2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: xer 21 on April 28, 2015, 04:47:04 PM
-
So i was discussing the upcoming primaries with some friends and i realized two things:
1) most of the republican candidates arent really galvanizing, are too conservative to likely cross the aisle for new voters and are thus unlikely to win the presidency.
2) outside of the justices, how much does it really matter?
How did i come to the second realization? Well, i was just thinking about how the house and Senate often react to support the other party following a presidential win. Im just wondering, if we lose thw presidency, wouldnt that just entrench thw current majorities in the house and senate even deeper? Is having the house and senate better than losing both to win the presidency?
Look, im not saying i want hillary to win. I really despise her. But im just throwing this out there: which is more vital to have? The person with veto/signing power, or the one who couls potentially override a veto, and introduce the right bills and cut out the bad ones instead of even letting them get to the president?
That, and of the libs, bernie sanders just declared and his voting records indicates a far less anti gun stance. Just spitballing here, but perhaps having him, who barely treats guns as a major issue, while still keeping the house amd senate would be ok. Just have to worry about the judges.
-
My concern is bringing the deficit down, fixing social security/medicare, repealing obamacare, CCW and reducing gun regulations, improved economy. I'm not sure if any republicans are able to do these things, but more likely than a democrat.
And my main concern is the supreme court. Next president will determine where our gun rights go over the next 20 years.
So i was discussing the upcoming primaries with some friends and i realized two things:
1) most of the republican candidates arent really galvanizing, are too conservative to likely cross the aisle for new voters and are thus unlikely to win the presidency.
2) outside of the justices, how much does it really matter?
How did i come to the second realization? Well, i was just thinking about how the house and Senate often react to support the other party following a presidential win. Im just wondering, if we lose thw presidency, wouldnt that just entrench thw current majorities in the house and senate even deeper? Is having the house and senate better than losing both to win the presidency?
Look, im not saying i want hillary to win. I really despise her. But im just throwing this out there: which is more vital to have? The person with veto/signing power, or the one who couls potentially override a veto, and introduce the right bills and cut out the bad ones instead of even letting them get to the president?
That, and of the libs, bernie sanders just declared and his voting records indicates a far less anti gun stance. Just spitballing here, but perhaps having him, who barely treats guns as a major issue, while still keeping the house amd senate would be ok. Just have to worry about the judges.
-
Short of a third party pulling off a miraculous win and reducing government size, spending, 3 letter acronyms, I don't see much change coming out.
Does anyone really believe D or R is in the people's favor? :crazy:
-
what the reality is.
-
Short of a third party pulling off a miraculous win and reducing government size, spending, 3 letter acronyms, I don't see much change coming out.
Does anyone really believe D or R is in the people's favor? :crazy:
I feel the same. For the most part, it really doesn't matter, for instance that assbite McConnell.
The only people I see truly representing the wishes of their constituents are Tea Party Republicans. The rest of them would sell us all into slavery to get reelected and keep the gravy train going. Not that I completely agree with the Tea Party platform, they've gone too far to the religious right for my tastes.
A Republican in the White House would be good for 2a issues, but for the country as a whole I don't think we'd see much of a difference.
-
We have a REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED Congress.
To have another DEMOCRAT president will not improve anything at all. If the House, Senate, and Executive bodies are all Republican, there is a chance they can pass real solutions that have a chance of making real improvements.
That is our best chance of correcting some of this administrations failures and put the nation back on a more Constitution-guided path.
-
We have a REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED Congress.
To have another DEMOCRAT president will not improve anything at all. If the House, Senate, and Executive bodies are all Republican, there is a chance they can pass real solutions that have a chance of making real improvements.
That is our best chance of correcting some of this administrations failures and put the nation back on a more Constitution-guided path.
Really.
Very little has changed. Same scumbags doing the same things they have for the last 30-50 years.
Until this changes, nothing else will.
-
I'm huge on freedom. Don't want to restrict anyone else's rights. Everyone should be equal.
On the other hand, I can't help but notice these mindless idiots, voting in people because the name looks familiar, rather than scoring someone against the constitution and that candidates voting record.
Seriously, look at the lack of attention devoted to driving on public roads. A license is a huge gain in personal freedom, but the huge responsibility associated with it sadly does not rise accordingly.
-
Really.
Very little has changed. Same scumbags doing the same things they have for the last 30-50 years.
Until this changes, nothing else will.
The last Republican-controlled Congress balanced the budget. They brought all the stalled, hot-button issues up for a vote after the Dems had stalled them for years in committee.
Since then, the Dems have had control of Congress. They brought us the housing melt-down and Obamacare, to name just two massive problems.
The current Congress has barely been in power four months, and they still have Mister Veto "I have a pen" Obama to contend with. Anything they hope to become law either must be watered down to satisfy him, or be capable of a Veto override. Neither are good options.
I'm not saying the current batch of Republicans are perfect -- not by any stretch! But when they vote, they go down party lines most of the time. We think we've had too much posturing for the media demonizing "the other side". We need a balanced budget again, or this debt will never be manageable. The interest payments alone are reason to pay the debt down.
-
Duplicate
-
The last Republican-controlled Congress balanced the budget. They brought all the stalled, hot-button issues up for a vote after the Dems had stalled them for years in committee.
Since then, the Dems have had control of Congress. They brought us the housing melt-down and Obamacare, to name just two massive problems.
The same folks that got us involved in 2 pointless quagmire wars, massively grew duplicitous federal law enforcement and threw away billions of unaccountable defense/aid spending. Those heroes? I've seen enough programs come and go to know that we are in fact better off with less defense spending - it trims the fat.
And while I'm oversimplifying - here's the problem.
Democrats shove a socialist agenda down our throat and don't trust us to do anything ourselves.
Republicans shove a "Bible-based" agenda down our throat and toss money at bloated defense contractors.
Both are probably equally worthless at foreign policy.
Which you consider "better" is mostly aligned with your personal beliefs, but they certainly aren't very different in kind - just in which way they lean.
-
The issue for me is that we are not really voting for a person. Literally we are, but figuratively we are voting for a person who embodies a party with an ideology. And neither party has an ideology that I am aligned with completely or even largely. There really is no third party choice unless you vote for someone who has no chance of ever winning. Both parties are out of touch with the people and reality and have let me down IMHO.
Unfortunately, the two candidates that I think would make good presidents will probably never win the nomination of the Republican party. And I know of no one in the Democrat party that I think even comes close to embodying the same morals and has the same integrity that I think we need in a president. And is not a Socialist.
A good friend of mine once said that both parties (Despite what they say, but by their actions) are steering this country towards Socialism. It is just that one party is trying to get us there sooner rather than later. To answer your original question, yes we will benefit but only in that it may only slow us down from reaching the inevitable. JMHO :shaka:
-
To have another DEMOCRAT president will not improve anything at all. If the House, Senate, and Executive bodies are all Republican, there is a chance they can pass real solutions that have a chance of making real improvements.
but my point is, every time a party gets into power, thre's blow back in congress. the republicans didnt retake congress til Obama came in. almost every president is going to have a lower approval rating since one side already dislikes him and the other side will have people become disenchanted, so there's a natural reaction to that in congress. my point is, if trends keep up, would a republican president be worth losing congress?
-
also, im going to be the first one to say it. i dont care if you hate me.
socialism isnt inherently evil. its the implementation that sucks. its honestly the last thing im worried about when considering a candidate because it really doesnt affect too many other topics of interest outside of welfare spending, which we could totally afford on the current taxes if we didnt waste so much money elsewhere (cough, ATF, cough).
im not a fan of current implementations you see in other countries, but socialism as an idea isn't evil.
-
but my point is, every time a party gets into power, thre's blow back in congress. the republicans didnt retake congress til Obama came in. almost every president is going to have a lower approval rating since one side already dislikes him and the other side will have people become disenchanted, so there's a natural reaction to that in congress. my point is, if trends keep up, would a republican president be worth losing congress?
i'd have to say yes
right now, in terms of the second amendment, the president is the most important, because of the danger of losing supreme court justices and having them replaced by progressives
and this would cause changes in other areas of law also
-
also, im going to be the first one to say it. i dont care if you hate me.
socialism isnt inherently evil. its the implementation that sucks. its honestly the last thing im worried about when considering a candidate because it really doesnt affect too many other topics of interest outside of welfare spending, which we could totally afford on the current taxes if we didnt waste so much money elsewhere (cough, ATF, cough).
im not a fan of current implementations you see in other countries, but socialism as an idea isn't evil.
Socialism is a pipe dream. No society that has tried it has succeeded long term.
I heard the colonists in America actually started out in a communal setting. Everyone worked to create food, clothing, housing, etc., and everyone was given what they needed.
The problem was, when colonists working extra hard were receiving the same share of goods as those who did less work, the colony began to fail. It was difficult to be motivated to work for the benefit of others. The longer they continued under a socialist system, the fewer resources they produced for the group, hence things they needed to live were becoming scarce.
Then, the leaders decided to switch to a capitalist system. Each would produce what they wanted and would trade the excess to others for the rest of what they needed. If you had much larger surplus than you needed, that equated to capital to be used to trade for other goods and services.
Within a year, the colony went from miserable to prosperous. The motivation to produce more is what was missing before. When the fruits of one's labors are your own to enrich your life, you will be more willing to work harder, longer hours and with increasing efficiency and effectiveness.
So, while you can state that Socialism in theory is not a bad idea, the proof is in the application. Socialism is all about "I am my brother's keeper." "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." What the theory ignores is human nature, i.e. what motivates people. Redistribution of wealth punishes producers and rewards those who produce less - or nothing. It's a fact that when you reward a behavior, you get more of it, and when you punish it, you get less. Look at our welfare system, and you see a perfect example of that concept.
-
Well said mauidog.
-
If you are a law abiding Hawaii gun owner, you are already screwed. They know where you live, what kinds of guns you have, all sorts of personal information.
It doesn't matter who is president or what their party is. The county will just do a New Orleans trick for the least little reason and order cops door to door. Look at how
much success Baker has had in the court system. Nationally Hawaii is now at the bottom of the barrel our ability to influence the congress and presidency is zero. They'd have
more influence if they caucus with the GOPe.
I think we need to worry about things closer to home. Get rid of the anti-gun Judiciary chairman. Get a gun friendly
police chief in every county. Change our laws. Then worry about which slime we elect to the Presidency.
-
If you are a law abiding Hawaii gun owner, you are already screwed. They know where you live, what kinds of guns you have, all sorts of personal information.
It doesn't matter who is president or what their party is. The county will just do a New Orleans trick for the least little reason and order cops door to door. Look at how
much success Baker has had in the court system. Nationally Hawaii is now at the bottom of the barrel our ability to influence the congress and presidency is zero. They'd have
more influence if they caucus with the GOPe.
I think we need to worry about things closer to home. Get rid of the anti-gun Judiciary chairman. Get a gun friendly
police chief in every county. Change our laws. Then worry about which slime we elect to the Presidency.
You are mistaken. The HRS has been modified to add a provision to prevent the state from doing exactly what you are claiming:
§134-7.2 Prohibition against seizure of firearms or ammunition during emergency or disaster; suspension of permit or license. (a) Notwithstanding any provision of chapter 127A or any other law to the contrary, no person or government entity shall seize or confiscate, under any emergency or disaster relief powers or functions conferred, or during any emergency period, as defined in section 127A-2, or during any time of national emergency or crisis, as defined in section 134-34, any firearm or ammunition from any individual who is lawfully permitted to carry or possess the firearm or ammunition under part I of this chapter and who carries, possesses, or uses the firearm or ammunition in a lawful manner and in accordance with the criminal laws of this State.
(b) Notwithstanding any provision of chapter 127A or any other law to the contrary, no person or government entity shall suspend, revoke, or limit, under any emergency or disaster relief powers or functions conferred, any lawfully acquired and maintained permit or license obtained under and in accordance with part I of this chapter.
(c) For purposes of this section, "government entity" means any unit of government in this State, including the State and any county or combination of counties, department, agency, institution, board, commission, district, council, bureau, office, governing authority, or other instrumentality of state or county government, or corporation or other establishment owned, operated, or managed by or on behalf of this State or any county. [L 2010, c 96, §1; am L 2014, c 111, §7]
http://capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS0134/HRS_0134-0007_0002.htm (http://capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol03_Ch0121-0200D/HRS0134/HRS_0134-0007_0002.htm)
Since tighter restrictions at the federal level can, and do, affect Hawaii gun owners, we should be focused on that level of government, not just at home.
If the federal government passes nationwide CCW reciprocity, for instance, it will help us here by at least shoehorning in a better chance to change the CCW laws locally.
-
MauiDog:
You kind of missed my point. The only way that law will be enforced when the county chooses to ignore it, is in the courts.
That is why "may issue" really means no issue. Right to keep and bear arms means only if the Police chief continues to allow you to.
A permission he can revoke at any time, remember your permit( his permission) to purchase?
The police don't work for you, they get paid by the county.
Cops can't be sued for violating your rights. Police chief can't be sued.
Your guns will be rusting in a leaky container for months and years
before you get them back.
Hawaii has 4 electoral college votes and Idaho cancels us out.
Kill the local problems first, they are just right down the road.
-
MauiDog:
You kind of missed my point. The only way that law will be enforced when the county chooses to ignore it, is in the courts.
That is why "may issue" really means no issue. Right to keep and bear arms means only if the Police chief continues to allow you to.
A permission he can revoke at any time, remember your permit( his permission) to purchase?
The police don't work for you, they get paid by the county.
Cops can't be sued for violating your rights. Police chief can't be sued.
Your guns will be rusting in a leaky container for months and years
before you get them back.
Hawaii has 4 electoral college votes and Idaho cancels us out.
Kill the local problems first, they are just right down the road.
I don't know where you are getting that the police can't be sued for infringing on your rights.
In the past five years, the city paid about $1 million to private citizens to settle a variety of lawsuits stemming from actions
by police officers who have raided the wrong home, assaulted suspects, made false arrests and deprived citizens
of their civil rights.
Between January 2002 and May 2007, the city paid out 30 settlements totaling $1.1 million, according to a review of
city records. The records also show legal costs for fighting the lawsuits amounted to $837,599.92.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Oct/08/ln/hawaii710080341.html (http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Oct/08/ln/hawaii710080341.html)
You're right about one thing. I did miss your point, especially after you tried to "clarify" it. You seem to be rambling from one point to another without really pointing out what one has to do with the other.
Wanna try for round three? :shaka:
-
Maui dog,
They say third time is a charm.
I vote Republican, only. It is a waste of time, but I'm a loyal sort of guy.
We have laws that the government and cops ignore whenever
they feel like, it takes years and lots of money to obtain justice, if at all.
Ask C. Baker.
It is a trick cops do, called running "you through the system".
They personally do not pay lawsuits, you and I do as tax payers.
The public pays for their lawyers, you pay $400 hr for yours.
We have more influence locally, than we have nationally.
Having Ted Cruz as president will not solve our problem of
Nazi like gun laws, vigorously enforced by Democrat union
members.
If that seems too unfocused, I give up and I'll log off.
-
Maui dog,
They say third time is a charm.
I vote Republican, only. It is a waste of time, but I'm a loyal sort of guy.
We have laws that the government and cops ignore whenever
they feel like, it takes years and lots of money to obtain justice, if at all.
Ask C. Baker.
It is a trick cops do, called running "you through the system".
They personally do not pay lawsuits, you and I do as tax payers.
The public pays for their lawyers, you pay $400 hr for yours.
We have more influence locally, than we have nationally.
Having Ted Cruz as president will not solve our problem of
Nazi like gun laws, vigorously enforced by Democrat union
members.
If that seems too unfocused, I give up and I'll log off.
(http://i.imgur.com/naHCXO5.png)
That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out comment! :thumbsup:
I NEVER expect the federal government to fix our local problems. However, in the case of the 2nd Amendment, it IS a federal issue. The reason Hawaii and California has these rules in places is they are leftovers from the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. The states and local governments which are run by Liberals who truly believe those "solutions" fix problems decided to keep them in place since there was a federal precedent for them. That made the laws much more palatable -- we'd already lived with them federally for 10 years, so there was less argument against keeping them locally.
The President sets the tone. Look what happened after Obama's Sandy Hook speeches. He might not have banned guns, but he was sure getting that ball rolling as far as he could take it.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/naHCXO5.png)
That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out comment! :thumbsup:
I NEVER expect the federal government to fix our local problems. However, in the case of the 2nd Amendment, it IS a federal issue. The reason Hawaii and California has these rules in places is they are leftovers from the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. The states and local governments who are run by Liberals who truly believe those "solutions" fix problems decided to keep them in place since there was a federal precedent for them. That made the laws much more palatable -- we'd already lived with them federally for 10 years, so there was less argument against keeping them locally.
The President sets the tone. Look what happened after Obama's Sandy Hook speeches. He might not have banned guns, but he was sure getting that ball rolling as far as he could take it.
two youts?
-
Socialism is a pipe dream. No society that has tried it has succeeded long term.
never said it was ever successful, and i understand why it will never be purely successful.
i just dont think there's anything wrong with the idea itself. people act like its a declaration of selling your soul sometimes.
-
never said it was ever successful, and i understand why it will never be purely successful.
i just dont think there's anything wrong with the idea itself. people act like its a declaration of selling your soul sometimes.
When you look at the millions of people killed by Socialist governments, it's not about your soul, but your very existence on the planet.
An idea is one of the most dangerous things in our world. iSiS and Al Queda are founded on ideas. Ideas are what drive Skinheads and radicals.
It's one thing to discuss the potentials of Socialism. The danger lies in the separation of theory and historical reality. That's why some studies lately say over half polled do not see anything wrong with having a Socialist President in the White House.
The danger is real, and the people who see no problem with the idea of Socialism do not always think past what the politicians they believe in tell them to think.
-
Great quote from the movie, Fury: "Ideals are peaceful.... History is violent."
http://youtu.be/DNHuK1rteF4
-
Socialism is a pipe dream because in order to achieve it, you have to factor out the human nature aspect. The same holds true for Communism. In theory, both systems seem lovely, but when applied in the real world, they can lead to downright totalitarian tyranny, i.e. the U.S.S.R, Mao's China, and the Khmer Rouge are examples. Human beings are hardwired to look after their own self interests, and Socialism/Communism seeks to override that very human trait.
Now, to the question of a Republican President changing things. There are only two candidates that would, in my opinion, shake up the status quo: Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.
Either man would make positive changes. It just depends if you favor a more libertarian or conservative flavor to your politics. I prefer Cruz or over Paul, but wouldn't be unhappy if Paul won it.
I will say one of the biggest things a President could do but isn't mentioned is audit and abolish the Federal Reserve. Though I think Paul would be the more likely candidate to do it, I have doubts even he could push against the ingrained powers that be that will NEVER abolish the Fed.
Of course, a little down the list would be abolishing the IRS; getting rid of Obamacare; getting rid of Dodd/Frank; replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg with a conservative justice; abolishing the EPA; abolishing the DOE (Dept. of Education); abolishing the BATFE; and charging James Clapper with perjury for lying before Congress.
-
The idea that socialism and communism both "seem lovely" but can't survive first contact with human nature is flawed. Even in their purest form, neither communism nor socialism are just, moral systems. The idea that someone else is entitled to the fruits of my labor is, in my opinion, inherently wrong. I'm not opposed to the idea that the government should provide a safety net to ensure a minimum level of subsistence, but the idea that, regardless of how hard you work, that all you get to have is that minimum level is indefensible.
-
The idea that socialism and communism both "seem lovely" but can't survive first contact with human nature is flawed. Even in their purest form, neither communism nor socialism are just, moral systems. The idea that someone else is entitled to the fruits of my labor is, in my opinion, inherently wrong. I'm not opposed to the idea that the government should provide a safety net to ensure a minimum level of subsistence, but the idea that, regardless of how hard you work, that all you get to have is that minimum level is indefensible.
You need to reread what I wrote. I loathe both systems, but I'm able to play Devil's Advocate and see why the hard left and other foolish people are swayed by the "everyone's equal" mentality that Socialism/Communism strives for. It appeals to moral adolescence.
And your own post backs up what I stated. Morality is a human construct. Each system is immoral. We agree there. So removing human nature and those things created by humanity like morality is the only way it would work. If you remove the human factor (morality), and then it would work because each system is inherently immoral.
-
When you look at the millions of people killed by Socialist governments, it's not about your soul, but your very existence on the planet.
An idea is one of the most dangerous things in our world. iSiS and Al Queda are founded on ideas. Ideas are what drive Skinheads and radicals.
It's one thing to discuss the potentials of Socialism. The danger lies in the separation of theory and historical reality. That's why some studies lately say over half polled do not see anything wrong with having a Socialist President in the White House.
The danger is real, and the people who see no problem with the idea of Socialism do not always think past what the politicians they believe in tell them to think.
there's a huge difference between an idea, and actually applying it.
and be fair. the ideas that back terrorist organizations are far different than a well intentioned, but flawed, governmental philosophy.
like i said, socialism as an IDEA, is not inherently evil. i never said it was ever well implemented, or that it was a good idea to base economic around it, or that it ever even has a shot at working at a large scale.
-
Morality is a human construct.
I think we've found our fundamental disagreement, and I don't think either of us is going to change the other's mind. :shaka:
like i said, socialism as an IDEA, is not inherently evil.
I disagree entirely; socialism, as an idea, IS inherently evil.
-
I disagree entirely; socialism, as an idea, IS inherently evil.
that's like saying that capitalism is evil because it promotes classes that extend down family lines where people benefit through no effort of their own just because they happen to be born into money.. there's nothing wrong with the idea, there's just obvious flaws in reality, just as there is with every economic idea. some are obviously worse than others. that does not make the idea itself evil.
socialism wasnt conceived specifically to oppress people. it was just used in that manner because humans are too greedy for something like that to work. that does not make the idea evil, it makes the people evil.
back to the actual point of my post. i understand the point of the judges. im just wondering if a a super majority would be possible in response to another democrat president. that is an interesting scenario.
-
that's like saying that capitalism is evil because it promotes classes that extend down family lines where people benefit through no effort of their own just because they happen to be born into money.. there's nothing wrong with the idea, there's just obvious flaws in reality, just as there is with every economic idea. some are obviously worse than others. that does not make the idea itself evil.
socialism wasnt conceived specifically to oppress people. it was just used in that manner because humans are too greedy for something like that to work. that does not make the idea evil, it makes the people evil.
back to the actual point of my post. i understand the point of the judges. im just wondering if a a super majority would be possible in response to another democrat president. that is an interesting scenario.
If a Socialist society abolishes individual freedom in favor of a state-owned and operated economy, how can that NOT be conceived specifically to oppress people?
If you honestly believe that God (or nature) has endowed all men with certain rights, including life and liberty, then what is in opposition to these rights is not only oppressive, but morally wrong. Socialism by definition demands that the rights of the individual be trumped by the needs of the people as a whole. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one -- as if the needs of the many cannot be met while simultaneously protecting the rights of the individual.
“A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.”
“Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.”
― Milton Friedman
The Communist Manifesto says the only way to achieve Socialism is for the State (Government) to own the means of production. That means the factories, raw materials, minerals, tools, education system, distribution system, trade within the state and with other nations, and basically each and every industry is owned by the state.
I submit there is an implication there that this much power over the citizenry can only produce a corrupt and oppressive government. Without the means of fighting back or the leverage inherent in a free society to select their leadership, oppression is a natural result of Socialism.
In a Socialist state, the only way to not be oppressed is to be part of the government at its highest level. However, even then, you will have to watch your back, as everyone will be looking for a chance to displace you.
The lack of individual freedom is not some unforeseen consequence of Socialism. It is part of the design. By definition, Socialism is a "stepping stone" on the path to true Communism. Communism can never be truly attained as long as anyone, in any nation, opposes it. That is similar to the Muslim imperative that requires all non-believers be either killed, converted, or subjugated.
Socialism cannot coexist with individual freedom. Any society which denies it's people freedom is oppressive. Therefore, Socialism, by design, is oppressive.
-
I think we've found our fundamental disagreement, and I don't think either of us is going to change the other's mind. :shaka:
Morality isn't a human construct? Alright. Where did does it come from, then?
Morality is a set of beliefs that PEOPLE construct - it isn't created by animals or inanimate objects. Ergo, it's a human creation.
The fact that all you can do is respond with a "we'll agree to disagree" rebuttal shows me you know you're wrong here.
-
Morality isn't a human construct? Alright. Where did does it come from, then?
Morality is a set of beliefs that PEOPLE construct - it isn't created by animals or inanimate objects. Ergo, it's a human creation.
Hi, causa mortis. I would like to respond to your question with the utmost respect for your point of view -- I hope this reply comes across as such.
Christians believe in a creator, that man was made in God's image and that we are more than just animals that evolved having opposable thumbs. Taking this world view into account, my understanding is that the western views of morality is a product of divine revelation, not of human reason. From Jewish history, God gave Moses the 10 commandments (written by God's own hands) at Mt. Sinai and this has been the basis and cornerstone of Western morality ever since.
I don't know anything about you nor your belief of God or views about Jewish history... Whether you believe in God or not, I am not trying to change your views or disrespect it in any way. Just suggesting that there is another possible point of view on this.
:shaka:
-
Morality by another name is ethics. By definition, it is knowing what is right or wrong, good or bad.
Mammals, whether human or not, seem to instinctively know what is good or bad. Good helps them survive and procreate. Bad causes pain, death, or other discomfort.
The psychological aspect of what is good or bad is tied to empathy. You know that biting hurts, so you refrain from biting when you don't wish to inflict pain. It might take socializing with others before you getting bitten teaches you that lesson, but you eventually do learn it.
One way to describe empathy is in the Bible. When asked which of the 10 Commandments is the greatest, Jesus replies, "Here is all you need to know. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
That pretty much spells out what we as living beings know WITHOUT THE NEED for a "construct." We innately and instinctively know good and bad because we know what we would like to have done to us, as well as what we don't want done.
Therefore, in my opinion, good and bad, right and wrong, ethics and morality all exist in us without our need to have a standard defined for us. For instance, if stealing is wrong, what about stealing to eat and survive? These are ethical dilemmas the law has struggled with for ages, which is why we have judges and juries. The assignment of GOOD and BAD to individual behavior is not so simple to do on paper.
Those who lack a basic ability to empathize are what we often refer to as "psychopaths", and those who know better but choose to do the opposite are "sociopaths". As a whole, society accepts and conforms to the behavioral norms.they understand as acceptable.
Also in my opinion, I believe it is a relatively recent development that people have come to trust that anything that is wrong is already illegal. And anything that is not specifically forbidden by some law or guidance is permissible. That is a cop-out. Just because something you do is legal doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.
I think long before there was organized religion or criminal courts, there were standards of behavior expected of everyone in a given societal setting. Those standards have changed over time, and they have been codified as "Commandments" and "laws", but 98% of us know when we are doing something wrong even when there is no formal prohibition against it.
-
Hi, causa mortis. I would like to respond to your question with the utmost respect for your point of view -- I hope this reply comes across as such.
Christians believe in a creator, that man was made in God's image and that we are more than just animals that evolved having opposable thumbs. Taking this world view into account, my understanding is that the western views of morality is a product of divine revelation, not of human reason. From Jewish history, God gave Moses the 10 commandments (written by God's own hands) at Mt. Sinai and this has been the basis and cornerstone of Western morality ever since.
I don't know anything about you nor your belief of God or views about Jewish history... Whether you believe in God or not, I am not trying to change your views or disrespect it in any way. Just suggesting that there is another possible point of view on this.
:shaka:
Nailed it. Thanks. :shaka:
-
Hi, causa mortis. I would like to respond to your question with the utmost respect for your point of view -- I hope this reply comes across as such.
Christians believe in a creator, that man was made in God's image and that we are more than just animals that evolved having opposable thumbs. Taking this world view into account, my understanding is that the western views of morality is a product of divine revelation, not of human reason. From Jewish history, God gave Moses the 10 commandments (written by God's own hands) at Mt. Sinai and this has been the basis and cornerstone of Western morality ever since.
I don't know anything about you nor your belief of God or views about Jewish history... Whether you believe in God or not, I am not trying to change your views or disrespect it in any way. Just suggesting that there is another possible point of view on this.
:shaka:
I'm a deist, and as such, the Christian dogma, though I agree with many of its principles, is irrelevant to my belief system.
-
I'm a deist, and as such, the Christian dogma, though I agree with many of its principles, is irrelevant to my belief system.
When you stated your belief that "morality is a human construct," I assumed we subscribed to different faith traditions, and that's why I said neither of us is likely to change the other's mind. It certainly wasn't out of a desire to avoid debate... Ask anybody who knows me! :thumbsup:
-
Morality by another name is ethics.
in some professional settings, this is not true. ethics are codified, morality is not.
-
The psychological aspect of what is good or bad is tied to empathy. You know that biting hurts, so you refrain from biting when you don't wish to inflict pain. It might take socializing with others before you getting bitten teaches you that lesson, but you eventually do learn it.
One way to describe empathy is in the Bible. When asked which of the 10 Commandments is the greatest, Jesus replies, "Here is all you need to know. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Going a bit off topic, but just wanted to point out a correction:
But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees with his reply, they met together to question him again. One of them, an expert in religious law, tried to trap him with this question: “Teacher, which is the most important commandment in the law of Moses?”
Jesus replied, “‘You must love the LORD your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:34-40 NLT)
-
Going a bit off topic, but just wanted to point out a correction:
I might have gotten the context confused, but this quote is the one I was referring to.
Matthew 7:12New Living Translation (NLT)
The Golden Rule
12 “Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets.
-
in some professional settings, this is not true. ethics are codified, morality is not.
True integrity does not require rules. A codified set of rules may be encapsulated as an ethics policy, but the intent of the policy is the same: to hold it's members to a standard.
Codifying a set of rules and abiding by them does not make one ethical. it merely draws a line that you are professionally obligated to not cross.
We were not discussing ethics as they relate to professional behavior, but ethics of human behavior in society. The reasons for, and limits of, ethics policies is a completely different subject.
Morality is about right and wrong. Ethics are also about right and wrong. We might use the term "ethics" in different connotations than "morals". but they both still represent a set of rules to guide us.