The U.N. Is Poised to Rewrite Morality

[ClydeR]

A push will be under way soon at the United Nations to advance the activist homosexual agenda.

France is currently president of the European Union, and Austin Ruse of Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) believes they will try to give the pro-homosexual movement some clout. "In their role as the president of the European Union for the next six months, France has announced that they are going to push for a political declaration in the General Assembly, calling for the decriminalization of sodomy," Ruse explains.

More... (http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=245536)

Our continued participating in the U.N. should--and not just because of this particular issue--be a question put to McCain and Obama. What I can glean (the best way to learn) so far is that Obama wants the United States to cooperate more with the U.N and other international institutions. McCain wants to destroy the U.N. and start over with another international body that will only include democracies.

[ClydeR]

The U.S. already follows this policy as a result of the landmark Supreme Court case, Lawrence v. Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas). No state may criminalize sodomy.

That case barely passed the Supreme Court over the vigorous dissent of committed strict constructionist judges. It will be overturned if the court gets one or two additional conservative judges.

[Faent]

Soon your kind will be viewed as an interesting but extinct species of barbarian, ClydeR.

[ClydeR]

Soon your kind will be viewed as an interesting but extinct species of barbarian, ClydeR.

Well my prodigal friend, that may unfortunately be true if people of your caliber continue to leave the fold. The closer we get to the end of time, the fewer just people there will be in the world. Let me ask a question, Faent, that I hope you will answer honestly. Weren't you happier when you knew right from wrong with no doubts and no shades of gray to cloud your sight?

[radamanthys]

Sodomy is still outlawed for soldiers in § 925 Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That means you soldier boys can't get a decent hummer without a court martial.

ClydeR: I hope someone comes along and buggers you (the royal you) into next Tuesday. And I really really hope you like it. It's a sad (but true) fact that I've known many 'Christian' males who use 'the faith' to get away from their own desires- a good reason why that one silly line in Leviticus makes for such a focused inquisition. Funny that they turn to the one group that brought them the shame in the first place. Funny in a sad way.

On right and wrong:
'Every silver lining has a.... touch of grey. I will survive.'

[Parkbandit]

The fact that some of you reply to ClydeR like he really believes what he is posting makes me realize how dumb people are on this board.

[radamanthys]

Hence the 'royal you', as in all those with the ideals he's spewing. We all know he's a smurf.

[Nieninque]

Hi,

My name is ClydeR

What's your handicap?

[radamanthys]

I don't get it. Forgive me, it's been a long day.

[Parkbandit]

Hi,

My name is ClydeR

What's your handicap?

HandiCAPABLE!

[crb]

I think if ClydeR were on SouthPark he'd be MrGarrison before coming out.

[radamanthys]

Naw. He'd be Mr. Slave.

[Faent]

Well my prodigal friend, that may unfortunately be true if people of your caliber continue to leave the fold. The closer we get to the end of time, the fewer just people there will be in the world. Let me ask a question, Faent, that I hope you will answer honestly. Weren't you happier when you knew right from wrong with no doubts and no shades of gray to cloud your sight?

Clyde, one of the mistakes I made (in the distant past) was to believe that if God does not exist, then all is permitted. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that. Suppose then, with the vast majority of common men and almost 99% of philosophers, that there is a set of objective moral truths.

Your mistake seems to be closely related. You seem to think that without something like divine revelation we wouldn't be able to know any of the members of this set. I see no reason to believe that. This is not to say that accounts of moral knowledge aren't controversial (what account of knowledge isn't) and require more work. But any account of moral knowledge, like any account of scientific or mathematical or <insert favorite discipline here> knowledge, should be an account on which it is possible to know at least some (or most or all) of the relevant truths. Why? Well, since we do (obviously) know many of them.

So for the most part, I don't think I fit into your categorization. It is not now the case that I don't know right from wrong. And so it is not the case that I have moved from an happy state of knowing right from wrong to an unhappy state of not knowing right and wrong. (If you intended this claim to be more specific, as you may have given your use of the term "knows", you'll have to say so. Note that your question only makes obvious sense if we stick with the "knowing" locution. Being happier because one has false but dogmatic moral beliefs is not a good thing. In such a case it's bad to be happy.)

Of course, I don't meant to claim that (i) for every moral proposition I believe, I have the belief that that proposition is true, and (ii) I believe I know all the true moral propositions that there are. That would be absurd and probably demonstrably false. There are, of course, hard cases which require extensive moral reflection. But there will be hard cases even for the most dogmatic and irrational fundamentalist, no matter what set of rules are claimed to be divinely handed down.

[TheEschaton]

Ignoring the serious response above, I find this thread amusing. 6-3 majorities are pretty good when the dissenters are idiots like Rehnquist, Thomas, and Scalia.

[droit]

Sorry, Faent. Your post went above the heads of most politicos here. Next time, boil it down to something like, "Me Faent. Me no do bad things," then post a pic.

Besides, ClydeR is a closet liberal. He's just tryin to get a rise out of folks.

[TheEschaton]

I'm pretty sure most of us can handle the concept of natural law. However, arguing it with ClydeR is, as I said before, amusing.

[diethx]

Sodomy is still outlawed for soldiers in § 925 Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That means you soldier boys can't get a decent hummer without a court martial.

Damn, and here I always thought sodomy only referred to anal spelunking. You learn something new every day I guess.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Damn, and here I always thought sodomy only referred to anal spelunking. You learn something new every day I guess.

Sodomy I believe refers to all "unnatural" sex acts which would then include things like blowjobs as well as anal sex.

[Ravenstorm]

Basically, sodomy is anything other than Flap A into Slot B. Which is why Lawrence vs Texas is a ruling every straight person should also celebrate since it means the government stays out of YOUR bedroom too.

[radamanthys]

It refers to bestiality, too.

And I am SO glad that NYS doesn't have sodomy on the books, because I'd be a felon.



Clyde, one of the mistakes I made (in the distant past) was to believe that if God does not exist, then all is permitted. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that. Suppose then, with the vast majority of common men and almost 99% of philosophers, that there is a set of objective moral truths.

Your mistake seems to be closely related. You seem to think that without something like divine revelation we wouldn't be able to know any of the members of this set. I see no reason to believe that. This is not to say that accounts of moral knowledge aren't controversial (what account of knowledge isn't) and require more work. But any account of moral knowledge, like any account of scientific or mathematical or <insert favorite discipline here> knowledge, should be an account on which it is possible to know at least some (or most or all) of the relevant truths. Why? Well, since we do (obviously) know many of them.

So for the most part, I don't think I fit into your categorization. It is not now the case that I don't know right from wrong. And so it is not the case that I have moved from an happy state of knowing right from wrong to an unhappy state of not knowing right and wrong. (If you intended this claim to be more specific, as you may have given your use of the term "knows", you'll have to say so. Note that your question only makes obvious sense if we stick with the "knowing" locution. Being happier because one has false but dogmatic moral beliefs is not a good thing. In such a case it's bad to be happy.)

Of course, I don't meant to claim that (i) for every moral proposition I believe, I have the belief that that proposition is true, and (ii) I believe I know all the true moral propositions that there are. That would be absurd and probably demonstrably false. There are, of course, hard cases which require extensive moral reflection. But there will be hard cases even for the most dogmatic and irrational fundamentalist, no matter what set of rules are claimed to be divinely handed down.
Where some determine moral relativism (in relation to natural law) to be tantamount, the concept of natural morality is one of the most arrogant ideals that has ever breached western culture.

Culture sets morality. A godless being can be moral, and religious entities can (and most certainly are) immoral. That's (sorta) circular logic, I'm well aware. I could steal and fuck a 10 year old girl in one hole, while a german shephard is forced to go to town on the other, all while eating a big ol' chunk of human sweetbreads and singing the national anthem of Satan. I'd wake up the next morning like nothing ever happened. Except for committing myself. That's morality. The idea that one knows what other people in one's community feel is wrong and avoiding said actions. Or doing everything in one's power to avoid them- such as the whole self-committal thing.

Plus, Jeebus died for someone's sins. He realized all those old-testament ideals were fucking lame. So, Levitcus became pretty moot once teh lord jeebus took Longinus' spear. I used to play that game every sunday; so where mr Shell shock twitch (sst) has said in the past I don't know shit about teh jeebus, he can choke down half a pint of throat yogurt. And burp it back up 3 hours later.

[diethx]

It refers to bestiality, too.

And I am SO glad that NYS doesn't have sodomy on the books, because I'd be a felon.

Um. So you're saying you fuck animals? Sicko.

[Mabus]

Ignoring the serious response above, I find this thread amusing. 6-3 majorities are pretty good when the dissenters are idiots like Rehnquist, Thomas, and Scalia.
What I found amusing was that you could consider Scalia as in a group called "idiots".

I may disagree with Scalia on several points of law (and agree on others), Constitutional history, natural rights, past-document relevance and other areas, but he can, by no accepted definition, be considered an idiot.

Antonin Gregory Scalia on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Scalia):
"He graduated first in his class and summa cum laude with an A.B. from Georgetown College at Georgetown University in 1957. While at Georgetown, he also studied at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland and went on to study law at Harvard Law School (where he was a Notes Editor for the Harvard Law Review). He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law in 1960, becoming a Sheldon Fellow of Harvard University the following year."

Obviously, he is not an idiot.

Thomas always seemed like a partisan "tool" to me. That he does not ask questions during sessions bothers the hell out of me (not sure it should, but it does).

Rehnquist was a Nixon appointee through and through, and that administration still haunts this country.

[Faent]

It refers to bestiality, too.

And I am SO glad that NYS doesn't have sodomy on the books, because I'd be a felon.

Where some determine moral relativism (in relation to natural law) to be tantamount, the concept of natural morality is one of the most arrogant ideals that has ever breached western culture.

Culture sets morality. A godless being can be moral, and religious entities can (and most certainly are) immoral. That's (sorta) circular logic, I'm well aware. I could steal and fuck a 10 year old girl in one hole, while a german shephard is forced to go to town on the other, all while eating a big ol' chunk of human sweetbreads and singing the national anthem of Satan. I'd wake up the next morning like nothing ever happened. Except for committing myself. That's morality. The idea that one knows what other people in one's community feel is wrong and avoiding said actions. Or doing everything in one's power to avoid them- such as the whole self-committal thing.

Plus, Jeebus died for someone's sins. He realized all those old-testament ideals were fucking lame. So, Levitcus became pretty moot once teh lord jeebus took Longinus' spear. I used to play that game every sunday; so where mr Shell shock twitch (sst) has said in the past I don't know shit about teh jeebus, he can choke down half a pint of throat yogurt. And burp it back up 3 hours later.

I think that was almost wholly incoherent.

[radamanthys]

Well re-read it until it makes sense. It would be more pleasant to ask me to explain what I mean other than ripping on my post. I find you wholly unpleasant now.

Hint on reading my post: Betraying certain moral laws doesn't necessarily infringe upon the rights of others. They're 'made up' ideals of some higher order. There's no penalty for breaking them other than that one feels bad about it, or that another feels that person inferior for breaking them. The former being a creature of culture rather than any higher order. The second part should be pretty clear.

[TheEschaton]

What I found amusing was that you could consider Scalia as in a group called "idiots".

I may disagree with Scalia on several points of law (and agree on others), Constitutional history, natural rights, past-document relevance and other areas, but he can, by no accepted definition, be considered an idiot.

Antonin Gregory Scalia on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Scalia):
"He graduated first in his class and summa cum laude with an A.B. from Georgetown College at Georgetown University in 1957. While at Georgetown, he also studied at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland and went on to study law at Harvard Law School (where he was a Notes Editor for the Harvard Law Review). He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law in 1960, becoming a Sheldon Fellow of Harvard University the following year."

Obviously, he is not an idiot.

Thomas always seemed like a partisan "tool" to me. That he does not ask questions during sessions bothers the hell out of me (not sure it should, but it does).

Rehnquist was a Nixon appointee through and through, and that administration still haunts this country.

Let me clarify: his way of looking at the Constitution is idiotic. The man is very smart, but apparently wasn't as smart as Obama in law school, who was president of the law review. :P

[Tsa`ah]

What I found amusing was that you could consider Scalia as in a group called "idiots".

I may disagree with Scalia on several points of law (and agree on others), Constitutional history, natural rights, past-document relevance and other areas, but he can, by no accepted definition, be considered an idiot.

Antonin Gregory Scalia on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonin_Scalia):
"He graduated first in his class and summa cum laude with an A.B. from Georgetown College at Georgetown University in 1957. While at Georgetown, he also studied at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland and went on to study law at Harvard Law School (where he was a Notes Editor for the Harvard Law Review). He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law in 1960, becoming a Sheldon Fellow of Harvard University the following year."

Obviously, he is not an idiot.

Academic achievement in no way disqualifies a person from idiot status.

[Parkbandit]

Academic achievement in no way disqualifies a person from idiot status.


The man is very smart, but apparently wasn't as smart as Obama in law school, who was president of the law review.

Agreed.. with that single point. (not on TheE's opinion on Scalia)

[Tsa`ah]

That's not even a "gotcha".

[TheEschaton]

Of course, I was sarcastically pointing out how it's good for Scalia to be the NOTES editor on HLS's law review, but Obama is elitist for being the President of said law review.

In case you didn't know, the students write notes, based on articles submitted by other professors. The Notes Editor obviously edits these.

[Parkbandit]

I just find you amusing is all.. Scalia, by most standards, is the least idiotic of anyone currently on the bench. Even your hero Ginsburg agrees with this.

[ClydeR]

Ignoring the serious response above, I find this thread amusing. 6-3 majorities are pretty good when the dissenters are idiots like Rehnquist, Thomas, and Scalia.

Well two of the nine judges on the court on the court when that case were decided have left. Rehnquist, who was in the minority on that case, was replaced by Roberts. O'Connor, who agreed that the sodomy law was unconstitutional, was replaced by Alito. I reckon that means the case would be decided 5-4 with the same result if it came up today.

As TheE has said at other times, the remaining judges most likely to leave in the comings months are the liberal ones, like Stevens and Ginsberg. That means if we get just one more strict constructionist judge, then we can overturn that erroneous decision.

[ViridianAsp]

Oh no! You mean they are going to get rid of a law that isn't enforced, hardly ever?! Oh GOD! Oh...

WAIT...Wait..wait, wait.

No one cares.

[Faent]

Where some determine moral relativism (in relation to natural law) to be tantamount, the concept of natural morality is one of the most arrogant ideals that has ever breached western culture.
I do not think "tantamount" means what you think it means. I *think* you *mean* to say that some people think moral relativism is a better moral theory than natural law. Or perhaps just that moral relativism is true, and all natural law theories are false. Finally, there is *nothing* arrogant about asserting and/or arguing for the thesis that there are objective moral facts. I can't even begin to make sense of why you'd think this is arrogant. (You might as well claim it's arrogant to assert that there are mathematical facts or scientific facts. The appropriate response to this is laughter and finger-pointing.)


Culture sets morality.
This is a minority view, and there are good reasons to reject it. Furthermore, most ordinary people (upon reflection) think that it's dumb as hell, so you've got some serious work to do if you want to defend it. I won't be having this argument with you here.


A godless being can be moral, and religious entities can (and most certainly are) immoral.

Um, ok? True.


That's (sorta) circular logic, I'm well aware.

That was a statement of a proposition. It wasn't an argument. There was nothing circular or logical about it. I have no idea what this means. Maybe you're assuming that God is required to set morality, or something, and so have this argument floating around in your head that is circular and that has this for a conclusion? I'm clueless.


I could steal and fuck a 10 year old girl in one hole, while a german shephard is forced to go to town on the other, all while eating a big ol' chunk of human sweetbreads and singing the national anthem of Satan.
Honestly, that was over the line. Talk about throwing babies in blenders if you like. But this is just *way* more disgusting than is necessary.


I'd wake up the next morning like nothing ever happened. Except for committing myself.

Um, this doesn't show anything other than that nothing would have punished you overnight. But I think you might be assuming that there can be no moral law if there is no moral enforcer. Sorry, that's also absurd.


That's morality.
You wanting to commit yourself? Honestly. I want to commit you now, but that has nothing to do with morality.


The idea that one knows what other people in one's community feel is wrong and avoiding said actions. Or doing everything in one's power to avoid them- such as the whole self-committal thing.
It might be moral, yes, to refrain from acting in ways that other people dislike strongly (at least in certain circumstances). So that might be a part of morality. (There are of course strong *pragmatic* and *prudential* reasons for not pissing other people off, but those are not *moral* reasons. I suspect you are conflating these distinctions.) But that's not to say that this *exhausts* morality. And, of course, almost nobody would (upon minimal reflection), say something so wildly absurd.