durangodawood
re Member
- Aug 28, 2007
- 27,327
- 19,045
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Single
Maybe this very strange OP isnt the right hypothetical for the issues youre interested in.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Maybe this very strange OP isnt the right hypothetical for the issues youre interested in.I've read differently elsewhere. Sorry to maintain disagreement with you. I'll just let it rest here since I'm not really interested in evaluating this thread's OP social scenario from the assumptions of modern day legislation and social and philosophical "normativity."
Blessings, Brother!
Why should you?Why should I care what Maslow thinks?
Maybe this very strange OP isnt the right hypothetical for the issues youre interested in.
At least you should say what it is about my post you disagree with.I've read differently elsewhere. Sorry to maintain disagreement with you. I'll just let it rest here since I'm not really interested in evaluating this thread's OP social scenario from the assumptions of modern day legislation and social and philosophical "normativity."
Blessings, Brother!
I said it has legal value, forgery issues notwithstanding.
At least you should say what it is about my post you disagree with.
I don't know whether I should bother to answer, since you obviously haven't been reading my posts with attention. The only point I have been making is that the Bob and Jane situation has not yet reached the level of a moral issue. I haven't actually said anything at all about the origin of moral precepts.How about I just say that I'm rather 'down' on Legal Positivism? And even though I think a legal philosophy born of Natural Law is rather hard to come by, I, sort of like Kant, see the need for legal thought to contain some moral assent to a Supreme moral essence to compel people to even consider the need for the act of 'making law(s)' in the first place.
I mean, humanity hasn't just been sitting around dreaming up various laws because they wanted something to do by which to pass their time and prevent boredom when they weren't playing various versions of Monopoly, whether ancient or modern. This isn't to say that law "is" identical with morality, but I am of the mind that legal thought is, to some extent, at least an expression of varieties of Applied Morality, just as Political Science is a form of applied ethics.
Even though the following legal article by Roscoe Pound is almost a century old (1945), I think his general historical account, just short of positivism, social engineering and/or any affinity for Hitler, offers some thoughts by which to begin a deeper deliberation on all of this. Of course, we wouldn't stop with him---I wouldn't want to anyway---and we wouldn't assume that any of this is the 'end of the discussion'... especially since I could be wrong and the Legal Positivists could be right. Who knows?
Pound, Roscoe. "Law and Morals--Jurisprudence and Ethics." NCL Rev. 23 (1944): 185.
And I might add in a look at the Demarcation Problem, generally understood:
Leiter, Brian. "The demarcation problem in jurisprudence: A new case for scepticism." Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 31, no. 4 (2011): 663-677.
By the "moral force" of the document, do you mean the same thing as the legitimacy of the state?I wasn't implying anything about forgery issues whatsoever. Bob's legal document could be licensed by his state for all I care, but what I'm implying is that the laws of the land, included those by which variously designed legal documents are made, don't REALLY have any moral force---implying that Jane 'should' recognize it---unless there is some kind of tangible source of morality inherent somewhere in Reality (that's Reality with a capital R, a notion that I deem to be opposed to the more colloquial use of the term of "reality" [with a little r] as we each may mistakenly perceive it to be).
So, my gripe is that I think that just because Bob has a legal deed to waive in Jane's face, this doesn't mean much if there is no Supreme Moral Source (God or Platonic Moral Form or fill in the metaphysical blank) ultimately backing the various hierarchies involved in legal as well as moral interpersonal decision making that can go on between people in any land, anywhere.
And if there isn't a Supreme Moral Source, then our simply acting like there is one doesn't make it so, and our simply saying that we're all going to be "rational" anyway (as rational as perpetually contentious and warfaring humans can be, I suppose) in trying to come to legal conclusions and agreements doesn't make them real, either. Yet, if we're like Kant, we'll definitely see the need to posit such, and maybe even hope for such.
But sure, if we want to all play dress up and pretend that our laws and moral ideals without God mean something real, well then, let's have at it!
I don't know whether I should bother to answer, since you obviously haven't been reading my posts with attention. The only point I have been making is that the Bob and Jane situation has not yet reached the level of a moral issue. I haven't actually said anything at all about the origin of moral precepts.
By the "moral force" of the document, do you mean the same thing as the legitimacy of the state?
Because the legitimacy of the state in the mind of the citizens is all thats needed for the property-deed to be meaningful. Hunting down some ultimate moral backstop seems totally unnecessary.
I think youre demonstrating that the answer to the OP question:It will be meaningful to different people in different ways. I personally have a philosophy that undercuts the present notions. So, while other people will be content with thinking that what you're alluding to is "all that is needed," I'm of a mind set of simply rebelling against that modern line of the ethical status quo.
I'm trying to bring in issues and problems and complexities and complications that others, because of their existing political commitments, want to hedge out and pretend don't exist. And then they not only hedge all of this out, but then expect others, like me, to remain quiet or suffer some set of political, social consequences "X," consequences that are arbitrarily decided upon in a more or less anti-Christ manner.
So, what does all of this mean for Bob and Jane in the OP? Well, what it 'means' will depend on who is the Supreme authority over the Earth, and whether Bob or Jane is, say, in one scenario a Native American of the 16th century meeting up with a European newly landed, or in another scenario of a Mexican refugee having just evaded capture and jumped onto U.S. Territory, or a third scenario where maybe Bob and Jane are Israeli and Palestinian, respectively.....and so on and so forth.
I think youre demonstrating that the answer to the OP question:
Has Bob introduced an objective source of right and wrong for Jane to consider?
Is.... no. Bob has only introduced a document that invokes the power of the state, not God, on behalf of his claim. And the state holds power by virtue of brute force or popular legitimacy. Objective morality is not required here at all. Do you think different?
I should note, the term "objective morality" is a terrible construction to describe what anyone really means by it.Yes, I think you're seeing what I'm getting at, such as we find the scenario sitting as it is within the hypothetical OP.
I should note, the term "objective morality" is a terrible for construction to describe what anyone really means by it.
For one, a God directed morality is absolutely not objective. Even if its real, no one can demonstrate it in any way we call "objective". A proper term would be something like "absolute morality".
Second, I often call my non-theistic view of morality "objective morality". But really its only objectively based in that I think it derives from objective truths about human nature. But it doesnt exist somewhere that I can show you, so strictly speaking its not "objective".
So I think the 2 main views of morality should be called:
1. absolute morality
2. objectively derived morality
I want to use the term “objective” in the sense that the reality of a thing is there whether you like it or not.
Let’s consider Jane. Jane wondered across some land and decided to live there and farm it. She never purchased the land and has never considered whether it’s right or wrong to farm the land. Bob arrives and shows her documentation proving he owns the land and tells her to stop farming it.
Has Bob introduces an objective source of right and wrong for Jane to consider?
That kind of seemingly reasonable assumption is always a good place to think: "hmmm...is it really true though?" Instead, it's only the conventional wisdom, the predominate view, meaning usually it has at least something real about it, but not necessarily everything. For now, I've been content to point out to people the obvious, but meaningful fact: there is a real human nature in our genes that all humans share, and it's more than only that we need air to breathe (one fact, but not all the facts), and includes potent things such as the innate sense of fairness we have all (from our homo sapien genome). While we are not omniscient, we do seem to have discovered this as fact:Even if its real, no one can demonstrate it in any way we call "objective".
Sure...if it is, indeed, a title for that land from a legitimate source.
Edit- are we talking about "right and wrong" as in he is the "rightful" owner of the land? Or do you mean "good and bad"?
From the information presented n the OP we don't know whether Bob is the rightful owner of the land. All we know is that he has documents purporting to prove it. Even if the documents are authentic Jane may also have a legitimate claim to the land by right of adverse possession. That's why it is a legal issue rather than a moral issue. Until that legal issue is resolved there is no moral issue.Both because he being the rightful owner of the land means she has to decide whether to ignore him(bad) or comply with the fact that he was there first, which the documents prove, and move off(good).
From the information presented n the OP we don't know whether Bob is the rightful owner of the land. All we know is that he has documents purporting to prove it. Even if the documents are authentic Jane may also have a legitimate claim to the land by right of adverse possession. That's why it is a legal issue rather than a moral issue. Until that legal issue is resolved there is no moral issue.
This totally makes sense and is pretty congruent with my idea of morality as based on the objective facts about human well being.That kind of seemingly reasonable assumption is always a good place to think: "hmmm...is it really true though?" Instead, it's only the conventional wisdom, the predominate view, meaning usually it has at least something real about it, but not necessarily everything. For now, I've been content to point out to people the obvious, but meaningful fact: there is a real human nature in our genes that all humans share, and it's more than only that we need air to breathe (one fact, but not all the facts), and includes potent things such as the innate sense of fairness we have all (from our homo sapien genome). While we are not omniscient, we do seem to have discovered this as fact:
These are only 2 random articles I hadn't seen that popped up at the top of my search just now:
Do Kids Have a Fundamental Sense of Fairness?
Is Sense of Fairness Innate?
(I don't need to read them actually, but may anyway. I've seen this reported extensively already in science news in various places, perhaps a dozen articles)
There are more than just a few characteristics that all human beings objectively have and share from our genes.
There are all kinds of subjective viewpoints about morality, but there is an objective real human nature that is fully independent of all of our subjective viewpoints.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?