[ale] [OT] rant - decadence in society - DRM

[Greg Freemyer]

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 3:28 AM, Michael Trausch <mike at trausch.us> wrote:
> On 03/25/2011 12:16 AM, David Ritchie wrote:
>> Another piece, IMO, is that there are more and more people who don't
>> believe in a God. As a result, they are not fearful of divine
>> punishment. I feel that such individuals may be just a little bit less
>> restrained in these areas than those people who do worry about such
>> things. They see more upside than downside - and since the moral
>> calculation is surpressed and only an economic one remains, there is
>> less restraint there.
>
> I must say that I disagree vehemently on this point.  Allow me to
> explain why I say that (ironically, I was just a few moments ago having
> a very similar conversation with someone else).
>
> Religion has *absolutely* nothing to do with any of this.  A belief in a
> diety (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with whether a person has the
> ability to critically think about whether their actions are right or
> wrong.  In fact, I can think of many situations where the ethical thing
> to do is directly opposed to the moral thing to do from a Christian
> standpoint.  Religious frameworks are something to never enter a
> discussion on "right" and "wrong", IMHO, because nearly every religious
> framework has something different to say on issue X for (almost) any
> value of X.  I therefore consider the questions of right and wrong to be
> something which cannot be suitably based on *any* religious framework
> (not just the Christian framework, but *any* framework).  Now I'll grant
> that for a Christian, all other diverging frameworks are typically
> considered to be "wrong", but that is a point that I will conveniently
> ignore since it's tangential at best to this particular thread (and for
> the rest of this message I will completely ignore all religious frameworks).
>
> Whether an action is right or wrong from the viewpoint of an individual
> depends on the set of rules that they are using to assess such a
> question.  The *real* problem, IMHO, is that most people are either
> unable or unwilling (more on that in a moment) to apply critical
> thinking and reasoning to the decisions that they make and fail to truly
> assess what they are doing before they do it.  Think about it this way:
> why does someone steal an item from a store?  It could be because:
>
>   * They do not know that it is wrong (maybe they are a child, or
>     they have never been taught that it is wrong and why that is the
>     case)
>
>   * They think that the "good" that will result from the theft is
>     something which outweighs the "badness" of the theft.
>
>   * They think that the other party will suffer no real loss and
>     therefore the action cannot be considered to be wrong.
>
>   * They think that they are entitled.
>
>   * They think that they are exempt from legal rules.
>
>   * They think that it's fun.
>
>   * They do not think at all.
>
> It could be for other reasons, too.
>
> Now, the way *I* gauge whether an action is "right" or "wrong" has
> nothing to do with what the Bible or the Torah or the Qur'an has to say
> about the issue.  Nothing at all.  For that matter, it has nothing to do
> with what our legal system has to say about it, as far as I am
> concerned:  our legal system is chock full of actions that are deemed to
> be illegal, but are not in any way wrong (unless you bring almost any
> religion into it).  For example, it is illegal to consume certain
> substances (the justification being that an individual will do harm to
> oneself by doing so).  It is similarly illegal in most jurisdictions to
> attempt to commit suicide (because someone in the government has decided
> that it is "wrong" to do so).
>
> In fact, using any religious framework as a template for law has the
> effect of imposing a limited set of values held by (one or more)
> religions upon all people in the jurisdiction, whether or not they
> subscribe to that set of one or more religions that agree on the issue.
>  There are *still* laws which are on the books in some states even
> though the Supreme Court has ruled them to be unconstitutional and which
> are derived from at least one individual's (though frequently more)
> perception of a "rule" from a religious framework---that is, the
> government has made certain actions illegal not because they cause
> anyone harm, but because somewhere, one or more individuals (most likely
> "more") believe that the action is "wrong" or "immoral" given their own
> personal framework.
>
> Teaching a person to fear punishment, jail, eternal damnation, or
> whatever else is no substitute for teaching someone logic, how to apply
> logic, and instilling a set of (truly!) universal axioms to go along
> with that logic.
>
> As an example:  Is it wrong to stop the beating of a human heart?  If we
> look to the Christian framework, the answer is quite clear: thou shall
> not kill.  It doesn't say why, nor does it define under what conditions
> it would be permissible to break that commandment.  And in the general,
> average, everyday world, the answer is almost always "yes, it is wrong
> to stop the beating of a human heart."  There is an assumption that the
> stopping of a human heart causes some sort of harm.
>
> However, what if the question is asked in the context of a person who is
> in the end stages of a fatal cancer?  Or, what about within the context
> of a person who has just suffered an injury so severe that it is a
> certainty that they will be dead in anywhere from a few minutes to a few
> hours?  What if, in either one of the previous contexts, that person
> asks for death to come sooner rather than later, knowing that they will
> die soon in either instance?  Is it then wrong to stop their heart?  Or
> does it, through the set of (admittedly exceedingly rare and
> corner-case) circumstances, become the right action to take because it
> is the action that will cause that person less harm?
>
> Personally, I could not believe that any diety (assuming the presence
> thereof) that is fair (again, assuming and conditional on validity of
> last assumption) and just (again, assuming, yada yada) would look at
> such an action as a violation.
>
> The more common example is that of self-defense:  is it wrong to defend
> yourself if the cost is the life of the person that you are defending
> yourself against?  I would say that it is not.  Of course, that depends
> on a lot of things, too.  Two more concrete examples on that.
>
> Let's say that we have an individual who spent decades as a locksmith.
> Let's assume that they think they are on their front porch, and let's
> further assume that they have forgotten their keys.  Let's say that they
> know how to defeat the locks on your front door with a minimum of fuss
> and therefore that person then does.  They then enter the home, but find
> it unrecognizable.  They are disoriented, they are confused.  What is
> the correct action, then?  I would say that unless they do something
> further to indicate that they are an immediate threat to your person or
> property that the correct action would be to invite them in, give them a
> cup of tea, coffee, water, something, and call the police non-emergency
> number to tell them what has happened and that you think that you have a
> disoriented and potentially (legally) incompetent individual.  It would
> be wrong to press charges in such an instance, and it would be wrong to
> turn them away if they are truly disoriented.  Of course, then it could
> be a ruse of sort, but one really cannot afford to make that assumption
> without any proof:  any human with a conscience would forever feel guilt
> that perhaps they made the wrong assumption.
>
> Now, let's say that we have an individual who forcefully busts your door
> down (property is thus already damaged, and this is obviously an
> aggressive move).  They are moving quickly and throughout, and you
> encounter them.  What do you do?  Do you defend yourself?
> Absofsckinglutely you do.  And legally speaking, if they have a gun (and
> thus pose an immediate perceived threat to your life, whether it has
> bullets or not) or if they come close enough to use a melee weapon then
> you absolutely have the right to defend yourself and your family through
> the use of deadly force if necessary.  I differ from the law's point of
> view slightly:  The moment that you aggressively cross my threshold, I
> assume nothing about whether or not the intent is to steal, to kill, or
> to do something else altogether.  I don't know about anyone else on this
> list, but if someone is in my house that is not supposed to be in my
> house and they've acquired that entry through an aggressive means, that
> seems enough to fully make me fearful and act to defend (or, of course,
> evade if defense is not possible).
>
> What about the example of the theft of a loaf of bread?  A staving
> individual who has not eaten in days steals a loaf of bread from a
> retailer.  Is that action wrong?  Again, I probably differ from most
> people here; I would say that *yes*, it is wrong.  A person who is weak
> from starvation would clearly look it, and could ask for a loaf of bread
> from the store, anyone working for the store, or anyone else in the
> store.  On the *flip* side of the coin, I would also consider it wrong
> to deny a request from someone obviously in need if one is able to
> fulfill the request.
>
> Another example would be those that stand out and about, loitering at
> things like the McDonald's drive-thru in the late hours of the night.
> Often they will ask for a dollar or a cigarette.  I will give a
> cigarette if asked, but I will never give the money.  I will offer to
> get them a meal, though.  Not surprisingly, most of those people refuse:
>  they aren't there because they're hungry.  They're there because they
> have found that they can convince people that they are hungry and to
> simply give them money, which they then use for other things.  If
> someone comes up to me and asks me for something that is a bare
> necessity, and I can afford to do so, I will simply purchase and give
> that to them.  I will never give up the money, even if I have cash in my
> wallet (a rare occurrence).  But I will not deprive another person of
> their need to eat or drink, either: I will help if I can.
>
> In any case, it's late and I cannot possibly continue.  But I felt that
> much at least needed to be said.  If an action by an individual can only
> harm that particular individual, it cannot be considered to be wrong
> (exception being if the individual does not possess the mental faculty
> to be aware of his or her own action).
>
> If an action by an individual causes harm to another individual, it is
> most likely wrong (of course there are multitudes of practical
> exceptions to that rule, such as performing CPR or abdominal thrusts on
> a person, which may injure that person [thus causing harm], but to the
> effect that the person may continue to live [thus vastly outweighing the
> harm done]).
>
> If an action by an individual restricts the freedom of another
> individual (outside of contexts where such restriction is appropriate),
> it is most likely wrong.
>
> If an action by an individual ends the life of another individual, it is
> most likely wrong (again with exceptions).
>
> And of course, there will likely be people who disagree with some or all
> of what I have said, but them's my 2¢.
>
>> A big part of the problem is that societies only
>> work well when the bulk of people are self-regulating in their
>> behavior - something that is becoming increasingly less common.
>
> I think that this is simply because people do not think or because they
> feel entitled; that is, Hanlon's Razor.
>
>        --- Mike

Mike,

I'm a christian, but I agree with most of what you said.

I believe that Jesus's message was simple:

My summary: "Love God, Love people, legalistic hypocrites will go to hell."

Doesn't sound too far from what you wrote.

If someone disagrees with the Love part, read Mathew 22:34-40

For those that think I'm wrong about "legalistic hypocrites will go to
hell", read: Mathew 23:1-39

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+23&version=NIV

Both passages are Jesus's words (as recorded of course).  Neither
require much interpretation or scholarly knowledge to understand.  And
they're short, so take 2 minutes and read them.

Greg