you wish to claim that the after being defeated by Sparta in 404 BC oligarchic "group of 30" ruled Athens democraticly, that Perikles was never a tirannos (monarch), that the 'counsil of 500' did not decide what was to be discussed in any political meetings, that the pyrtans (group of 50 people) did not decide it for them. Could give some more examples (group of 400) but I think this will do, and I doubt you read anything I write anyway.
Re: Ethics
I'm trying to read what you're writing, but you're making it very difficult with fragmented sentences like this.-nox- wrote:did you even read what I wrote? I'm arguing that considering women and slaves and foreigners (yes foreigners) as inferior and therefore not allowing them to vote is a class system. The conclusion if this makes it a pure democracy, 'normal' democracy or aristocracy is not mine but yours, I used your definition and based it on your claims.
Anyway, I have been trying to clarify my definition since you continue to misuse it. My use of the term "class system" was for distinguishing governments, as a system that divides people based on no other reason than hereditary right and monetary power (i.e. an noble class) in order to distinguish between an aristocracy and other forms of government. I am not intending to use the term "class system" in the sense of distinguishing people based on ability, gender, age and national origin. Under that definition, there is not and never has been a "classless society" on a national scale, and therefore if you try to define democracy as not distinguishing between classes under that definition, there is not and never has been such a thing as a democracy. It's nonsensical to take my use of the term and extend it that way.
I make no claims as to the government of Athens after being conquered by an Spartan oligarchy. Prior to the Peloponnesian war, however, Athens was defined as a democracy. If you want to disagree with the historians, that's your call. I simply used the term "pure" to clarify that I meant strictly a democracy, not a republic with democratic elements.-nox- wrote: Besides that, I very much disagree that Athens was strictly a democracy. Unless you wish to claim that the after being defeated by Sparta in 404 BC oligarchic "group of 30" ruled Athens democraticly, that Perikles was never a tirannos (monarch), that the 'counsil of 500' did not decide what was to be discussed in any political meetings, that the pyrtans (group of 50 people) did not decide it for them. Could give some more examples (group of 400) but I think this will do, and I doubt you read anything I write anyway.
Exactly my point.MadAce wrote: Demoracy's overrated anyways...
KG
Re: Ethics
I do apologise if my writing is inadequate, I have not purposely been trying to make it more difficult for you.KG wrote:I'm trying to read what you're writing, but you're making it very difficult with fragmented sentences like this.
It seems we have a different definition of the words "class" and "class system". I consider a class to be 'a group having common qualities' and class system being a system based upon classes and distinguishing people upon what class they belong (as you might realise, I got the first definition out of a dictionairy and made up the second one which means it's alot worse). It seems that I in that way have broadened the scope of what you call a "class system" to a degree that you did not intend it to be. My mistake.KG wrote: Anyway, I have been trying to clarify my definition since you continue to misuse it. My use of the term "class system" was for distinguishing governments, as a system that divides people based on no other reason than hereditary right and monetary power (i.e. an noble class) in order to distinguish between an aristocracy and other forms of government. I am not intending to use the term "class system" in the sense of distinguishing people based on ability, gender, age and national origin. Under that definition, there is not and never has been a "classless society" on a national scale, and therefore if you try to define democracy as not distinguishing between classes under that definition, there is not and never has been such a thing as a democracy. It's nonsensical to take my use of the term and extend it that way.
Re: Ethics
I was a bit unclear in my earlier posts, so don't sweat it. I simply couldn't think of a better term for the distinction I was trying to make.-nox- wrote:It seems we have a different definition of the words "class" and "class system". I consider a class to be 'a group having common qualities' and class system being a system based upon classes and distinguishing people upon what class they belong (as you might realise, I got the first definition out of a dictionairy and made up the second one which means it's alot worse). It seems that I in that way have broadened the scope of what you call a "class system" to a degree that you did not intend it to be. My mistake.
KG