logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Codifying Values and Morals, Is this a role of government?
Gray Seal
post Apr 27 2016, 05:48 PM
Post #1


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,405
Member No.: 335
Joined: December-12-02

From: Edwardsville, IL
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



An example of government declaration on values would be the transgender bathroom issue. This need not be the focus of the discussion but it is an example of what the discussion is about.

Should we seek government proclamation on what our values and morals must be?

Do we need State or Federal government to make a legal declaration as to who can use bathrooms?

Do we need to establish a universal consensus as to what is right (or wrong) and enforce that option by law?

Are there any areas of such value declarations you would put into the off-limits category?

When should government legalize a moral position?

Can you think of any laws where government has inserted itself where it is none of government's business?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 44)
Gray Seal
post Jun 18 2016, 11:59 PM
Post #41


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,405
Member No.: 335
Joined: December-12-02

From: Edwardsville, IL
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Gray Seal)
Natural rights means people are exempt from external control.

As this is written, it is subject to the interpretation you have made. As a lifelong user of english and I still do not use the language efficiently or effectively as you correctly are pointing out in this case.

My attempted improved statement to communicate: Natural rights mean people are exempt from external control when it comes to those rights.

There is overlap of principles with natural rights and freedom. Both share the principle of exemption from external control though in different context. Natural rights are exempt from external control specifically to themselves while freedom uses exempt from external control in a more general meaning.

-------

From what I know about definitions, words have meaning which are used to attribute those meanings to various thoughts. I would say doing so is more than OK but exactly how words and ideas are meant to be used and expressed via the written word. That is all I have done. I wish to communicate meanings and thoughts.

-------

Giving up personal values and morals is an unnecessary component of having a good society. Giving up personal values and morals is a component of a bad society. People do better when unneeded restrictions do not exist. That is the way many people are. Voluntary society will outperform a society driven by the force of a few to impose their beliefs and needs upon others.

A society will eventually develop which values freedom. As long as all societies choose force, times will remain as they are now. Laws will continue to be added, layer upon layer, in an attempt to make the world a better place via force. Some will profit at the expense of others (they are deserving role models you see). Eventually the tyranny is recognized. Society crumbles. The cycle begins anew.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Jun 20 2016, 05:37 PM
Post #42


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,312
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Jun 18 2016, 06:59 PM) *
QUOTE(Gray Seal)
Natural rights means people are exempt from external control.

As this is written, it is subject to the interpretation you have made. As a lifelong user of english and I still do not use the language efficiently or effectively as you correctly are pointing out in this case.

My attempted improved statement to communicate: Natural rights mean people are exempt from external control when it comes to those rights.


In what circumstances is that ever the case? What 'right' couldn't be taken from you absent any external control? I can't think of any. We like to assume a certain set of 'natural' rights that we all have absent any control...but we don't. If you take away rules, laws, and those agencies that enforce them, anyone can take anything from anyone else...even their life.

Natural rights tend to be a great concept, philosophically, but not have much real meaning in actuality. The law of jungle and survival of the fittest take over...unless there is some external control preventing that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gray Seal
post Jun 20 2016, 06:07 PM
Post #43


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,405
Member No.: 335
Joined: December-12-02

From: Edwardsville, IL
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



Groups of people will have power over individuals. Individuals do have varying technical opportunities and abilities. There is a degree of power beyond numbers. Numbers give a good means of determining power.

What type of group should be supported? Who do you want to have power?

If you support groups which defend natural rights, those rights will be defended.

If there is only law-of-the-jungle that means no groups exists which support a cooperative philosophy other than the philosophy of force. I think we can see human civilizations have the ability to move beyond the simplistic and join together to cooperate.

I have already amended the quoted sentence to be more clear what I intended to communicate: Natural rights mean people are exempt from external control when it comes to those rights.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Jun 20 2016, 09:17 PM
Post #44


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,312
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Gray Seal @ Jun 20 2016, 01:07 PM) *
Groups of people will have power over individuals. Individuals do have varying technical opportunities and abilities. There is a degree of power beyond numbers. Numbers give a good means of determining power.
....

I have already amended the quoted sentence to be more clear what I intended to communicate: Natural rights mean people are exempt from external control when it comes to those rights.


Yes, but isn't what you are describing external control (ie, rules and policies that the group decides to implement)? Your statement seems to be in conflict with itself. But, if you have fine with groups determining what policies to put in place, then I think the other is purely a semantic issue (ie, the wording isn't a big deal, so long as we all understand the concept you are trying to put across).

I think it boils down to there aren't really any 'natural' rights, at least not any that one can enforce, without some group structure enforcing them.

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Jun 20 2016, 10:58 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Gray Seal
post Jun 20 2016, 10:37 PM
Post #45


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 2,405
Member No.: 335
Joined: December-12-02

From: Edwardsville, IL
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



I support groups which support they have natural rights free from external controls. Society does not begin with external controls. The people who make up the society decide if there is going to be external controls. External controls are not the nucleus of society, the principles of the society are the nucleus. External controls could be created but those should be limited to protecting natural rights, not taking over.

You (or someone) asks, "No external controls on morality?"

It is not a different thought process than having the right to defend yourself with guns. We do not need external controls on the freedom to defend yourself. (We have them but it is an error to do so.) People in our society have the principle that we can defend ourselves. Defense of ourselves should not be turned over to an external control. We should be free to defend ourselves.

Morality should not be turned over to external control. We should all have the natural right to have our own values.

A good society would have an external control which is not in control but has a limited purpose of support for people who have been harmed by others. Having your own values and moral harms no others.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: July 18th, 2018 - 04:54 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.