Posted by Exodus 22:19 on September 03, 2001 at 09:27:53:
In Reply to: Re: Death and Religion (short-in the context of this entire forum) pt 2 posted by Ezekiel 25:17 on September 02, 2001 at 23:46:12:
: Justice is a blanket phrase used by heroes and tyrants alike. When one's own personal opinions are met, than justice is achieved. Nothing exists which can justify these opinions. The legal system is designed to cover the majority of cases at the cost of individual justice, at times it is more concerned with procedure rather than substantial equity. It was designed by a Government who is at the whim of power minority groups.
Of course there is always going to be cases in law where justice is not served! But why do we have courts if people thought they didn't do anything. You would have to agree that in most cases there is someone in the 'right' according to a majority and someone who is not. Otherwise the case should be thrown out of court. I never said things were perfect as far as justice, and there are many stupid laws. A procedure is the only way there can be consistency without a dictatorship.
: : : Should the moral code of the majority override the individual liberties of the minority?
: : To some extent, yes.
: Is that the same as maybe?
No, my answer is yes as far as things which affect the majority.
: The problem is moral code is not universal but varies between countries. An example of this is nudity. How can we ever have an absolute consensus of any issue with the death and birth of millions every day, and how can these codes stand up in the future.
It's going to be tough explaining this one to someone who doesn't believe that people essentially have the same basic moral code..... I don't think nudity even comes into the equation. If it doesn't affect the majority, who cares. I don't buy into the argument that nudity in magazines or on television is offensive.... it's only when it's forced down your throat that it becomes offensive. I don't know of a country in the world where it's ok to walk down a public street nude without some form of prior warning.
: The UN is another example of the closest thing we have to universal human rights. However, regardless of population, the controlling nations in the UN are the one's with the most money and power, and does that necessarily make their decisions just?
No, Of course not. Where did I ever suggest that the UN was just? I do however believe that the _majority_ of people in the world believed it was morally right to prevent Iraq from manufacturing 'weapons of mass destruction'.
: : : If everyone in the world believed that the world was flat, than would that be correct?
: : No, that would be ignorance. But if everyone in the world believed it were wrong to spitroast porcupines, then that would be a moral belief and the moral belief of the majority rules as it must in any non-dictatorial society (for obvious reasons ie. more of us than you)
: : It doesn't mean that it would be impossible to spitroast a porcupine, it just wouldn't be approved of.
: If it is against the moral belief of the majority, should it be outlawed?
If it affects the majority significantly enough then yes.
: On many cases, majority = conformity = lack of freedom of thought. Although, on the flip side, there are a lot of weird individuals out there with extremist views.
I disagree. The majority is by definition conforming to something. That doesn't mean they lack freedom of thought!!!
: How can recreational drugs, abortion and so forth ever reach a consensus, and what is the correct stance?
Yes, they can reach a consensus, but there will always be people that disagree - you can't please everyone.
One at a time -
Recreational drugs: Only affect the majority in that they cause death and disease which costs money. Majority of people do not want to use recreational drugs, hence laws against them.
Abortion: Does not affect the majority (they are not under threat from an abortion!) Even if the majority believes that it is wrong, they cannot be allowed to force their opinions on everyone. My opinion: Abortion is fine, but to be avoided - I couldn't really call a foetus a 'life' any more than I could call a sperm a 'life'.
: What a person believes is influenced by a multitude of factors. Professors write whole textbooks on it, but I'll attempt to sum it up in a single word. Upbringing. The environment in which you live your early life (ages 0-15) has an extreme influence in what your values and beliefs will be in the future as that is when conformity is first drilled into the soul. This period is where questions are asked, and answers given, with no concept that these answers could possibly be wrong.
Yes, upbringing has a major impact one someone's beliefs, but not their _moral_ beliefs. A child may have different moral beliefs only because they have not seen enough of life for themselves. eg. A parent may tell a child one thing, but eventually the child will verify that for him/herself.
: You fit into the class of people who claim the search of knowledge is one of the factors of ultimate fulfilment.
Thankyou for pidgeonholing me so conveniently. You must therefore be part of the class of people who believes there is no meaning to life, and just take it as it comes.
:It is easy to know what you want and want to achieve, it is far harder to actually achieve it.
I think you are thinking materialistically. I mean what you want to achieve for your personal peace and satisfaction. Wealth/material usually doesn't come into that.
:I claim that knowledge doesn't necessarily bring happiness and should be sought for its own reward.
Your idea of knowledge and my idea of learning are different. Very different.
:If we go back to your earlier example vis a vis death, would it make you happier to know when you were going to die? Probably not, but it would be useful nevertheless.
It would not make you happier or anything else. The point of the question was not really to see how you could use the fact that you knew when you were going to die.
: If you knew what you were really eating when biting into a Mcdonalds burger, would it make you any happier?
I hate McDonalds, but no, not in a spiritual sense. (and I do know what it is, I just can't pronounce it :))
: Denial is a more certain process to reach happiness. Knowledge is a more certain process to reach knowledge.
Denial will not cause you to reach happiness. It may cause temporary satisfaction in much the same way as a hit of smack, but in the end you will be left without purpose, without knowing what you want from life and certainly without getting it.
: Any excuse for a party?:)
Who needs an excuse??
: : I don't know and possibly.... I was actually thinking more along the line of a kind of hip hop anthem for the ol' guy. I think it's time for a more musically inclusive Jesus.
: I personally find hymns very spiritual and uplifting, yet at times I yearn for a more hip hop and r&b Jesus. If you feel able to devote some time to achieving this blend, I would appreciate it.
Sorry, not a big hip-hop, r&b fan. Unfortunately see previous argument for why there can't be laws against it. Secret to blend - take on r&b record and one hip-hop record, place in blender and set to high. Funky Jesus would be something new though.
:On a totally unrelated note, my own personal survey on humanity shows a distinct tendency towards religion by followers of r&b.
Yeah, me too. Someone should study that.
: Maybe music and religion will be my next post :P
: Perhaps not.
How about sex and religion, or politics and religion.... much better....
: : : My 2 cents.
: : If there is a fine line between pleasure and pain, then it was my pleasure.
: Snappy quotes are overrated, then again so are ratings. :)
So are cliches.... my $1.95.
Post a Followup