|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Liberty and Inquisition
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
During a discussion on another thread, it was asserted that a democracy can and should use legal penalties to enforce "revealed" "absolute moral prohibitions". While this is technically true in a minimalist sense of the term 'democracy', most of us think of 'democracy' in terms of 'liberal democracy', meaning limited government and some degree of personal freedom. This seems at odds with the idea that any measure enacted by an electoral majority is legitimate.
This is especially problematic in the area of revealed truth which, by its nature, isn't really subject to any kind of verification and is only coincidentally related to any kind of rationally explicable state interest. Getting away from the specifics of the original discussion, does democratic imprimatur give legitimacy to any action taken by the state? Any number of prohibitions or requirements come to mind. Forbidding the consumption of pork. Requiring the consumption of pork. Forbidding/mandating certain worship practices. Outlawing writing with the left hand. (These aren't all real-world religious strictures, just examples of truths that could theoretically be "revealed".) Would such arbitrary strictures be compatible with anything we'd recognize as 'democracy', despite the technical applicability of the term?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
I think you run into a problem whenever you accept the idea that it is the proper role of the state to enforce "absolute moral prohibitions" as such. Once you say that the point of law is to make people be good, you've started down the slippery slope (or gone over the cliff) to totalitarianism. Democracy is necessarily more pragmatic, and is really concerned with allowing people to live together in peace and relative prosperity, not with virtue in any ultimate sense. People must be allowed to make choices that are "wrong," so long as they don't violate the rights of others or disturb the peace. That's why religious prohibitions (which are by their nature absolute and not subject to the changeable will of the people) need to be excluded as the rationale for laws in a democracy--or else the democratic character of the polity will be endangered.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
We were all created with free will, and a democratic givernment that attempts to suppress that free will is not a democratic society.
Surely the default position in democracies is to allow the people to make choices - after all, a democracy is founded on a choice being made at elections. That has an implicit acknowledgement that choices should be the purvue of the individual, not groups, societies or states, and that the only reason for restricting choice is to prevent harm to others. Even the nature of "harm" is relevant, because to protect someone from physical harm is important, but choice plays a part if you are a boxer, for example.
I could claim that it is harmful if there is a non-Conservative Government in power, but that doesn't mean that people shouldn't have the choice to "harm" themselevs, or have that "harm" inflicted on those who do not wish it.
That's why we make choices about who we wish to decide on what "harm" is - elected representatives to the legislature/executive - and what the punishments should be for causing that "harm".
I don't see how democracies are compelled to do anything, as there is an element of choice built into democracy itself, which prevents compulsion.
At most, it could be argued that democracies are compelled to consider all things that might be harmfull, but that is why they evolved in the first place isn't it?
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
.. most of us think of 'democracy' in terms of limited government and some degree of personal freedom. This seems at odds with the idea that any measure enacted by an electoral majority is legitimate.
This is especially problematic in the area of revealed truth which, by its nature, isn't really subject to any kind of verification ...
I think a part of democratic government is negative utilitarianism, i.e. doing as little harm as possible. Our ideas of rights help to define what counts as unacceptable harm.
But are revealed truths any different from any other fundamental idea about how society should be? I can't offer any irrefutable, metaphysical defense of negative utilitarianism, or human rights. I wouldn't call my commitment to them 'revealed truth' since I assume it is a product of my upbringing, psychological dispositions and so on but from other peoples' point of view they are probably obviously wrong and clearly arbitrary.
All democracy at its best seems to offer is what John Grey calls, in reference in Isaiah Berlin, 'agonistic liberalism' - we'll never all agree on some important things but liberal democracy provides a more civilised forum for our disagreements to be fought over than the alternatives.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
During a discussion on another thread, it was asserted that a democracy can and should use legal penalties to enforce "revealed" "absolute moral prohibitions".
That is a gross misrepresentation of what I said.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
While this is technically true in a minimalist sense of the term 'democracy', most of us think of 'democracy' in terms of 'liberal democracy', meaning limited government and some degree of personal freedom. This seems at odds with the idea that any measure enacted by an electoral majority is legitimate.
Your problem, though, is as I pointed out on the very thread you link to: whose conception of liberty or justice do you pick. As I said over there:
quote:
At some point, you may just have to face up to the fact that some people fundamentally disagree with your ordering of moral goods.
You say abortion is a liberty issue? Some may agree with you and decide that any legislation against it violates the liberty a woman should have over the fate of her own body.
Some people might agree that it's a liberty issue and think that the most fundamental liberty is the right to exist and will want to defend the unborn on that basis.
Others may think that liberty is a basic good, but that certain exercises of liberty can result in choosing freely to do things that are wrong.
Some may think that liberty is important, but not important enough to justify the freedom of religious groups to discriminate on the grounds of conscience against gay couples and in favour of married (straight) couples for adoption.
There are other permutations. By all means, try to change people's minds. Everyone does. But these moral differences of conviction exist.
What Ireland decides is the law in Ireland is up to them. It's not up to me, or the Catholic Church, or you, or anyone else - no matter how wrong we may think they are in their choice. Maybe they will change the law soon. I don't know. I don't have to agree with them if they do, any more than you agree with the law as it stands.
Go ahead and preach your doctrine of liberal democracy to the Irish. But don't tell me that the Irish law is the result of the Church forcing her morality on an unwilling Irish people, because there is nothing stopping the Irish people telling the Church to feck off if they disagree with her. It's just that they have to do it democratically. What alternaive would you suggest - a coup d'etat led by you?
How do you solve the conundrum of liberal democracies enacting restrictions on individual liberties that you happen to think are unjustified? Because they all will at some point.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
How do you solve the conundrum of liberal democracies enacting restrictions on individual liberties that you happen to think are unjustified? Because they all will at some point.
I don't think there should be any restrictions on individual liberties, barring those that seek to prevent harm to others.
I think that if someone doesn't like something, then they should be free to avoid doing it. But they should not be free to prevent people who have no problem with it from doing it to their heart's content. Even if they happen to be in the majority.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
You're all making arguments about what, morally, should happen in a democracy, but none of them are particularly inherent in the LEGAL structure.
If a crazy idea can get majority support in the legislature, there are 2 things that will stop it. The first is fear of voter backlash. The second of checks and balances that's put in place: the judiciary, and constitutional documents including a Bill of Rights if one is present.
It certainly isn't any sense of a moral theory about only making 'good' laws.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
How do you solve the conundrum of liberal democracies enacting restrictions on individual liberties that you happen to think are unjustified? Because they all will at some point.
I don't think there should be any restrictions on individual liberties, barring those that seek to prevent harm to others.
But, without wanting to flog a dead horse, who decides whether abortion counts as harming others to any extent that would justify restricting it? Supposing a large majority in a perticular state agree that it does so harm others - would that justify restrictions on it? I'm not saying the answer to that it obvious - just that these are the sorts of problems that will arise.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
I shan't flog that specific dead horse here, except to say that I recognise it as a very difficult issue from the point of view of "anything is permissible as long as you aren't hurting anybody".
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Even liberal democracies can become a "tyranny of the majority". The question is, when might we deem that to have happened, and what is to be done about it?
I would agree with deano that, to an extent, in a liberal democracy, idiots have the right to harm themselves. I think a very clear line is crossed when people (through the State) have a right to harm others. In that definition I would include the denial of potentially life-saving medical intervention as "harming others".
Even if there is a large majority of people in a State of a religious persuasion, who vote to enact laws in accordance with their religion that have a real potential to cause direct actual harm to others within the State, then I think that State has become a tyranny.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Even if there is a large majority of people in a State of a religious persuasion, who vote to enact laws in accordance with their religion that have a real potential to cause direct actual harm to others within the State, then I think that State has become a tyranny.
The questions then are: whose judgement about whether it perpetrates unjustifiable harms gets to determine the matter?; what then should be done?; and who gets the job of doing what should be done?
Supposing, as I took Croesus to be supposing, that Irish abortion laws fall under this disputed description - what then?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Even if there is a large majority of people in a State of a religious persuasion, who vote to enact laws in accordance with their religion that have a real potential to cause direct actual harm to others within the State, then I think that State has become a tyranny.
The questions then are: whose judgement about whether it perpetrates unjustifiable harms gets to determine the matter?; what then should be done?; and who gets the job of doing what should be done?
Supposing, as I took Croesus to be supposing, that Irish abortion laws fall under this disputed description - what then?
As to your first question, I'd definitely say that if I'm being harmed, then my right to say "Stop!" trumps your right to carry on harming me. What then gets done is that you stop. And if you won't, then I'm all in favour of having supra-national authorities such as the EU of the Council of Europe making you stop. At each step of the process, of course, justice demands that we look at whether the harm is real and unjustified.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Even if there is a large majority of people in a State of a religious persuasion, who vote to enact laws in accordance with their religion that have a real potential to cause direct actual harm to others within the State, then I think that State has become a tyranny.
The questions then are: whose judgement about whether it perpetrates unjustifiable harms gets to determine the matter?; what then should be done?; and who gets the job of doing what should be done?
Supposing, as I took Croesus to be supposing, that Irish abortion laws fall under this disputed description - what then?
The general rule I'd use is "How would you feel being on the wrong end of the law?"
Would you be happy to be denied life saving medical treatment (as this poor woman was) because the satanists didn't believe that you should be saved?
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I would have been totally with you about this liberal democracy thing, Croesus. But this last election in Massachusetts, a referendum that would have allowed doctors to murder their patients came ominously close to passing. I just don't know anymore.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
I'll try, Gwai!
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The general rule I'd use is "How would you feel being on the wrong end of the law?"
I'm not sure that helps much, Justinian, because we can still ask two different questions in the situation that prompted Croesus's OP.
1) How would you feel if you were a pregnant woman requesting an abortion in an country where restrictions on abortion were very tight?
2) How would you feel if you were an unwanted unborn child in a country were abortion restrictions were practically nil?
The problem still is that we haven't an agreed method of settling harm claims against other harm claims.
[ 28. November 2012, 13:39: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But, without wanting to flog a dead horse, who decides whether abortion counts as harming others to any extent that would justify restricting it?
Going back to the OP, the big problem is how to assess positions based on "revealed truth" rather than some form of rational analysis. Debating the merits or harms of a policy position is completely irrelevant to someone whose advocacy/opposition is based on divine fiat rather than the particular merits or harms involved.
To pick a non-DH issue, suppose you think think that idolatry makes baby Jesus cry and brings down the wrath of God. Or alternately, that not offering sacrifices to the gods of the Roman state raises Jove's ire against the polity. This isn't really something that can be examined using the rational basis test (to borrow a phrase from U.S. law). If we were to assume that a democracy is authorized to act in any way the majority dictates, there doesn't seem to be any bar to the state dictating worship practices (to pick a non-DH example).
[ 28. November 2012, 14:18: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But, without wanting to flog a dead horse, who decides whether abortion counts as harming others to any extent that would justify restricting it?
Chesterbelloc, you know damned well that you are flogging a dead horse. Cut it out.
--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Sorry, Tom - I'm finding it really difficult keeping that topic out of my responses here since Croesus raised this thread from our discussion of that very topic in DH - and also because I don't think there are particularly good analogies for it. But I will try harder and I'm sorry for any hassle caused.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Going back to the OP, the big problem is how to assess positions based on "revealed truth" rather than some form of rational analysis. Debating the merits or harms of a policy position is completely irrelevant to someone whose advocacy/opposition is based on divine fiat rather than the particular merits or harms involved.
I don't think I've argued anywhere that we should base public polity on "revealed truth" in that sense at all. I think Croesus's OP is misleading you there. I generally think that human reason will - and will have to - do when it comes to debating public policy in the public forum. There just aren't enough specifically religious shared premisses to go on to do otherwise.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I don't think I've argued anywhere that we should base public polity [sic] on "revealed truth" in that sense at all. I think Croesus's OP is misleading you there. I generally think that human reason will - and will have to - do when it comes to debating public policy in the public forum. There just aren't enough specifically religious shared premisses to go on to do otherwise.
The question isn't whether you can base all government policy "generally" on revealed truth, but whether it's a good idea to do so at all. You're right that there's usually not enough shared premises to base an entire government on, but usually there's enough for certain specific policies.
To pick a real-life example, many whites in the American south during the early- and mid-twentieth century believed fervently that Segregation was ordained by God, citing things like "the curse of Ham" or various Old Testament verses on keeping the tribes of Israel separate. Now you can argue that's not what Christianity really teaches (and I'd probably agree with you), but that's not really the point. The point is that this was a sincerely held belief that a certain policy was legitimate by divine fiat along with enough of an electoral majority to enact that policy.
In case you missed how that one turned out, the U.S. Supreme Court eventually ruled (in several different cases) that majority rule in and of itself is not sufficient reason to restrict the rights of minorities.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I don't think I've argued anywhere that we should base public polity [sic]
What - you're "sic"-ing me now? Seriously? That would be bad anough if I were wrong. But just look up polity and see if it can be used that way, then get back to me. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The question isn't whether you can base all government policy "generally" on revealed truth, but whether it's a good idea to do so at all. You're right that there's usually not enough shared premises to base an entire government on, but usually there's enough for certain specific policies.
But not for all of them. That's my point. There are really tricky ones. Your going on to point out one that was relatively unproblematic to resolve to the general satisfaction of the majority doesn't really help address that.
Just a quick recap: I'm not arguing for theology in public policy-making at all; I'm just pointing out - in reponse to Croesus - that not all apparent liberty issues are easy to resolve rationally, to the satisfaction of the vast majority or in a way that is not obviously unjust.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The question isn't whether you can base all government policy "generally" on revealed truth, but whether it's a good idea to do so at all. You're right that there's usually not enough shared premises to base an entire government on, but usually there's enough for certain specific policies.
But not for all of them. That's my point. There are really tricky ones. Your going on to point out one that was relatively unproblematic to resolve to the general satisfaction of the majority doesn't really help address that.
Are you even vaguely familiar with the history of Segregation? Describing integration as "unproblematic to resolve" or enjoying "the general satisfaction of the majority" seems perverse in the extreme.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
To pick a real-life example, many whites in the American south during the early- and mid-twentieth century believed fervently that Segregation was ordained by God, citing things like "the curse of Ham" or various Old Testament verses on keeping the tribes of Israel separate. Now you can argue that's not what Christianity really teaches (and I'd probably agree with you), but that's not really the point. The point is that this was a sincerely held belief that a certain policy was legitimate by divine fiat along with enough of an electoral majority to enact that policy.
Just to be clear, are you saying that what's wrong with a person voting in favour of Segregation because that person believes it's legitimated by divine fiat is that the voter believes its legitimated by divine fiat? If a scientific racist votes for Segregation on the grounds of nineteenth century pseudoscience, you think that's perfectly fine?
quote:
In case you missed how that one turned out, the U.S. Supreme Court eventually ruled (in several different cases) that majority rule in and of itself is not sufficient reason to restrict the rights of minorities.
Regardless of whether or not it's right to base your vote on religious beliefs, it's certainly wrong, outside the U.S., to base your vote on the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
If you say so. I haven't the stomach for the prolonged bout of wearing me down post-by-post that would ensue if I tried to explain what I actually meant on that. You win!
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This is especially problematic in the area of revealed truth which, by its nature, isn't really subject to any kind of verification and is only coincidentally related to any kind of rationally explicable state interest.
I believe that my country should increase its aid budget, cut ties between the aid budget and my country's state interest, and do more to forgive punishing debt owed by other nations. That seems neither subject to verification and is explicitly contradictory to any rationally explicable state interest.
Should I not take those opinions into account when voting? Should I not have participated in the Jubilee 2000 campaign?
quote:
Would such arbitrary strictures be compatible with anything we'd recognize as 'democracy', despite the technical applicability of the term?
Despite the technical applicability of the term, is Hamish Campbell's use of sugar on his porridge compatible with anything we recognise as 'being a Scotsman'?
I'm pretty sure that a democracy ought not to have the power to exile citizens based purely on a public vote. I wouldn't therefore withhold the term from classical Athens, certainly not on that ground alone.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Just to be clear, are you saying that what's wrong with a person voting in favour of Segregation because that person believes it's legitimated by divine fiat is that the voter believes its legitimated by divine fiat? If a scientific racist votes for Segregation on the grounds of nineteenth century pseudoscience, you think that's perfectly fine?
It's not fine, but it's at least addressable. If someone is truly operating from point of view of scientific racism (rather than using science as fig leaf for some other motivation) they can reasoned with and engage in debate, things that are critical to the operation of democracy. On the other hand if someone is operating on the basis of "God said so", the only real response you can offer is "No He didn't", which isn't terribly convincing and is usually followed up with "Yeah He did". Lather, rinse, repeat.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
For the avoidance of any doubt, my last post was in response to the one below, not to Dafyd.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Are you even vaguely familiar with the history of Segregation? Describing integration as "unproblematic to resolve" or enjoying "the general satisfaction of the majority" seems perverse in the extreme.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It's not fine, but it's at least addressable. If someone is truly operating from point of view of scientific racism (rather than using science as fig leaf for some other motivation) they can reasoned with and engage in debate, things that are critical to the operation of democracy. On the other hand if someone is operating on the basis of "God said so", the only real response you can offer is "No He didn't", which isn't terribly convincing and is usually followed up with "Yeah He did". Lather, rinse, repeat.
Arguments for atheism aren't terribly convincing? You heard it first here folks.
If someone is citing the curse of Ham in favour of segregation, you can certainly address it in any number of ways. Even if I'm not an atheist and am not going to put forward atheist arguments, I can debate their interpretation of Biblical infallibility or their interpretation of the Bible. (The last is the strongest point: their interpretation of the Bible is clearly wrong.)
But, you say, that discussion is never going to conclude. I might think the interpretation is clearly wrong but they don't.
But you might as well say that for any discussion, secular as well as religious. Is Paul Krugman going to convince any conservative economist that he's right any time soon, or any sooner than I'd convince a racist that their interpretation of the curse of Ham is wrong? I wouldn't put money on it.
Actual theological debates don't have any special quality of intractability not shared by secular debates.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Arguments for atheism aren't terribly convincing? You heard it first here folks.
If someone is citing the curse of Ham in favour of segregation, you can certainly address it in any number of ways. Even if I'm not an atheist and am not going to put forward atheist arguments, I can debate their interpretation of Biblical infallibility or their interpretation of the Bible. (The last is the strongest point: their interpretation of the Bible is clearly wrong.)
Can you say that? Clearly it is not an interpretation you hold, and with which you fundamentally disagree, but to say that it is unquestionably wrong is to imply that there is one 'right' interpretation and that you know what it is, and that with enough rhetorical flair you could persuade anyone else that is concerned about what the bible says on an issue that you are right and they are wrong.
But who is to say that it is actually like that. Maybe their view has some merit. Maybe you are just creating a theological case against it on random biblical straws just because you don't happen to like the conclusions that their interpretation take them..
quote:
But, you say, that discussion is never going to conclude. I might think the interpretation is clearly wrong but they don't.
But you might as well say that for any discussion, secular as well as religious. Is Paul Krugman going to convince any conservative economist that he's right any time soon, or any sooner than I'd convince a racist that their interpretation of the curse of Ham is wrong? I wouldn't put money on it.
Actual theological debates don't have any special quality of intractability not shared by secular debates.
The difference is that theology has a special position because you're arguing that God is on your side of the argument. Any other argument is simply saying 'I believe this to be true'.
Surely it is just an example of the Kierkegaardian divide - in that you can't argue logically with a believer, because he is not operating on that frame of reference. A believer might say that he is receiving favour from God and point to success, health etc. Someone arguing from logic might say, well that is to do with your diet, exercise, genes and so on. And then the believer might say 'aha, yes, God is using those things to bless me'. The frame of discussion is totally different.
As it happens, I believe that a logical argument is far easier to conduct than a theological one. Because the latter is just an argument where one person says 'God thinks x' and someone else says 'God thinks y'. Unless you share some very close theological background to x or y, you are very unlikely to have your opinion changed, because of the latent power of accepting an argument that you believe has divine sanction.
On the other hand, a logical argument is built on described assumptions and steps which you can understand and accept or reject.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
(The last is the strongest point: their interpretation of the Bible is clearly wrong.)
Can you say that? Clearly it is not an interpretation you hold, and with which you fundamentally disagree, but to say that it is unquestionably wrong is to imply that there is one 'right' interpretation and that you know what it is, and that with enough rhetorical flair you could persuade anyone else that is concerned about what the bible says on an issue that you are right and they are wrong.
quote:
But who is to say that it is actually like that. Maybe their view has some merit. Maybe you are just creating a theological case against it on random biblical straws just because you don't happen to like the conclusions that their interpretation take them..
Firstly, there doesn't have to be one right interpretation in order for some interpretations to be wrong.
Secondly, do you seriously believe that the Curse of Ham interpretation does have any merit? Or are you merely saying that it might have some merit in order to support this particular argument?
Thirdly, the same rhetorical question ('who is to say that it's really like that') can be offered as a response to any question of morality or practicality.
quote:
The difference is that theology has a special position because you're arguing that God is on your side of the argument. Any other argument is simply saying 'I believe this to be true'.
That is a distinction without a difference.
quote:
Surely it is just an example of the Kierkegaardian divide - in that you can't argue logically with a believer, because he is not operating on that frame of reference.
You are arguing with me. So either you're not arguing logically, or your statement is clearly false.
quote:
A believer might say that he is receiving favour from God and point to success, health etc. Someone arguing from logic might say, well that is to do with your diet, exercise, genes and so on. And then the believer might say 'aha, yes, God is using those things to bless me'. The frame of discussion is totally different.
Kierkegaard's point, surely, is that the believer is not asserting what the atheist is trying to deny.
Further, you're using the 'Star Trek' definition of 'logic', to mean reasoning that might be employed by a Straw Vulcan; rather than any actual definition of logic.
quote:
As it happens, I believe that a logical argument is far easier to conduct than a theological one. Because the latter is just an argument where one person says 'God thinks x' and someone else says 'God thinks y'. Unless you share some very close theological background to x or y, you are very unlikely to have your opinion changed, because of the latent power of accepting an argument that you believe has divine sanction.
The same could be said of any discipline. An unfriendly observer would think that economics is just a rationalisation of political preferences held on other grounds. An unfriendly observer would say the same for all of the social sciences.
I mean, if you go over to Dead Horses, the discussions superficially seem to be using more logical argument than merely 'God says X', 'No, God says Y and sucks boo to you'. They have the appearance of people trying, more or less successfully, to convince other people using the appearance of logical argument, however flawed. Nobody, upon having a logical fallacy pointed out, responds by saying that logical fallacies don't matter because this is theology. You may say that that's just a superficial rationalisation; but that could be said about any political debate.
Segregation is right because the Bible says so, may be difficult to convince someone out of. But it's a lot easier to convince someone out of it than it would be to convince them out of, Segregation is right because we don't want those people round here.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Firstly, there doesn't have to be one right interpretation in order for some interpretations to be wrong.
That's true - they could all be wrong, they could all be right or any intermediate position. How do you know the difference?
quote:
Secondly, do you seriously believe that the Curse of Ham interpretation does have any merit? Or are you merely saying that it might have some merit in order to support this particular argument?
I've largely give up taking a theological view on any of these arguments. If someone takes a theological view on this verse, they're probably freaks - that is my opinion.
quote:
Thirdly, the same rhetorical question ('who is to say that it's really like that') can be offered as a response to any question of morality or practicality.
Well that is true, except that those using logic rarely think that they're tapping into some universal truth dictated to them by a divine being who cannot be argued with. Most logical arguments are based on the known prerequisites and assumptions of the arguer in the knowledge that they might be faulty. Most theological arguments are based on the prerequisite that there is a divine truth - known as God - which is capable of being known and understood. Which is quite a difference.
quote:
quote:
The difference is that theology has a special position because you're arguing that God is on your side of the argument. Any other argument is simply saying 'I believe this to be true'.
That is a distinction without a difference.
I totally think it is a difference. When the believer is arguing with the person using logic he is claiming to know something about God, the ultimate knowledge of the universe. Which means that he is perfectly content with oxymora, illogical leaps of thought and a lack of logical proof. So the rational person might say that he can't be sure on a particular issue, but the believer might say that the answer for it lies with God.
quote:
You are arguing with me. So either you're not arguing logically, or your statement is clearly false.
Yes, well this is an interesting case, but for the moment we can probably accept that we're using logical/rational reasoning rather than theology to engage with each other. I'm not saying that believers never use logic.
quote:
Kierkegaard's point, surely, is that the believer is not asserting what the atheist is trying to deny.
Further, you're using the 'Star Trek' definition of 'logic', to mean reasoning that might be employed by a Straw Vulcan; rather than any actual definition of logic.
Unpack for me what you mean, please.
quote:
The same could be said of any discipline. An unfriendly observer would think that economics is just a rationalisation of political preferences held on other grounds. An unfriendly observer would say the same for all of the social sciences.
No, I don't think it has to be like that in any other discipline than theology. Clearly it does often work like that in many situations, but I'd say that was because of a breakdown in rational and logical argument, not because all disciplines tend towards theology.
quote:
I mean, if you go over to Dead Horses, the discussions superficially seem to be using more logical argument than merely 'God says X', 'No, God says Y and sucks boo to you'. They have the appearance of people trying, more or less successfully, to convince other people using the appearance of logical argument, however flawed. Nobody, upon having a logical fallacy pointed out, responds by saying that logical fallacies don't matter because this is theology. You may say that that's just a superficial rationalisation; but that could be said about any political debate.
Mm. Well on the whole SoF works on a rational basis rather than a theological one - which is one of the reasons it is so interesting. The box-within-a-box where you can discuss an irrational faith position using the tools of rational logic is mindboggling. But just goes to show - just because you can use logic doesn't mean that you're doing anything other than discussing angels dancing on pins.
quote:
Segregation is right because the Bible says so, may be difficult to convince someone out of. But it's a lot easier to convince someone out of it than it would be to convince them out of, Segregation is right because we don't want those people round here.
I don't agree. Both cases are arguments without any logic or reasoning. Or at least they contain a modicum of internal consistency and reasoning, but nothing else.
[ 29. November 2012, 14:28: Message edited by: the long ranger ]
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
most of us think of "Liberal democracy" meaning limited government and some degree of personal freedom. This seems at odds with the idea that any measure enacted by an electoral majority is legitimate.
You're right - in common usage, "democracy" is shorthand for the current system of government in western Europe and related countries.
Whereas it seems that what people value most about this system is not the chance to vote for which party becomes the government, but rather the associated freedoms.
I'm thinking of freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of movement, the common law freedom to do anything that is not specifically prohibited by statute, freedom from arbitrary arrest, freedom from punishment by the State unless convicted at a fair trial, etc. And freedom of worship belongs in that list.
Most of us are poorly educated about this - about our system of government and which bits of the system act to uphold these freedoms. I know I am.
Seems to me that the act of voting is supposed to be a guarantor of these freedoms, to allow the people the chance to remove from office those who abuse power. Not a way to exercise the "tyranny of the majority".
However, any two values may conflict. Not every question can be resolved with reference to some sort of Bill of Rights.
Where there is a conflict between two freedoms such that it is not possible to have both, there doesn't seem anything wrong in principle with a referendum to ask people which they value more highly.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Firstly, there doesn't have to be one right interpretation in order for some interpretations to be wrong.
That's true - they could all be wrong, they could all be right or any intermediate position. How do you know the difference?
We know the difference by the same methods by which we understand any communication, written or spoken.
If we can't know the difference, then there goes the rule of law. How can we know whether any interpretation of the law is right or wrong? You can ask the courts, but how can we know whether any interpretation of the courts' decision is right or wrong? Saying that the courts can explain leads to an infinite regress.
quote:
quote:
Secondly, do you seriously believe that the Curse of Ham interpretation does have any merit? Or are you merely saying that it might have some merit in order to support this particular argument?
I've largely give up taking a theological view on any of these arguments. If someone takes a theological view on this verse, they're probably freaks - that is my opinion.
You think some other people are freaks and they oughtn't to vote.
That's basically what your position amounts to, isn't it?
I think the attitude that freaks oughtn't to vote is much more of a danger to any kind of democracy than voting based on religious beliefs.
quote:
quote:
Thirdly, the same rhetorical question ('who is to say that it's really like that') can be offered as a response to any question of morality or practicality.
Well that is true, except that those using logic rarely think that they're tapping into some universal truth dictated to them by a divine being who cannot be argued with. Most logical arguments are based on the known prerequisites and assumptions of the arguer in the knowledge that they might be faulty. Most theological arguments are based on the prerequisite that there is a divine truth - known as God - which is capable of being known and understood. Which is quite a difference.
There is really quite a lot wrong with the above paragraph. I'll start with the main point: saying that an argument appeals to divine revelation and saying that another argument is logical is like saying that one car has rear wheel drive and another car is made in Germany.
There is no reason why a car cannot both have rear wheel drive and be made in Germany. There is no reason why an argument that appeals to divine revelation cannot also be logical.
For example, if Thomas Clarkson says that God has revealed to him that slavery should be abolished, logically that means he's saying that slavery should not be allowed to continue.
As a secondary point, you're saying that 'most theological arguments have such and such characteristics', yet you're not offering any evidence to establish that. What's more, when I've produced counterexamples you've used the No True Scotsman fallacy.
quote:
quote:
The difference is that theology has a special position because you're arguing that God is on your side of the argument. Any other argument is simply saying 'I believe this to be true'.
I totally think it is a difference. When the believer is arguing with the person using logic he is claiming to know something about God, the ultimate knowledge of the universe.
You've merely repeated yourself in different words.
Who gets to decide whether it is a relevant difference? Who is going to get to decide whether the believers are justified in voting on their opinions? I certainly don't think that people who think other people are freaks ought to get to decide.
quote:
for the moment we can probably accept that we're using logical/rational reasoning rather than theology to engage with each other.
Since assuming that would be begging the question, I don't think can assume it.
As I don't believe that there's any real distinction between reasoning and theology I'm not going to go along with your assumption. That's just demanding that we accept your conclusion as a premise. In my opinion, theology conforms to the same standards of reasoning as any other subject matter.
quote:
quote:
[QB] Further, you're using the 'Star Trek' definition of 'logic', to mean reasoning that might be employed by a Straw Vulcan; rather than any actual definition of logic.
Unpack for me what you mean, please.
'Logic' is a formal procedure that preserves truth from the premises to the conclusions. It works no matter what the premises are - whether they're scientific, literary, theological, or purely imagined.
You said, "Someone arguing from logic might say, well that is to do with your diet, exercise, genes and so on." That's confused. You don't argue from logic; you argue from premises using logic. Logic is not a source of premises to argue from. When you say that health derives from diet and exercise, you're not using logic but empirical induction, which is, notoriously, illogical. (*)
The way you're using the word 'logic' is the way it's used by Mr Spock who is a cultural archetype. But Star Trek was written by tv writers, not by philosophers or scientists. Using 'logic' in the way that Mr Spock uses 'logic' is confused and breeds confusion like tribbles.
quote:
quote:
The same could be said of any discipline. An unfriendly observer would think that economics is just a rationalisation of political preferences held on other grounds. An unfriendly observer would say the same for all of the social sciences.
No, I don't think it has to be like that in any other discipline than theology. Clearly it does often work like that in many situations, but I'd say that was because of a breakdown in rational and logical argument, not because all disciplines tend towards theology.
So you say. But who gets to say whether you're right? I'd prefer it if no person gets to say whether you're right if that person thinks that people who are freaks oughtn't to vote.
quote:
Mm. Well on the whole SoF works on a rational basis rather than a theological one - which is one of the reasons it is so interesting.
No True Scotsman.
quote:
But just goes to show - just because you can use logic doesn't mean that you're doing anything other than discussing angels dancing on pins.
Long ranger: theological argument is irrational because it doesn't use logic.
D: here are people using logic in theological argument.
LR: theological argument is irrational even if it uses logic.
You've abandoned what was supposed to be your evidence and yet you're still asserting your conclusion. In other words, your conclusion isn't based on evidence and you're just trying to rationalise it.
quote:
I don't agree. Both cases are arguments without any logic or reasoning. Or at least they contain a modicum of internal consistency and reasoning, but nothing else.
Interal consistency and reasoning is logic.
We don't want those people round here isn't an argument. It's an expression of the speaker's preferences, and as such it's pretty obviously true and sincere. There literally is no arguing with it.
What it is, though, is perfectly secular.
(*) A chemist, a physicist and a logician are on a train to Scotland. They look out the window as they cross the border.
Ah, says the chemist, sheep in Scotland are black.
No, says the physicist, the sheep in one Scottish field are black.
No, says the logician, those sheep visible from the train appear black on at least one side.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
