Either more amendments can be added, or they cannot. I'm no expert in constitutional law, so you'll have to enlighten me. But if it is possible, it is worth worrying about, for lovers of the constitution as is. And even if it is not possible, the fact that corporate interests have a credible way to change the constitution at all is worth worrying about. And again, there is no speculation involved it is the case that corporate interests are trying to change the constitution. It is neither baseless nor speculative, it is happening, and no matter how many feeble denials and how much you bandy your 'baseless' accusation, you have provided not a single argument or refutation of anything that has been said. You are a vacuous bullshitter.

There has to be enlightenment, in order for me to unenlightened, and there has to be God, in order for you lot to be mere mortals.

You are mere mortals, right?

I met God once, and I couldn't cope. So for the moment I prefer to manage without.

↪unenlightened You're backpedaling on your own and the article's insinuations. What do you think the statements "in case you thought the constitution would protect you" or "Kochs to rewrite the constitution" mean and imply? Once you figure that out, compare it with the facts and you will see that both you and the article are the ones guilty of hyperbole. — Thorongil

The Kochs are involved in a credible orchestrated move to change the constitution, which stands a pretty good chance of succeeding. Exactly how they or others will change it if it succeeds is unknown. So there is a base, unless you have credible evidence that disputes this for a legitimate concern that any changes will be in the interests of corporations and big business rather than the ordinary citizen.

It follows that those who may have thought that the constitution protected them from the excesses of corporate takeover of government have reason to be concerned. To the extent that corporations can rewrite the constitution to suit themselves, the constitution no longer affords protection to the ordinary citizen. My warning is both well based in fact and reason, and in no way 'mongered' since I have zero financial interest either way. I'm not back-pedalling, I'm calling you out for an unreasoning baseless propagandist, trying to blow smoke in the eyes of the readers.

The next Hitler is as likely to come from your country as mine. — Mongrel

Wouldn't argue with that. Nor that the Republican party is divided. But pointing out anti-democratic forces is not quite the same a s predicting the next Hitler. These things can be resisted, and even, perhaps especially, by republicans.

Nor was it claimed. Merely, apropos the topic, that corporations deform democracy, in this case to the point of adjusting the constitution. However, since you mention it, the fact that a corporatist president is scornful of the judiciary, that the supreme court is rather being packed, and that there is one party extremely dominant might give cause for concern. I'm sure the constitution won't be abandoned, but it might well be amended to entrench power somewhat.

So you have no basis at all for your claim, I take it, apart from your own hyperbole.

Got a basis for that? Got some evidence to show that show the information is false? Or are you just vomiting?

And in case you thought the constitution would protect you...

http://billmoyers.com/story/kochs-to-rewrite-constitution/

The game of 'who's more violent than me?' is a violent game.

To bring the mark into the light is to bring out the good. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'd like to try and do that a little. The mark, the target of one's moral action is the beam in one's own eye, not the mote in another's. It is convenient to think that if the rest of the world was peaceful and loving, then I would follow them naturally, and so to try and reform the world. And so we have the endless cycle of violence to impose peace on each other. It is the other way round; if I could end the violence in myself, then there would be peace in the world.

We deny ourselves the capacity for understanding the other's intent, by designating it as evil, because the intent to do evil is irrational and cannot be understood. So we must allow that the other's actions are guided by some good, it is just inconsistent with our good. There is a need for reconciliation, not a designation of opposing sides. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think we are irrational. And this understanding allows me to understand evil intent. I agree with you in one sense, but it becomes an abuse of language; man with sword intends to kill, man with scalpel intends to preserve life. These cannot be reconciled. A man thinks it is good to kill random passers by with a vehicle to promote a cause and the right understanding of God - that man has it wrong. And so does the man who thinks it is good to do the same thing in a jet plane in a foreign land in the name of democracy. To fight a war against terror is about as rational as curing the fear of heights by throwing folks off a cliff.

Yes, I disagree, I think that "evil" is a stronger word than sin, signifying a greater transgression. I think if we ask many of the same questions of "evil', and of "sin", we will come up with different answers, signifying a difference between them. For example, if we ask of sin and of evil, are they forgivable, the answer is likely that sin is forgivable, but evil is not. — Metaphysician Undercover

I wonder if you might agree with Maurice Nicoll, that to sin is to miss the mark, whereas evil is not even to aim for the mark?

Progress, eh. Every day, in every way, we're getting better and better. Or possibly not.

Philosophy is the rock against which progress is measured. Oh, you know how it all works? You know what you're here for? You know how to live? You know who you are? At last. Really? Well done.

You will learn to love big brother. Refusal to answer is an answer, but the wrong answer, and you will be corrected.

Of course, many theists also subscribe to revealed theology, and thus contend that it is possible to experience God directly. — aletheist

Indeed. But it is hard to tell the difference between God's revelation, and my intuition, either from my own point of view or from another's. In which case Peirce would presumably tell us that they are the same thing. Which suits me just fine because my intuition has fairly clear and conventional ideas about what is good, and if God has other ideas, then we are on opposing sides.

Only if God is not real. — aletheist

Not so. God can be real but inaccessible.

Since you will not answer, I will suggest that experience is the only guide, and experience is only of creation. In which case one might well ascertain that God likes increasing chaos, beings that eat each other and widespread suffering. In which case that must be good. A conclusion that many a religious terrorist seems to have come to.

why couldn't humans be the same way? — Marchesk

They could. In fact, if you will excuse the boasting, I myself have never chosen to poison my neighbour.

That would be theology — aletheist

You mean we make it up.

And what's wrong with that? Isn't that what it's like for God? A perfectly good God has no free will to do evil. — Marchesk

That is an odd conception of free will you have going there. I have coffee every morning because I like coffee in the morning, but I could have tea; I have the freedom to change, but I do not. If God is good then he chooses not to do evil, but that doesn't make him unfree.

we ascertain what God is like — aletheist

How?

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one can escape by pulling up the ladder of language in silence.

Imagine you are the government and the wealthy, with excess resources and the power to direct them to create more resources and social well-being, yet when they question coms about what you should do you say: "Ehhhh, I'm just going to nothing. That riff raft just keeps making bad decisions. If only they would make the right choice, direct themselves properly, to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, they could be prosperous like me." It's utter libertarian bullshit. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Dude. Slow down a bit, use the quote facility, and write in English. I really have no idea what you're saying, let alone what of what I'm saying you disagree with.

I created a poll to prove I am right. — ernestm

Truth is not democratic.

Not surprisingly,about one in a million understand — ernestm

As you clearly already know.

Ah, I get it now, you expect us all to disagree with you, thus proving you right. Right?

As for thinking murder justifiable or not, this is ambiguous. A better phrasing would be "the existence of murder is justifiable". And that's exactly what the free will defence claims; that the existence of murder is justified (on the grounds that free will is a good). — Michael

That's what you claim the freewill defence claims; I claim that this is either a misunderstanding, or the defence fails, because it relies on exactly the equivocation, nay contradiction, of saying that murder is unjustified, but its existence is justified. What I think it actually claims is that the possibility of murder is justified, but the existence of murder is not. But I already said that way back, so I'll stop here unless you actually have an alternative meaning for the term 'evil'.

You have to actually show that the things that the free will theodicist is referring to when he talks about evil (e.g. murder) actually are unjustifiable, and so actually are evil. — Michael

I don't think any freewill theodicist thinks murder is justifiable, or not evil. Perhaps you could cite one?

You can't simply define a term in such a way that your opponent's claim is false by definition. — Michael

You can't simply dismiss my definition without providing another one. Oh, wait you just have, damn. Then I have to admit I don't know what you're talking about.

I have a reasoned argument based on my definition of evil. When someone comes up with another definition of evil, I'll consider it. But it is not really an argument against the freewill defence, more an exposition of the meaning of it.

What the definition does do though, is carve out a distinction between natural evil and human evil. I'm surprised you didn't pursue that line.

You seem to simply be asserting that certain voluntary and harmful actions cannot be justified, — Michael

Yes. I'm not going to argue about that, or cite the bible; take it or leave it.

The free will theodicist argues... — Michael

They're wrong then.
Or possibly they are attempting to speak for God, which I think is unwise. But they might be saying, I hope they are saying, that freewill necessitates, and thus justifies the possibility of evil rather than the actuality. I think I could live with that and still be friends.

That certain voluntary acts of harm are justified by no means implies that they invariably are. Do you think that? I've not come across anyone that thinks so.

Then you haven't justified your claim that nothing can justify evil. You admit that your prior response "True by definition. If it's justified, it's not evil." is equivocation, and equivocation is a fallacy. — Michael

No. I'm defining evil as a voluntary unjustified act of harm. Harm that is involuntary or justified is not evil. Do you have a better conception?

the existence of free will justifies the existence of harm, and if evil is unjustified then this harm isn't evil.

It seems to me that you're treading close to equivocation, where the so-called evil I see by looking around is evil in a sense in which "not justified" isn't part of the definition. — Michael

I'm not treading close, I'm jumping in with both feet. But I'm not saying that free will is the justification of evil, nor that good is the justification of evil. There is no justification for evil, but only excuses. But here I am speaking as an evil-doer, a mere mortal.

But speaking as a philosopher, I am saying that there can be no evil and no good without free will, and that is what we generally mean by evil, when we are being careful about how we speak. If I couldn't help running you down by any sensible precaution, then I am not guilty of the misfortune you suffered. Likewise, the cruelty of a cat that plays with a mouse is not evil, because cats lack a moral sensibility.

And then speaking for God, I say I'm glad I don't have to make Her decisions. But I can vaguely see that the unfailing tolerance and equanimity of the good forum contributor may not be appropriate to the admin.

what needs to be argued is that certain acts are indeed evil (i.e. unjustified). — Michael

You really need me to argue that? I don't think I can. Take a look around.

Citation needed. — Michael

True by definition. If it's justified, it's not evil.

I don't think free will justifies the existence of evil, regardless. Not for a perfectly good God. A different sort of God, sure. — Marchesk

I think this is a strong, and moral position. Nothing can justify evil, no amount of good. This is the death knell of utilitarianism, at least. Yet God permits evil even if he does not create it, and it certainly looks like he creates it.

Now if life were a game of space invaders, one could readily see that the game maker needed to create the invaders, to make the game worth playing, even though the player has at all times to seek to destroy them. It is invidious from the comfort of the philosopher's chair or the preacher's pulpit, though, to explain to life's losers that their suffering makes a better game of life. So one should perhaps keep such insights to oneself, and simply fight against evil in the game of life one is playing without either condemning or justifying God's game plan.

"why would an all-powerful, all-knowing, benevolent God create people of bad character?" — Michael

How fortunate it is, (unless it is God's will), that we philosophers are all of good character and do not have murderous and violent desires.

But presumably God or a super AI would be able to draw the line such that we meaningfully had free will while not permitting the worst evils? — Marchesk

Maybe She has. "Fuck yourselves up as much as you like, in your solar playpen, but the rest of the universe is on a high shelf 'til you grow up."

Why would it need to be me? — Marchesk

Because 99% would add in other things like tax dodging, queue-jumping, petty theft, flaming, driving without due care and attention, fracking, dropping litter, and so on.

Also, I think that 1% would have difficulty committing genocide; it generally takes a lot of people working together.

That 'if' just means you want to be the omnipotent dictator.

My argument is that we don't really value the free will to commit certain evils, nor do we consider having such free will a good thing. What we value is the free will to do non-evil things, and we're worried that some people would like to constrain us from living how we like, when it doesn't involve committing those evils. — Marchesk

Well sure, that's why we have a justice system. But you really want an omnipotent dictator to make the decision about what you are allowed to be free to do ... if that's not already contradictory?

It turns people into automata.

I'm just going to say that it's not good for a serial killer to have the free will to kill people, and I don't think other people believe it is good either. — Marchesk

I'm all in favour of locking them up out of harm's way, but eliminating everyone's freedom is a very high price to pay.