Personal Freedom vs Personal Safety

[Texas Lynn]

I think that along with inalienable rights there exists inalienable law, like the 10 commandments.

But of these, generally only the prohibition on theft and murder are enforced by secular law. "Blue Laws" which sought to enforce the "keep the Sabbath" commandment only inspired anger, mockery, disdain, and a poor business climate and as such were the perfect example of how "forced religion is worse than no religion."

Any law that contradicts the truth should be abolished.

I don't see how that could be. The truth? What truth?

Perhaps the Roman Catholic law under which Gallileo was convicted, that "the sun moves around the earth" could be seen as an example of law contradicting truth, but very little else would apply.

 

[Sojourner<><]

But of these, generally only the prohibition on theft and murder are enforced by secular law. "Blue Laws" which sought to enforce the "keep the Sabbath" commandment only inspired anger, mockery, disdain, and a poor business climate and as such were the perfect example of how "forced religion is worse than no religion."

I'm only talking about the basics like adultery, murder, theft etc. I should have used a better example.

I don't see how that could be. The truth? What truth?

Self-evident truth. Every hear of Kant's Categorical Imperative?

Perhaps the Roman Catholic law under which Gallileo was convicted, that "the sun moves around the earth" could be seen as an example of law contradicting truth, but very little else would apply.

Hardly. I would say that our old laws that upheld slavery were rightly abolished.

 

[Texas Lynn]

I'm only talking about the basics like adultery, murder, theft etc. I should have used a better example.

Murder and theft, yes, but adultery is often in the eye of the beholder. To seek to enforce that under the government would be an evil action.

Better example of what?

Self-evident truth.

According to whom?

Every hear of Kant's Categorical Imperative?

I have. I took Philosophy and Ethics in Junior College and Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Graduate School and Ethical continuing education every year to maintain my professional license.

Kant is notable historically but his concepts are at variance with concepts of distributive justice from such as Gramsci, Friere, Ellis, and Maslow toward which more ethicists look these days (quite rightfully).

Hardly. I would say that our old laws that upheld slavery were rightly abolished.

They were but their abolition did not solve the problem of the oppression of the freed slaves.

But this is my opinion, and yours, and "Truth" only as we see it. The idea "truth" can be measurable beyond confrimation of scientific facts as in the case of Gallileo is an arrogant fiction.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Murder and theft, yes, but adultery is often in the eye of the beholder. To seek to enforce that under the government would be an evil action.

Do you mean to suggest that all of our divorce laws that concern adultery are evil?

According to whom?

According to logic. Without axiomatic truths all of philosophy, ethics or even the sciences are heaps of rubbish.

I have. I took Philosophy and Ethics in Junior College and Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Graduate School and Ethical continuing education every year to maintain my professional license.

That's very impressive

Kant is notable historically but his concepts are at variance with concepts of distributive justice from such as Gramsci, Friere, Ellis, and Maslow toward which more ethicists look these days (quite rightfully).

How in the world does distributive justice detract from the the ideas of Kant? They aren't obsolete, they're foundational...

They were but their abolition did not solve the problem of the oppression of the freed slaves.

But this is my opinion, and yours, and "Truth" only as we see it. The idea "truth" can be measurable beyond confrimation of scientific facts as in the case of Gallileo is an arrogant fiction.

I don't believe that axiomatic truths have any need to be measured...

 

[wannabeadesigirl]

When you have "safety" given by the government you don't stay safe very long. Somehow, at some point the government will find a reason to arrest you, and at that point you have lost both safety and freedom.

I would rather be free, and chance being blown to peices by a terrorist hijacking than to be safe and chance being worked to death in a work camp. At least I'll have died free.

 

[billwald]

Janis Joplin/Chris Christopherson were correct.

How does one know when one is free?

 

[bgrass1234]

Janis Joplin/Chris Christopherson were correct.

How does one know when one is free?

When aggression is no longer institutionalized.

 

[billwald]

Like when the govt taps your phone and runs star chamber proceeding? Arrests protesters at political conventions? Puts people in jail for not paying taxes?

Truth is, freedom, like peace, is an internal state. Any person who can think, "Screw you," is free.

 

[dayhiker]

Ya, freedom is internal first of all. But its nice when Government supports individual freedom. It appears that fewer and fewer are looking for freedom. Even the church for the most part isn't looking for freedom. Ya, freedom from sin, but I thnik Jesus died to set us free from more than sin! At least that's how I read the book.

dayhiker