Thread: The laws of men

Originally Posted by joesixpack

Epictitus, the stoic, had a lot to say about this. You'd find his writings very interesting ...

and

Originally Posted by Quick Orange

[about urinals]#4 obviously. Using #'s 2 and 3 aren't acceptable, and 5 just makes you look crazy.

Man, I LOVE this forum.

Originally Posted by JMS

I have never known anyone else who had read Epictitus!
Glad to meet you!!

I first heard about Epictitus when Ross Perot was making his first bid for the whitehouse. His runnig-mate/VP was Adm Stockdale. While reading about Stockdale, I learned about the stoics (he was a big fan of Epictitus), so I was curious and started reading up on him. It was around the time I was going through my divorce and a lot of what he wrote resonated with me.

If you're a fan of Epictitus, then you might want to look up a guy by the name of Viktor Frankl. I just finished reading "Mans Search For Meaning" by him. It's his account of his time in the concentration camps during WWII. He was a Jewish Psychiatrist in Vienna (or was it Berlin?) when the Nazis rose to power and was lucky enough to survive to the end of the war (though he lost all of his family). He describes in unflinching detail the ordeal without any self pity. He also does it with a great deal of charity towards his captors. He doesn't excuse them of their crimes, but he describes them as genuine human beings who are as flawed as any of us. It's a very eye opening book on many levels.

I'd describe Frankl as a stoic. The primary focus of his book is summed up in the title. He states that every part of a man's life has a purpose, even the suffering. Especially the suffering, in fact. I'll probably re-read it pretty soon. It's not too long a book, he's not like Sarte, who has Diarrhea of the pen.

Oh, and it's nice to meet you too, JMS

And I agree with Quick Orange, definitely #4

1) Is it morally wrong to disobey the laws of men?
If the law permits or enforces misery, then I believe it is morally wrong not to disobey those laws.

2) Does disobediance have an affect on your afterlife?
No such thing.

3) If morals are dictated by religion, then which is the right one?
None. Morality is universal.

Looking over the brevity of my responses, I seem quite certain about my position here and in a broad sense I should admit that perhaps foolishly I am certain. I won't claim absolute certainty because I believe that is absolute folly. I concern myself with the details rather than the broad questions here which I have answered for myself to my satisfaction, details such as, "does this law really preserve human dignity"?

X

MY HEAD HURTS!!!

Edit:

Originally Posted by joesixpack

you might want to look up Viktor Frankl "Mans Search For Meaning"

+1 on this- great book.

Originally Posted by Bruno

I've been thinking about this for some time, and thought I'd share it.
I don't know the answers either...

1) Is it morally wrong to disobey the laws of men?
...

Often the only moral thing is to disobey flagrantly. Depends entirely on your own set of morals. Any law that you write for yourself is, after all, a law written by a man... Just as valid as one written for you by any other man...

2) Does disobediance have an affect on your afterlife?
...

This assumes you have an afterlife and as long as you are obeying your own (morally just) laws, how could you be disobeying? More to the point, who's laws would you choose to disobey; your's or those invented by people you have never even met?

3) If morals are dictated by religion, then which is the right one?

Most religions say they are the only right one. It has been estimated (conservatively) that there are over 10,000 religious belief systems. This would mean that your particular religion has less than a 1 in 10,000 chance of being the right one. Choose wisely...

YMMV

Originally Posted by Bruno

1) Is it morally wrong to disobey the laws of men?

2) Does disobediance have an affect on your afterlife?

3) If morals are dictated by religion, then which is the right one?

1) Not in itself. Sometimes it's morally wrong to disobey the law but not because it's the law just because it's wrong anyway, sometimes it's morally wrong to do something the law allows. Whether something is moral or not is only loosely related to whether it's illegal.

2) There is no "afterlife" to affect.

3a) Morals are not dictated by religion (or Christians would believe it's OK to beat your slaves because the bible says so).

3b) No religion is right they're all nonsense.

Originally Posted by trewornan

1) Not in itself. Sometimes it's morally wrong to disobey the law but not because it's the law just because it's wrong anyway, sometimes it's morally wrong to do something the law allows. Whether something is moral or not is only loosely related to whether it's illegal.

2) There is no "afterlife" to affect.

3a) Morals are not dictated by religion (or Christians would believe it's OK to beat your slaves because the bible says so).

3b) No religion is right they're all nonsense.

That's just about the most offensive thing I've read all day.

Christians do NOT believe that it's ok to beat slaves. In fact most christians do not even believe it's ok to HAVE slaves.

Most Christians believe that Christ fulfilled the law of Moses and in doing so many things do not need to be lived anymore. (Such as animal sacrifice and your "ok of the beating of a slave")

Please put some nuance into what you declare as "nonsense". Obviously you have reason not to believe in anything beyond the grave. That's your call. But to call everything that people believe otherwise as Nonsense goes a bit far wouldn't you say? That's just being spitefull.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

That's just about the most offensive thing I've read all day.

Christians do NOT believe that it's ok to beat slaves. In fact most christians do not even believe it's ok to HAVE slaves.

Most Christians believe that Christ fulfilled the law of Moses and in doing so many things do not need to be lived anymore. (Such as animal sacrifice and your "ok of the beating of a slave")

Please put some nuance into what you declare as "nonsense". Obviously you have reason not to believe in anything beyond the grave. That's your call. But to call everything that people believe otherwise as Nonsense goes a bit far wouldn't you say? That's just being spitefull.

Wow! Obviously I realised that many people would disagree but I certainly didn't think I was being offensive or spiteful. I'm sorry if you are offended but that's not my fault. I expect you're used to religion being given a certain "respect" and immunity from criticism but I don't believe it deserves it. I think religion should be open to criticism in exactly the same way as any other political or social doctrine. I don't see why I should have to dance around the subject to avoid offence because some people choose to be hypersensitive about it.

Of course I don't believe Christians believe it's OK to have (or beat slaves), I was merely pointing out that the bible does say it's OK so Christians don't really believe the bible is the ultimate moral authority.

I've yet to find a religion which makes sense in even the most basic way, none of them are able to make any reasonable answer to elementary questions about, for example, free will or the suffering of the innocent. So yes I stand by my comment - religions are nonsense. You may of course disagree "that's your call" as you put it but if you think my opinion is offensive and spiteful that seem to be more your problem than mine.

Originally Posted by trewornan

Wow! Obviously I realised that many people would disagree but I certainly didn't think I was being offensive or spiteful. I'm sorry if you are offended but that's not my fault. I expect you're used to religion being given a certain "respect" and immunity from criticism but I don't believe it deserves it. I think religion should be open to criticism in exactly the same way as any other political or social doctrine. I don't see why I should have to dance around the subject to avoid offence because some people choose to be hypersensitive about it.

Of course I don't believe Christians believe it's OK to have (or beat slaves), I was merely pointing out that the bible does say it's OK so Christians don't really believe the bible is the ultimate moral authority.

I've yet to find a religion which makes sense in even the most basic way, none of them are able to make any reasonable answer to elementary questions about, for example, free will or the suffering of the innocent. So yes I stand by my comment - religions are nonsense. You may of course disagree "that's your call" as you put it but if you think my opinion is offensive and spiteful that seem to be more your problem than mine.

No, I don't expect people to dance around on their tippytoes around religion. Any kind of religion for that matter. I simply expect the same kind of curtisy (damn...sp?) that I give to others when it comes to their core belief system and core of what makes up part of their personality.

I don't fault you for being an atheist. I may not agree but I certainly don't go around declaring that atheism is bullS**t. Nonsense is just a dressed up word for bulls**t.

I don't find your opinion offensive or spitefull at all. I found the way you expressed it spitefull and offensive.

I think the point LX is trying to make is that the two commandments given by Jesus in the New Testament (love God, love your neighbor) are viewed by many Christians as signaling an end to Levitical law. I mean, there are a lot of ridiculous rules in Leviticus that have been ignored for centuries by the vast majority of people who follow the Bible, eg: thou shalt not use a straight razor on thy sideburns, thou shalt not eat delicious shrimp cocktail, thou shalt not wear stylish 60/40 poly/cotton blend slacks, etc, etc.

I disagree with Christianity as much as anyone, but trying to point out some of the ridiculous stuff that Levitical law allows/forbids is kind of beating a dead horse, since most modern Christians think the sacrifice and resurrection invalidated or overrode it.

Additionally, "immune from criticism" is a little bit different from "taking offense at an obvious insult." I do not support Christianity in any way shape or form, but just showing up and calling it "nonsense" is not criticism, it is name-calling. If you want to offer a well-reasoned argument that is relevant and coherent, fine, but just saying it's "nonsense" is not the same thing at all. The slave thing was a straw man argument.

Originally Posted by trewornan

Wow! Obviously I realised that many people would disagree but I certainly didn't think I was being offensive or spiteful. I'm sorry if you are offended but that's not my fault. I expect you're used to religion being given a certain "respect" and immunity from criticism but I don't believe it deserves it. I think religion should be open to criticism in exactly the same way as any other political or social doctrine. I don't see why I should have to dance around the subject to avoid offence because some people choose to be hypersensitive about it.

Of course I don't believe Christians believe it's OK to have (or beat slaves), I was merely pointing out that the bible does say it's OK so Christians don't really believe the bible is the ultimate moral authority.

I've yet to find a religion which makes sense in even the most basic way, none of them are able to make any reasonable answer to elementary questions about, for example, free will or the suffering of the innocent. So yes I stand by my comment - religions are nonsense. You may of course disagree "that's your call" as you put it but if you think my opinion is offensive and spiteful that seem to be more your problem than mine.