Reason vs. Morality

[dilloduck]

We the People. Justice is a right that each of us must uphold for each other. For you to fail to obtain justice means that my own right to justice is in jeopardy. The concept of Secular Government is that We the People make these decisions for ourselves.

No, we don't always get it right! But we keep on trying to get it right. The Constitution was flawed when written 200+ years ago but it is better today because we keep on trying to improve it. The process actually works, albeit imperfectly.

If you insist on limiting this to America I'll have to disagree----judges decided what is fair and just.

I have no problem expanding We the People to encompass everyone in the world.

Judges don't decide what is "fair and just". They make unjust and unfair decisions that can be overturned by We the People via the legislative process. It is called checks and balances.

And before you go there, not everyone in the world has a Constitutional Secular Government with specified rights. But in principle that would be preferable to the alternatives out there today.

Overturn Supreme Court decisions ? That happens a lot.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Using reason as a basis ignores the ease with which individuals change 'reason' to 'rationalization.'


9. The acceptance of 'reason' and the general will gives rise to the ascendency of the collective over the individual, and all sorts of unintended consequences.
The French Revolution, a direct result of the Enlightenment, produced the slaughter of 600,000 human beings, and the pathway to every totalitarian revolution of the 20th century.


The premise of the Enlightenment was that millennia of human interactions, condensed into the lessons of the Bible, were no longer necessary.

Now, reason, science, should be the basis of human governance.




10. Such is the concept of Lessing, Voltaire, Hume, Kant....removing individuals from the details of specific religion to a background position, a citizenship based on the law, the social contract, and enforced by a secular power.

Good idea or bad idea?

How many have been slaughtered over the last century in the name of the general will, or 'reason'?
I know....do you?



Once religion is of this secular variety, morality becomes whatever the government says it is. Fine, unless one objects to the morality of the Nazis, the communists, the American politicians who endorse infanticide, adultery and murder.

But, heck...citizens can still have football, fast food, and food stamps.

 

[percysunshine]

Reason vs. Morality

I would challenge the assumption that reason and morality are in anything more than trivial conflict, much less that they are mutually exclusive.

Common sense morality is formed by observing the consequences of human behavior. Reason involves an honest consideration of observed events. It isn't a giant conflict.

In my opinion....

.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You're fulla beans.

The willfully blind, i.e., you, will continue to accept that pap.


The 'peer-review' nonsense has been blown out of the water.

Keep bowing to the orthodoxy.

Sternberg was the editor of a peer-reviewed scientific journal and allowed a paper to be published without being reviewed. He lost his job because he made a decision to not abide by the standard of the journal. He's not a victim of anything other than his own bad decision.

"... peer-reviewed scientific journal..."

You are more than gullible.

What kind of dunce attributes super-human ethics to any group based on their title....

Oh..you.

"Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles, smashes ‘peer review ring’"
Scholarly journal retracts 60 articles, smashes ?peer review ring? - The Washington Post



Wise up.

Grow up.

Typical PoliticalSpice deflection.

She comes up with an irrelevant and obscure anecdote involving deliberate fraud and attempts to equate that with a policy and procedural violation at the esteemed Smithsonian.

Richard Sternberg was an editor for the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington which is affiliated with the Smithsonian Institute.[5] In 2004 Sternberg approved for publication an article by Discovery Institute "fellow" Stephen Meyer entitled: Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories.[6] After the publication Sternberg came under fire for bypassing the normal peer-review process for the journal (specifically, not including another editor in the peer review process). Ultimately the Council of the Biological Society of Washington released a press release that said in part:

“”The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard V. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history.[7]

Intelligent design and academic freedom - RationalWiki

 

[dilloduck]

Reason vs. Morality

I would challenge the assumption that reason and morality are in anything more than trivial conflict, much less that they are mutually exclusive.

Common sense morality is formed by observing the consequences of human behavior. Reason involves an honest consideration of observed events. It isn't a giant conflict.

In my opinion....

.

Observing human behavior where ? in a Schoolyard ? A prison ? at the Mall ?

 

[Derideo_Te]

If you insist on limiting this to America I'll have to disagree----judges decided what is fair and just.

I have no problem expanding We the People to encompass everyone in the world.

Judges don't decide what is "fair and just". They make unjust and unfair decisions that can be overturned by We the People via the legislative process. It is called checks and balances.

And before you go there, not everyone in the world has a Constitutional Secular Government with specified rights. But in principle that would be preferable to the alternatives out there today.

Overturn Supreme Court decisions ? That happens a lot.

And why would that be? Because even the SCOTUS is aware of the system of checks and balances.

 

[boedicca]

Reason vs. Morality

I would challenge the assumption that reason and morality are in anything more than trivial conflict, much less that they are mutually exclusive.

Common sense morality is formed by observing the consequences of human behavior. Reason involves an honest consideration of observed events. It isn't a giant conflict.

In my opinion....

.

Observing human behavior where ? in a Schoolyard ? A prison ? at the Mall ?

Congress?

The Clinton Foundation?

Jesse Jackson?

Goldman Sachs?

Eric Holder?

The IRS

Obama?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Using reason as a basis ignores the ease with which individuals change 'reason' to 'rationalization.'


9. The acceptance of 'reason' and the general will gives rise to the ascendency of the collective over the individual, and all sorts of unintended consequences.
The French Revolution, a direct result of the Enlightenment, produced the slaughter of 600,000 human beings, and the pathway to every totalitarian revolution of the 20th century.


The premise of the Enlightenment was that millennia of human interactions, condensed into the lessons of the Bible, were no longer necessary.

Now, reason, science, should be the basis of human governance.




10. Such is the concept of Lessing, Voltaire, Hume, Kant....removing individuals from the details of specific religion to a background position, a citizenship based on the law, the social contract, and enforced by a secular power.

Good idea or bad idea?

How many have been slaughtered over the last century in the name of the general will, or 'reason'?
I know....do you?



Once religion is of this secular variety, morality becomes whatever the government says it is. Fine, unless one objects to the morality of the Nazis, the communists, the American politicians who endorse infanticide, adultery and murder.

But, heck...citizens can still have football, fast food, and food stamps.

Out of sheer desperation Political Spice invokes Godwin's Law and thereby concedes her entire OP premise!

 

[dilloduck]

I have no problem expanding We the People to encompass everyone in the world.

Judges don't decide what is "fair and just". They make unjust and unfair decisions that can be overturned by We the People via the legislative process. It is called checks and balances.

And before you go there, not everyone in the world has a Constitutional Secular Government with specified rights. But in principle that would be preferable to the alternatives out there today.

Overturn Supreme Court decisions ? That happens a lot.

And why would that be? Because even the SCOTUS is aware of the system of checks and balances.

How you managed to make government the ultimate purveyors of secular morality is beyond me. It that what all secularists worship ? the Bill of rights and the American Judicial System ?
Is that why Judges wear robes ? You may be onto something .

 

[boedicca]

Overturn Supreme Court decisions ? That happens a lot.

And why would that be? Because even the SCOTUS is aware of the system of checks and balances.

How you managed to make government the ultimate purveyors of secular morality is beyond me. It that what all secularists worship ? the Bill of rights and the American Judicial System ?
Is that why Judges wear robes ? You may be onto something .

All DD is missing is an altar for burnt offerings on The Mall. We don't need a Confessional...the NSA listens to everything we say and do.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Wrong. Positive rights are rights provided by The State. Negative rights entail limitations on the power of government to interfere with the individual.

Thank you for the clarification. I wasn't aware of that definition.

In which case I am at a loss to understand your position;

Anything that is an assertion of a Postitive Right [Positive rights are rights provided by The State], is, by definition, an infringement on the rights of someone else.

How is exercising my free speech right an infringement of your right to free speech? (Replace free speech with privacy, bear arms, voting, habeas corpus, etc, etc.)

Freedom of speech is a Negative Right...the state is prevented from Limiting your Free Speech. Same thing with the others. The State doesn't GIVE you your rights to free speech, to bear arms, etc....if it did, then it could easily take away those rights.

The Constitution was specifically designed to limit government power over an individual's inalienable-intrinsic-God-given rights. Such rights are inherent to the individual separate and apart from any government construct. The purpose of our form of government was to protect those rights from abuse by others, including the state.

Although inalienable, our rights are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by government (see, e.g., DC v. Heller 2008)).

The purpose of the Constitution is to establish the fundamental principles and case law used by the courts to determine if and when the government has exceeded its authority to place restriction on citizens' rights.

For example, hate speech is a protected right under the First Amendment (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)).

Hate speech advocating for an imminent violent crime against a person because of his race is not (Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993).

Moreover, the concept of protected rights exists solely between the relationship of the government and those governed, not between or among private parties or organizations.

If a moderator of this site should delete one of your posts, your right to free speech has not been 'violated,' nor has your right been subject to 'abuse' by others; only the state is in a position as a consequence of its punitive authority to potentially violate a citizen's civil liberties.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Reason vs. Morality

I would challenge the assumption that reason and morality are in anything more than trivial conflict, much less that they are mutually exclusive.

Common sense morality is formed by observing the consequences of human behavior. Reason involves an honest consideration of observed events. It isn't a giant conflict.

In my opinion....

.

Observing human behavior where ? in a Schoolyard ? A prison ? at the Mall ?

Congress?

The Clinton Foundation?

Jesse Jackson?

Goldman Sachs?

Eric Holder?

The IRS

Obama?

All of the above and add to that FoxNews, MSNBC, Hollywood, Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, etc, etc.

As a society we are constantly evolving. This discussion would not have been possible 30 years ago in the format we are having with people of disparate backgrounds thousands of miles apart. Back then the long distance phone charges would have been an impediment.

So yes, our morality evolves alongside our technology and our society. Some things remain constant while other are more fluid and adapt accordingly whether for good or bad depends upon how it is perceived.

 

[itfitzme]

They aren't seperable things. They both exist as a result of the other

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Overturn Supreme Court decisions ? That happens a lot.

And why would that be? Because even the SCOTUS is aware of the system of checks and balances.

How you managed to make government the ultimate purveyors of secular morality is beyond me. It that what all secularists worship ? the Bill of rights and the American Judicial System ?
Is that why Judges wear robes ? You may be onto something .

Likely because no one advocates “mak[ing] government the ultimate purveyors of secular morality.”

This seems yet another inane rightwing lie, an effort to contrive a 'controversy' where none exists.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Overturn Supreme Court decisions ? That happens a lot.

And why would that be? Because even the SCOTUS is aware of the system of checks and balances.

How you managed to make government the ultimate purveyors of secular morality is beyond me. It that what all secularists worship ? the Bill of rights and the American Judicial System ?
Is that why Judges wear robes ? You may be onto something .

No, I provided you but a glimpse into what constitutes "secular morality". You would be appalled if I used this single thread as the basis to make a sweeping judgement on theocratic morality. If you are sincerely interested you can follow the links and do your own research into the subject. I am not here to proselytize. It is entirely your choice to remain superficially aware or to pursue the subject more fully.

"Secular morality" as you term it is no better or worse than any other form of morality. It has it's shortcomings and it's adherents are as equally fallible as any who ascribe to religious morality.

"Secular morality" is not "carved in stone" and does not require "obedience" under some threat to your "immortal soul" and no one "worships" it. Instead it is a reasonable, albeit flawed, compromise between the ridiculous extremes posited by the OP which are impractical and oppressive.

 

[itfitzme]

Thank you for the clarification. I wasn't aware of that definition.

In which case I am at a loss to understand your position;



How is exercising my free speech right an infringement of your right to free speech? (Replace free speech with privacy, bear arms, voting, habeas corpus, etc, etc.)

Freedom of speech is a Negative Right...the state is prevented from Limiting your Free Speech. Same thing with the others. The State doesn't GIVE you your rights to free speech, to bear arms, etc....if it did, then it could easily take away those rights.

The Constitution was specifically designed to limit government power over an individual's inalienable-intrinsic-God-given rights. Such rights are inherent to the individual separate and apart from any government construct. The purpose of our form of government was to protect those rights from abuse by others, including the state.

Although inalienable, our rights are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by government (see, e.g., DC v. Heller 2008)).

The purpose of the Constitution is to establish the fundamental principles and case law used by the courts to determine if and when the government has exceeded its authority to place restriction on citizens' rights.

For example, hate speech is a protected right under the First Amendment (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)).

Hate speech advocating for an imminent violent crime against a person because of his race is not (Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993).

Moreover, the concept of protected rights exists solely between the relationship of the government and those governed, not between or among private parties or organizations.

If a moderator of this site should delete one of your posts, your right to free speech has not been 'violated,' nor has your right been subject to 'abuse' by others; only the state is in a position as a consequence of its punitive authority to potentially violate a citizen's civil liberties.

The purpose of the Constitution is to establish the fundamental principles and case law used by the courts to determine if and when the government has exceeded its authority to place restriction on citizens' rights

That’s good. You mean a postulate or axiom. A precedence that is accepted without proof. "I think, therefore I am". Two points define a straight line. That sort of thing.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Morality is a particular system of values and principles of conduct. The effect of morality on society was that people didn't have to have locks on their doors. Biblical morality remains constant.

On the other hand, reason is the motivation behind an action. It can encompass good or bad behavior. It can be manipulated.

There is plenty of reason out there to excuse the actions of man. And a lack of morality allows for any behavior of the one who has reasoned he is justified in committing the action.

For instance, a lack of morality is responsible for the "if it feels good do it" rational, and an increase in sexually transmitted diseases. A system of values and principles of conduct would prevent that result. Reason results in the unwed mother explosion. They reasoned it was a good idea at the time. Morals would prevent that kind of reasoning.......

 

[percysunshine]

Reason vs. Morality

I would challenge the assumption that reason and morality are in anything more than trivial conflict, much less that they are mutually exclusive.

Common sense morality is formed by observing the consequences of human behavior. Reason involves an honest consideration of observed events. It isn't a giant conflict.

In my opinion....

.

Observing human behavior where ? in a Schoolyard ? A prison ? at the Mall ?

I was thinking 'when', not 'where'. Observations of events and their consequences.

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Just because the State seeks to acrete power by infringing on one's rights doesn't turn those rights into Positive ones.

That would depend on whether the measure in question is rationally based and pursues a proper legislative end.

Citizens are at liberty to peaceably assemble for the purpose of political demonstration but not to occupy public places to the extent they become inaccessible or visibly degraded (Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984)).

That the state should seek a legitimate restriction on one's civil liberties does not mean the restriction somehow constitutes government accumulation of unwarranted authority.

The intent of the Framers by creating a Constitutional Republic with representative democracy was to express the will of the people in the context of the rule of law, so that when the people err via the political process those adversely effected can seek relief in the courts. And through the process of judicial review the people will know whether government has acted in a Constitutional manner or not.

Consequently, a just and civil society is realized.

 

[boedicca]

Just because the State seeks to acrete power by infringing on one's rights doesn't turn those rights into Positive ones.

That would depend on whether the measure in question is rationally based and pursues a proper legislative end.

Citizens are at liberty to peaceably assemble for the purpose of political demonstration but not to occupy public places to the extent they become inaccessible or visibly degraded (Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984)).

That the state should seek a legitimate restriction on one's civil liberties does not mean the restriction somehow constitutes government accumulation of unwarranted authority.

The intent of the Framers by creating a Constitutional Republic with representative democracy was to express the will of the people in the context of the rule of law, so that when the people err via the political process those adversely effected can seek relief in the courts. And through the process of judicial review the people will know whether government has acted in a Constitutional manner or not.

Consequently, a just and civil society is realized.

Indeed. We do better when when Civil Society is the broad middle in between Government Power and Anarchy.

The Governments limitations on rights should be limited to the borders between individuals. Hence, the prohibition on yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

What we have today, however, is an increasingly restrictive environment where certain political factions claim they are "harmed" merely because someone disagrees with them (cf., the hideous incident in which a professor in SoCal assaulted a student for speaking out against abortion...with the university closing ranks to protect the professor).