What makes something right or wrong and what gives someone the right to convict another, if they don't see it as wrong.

1.Why should someone who murders be brought before the law if what the murderer believes says there is no consequences and nothing matters.

2.Under what ruling is it that we judge others for thier deeds.

3.What is better for the human race (whether right or wrong)? Personnelly I think genocide would be the best idea as everything would work without peoples interference.

Because the law is part of the social contract that exists between society and the people living within it. As a simple matter of belonging to the society, you agree to follow its rules and standards. If you violate the social contract, you can be punished in any way the society sees fit, whether you agree with it or like it or not.

Rights, priviledges and laws spring from the society under which you live and can (and do) change over time.

1. Because there is more than one sentient being effected by the action in question. Actions that do not effect others (and I leave it to you to decide if the "others" includes all human beings, all sentient animals, or whatever group seems most appropriate) should not come under the law. One may certainly strongly encourage changes in behavior which does not effect others (I strongly advise you not to smoke) but this should not come under the law.

2. Under the "ruling" (imperfect as it may be) of the consensus of human society. This is often greatly flawed, and it requires constant debate to improve; but it's the best system we have.

3. What is best for the human race? This is open to nearly infinite variations, but I would suggest that peace, co-operation, and respect for others is the base of any sane society. My personal belief is that a voluntary reduction in the human population would maximize human happiness. Maximizing individual freedom (with the limits stated about of effecting others) would also contribute to this.

I meant that why do we have law if a large number of people believe that life ends when you die and therefore believe that nothing between birth and death actually matters. What is the difference between a long life and a short life, or and happy or sad life if there is nothing afterwards. What right has someone to punish me for killing somebody (don't worry, I haven't, it's just an example) if they would teach that nothing matters as there is no eternal accountability and that you are no more than chance convergence of matter.

If you do not think people are equal, then a higher person should impose rule on a lower person, but who is to say who is higher or lower. Everything we think is based on the accumulation of knowledge and understanding that we have gained through life and is therefore incomplete so in different peoples eyes different things are right and wrong. If all people are equal no one or no group should have the right to judge another for their actions. So as I asked under what ruling does one or a group of people judge another, you cannot judge unless authority is given by a either a perfect person who has no biased or you have no right of yourself to judge another. Judgement must be absolute and have authority but how can something that doesn't matter give authority to judge another that doesn't matter

What is best for the human race? Although i am jokingly in favour of universal human genocide I asked this question to show what, namely evolution, actually teaches and is this a good thing for mankind whether right or wrong to accept as there ideology.

Thanks for the clarification. I suppose this is similar to Fyodor Dostoevsky's famous dictum that without God, everything is permitted.

From the viewpoint of the universe (I speak in a metaphor) it may be literally true that nothing that happens to humanity matters. However, as a flawed, limited human being, I do care what happens to me during my lifetime. I avoid pain; I seek pleasure. I am able to recognize these same urges in other human beings. We join together to minimize our suffering. Part of this process involves law. We make many, many mistakes, but we do the best we can.

I deny that judgement must be absolute, or that it can be. We do the best we can to create the best possible system of judgement, and we often create injustice. Perhaps, if we are lucky, we create a bit more justice than we do injustice. We award a limited degree of authority to certain individuals or groups of individuals, and we hope that they do not abuse that authority. Having a system of checks and balances helps a lot.

I'm not sure what you mean by "what evolution teaches" as far as what is best for humanity. Evolution is entirely neutral, like gravitation. It has no purpose. Many people conceive of evolution as somehow being a form of progress, from one-celled organisms to multi-celled organisms, from fish to amphibians, from reptiles to mammals, and so on. I deny this. I think it is better to think of evolution as "whatever can survive, will survive" rather than "survival of the fittest." All organisms that exist at the present time are as "advanced" as all other organisms. As the great biologist Stephen Jay Gould pointed out, it is incorrect to think that once there was an Age of Bacteria, followed by an Age of Fish, an Age of Reptiles, and so on. We are still in the Age of Bacteria. Evolution does not move forward; it simply changes.

None of which has anything to do with what is best for humanity.

My point of view is that it is indeed a good thing for humans to have an understanding of as many things as possible. I place a high value on the pursuit of knowledge, personally and as goal for humanity. This importance was not brought to me via a religion. Both my parents value the pursuit of knowledge so you can argue whether it is via nurture or nature. I think it is nature in this case.

Victoria has stated things very well from my perspective. I especially like this:Such an outlook in individual morality and as a political platform would do much to advance mankind.

Laws do not need a belief system to be valid. Collective consensus of a population as to what works is needed.

As an atheist I fail to see why the events between birth and death wouldn't matter simply for lack of life after death. It would seem rather that if the time between your birth and your death -- be it 10 years or 85 -- would be all that more important as it would be but a blink of the conscious eye in the eternity of the universe. If you kill a person you have taken something from them. You have decided that it is within your right to infringe on the life of another person, thus reasonably leaving yourself open to similar infringement. While there may be no eternal accountability, you may still be held accountable for that finite period of time between birth and death.

Some people believe we are all equal while others do not. In the past and in studies, however, it has become apparent that the best tactic for survival and happiness is cooperation with measured retaliation and a willingness to forgive.

I think Victoria's response to "What is best for the human race?" is more than adequate, as really was the rest of her response as well. I couldn't help but toss in my two cents just the same, though...

Where does that come from? If life ends at death, then what comes between birth and death is *ALL* that matters, it's all we have. Back in the first century, many early Christians were commiting suicide so they could 'be with Jesus'. The early church had to make suicide a sin to stop their paritioners from jumping off cliffs like lemmings.

The concept of the rule of law based on moral concensus is essential to a free society. The average person is, and should be considerd, reasonably prudent.That is until there is sound reason to believe otherwise. I am not sure if we are talking about criminal law or civil law but I thought the Natural Law from the synthesis that was the basis of the Roman Catholic republic might be of interest.

"The Natural Law, as applied to the case of human beings, requires greater precision because of the fact that we have reason and free will. It is the our nature humans to act freely (i.e. to be provident for ourselves and others) by being inclined toward our proper acts and end. That is, we human beings must exercise our natural reason to discover what is best for us in order to acheive the end to which their nature inclines. Furhtermore, we must exercise our freedom, by choosing what reason determines to naturally suited to us, i.e. what is best for our nature. The natural inclination of humans to acheive their proper end through reason and free will is the natural law. Formally defined, the Natural Law is humans' participation in the Eternal Law, through reason and will. Humans actively participate in the eternal law of God (the governance of the world) by using reason in conformity with the Natural Law to discern what is good and evil. Thomistic Philosophy Page

No-one has yet answered the question of what right has one person to impose law on another. Even if the entire worlds population united together to convict someone of murder what makes their ruling right. And how can you believe in no life after death and say that I am accountable to anyone, my actions are free and if they are against the public, group or individuals ideals it does not make what I do wrong and therefore judgeable because others see it differently.



Is it a good idea to teach children from almost birth that there are no definitive consequences and if they don't care about others nothing holds them back from doing anything that they want (whether considered right or wrong by any number of others)

Lots of people have mentioned that society is given authority, not to be abused, to benefit the collective good. but what is the sum of 100 nothings or 6'000'000'000 nothings. If you present someone with a philosophy that says they are only accountable to others of their kind and that,

then any means to achieve what you want are acceptable and there are no consequences

As for what is best for society. What is the best thing for everyone to believe to hold society together in the strongest way while making everyone care about others, think before they act and give them a purpose other than mindless pleasure seeking.

People within a society essentially have a social contract with one another. In society it's essentially the law of cause and effect, Zebb. No individual lives in a vacuum and your actions are going to have consequences. It doesn't take life after death for your actions to bring about consequences in the form of vigilante justice or justice through an agreed upon legal system. You have as much right to kill and run as those around you have the right to pursue and punish. You will be the loser, however, in that the majority has a decided advantage over you.

That is a misunderstanding of what was being said. Just because life ends at death does not eliminate consequences. What it does eliminate are any human consequences for the deceased, not for those who might commit deeds society deems reprehensible.

I am going to give here a vastly simplified version of "natural" ethics, or a causation for moral law based on physical systems. This may be a bit abstract, and I am not terribly articulate, but please bear with me, and we can examine this together.

Ecological systems are interdependent. They exist in countless layers of abstraction, or rather in broadening rings of magnification. Start with the body system: a collection of organs, systems, bacteria, all working interdependently to produce the whole. Move out from there. Are you physically distinct from the rest of the universe? Your atoms are in constant exchange with the surrounding environment. You rely on gasses provided by plants for breath; you rely on energy from the sun; one relies on the sun's energy translated into living beings as fats and sugars for sustenance. When we say "no man is an island," it is physically true, not just philosophically true.

As we look at every aspect of the physical universe, we are seeing that in fact our universe is composed primarily of interconnected systems of interdependent processes. When the rock stars sang "we are the world," it is literally true! We are fundamentally connected to the larger physical system.

Conflict is the abstract; that which divides us from one another is coming not from any physical isolation (there is none), it is formed through astracting ourselves from that physical system.

We can observe some universal truths about humans: everyone experiences suffering; everyone ages; everyone dies. And because the idea of distinct "self" (the island) is false, compassion is the natural reaction to these truths. When you suffer, I empathise because I know that this is universal, that between us all boundaries are fictional.

It doesn't matter what happens after death - compassion arises as a response to suffering, when we glimpse the true and "unselfish" fundament of being, when we see that what divides us is abstract, while what unites us is the solid truth of the physical system.

What we are seeing a glimpse of here is a natural fundament upon which the golden rule may rest; we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Because, indeed, they are us.

You seem to be saying that without an eternal consequence, how are we accountable, right? But all action does have consequence. Just as when you drop a rock into a pond and ripples travel outward, so does our every action cause a ripple of effect-cause-effect through the system. By observing and understanding that chain, we can move toward seeing the importance of acting in a harmonious way so as to create ripples of excellence instead of chaos.

There is no need for a supreme being or for life after death in order to develop and act in a "moral" way.

I have had this debate six times now and only one person understood what I am saying.(In this reply I am taking the viewpoint of what I am debating against in ideology)
If everybody decided I should be killed for the betterment of the human race is this justified because there is nothing other than the collective opinion to judge.


To what am I held accountable if I die and there is nothing beyond, I will only be remembered and it doesn't matter. I'm dead.


It doesn't matter what is needed, i am asking why you feel the need for it to work if when you die that's it. The universe cannot last forever (even if it is not destroyed by a creator) and even our memory's will be lost and we will be truly dead. So what is the point of law if it is not given by something beyond us.


What do I lose if other than a few years which don't matter anyway. When I die, whether happy, successful, a complete failure or whatever it has no consequence for me beacause I am dead.


I would agree, one can follow a moral life without their creator but why do you bother if you go on to nothing afterwards. You have achieved no more than an unborn baby in the grand scheme of things.


This is exactly what I am saying. I have an effect on the world around me and on all of you replying but you have control of me only until I die and then the effect ends. So death is an escape from everything because you are no more. So if your effect is finite and the universe also so if at the end a life is of no worth why do we feel the need to protect life and advance in understanding if the end result is nothing.

When the universe, left to itself, continues to expand, dissapating energy further and further out and more and more of the energy turned into photons and iron(the most stable element(one with the most binding energy per nucleon(partical in a nucleus))). How does it matter what any of us do, it all just ends up as empty space and nothingness(these are no the same)

Does anyone understand what I mean by this:

"Nothing is better Something" - Zebbeddee

Define 'right'. Man is, by nature, a social animal. We congregate in groups to share the workload and form societies, cultures and ultimately governments. Those things that tend to better the community become 'legal' and those things that tend to weaken the community become 'illegal'. Members of the community are held to those ever-evolving standards as a condition of their continued membership.

Maybe you wouldn't mind explaining what life after death has to do with anything.



There are consequences. It's called jail and punishment, as defined by the law. Do you live in an anarchistic society somewhere that there are no laws?



After you're dead, you are beyond accountability. You are held accountable for the actions you take while you are alive, while you are alive. If you want to go out and rob a bank and then kill yourself before you get caught and consider that 'getting away with it', feel free.

Faced with those odds, perhaps your explanation is at fault, rather than our powers of understanding? Or maybe you're confusing "understood" with "agreed"?

But I'm with Cephus.

Let's assume that we are just smart animals and there is no superbeing, and not afterlife. You could interpret that as carte blanche to kill, rape and steal your way through life. But you'd still be driven by the same biological urges as the rest of the species - primarily, survival and reproduction. Starting from where we are now, survival would be contingent on cooperation, unless you're already a survivalist who has built his computer and internet connection from tree bark and saliva.

That cooperation would not work without an agreed, or assumed, set of rules on how you would cooperate. That would probably include the assumption that you wouldn't kill one another, at least not before your business together is done.

The cooperation would also most likely not only involve a tiny immediate circle of face-to-face contacts (again, starting from where we are now, it COULD not). Even in some pastoral idyll, you might encounter a problem that only a friend-of-a-friend had a solution to. It would be your choice to decide to contact them, or spend precious time and effort trying (and possibly failing) to solve the problem yourself.

Usually, asking for their help would be easier, so you now have another transaction to carry out with someone you don't see every day, so you have to rely even more on the basic common conventions of the society you both live in, and specific rules for the business transaction you need to carry out. By transaction I don't just mean physical trade, but any interaction at all, from simple conversation right through to lovemaking and marriage.

On the smallest scale, these rules can be agreed face to face between two or three individuals on an ad hoc basis. As soon as the circle of transactions becomes transient, with, say, 100 people who deal with each other all the time, but only sporadically between two specific individuals, the endless negotiations over each and every transation before it can occur becomes too time-consuming, so all 100 people might get together once a year to agree what the rules should be that apply to everyone. Among equal partners, not every rule will suit every individual all the time, but the overall benefits of having the rules at all outweighs the occasional inconvenience.

When you get to a group of 1,000, or 10,000,000, it becomes less and less practical for every individual to agree the laws themselves, so they might nominate others with whom they broadly agree to go to the meeting on their behalf (representative democracy), or the delegate might nominate themselves through might or persuasion (dictatorship?).

In any case, the "laws" that are agreed don't have any less practical use because no transcendant external force has deemed them necessary from on high. Far from working that way around, it is often argued by atheists that the "religious urge" or "spiritual impulse" (call it what you will) evolved in humans to more easily allow the "laws" that are necessary for human societies to exist to be accepted. If we believe in a god and we believe that our laws came from that god, we are more likely to accept the case for that law without question (as your question and subsequent debate amply demonstrates).

What I am trying to illustrate is that the "law" you say doesn't matter, if it doesn't come from divine authority, doesn't come from divine authority in the first place. Even if it does, it is so rooted in and interpreted by human societies that we ignore those of "God's laws" dont suit us. We even ignores those that suit other parts of the natural world.

For instance, male lions kill the offspring of other males when they take over dominance in a pride. There is nothing un-lion-ish in them doing so, whether they were created by an all-knowing god or evolved from shrew-like creatures. Whether or not we were created, infanticide is not something that would fit well into human societies and there is not on such example on Earth, Christian or not, that practices it regularly and does not place social and moral taboos on it.

Even if you don't accept all of that, how do you reconcile the discrepancies between the "holy" law of whichever religion you prefer and the laws of the land you live in. If you ascribe to Judeo-Christianity, do you kill astrologers, spiritualist media, and other sundry mystics and paranormalists - i.e. not suffering witches to live? Are you campaigning for the abolition of divorce (which effectively condones adultery)? If not, why not? God's "law" isn't only applicable where it agrees with secular law, is it? And it's secular law that actually gets enforced in this life, isn't it (since the Inquisition ended, anyway)?

I think this ultimately comes from a failure to correctly identify the source of 'morals'. Morals aren't handed down from on high, they develop over time, they evolve with societies and cultures and change as the culture changes.

Let's look at an example. We have Caveman Bob and Caveman Dave. One day, Caveman Bob kills Caveman Dave. Caveman Dave's family doesn't like this, of course, so off they go and bash in Caveman Bob's head with a rock. Caveman Bob's family retaliates, pushing Caveman Dave's brother off a cliff. Caveman Dave's uncle feeds Caveman Bob's cousin to a sabertooth cat. And on and on it goes until both sides are so busy killing each other, they don't have time to hunt or plant crops. Sure, all the dead bodies are doing wonders as fertilizer, but if you can't harvest without getting a spear through your head, what good is it?

After a while, Caveman Bob and Caveman Dave's family realize this is stupid and sit down together to work things out. They decide that killing is a bad thing, not only for the people being killed, but for the people who suffer because of it. Killing is declared wrong and thus morals are born. The next week, stealing is declared immoral after Caveman Joe wanders off with Caveman Steve's toothbrush. After all, that sabertooth cat that ate Caveman Bob's cousin now has terrible halitosis.

Morals and laws come from culture. Those things that tend to strengthen the society are termed 'good'. Those things that tend to weaken the society are termed 'bad'. No gods required.

In the synthesis that became the basis for the Roman Republic (AKA the Roman Catholic Church) there was Aristotle, Plato and Christ. All three had strong moral principles as well as practical insight for maintaining personal integrity and collective stability on a broad scale. Where does the law come from? This is determined by the 'highest good' in the hearts and minds of the governed. There is a humanistic (classical humanism not modern) assumption that people have a natural desire for truth, beauty and excellence. Politics is the natural expression of this desire when people come together and synthesis these goals.

"2. Politics as the master science of the good
Now, if there exists an end in the realm of action which we desire for its own sake, an end which determines all our other desires; if, in other words, we do not make all our choices for the sake of something else — for in this way the process will go on infi­nitely so that our desire would be futile and pointless—then obviously this end will be the good, that is, the highest good. Will not the knowledge of this good, consequently, be very important to our lives? Would it not better equip us, like archers who have a target to aim at, to hit the proper mark? If so, we must try to comprehend in outline at least what this good is and to which branch of knowledge or to which capacity it belongs."
(Nicornachean Ethics, Aristotle)

Now it is perfectly permissable to attribute this desire to providance as well as natural order. Both points of view are valid and sound reasons for determining the rule of law. You just cant make the law what ever serves your own selfish ends. There is a guy somewhere in Iraq who learned this the hard why by being lawless. It was not WMD that got him deposed, he had violated international law. These treaties and trade agreements they negotiate and ratify in good faith are international law. I just threw that in for an example Im not trying to justify the invasion of Iraq.

Factual glitch (probably a mistype, AP):

The Roman Republic ceased when Gaius Julius binned the trimuvirate and declared himself Caesar. This happened 40+ years before the birth of Christ, so it's unlikely that the foundations of the Roman Republic took him into consideration. From then on Rome was an Empire, and even then it was a few hundred years before the synthesis of the Roman Empire with Christianity took place.

Otherwise I've no beef with your post.

Julian,

I was wondering if anyone would catch that. Your right about Rome not being a republic in the same way that America is or Sparta was. Actually I was referring to Rome as a Republic based on the political philosophy (law and moral authority being the theme)of St. Thomas Aquainas in Summa Theologica. At any rate I was just trying to allude to the moral consensus that Rome had to have in order to have so much influence in Europe. I'll have to concede your point since I was never really that enthusiastic about Rome being a model of a Republic anyway. Its interesting that they had tried installing emperors through their councils which lead to nationalism. I guess its fair to say that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, especially when laws are imposed for the accumulation of power. Thats what happened to Rome they ruled without moral restraint. Or maybe it fell due to a lack of moral authority. Good point though.

Anyone ever see madmax the movie, i think thats where law came from, without it america would be city after city walled up with its own goverment, like in the past somewhat. A large part of romes fall did not have to do with some stagnent moral authority, the huns i think it was, were being pressed from china, this lead them to need a home. The silk transport from china to rome gave them one in a way. So you see, it really cant be put on one thing, more or less you had civil fallouts do to so many ideas in the rome, a spread out super power, then the huns to deal with, along with one german prince who hated rome. A working law or system has been a requirment for society for a long time now, its gets better or worse being where you are or as time moves on. You really cant get that advanced if you have no system or law to work from, that and roveing gangs of thugs kinda made it so. I think the need for law as it is really came about when society, or population was allowed to grow from hunter/gather types.

Hi Zebbeddee agian trying to make the most misunderstood point understood,


No, if you understood you could do nothing but agree. This is not arrogance it is truth.
Let me explain. Let us for this argument say that their was a big bang etc and evolution produced mankind as it is today. Therefore we have a million years to live maybe a billion whatever but our time will eventually run out when the universe will be nothing but photons no matter will exist and humans will not either as their will be no energy to make us and we, even if we found a way to survive in space if their was nothing else but the occasional photon what are you struggling on for.
If life has no meaning or purpose why do you bother toiling on, why carry on living. I will tell you why, because all men and women are looking for a purpose and the chief end of man is to glorify God. Man was made for this purpose, has no other purpose. Men reject this because Man is fallen and sinful and do not want a God who will take their life, which otherwise has no point, and give them life eternal to live in glory with thier eternal creator. And all you did was, by his hand, give back what was his, repent of all that made you seperate from him and accepted that christ died to pay the debt that if we are not saved will send us to eternal destruction. This is my view out right and I could write you pages if need be to explain to all of you who follow the wisdom of this world how great is our God for the fooloishness of God is greater than the highest wisdom of men for God is GOD. Comprehend ye that. I think not.

You live in a universe of nothing, with no purpose, no nothing, absolutely nothing. The end is nothing it began as nothing in your view. No man loses anything but his soul when he dies unconverted, For what shall it profit a man if he should gain the whole world but lose his own soul. Why do you all struggle on for nothing, NO-THING without purpose, meaning, desire but all to fill your earthly lusts and pleasure as you see fit.

What is the sum to infinity of the series 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 .... .
It is 0. By your view without this is all their is 0. For nothing you do makes a difference to anything except maybe the placing of a few photons at the end of time. Some worth while life.


Although Humour is one of the 5 great wisdoms given to man by God this shows you obviosly don't understand the point of this thread. Where does man get his ruling from other than from man for law should be just and not made by the unjust. Only God has the right to judge and only if the right is given by God can one man judge another.


Please explain how individuals all with a will of selfishness would agree that something is wrong if it obviosly benefitted them.
Using your example of two caveman families which I guess you mean primative man (which I don't believe in as man was created as he is today just over 6000 years ago by God in six days, long enough to demonstrate the care he has for his creation but short enough to demonstrate his great power) Morals are decided on after an action of revenge has been taken when it becomes clear to both sides that they will have to continually perform a selfish action to stay ahead of the game. So they all agree not to do this action for the good of their group. This is then exploited by one side, say, who steal some food and because the other family has agreed that stealing is wrong they cannot retaliate, then an independant ruling must be made to ensure due punishment is brought upon all those who break the societal law so another family says that an equal amount of food must be returned and the thief must undergo a pnishment equal to his act against the act. Then the rulers (the third family) develop a favourite side and the ruling becomes unjust and corrupt and this continues to produce rulers ruling the underling ruluers who rule the rulers ruling the rulers of the rulers ruling the people(if there are any that are not rulers) etc and each level is corrupt so eventually man evolves programmed morals and tries to do good, help the world and generally save the planet. I have taken your analogy a bit far but this is what would happen without desire for purpose. If all there is is life and no purpose then society has no purpose except to control that which has found its way into existance by some fluke chance and now feels that it should continue because it is. But by this analogy man has reached a evolutionary stage (I do not believe evloution, I am presenting the view from an evolutionists point of view) We can now decide what we should do, should we continue on for nothing in an ever expanding universe only to fade from existance eternally at death or end the human race now and feel better about the universe we leave because we have not been responsible for messing it up.


This is a result of sin in the world and animals do things that would not be deemed human by most society's but just for information, in china where it is only able to have one child unless you are rich means that plenty of girls are killed every year because of dowry payments so it is practised in human society's. I think this is wrong and all human life is precious.


This is a bit badly worded and I am not sure what this all is trying to say but I think you are saying that If I think law must come from God I am wrong and that "law" is made to suit a society to encourage it in the general direction of betterment. What would suit you if you where to make the laws. Everyone else would be accountable but you would not as you do not want responsibility if you can help it but may accept it willingly if it is given. If everyone in a society has no morals built in then everyone will come to the agreement that they do not want law and want to be wrife in their sin for they live only for pleasure and their own enjoyment without purpose or morals but filled with diverse lusts. Is this what you all want.

So I take it No-one understands this 'No-thing is Better than Some-thing'

At least no-one has replyed about it.

What is best for man kind - which veiw promotes the greatest moral standing, the highest accountability, the greatest reward for your actions and the simplest message of grace.

The wisdom of the world is the wisdom of fools but the wisdom of God is for Man who was made in his image.

There are two types of law:

a) God's law (or Natural Law) - many people believe this does not exist, and
Man's law - codified by legislation, tradition, etc.

The authority for man's law comes from the consent of the governed (in the case of a liberal democracy) and by force or inheritance (in the case of autocratic or despotic systems).

I would like to focus on one word from the above quote: the word "right" as used in the phrase "...to have the right [to do something]...".

By saying that there exists such a thing as a "right", does that not imply that some things are right and some things wrong? If you focus only on Man's law, then you have the right to judge (whatever that judgement may be) only if you have the power to do so. In this case, the words "power" and "right" are interchangeable. "Might makes right" makes perfect sense.

If however, there is something bigger than that (i.e., that there really is a right and wrong), then you still have the right to judge. Only now you have the obligation to judge justly.

What does "...act in a 'moral' way..." mean? To use the word implies a belief that some things are objectively better than other things. So either they are better because (a) I think they are better or ( because they are better regardless of what I think.

If the answer is (a), then it's not objective, it's subjective. It's not Truth, it's opinion. In this case, the only "good" or "bad" is what I define them to be. If the answer is (, then where does the definition of "better" come from?

The word "morality" can only mean "a standard or benchmark greater than the thing to be judged.

jrn - please avoid posting two posts in a row. If you were the last person to post, you merely need to go in & edit your last post if you want to add more information. If 12 hours have passed since your last post, you may make a new one because your edit window will have closed.

Thanks

I think you are confusing "morals" with either "tradition" or "contractual arrangements", or both.

What if Caveman Dave (the new tribal leader, in negotiating with a neighboring tribe) said "I'll let you kill each first-born male child of each family in my tribe and rape all women between the ages of 14 and 20 if you will let me have the profits from your first crop each spring."? If the neighboring tribe agrees, it is surely a contractual arrangment, but is it right for him to make this deal?

How can one even say that anything Chief Dave does is right or wrong unless there is something bigger than Dave to judge him by?

You're basing your idea of morals on several presuppositions which are not based in fact. Everything you describe rests upon this bed of preconception:

that 1: an entity called "god" exists, and
2: that god is infinitely transcendent of the "layers" of judgement you imply in this flawed analogy.

Obviously morals are part of a development of culture and society - they can be nothing else. If god created a moral certainty intrinsic to the universe we can sense, then why would all people on this earth not come naturally to these morals? Indeed, from culture to culture we see widely varying moral structure.

If god was all-loving, why give his moral law to only a small group, instead of to every human being? I am asking this question rhetorically, by the way, not as an invitation to run this topic off the tracks.

I'd say that in many ways religion and culturalism are a means of dividing people and eroding the "natural morality" we are given by being born with our eyes open, and nurtured at the breast of a mother who's very fiber is set on protection and compassion.

It may be natural to classify and divide the physical world in order to process it, but religious and political thought pounce upon and expand that classifying nature, rather than our nurturant nature. The result is we are taught that the divisions between us are fundamental and can only be bridged through coercion or subterfuge. It is not the natural relationship of human beings to their mothers (and in direct extension, to their "tribe," however one defines that) which is the cause of war, of persecution, of hatred.

Maybe It's time we went back to the topics

1. Why should someone who murders be brought before the law if what the murderer believes says there is no consequences and nothing matters.
As jrn said if something that is not beneficial is agreed on, and becomes what quarkhead (did you choose this name because you read our brains are giant quantum computers) would call natural law it would be expected of all individuals to perform this law and not wanting to rape or kill would make you opposed to this law. Quarkhead in a natural law there is only one law, all things act selfishly to ensure their own survival. This does not mean you cannot help someone else but it is ultimately donein your own interest.
If a group of outsiders, with a different natural law, said that what had been agreed was not the way things should be done do they have the right to stop Caveman Dave and Caveman Bob from having this agreement.
There is no right in either party unless one has a higher being to get it from, either neither is right on neither is wrong in that if no divine being exist then there is no right or wrong yet man knows right and wrong, he may abuse this and do what he pleases but he is higher than the animals and is given the power of choice and freewill

2. Under what ruling is it that we judge others for thier deeds.
If natural law is decided by people would you agree with someone of great power, for example George Bush, deciding he did not like the way the world was run and unified the whole world. Set in place a natural law with no laws, no consequences, no judicial punishment and no authority except his own would this be right or wrong or neither.

3. What is better for the human race (whether right or wrong)? Personnelly I think genocide would be the best idea as everything would work without peoples interference. lol.
What is the best way to make people live with the greatest moral standards (highest spe-ciel good) in full accoutability and with a desire to to good from within and not without.

The point of this topic is to show that without anything else higher than man there is no point, no purpose, nothing. Do you all understand that. So as the universe dissapates (from the vast assumption that evolution and the big bang happened) in a few billion years humans will all have deid out and for what, what do we live for, why do you carry on if you believe there is nothing for you, you can make no difference in the end and what does it matter if you change someone a bit, it can have no eternal effect. When all humanity is gone so will your memory that may still live in them but if their all dead so eternally are you. You may live life now but what for, your born, you live, you die and for what. To please yourself while you live and therefore what hold hath law over you from this view. There are no consequences, there are no restrainsts everything you do because you choose to do it, what ever you want goes, nothing you do matters, life is nothing but for your own enjoymentand pleasure for without God you live for nothing in nothing with nothing and shall die nothing. This is your truth and if you wish to believe this then so be it. But I shall hold my faith in Christ Jesus.

Choose you this day whom you wil serve.
But as for me and my house, I will serve the Lord.

There is no inherent 'right' or 'wrong'. These terms change so much from person to person, culture to culture that they are ultimately meaningless. There are things that have been declared by a particular society to be 'wrong', either through law or tradition, but this doesn't make said judgement inherent or universally applicable.

Cephus - So what right has any man or group of people to impose his views on how a society should be run, what laws should be imposed or what is right and wrong if law is natural, every man decides what is right and wrong or nothing is right and nothing is wrong. All it is is what you want and the quickest and easiest way to get that. What you are saying is that man makes his own law and what I am saying is this is the view many peolpe are given but then they are told they are not at liberty to do what they wish because others have decided there actions are wrong. So I return back to the beginning, what right has one man to oppose the actions of another except by force in which case all law is unjust and all men under the law, even if they adhere to it, are done wrongly against by it. What right has a man to do anything? By your Godless veiw he has all right and every right to do as he please without thought of others consequences or anything, you are all you live for and whatever pleases you goes. This is your natural law.

This is the sick world we live in because all have fallen short of the glory of god and man in his pride has rejected him.

Does "objective truth" exist? What relationship (if any) is there between "right/wrong" and "truth/falsehood". Because I can certainly show that Truth exists. Not a subjective, I'm-okay-you're-okay" kind of truth which you maintain changes "from person to person, culture to culture..."

If we define "Objective Truth" as a truth which is the same for everyone whether they believe it or not, whether they like it or not (and I am certainly not purporting to be the foremost authority on what this is, I am only asserting that it exists), then consider the following two sentences:

• Objective Truth exists.
  
  
• There is no such thing as Objective Truth. My truth may be different from yours.
  
  

The second sentence is an affirmation of the very thing it attempts to crush. It tries to affirm the Objective Truth that there is no Objective Truth. I remember seeing a box drawn on paper. Inside the box were the words "everything inside this box is false" and the question was asked "is that a true statement or a false statement?"

It is neither true nor false, but an absurdity. The second statement above is the same thing.

Suppose that we then substitute the word "Truth" with the word "Law" (which, at the end of the day, are supposed to mean the same thing). This means that when we write laws, we are doing much more than simply "codifying deals made by powerful people". It means that we are searching for what is right and just.



Thanks for your response, Victoria. I have a question about your sentence: Why is it reasonable, what makes it so?

Interesting post, jrn, and I see what you are getting at. I would agree that there is some Objective Truth out there in the universe, and that humanity is trying to get as good an image of it as possible.

However, I must point out that this Objective Truth applies only to facts; it cannot apply to ethical judgements. Therefore, I deny that "Truth" and "Law" mean the same thing at all (unless you mean "Law" in the sense of the "law" of gravity; which has nothing to do with human law.)

It is not a "fact" that killing people at random is immoral; it is, however, an extremely reasonable opinion, and for all practical purposes it can be treated as a "fact" in the eyes of the law. Human can approach closely to a sort of metaphoric "truth" in ethical matters, but it cannot literally be the Truth.

Well, you are wrong about this being the "fundamental natural law." A couple years of biology and ethology might cure you of such a misconception. It is from this giant misunderstanding you have of the natural world which leads the rest of your post into never-never land.

You are starting from the view that without God, humans are base creatures without glory or "purpose." You fit everything else into this framework.

There is no single purpose. All things are interconnected and interdependent. There is no flower without insects. What is the purpose of a flower? There is no way to describe it without describing the universe around it.

In Buddhism, the Buddha is not a higher authority. He is not the judge. He does not give purpose; he found a way beyond - beyond purpose and non-purpose. In the sense you are speaking of it, life IS without purpose. But it's your own preconceived notions which make this a bad thing.

In Buddhism, our purpose comes from that which is observed, and is not given from on high, inscrutible.

We recognize 3 truths:

1. all people suffer.
2. all people grow old.
3. all people die.

And this: that there is a way out of or beyond suffering.
Because we can observe that everyone suffers, our purpose becomes compassion. Because we can observe suffering is the end product of ego, our purpose becomes a striving for the natural egoless state.

In Buddhist societies, you will notice there is a much higher developed sense of civil interaction than in the so-called "Christian" societies.

The consequences of our actions can be observed all around us. We don't need a supreme being to see that.

Be kind, practice mindfulness
pay attention!