The community would ostracize individuals with really bad behavior. — Noah Te Stroete

Would not be "bad behaviour" the behaviour that countervened the expected? So the expected behaviour would be the uncodified law.

And the expulsion: would that not be the punishment for countervening the unwritten law?

Sure nuff, there would be no leader, but the community would take over the role of the leader inasmuch as their consensus would make the unwritten law that prescribes behaviour. If there were no prescribed behavior, no punishment for any behaviour would be forthcoming.

So the community is the leader, in a communal form of government. Much like in our present day societies the demos, the electorate, is the leader of what should happen in the world. The elected representatives are only spokespeople for their constituents. This of course is bastardized these days, and that is very sad, but it has good advantages, too, for instance that we have laws of non-convenience for the individuals, that promote trade, business and prosperity.

That's why they say that democracy is the worst possible form of government, except for all the currently available other forms.

That's why they say that democracy is the worst possible form of government, except for all the currently available other forms. — god must be atheist

Agreed. If only we had a democracy in the US. We never did.

As it stands now, most of us are oppressed and traumatized serfs. Given the chance, many of us would kill the king. — Noah Te Stroete

But the king is he demos. The electorate. You and me.

I actually condone your premise. Let's all commit suicide. Last man standing needs no laws; laws and leaders are meaningless terms to a man living alone on a desert island.

But the king is he demos. The electorate. You and me. — god must be atheist

Maybe it seems more like that in Canada. Not here. It never was.

How much freedom do you feel like you have or had in the workplace?

Did you ever elect your boss?

Did you ever get to elect who owns ExxonMobil?

The point is that anyone can be an owner. It even appears that anyone can be the leader of the free (not so free anymore) world. When a few people are in charge who are unaccountable to the stakeholders in society, crime is inevitably widespread. When leaders are accountable and those who are led feel like they have a say and some stake, the people are less likely to commit crimes.

You're right, Noah. Our world is not a single tribe with a small number of tribal humans. It is, like you say, a big world, where the governement does not interfere with private and personal ownership that much. You're right, it is a big world, where the government, quite wrongfully and despicably, instead of listening to everyone's gripe and whining about how they have to work for a living, and how awful their bosses are, and then telling the boss how to do their jobs, do the cop-out and the gov simply decides on rules of conduct and makes decisions on how resources that everyone wants but is in limited amount, ought to be divided among the interested parties.

This is all very bad of the government to not care about the little feller who is suffering in a meaningless existential angst because his boss ducked his pay for whatever reason.

Would you rather that the government would send an inspector every day to every place where a job is happening to make justice? How much do you think your taxes would be then?

My taxes would be the same. Yours might be much more, though.

Oh, goody. I am a Canadian. I enjoy paying taxes.

It is the extreme pleasure of every Canadian to do our patriotic duty for country and king, because we know that at least half our tax money goes toward the social safety net.

And that is the one thing that provides the stability for the feeling of basic security that enables us to go on living happily, which is denied from the American public, which rather not pay taxes at the expense of risking personal wealth and liberty at the drop of a hat when they get ill.

Exactly. Trump wants to dismantle the social safety net, and he might actually get his way sooner or later. He won’t go unless kicking and screaming.

Supposedly there were exceptions, such as people motivated by a higher moral philosophy or purpose. Generally, I'm against the notion of "anarchy", and I think there is enough evidence and legal and moral philosophy indicating that, at least some, would potentially act immoraliy in an anarchist scenario in which there was no centralized legal system — IvoryBlackBishop

For the religious believer (Judaism and Islam), "the law" means religious law, which is largely a matter of self-discipline and not so much of enforcement. Still, if there is enforcement, then that revolves mostly around victim compensation.

In Islam, any other definition of the term "the law" is considered to be a pagan aberration.

Associating other lawmakers as partners to Allah is called "shirk". Shirk is the only sin that will not be forgiven on the Day of the Last Judgment, for which the person will always be refused access to Paradise, and for which he will always burn in hell.

Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else, to whom he pleaseth. To set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin most heinous indeed. — Quran 4:48

For the believer, morality emanates exclusively from religious law, while attaching any moral value to non-religious law is strictly forbidden.

Furthermore, since it is the corporate oligarchy that controls secular law, that would amount to giving control over your morality to the ruling elite. In line with the Quran, I can personally not imagine a worse depravity than doing a thing like that.

Shirk is the only sin that will not be forgiven on the Day of the Last Judgment, for which the person will always be refused access to Paradise, and for which he will always burn in hell. — alcontali

I doubt that. It sounds completely implausible to me.

I doubt that. It sounds completely implausible to me. — Isaac

Allowing the corporate oligarchy to dictate the law and its resulting morality is considered utmost evil in Islam:

The words of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) may be applied to the secularist: “Wretched is the slave of the dinar and the slave of the dirham and the slave of the khameesah (a kind of luxurious garment made of wool with patterns). If he is given he is pleased and if he is not given he becomes discontent. May he be wretched and doomed, and if he is pricked with a thorn may it not be pulled out (i.e., may he have no help to remove it).” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2887). — Sunnah on the problem of prioritizing the corporate oligarchy

While trade and commerce are clearly permitted, all the while taking into account that usury is strictly forbidden, it is not permissible in Islamic law to give free rein to greed.

Furthermore, the believer resolutely rejects a system in which the corporate oligarchy dictates the law with a view on turning greed into the core moral value of society, i.e. a false god, because associating such corporate lawmakers as partners to Allah is impermissible behaviour for the believer. According to the Quran, the punishment for such behaviour is eternal damnation.

I don't know what any of your rant has to do with my comment. I said that I doubt "Shirk is the only sin that will not be forgiven on the Day of the Last Judgment, for which the person will always be refused access to Paradise, and for which he will always burn in hell."

I said nothing about corporate oligarchies.

You'd still hunt for food if you were hungry.

You'd still look for a partner if you were lonely.

A finite organism already implies morality, you ought to be good or...

If I was an infinite organism, only my care for others, or fear of something else, would stop me being immoral, but I may just want to counter that fear, and my care might be dangerous...

I’m optimistic and think most of us would act morally save for a few opportunists. But then again it would be interesting to see some statistics on whether people abide by laws out of principle or because they fear being punished.

Well then it follows that the Sunday schools are acting immorally.

Children are impressionable, and they are trying to understand the world and how it works. If people, who supposedly care for them, are feeding them lies then this will distort their view of the world and to their detriment.

So if a child's father went to prison for murder or child molestation, would you tell them at 5 years old or wait until they are older?

You would introduce them to the ideas in a way that they can understand and without telling a lie. eg 'Daddy did a bad thing and has been taken away by authorities and locked up. We can visit him once a month' If asked what bad thing he did, you could say 'he hurt someone very badly'... etc

↪Athena
What happened in 1958? — Pfhorrest

The establishment of the Military Industrial Complex. The 1958 National Defense Education was only part of the establishment of the Military Industrial Complex but perhaps the most significant part because of the resulting cultural change. President Eisenhower explained the reasoning for establishing the Military Industrial Complex and he warned us of the dangers of it in his farewell speech.

What form would education take? Number one, it would return to transmitting the culture we defended in two world wars. Number two, it would prepare everyone for higher order thinking skills. And number 3, would stop specializing students and return to giving everyone a well rounded education with a focus on individual interest and talents.

No more "group think"! and back to education for independent thinking.

So...teaching creationism in bible school is immoral. Or that christ has risen. Or most other bible stories.

I agree with that.

then how come the religious claim that the core of their (and others') moral behaviour is based on the bible?

Are you ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY sure that lying to children is ALWAYS immoral?
19 hours ago
Reply
Options — god must be atheist

There is an important difference between story telling as Hebrews did to get across a point and teach morals, and interpreting them literally. Hebrews understood the stories as stories and I am not sure why Christians interpreted them literally but it is the literal thinking that is the problem, and not all Christians interpret the Bible literally. Christians who interpret the bible literally are the problem and Texas education promotes this. Teachers took Texas to the supreme court because Christians had forced creationism into science books and were forcing teachers to teach creationism as though the story were equal to science. The teachers won, but still the Texas Republican Agenda in 2012 was to prevent education for higher order thinking. To be clear, the Texas Republican Agenda was to assure ignorance and unquestioning obedience to authority. The political ramification to this should alarm everyone.

If you sincerely want more information google "higher order thinking skills" and read the links that are attractive to you. Your knowledge of the subject would be improved by learning about how our brains work and Daniel Kahneman is the best authority on that. Google "fast and slow thinking" to learn more about that. To clarify, there is are different methods of teaching children how to think, and we can prepare them to be fast thinkers or slow thinkers. Literally interpreting the Bible and basing all decisions on what one believes is slow thinking and the lowest moral level dependent on fear of God's punishment and hope for God's blessing.

The highest moral level can be explained with a pyramid of thinking skills and this is found on the upper right of this page https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=Higher+order+thinking+skills&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

The level of moral judgement a person attains depends on the person's belief system and education. — Athena

So to begin, this is absolutely right. I am not sure exactly how much of this Kohlberg takes into account when he says only 25% of people go beyond level 4.

Now if the belief system explains it is our nature to be evil and therefore there must be authority over the people, then the stage of moral development will remain low. — Athena

Well that certainly provides a potential explanation of a large chunk of the planet not reaching higher levels of moral reasoning.

That is a totally different level of thinking than average Christian thinking, and the 2012 Texas Republican agenda was to prevent education for higher order thinking. — Athena

Well I know Texas has a rather pathetic history of educational practices...so that seems fitting.

Text books in Texas are very much controlled by Christians, however, when teachers protested teaching creationism and having it put in science text books, the supreme court ruled against including creationism in science books and against teaching it as science. That is, at the supreme court level, reason trumped religious belief. — Athena

Yep. They also had to change certain history textbooks they were using that referred to slaves as workers (I think a lower court was enough to reverse that one) :yikes:

Texas is even worse because of their influence on the textbook industry. Texas has a single board that picks the textbooks for THE WHOLE STATE. Whereas states like California have each district pick books. This means that textbook companies cater to Texas' whims because one sale can float the whole company...which means the rest of us are occasionally stuck with Texas' garbage textbooks.

We desperately need to return to understanding what morality has to do with liberty and what education has to do with good moral judgement or the lack of it! the 1958 National Defense Education Act decision to end education for good moral judgment and leave moral training to the church, was a huge mistake! — Athena

For sure. Also it is strange because one can't teach say, history or literature, without introducing some serious moral considerations.

When the only God is an impossible to believe God, the nation is split between the believers in that God and non believers. — Athena

Unfortunately in this country (USA), us non-believer are still outnumbered by at least 6 to 1 (maybe more like 9-1, I still don't think atheists plus agnostics adds up to 10% of the US population). People are quick to drop religion, but it takes longer to dismiss those nagging supernatural feelings.

The union of our nation that was built on reason, is being shredded! Our liberty is being destroyed and our growing dependency on authority over us is frightening. — Athena

I am not sure how I feel on this. Some days I see the religious "nones" increasing and people generally being more open to (and demanding of) peace. But then the next day, I see the push toward the idea that "all opinions are equal" and wonder if that idea is the death of democracy.

Well, I was expecting to argue a bit more...but I think I agreed with almost everything :up:

Allowing the corporate oligarchy to dictate the law and its resulting morality is considered utmost evil in Islam:

The words of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) may be applied to the secularist: “Wretched is the slave of the dinar and the slave of the dirham and the slave of the khameesah (a kind of luxurious garment made of wool with patterns). If he is given he is pleased and if he is not given he becomes discontent. May he be wretched and doomed, and if he is pricked with a thorn may it not be pulled out (i.e., may he have no help to remove it).” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2887). — Sunnah on the problem of prioritizing the corporate oligarchy


While trade and commerce are clearly permitted, all the while taking into account that usury is strictly forbidden, it is not permissible in Islamic law to give free rein to greed.

Furthermore, the believer resolutely rejects a system in which the corporate oligarchy dictates the law with a view on turning greed into the core moral value of society, i.e. a false god, because associating such corporate lawmakers as partners to Allah is impermissible behaviour for the believer. According to the Quran, the punishment for such behaviour is eternal damnation. — alcontali

Thank you very much for this explanation.

Well that certainly provides a potential explanation of a large chunk of the planet not reaching higher levels of moral reasoning. — ZhouBoTong

Nothing makes people more willing to fight for what they believe than the notion that they know the will of God and are fighting for God. In the US both the south and the north believed they were fighting for God, making the civil war a terrible struggle. Germany was the seat of the Holy Roman Empire and the Protest Reformation and these people fought terrible wars against each other, with the 30 years almost destroying Germany opening the way for Prussians to take control of Germany leading us to the world wars and finally to the US being the strongest military force on earth with the Christian Right supporting Bush in a war against non Christians, while Muslims fight for their existence against the Evil Empire that is the US.

That pedagogic education played absolutely no part whatsoever in maintaining the more egalitarian society created by the sudden removal of the alpha males. — Isaac

Isn't the idea of new baboons coming into the tribe and trying to assert dominance then being shunned and shown by the rest "this is not how we do things around here"...a type of pedagogy? I understand this new pedagogy was worthless until the large die-off of alphas...but I am not sure we can entirely dismiss the role of the new social norms...and I hope that with a little extra intelligence (perhaps very little haha) humans can potentially replicate the positive results without mass killings/dyings? I get I am into somewhat (understatement) hopeful/wishful thinking here...but it doesn't seem entirely absent of reason or evidence.

A quick run down of the issues with Kohlberg. — Isaac

Well thank you. As I wrote that I was thinking that I was taught this stuff in my education classes...and education departments are not exactly know for their rigor.

that there is a strong disconnect between making culturally appropriate moral judgements and behaving in a manner consistent with those judgements. — Isaac

Well that certainly seems accurate (I personally even maintain certain morals that I HOPE I stick to in some serious emotional situations, but I have not convinced myself of my moral fortitude until I actually experience it).

As people like Jonathon Haidt have said, much of this moral judgement is post hoc rationalisation for actions which we took for more basic behavioural reasons anyway. — Isaac

Seems reasonable. I like to chalk up much of "morality" as grey area stuff where the answer doesn't really matter either way, so hopefully this helps me avoid this a little...but I am sure I still do it more than I like to think.

Kohlberg's stages are not cross-cultural. They basically reflect Western modern cultural institutions in various forms, — Isaac

I didn't know this, but it is no longer surprising to learn that some concept was only ever analyzed from a purely western perspective then applied to everyone.

it's not necessarily about developmental stages as it is is about an assessment of the appropriate moral codes to apply in different circumstances. As a child grows up in a culture their circumstances change and different moral approaches become more suitable to their situation. — Isaac

Nothing here that seems unreasonable.

Are you a professor? Or some sort of sociology professional? I just mean...why do you know all this?

Just in case you know even more...should I dismiss Piaget's stages of cognitive development or Erikson's stages of (I don't even remember, maybe social development?)?

Thanks again for the info. I may have to spout off more often on things I know just a little about to see if anyone wants to give me the whole story :smile:

What are your thoughts? — IvoryBlackBishop

If by law you mean a legal framework codified and enforced then it's just the tip of the iceberg. There are other moral laws people follow and it's my suspicion that these are invariably religious morals.

Given that the above is true, people can be divided into two categories: Category 1, the religious-good, are those people who use religion as a guide for their behavior and category 2, the legal-good who either have no idea or simply don't care about religion and the only thing that keeps them from transforming into thieves, murderers, etc is the legal system.

If the law broke down or didn't exist then the legal-good would immediately complete their metamorphosis into criminals and chaos would ensue but the religious-good who are guided by religious morals would continue to be good as they were never actually dependent on the legal system.

If this tells us anything, it is that there must exist at least one set of laws to prevent immoral behavior. The legal system just happens to be the first line of defense.