The New Religion

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Giftedone, Aug 25, 2020.

?

Yes - I wish to Join

  1. No - wish not to Join

    7 vote(s)
    87.5%
  2. Not Sure - need more information first - just the basic facts - can you show me where it hurts ?

    1 vote(s)
    12.5%
  1. Pisa

    Pisa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2016
    Messages:
    4,157
    Likes Received:
    1,886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    First thing first: let's make it simple. If you're told "don't leave the house", which is a negative describing an inaction, how would you tell that you violated this rule? "I didn't not leave the house", perhaps?

    Your story about violating the rule would include a positive and an action - "I left the house".

    My story about the violation of the negative form of the Golden Rule can't possibly contain the negative form "I didn't not do it". It must contain a positive and an action.

    Here it is again:
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-new-religion.577495/page-2#post-1072002859
     
  2. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes in logic that is a positive.
    or as a tautology (plain propositional calculus sentence):
    P → ¬ ¬ P
    and
    ¬ ¬ P → P
    These can be combined together into a single biconditional formula:
    ¬ ¬ P ↔ P
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2020
  3. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Blood was viewed as a potent source of nourishment for the Maya deities, and the sacrifice of a living creature was a powerful blood offering.

    So then how is ok to create laws that violate the 1st A by preventing myans living in america from performing the blood sacrifice to their gods?
     
  4. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,175
    Likes Received:
    62,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think that's obvious why that would be a crime
     
  5. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I had to read back to sort of figure out what you guys are going on about, are you saying this:
    is a double negation?
     
  6. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No its not explain, it was a perfectly accepted ritual in the myan religion, how can something that is perfectly acceptable practice be a crime in the land of the free?

    Amendment I
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

    So there cant be a law and it cant be a crime because Congress cant make a law making it a crime................right?
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2020
  7. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    not really - have to think on that one though .. but regardless ... its called an agreement .. or .. a contract - aka - "the Social Contract" from which the GR is the natural outcropping - or springs out of the Social contract - and not the reverse.. which is interesting.

    so - Classical Liberalism - Enlightenment thought - The reason we give power to any authority is for protection from harm - in its most natural sense - "state of nature" - This is because in early days "Anarchy" or - No Gov't .. people naturally formed in to groups.
    This was for social reasons but also for protection from harm "Strength in numbers" .

    It does one little good to be protected from outside harm - if one is not protected from harm on the inside. Codes of conduct develop. Not much point in a code of conduct if there is no punishment for violators of that code.. Some "authority" then must be given power to punish violators. ... keeping in mind that "no man wants to be ruled over by another" .. so this power is be limited .. "only" to protection of harm.. direct harm .. one person on another. rape, murder, theft .. and so on.

    So the members of society make this agreement - they agree to give some authority power to punish - but only on the basis of protection from harm.

    The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
    -- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82

    Straight out of the Enlightment textbook .. of which Tom was a student. The DOI outlines what the "Legitimate Authority" of Gov't is.- in these terms.

    Actions that are not crimes of direct harm - are "essential liberty" - and that is "Above" the legitimate authority of Govt'.


    OK .. so in this social contract - construct by which we give authority/power to Gov't - there is an agreement with Gov't .. but also with our Fellow citizens... these are the codes of conduct that if you break .. you be punished.

    Which is the same as making an agreement - I will not harm you directly - if you agree not to harm me.... such an agreement - incurrs a "Moral Obligation" .. If I don't want others to harm me .. I should not do the same to others.. and support punishment for said crimes.

    Which everyone does... even murderers support punishment for murderers. Rapists support laws against rape - and certainly once they get a taste of being raped in prison.

    So the GR springs naturally out of the social contract. ..
     
  8. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just going to refer you to post 107.
     
  9. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    23,673
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That was intended for pisa, pisas formulation for double negation is fine, but its not clear what it being applied to?
     
  10. Pisa

    Pisa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2016
    Messages:
    4,157
    Likes Received:
    1,886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    No. I say that the violation of a rule of the type "don't do", which is a negation and an inaction, must be a positive and an action.

    The argument was about an example for the violation of the negative form of the Golden Rule (also known as the Silver Rule). I think Giftedone expected the example to contain a negative form and an inaction, but because it was about violation of the rule it contained the positive and an action. That's why I said that the negation (violation) of a negation (the Silver Rule) must be a positive.
     
  11. Pisa

    Pisa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2016
    Messages:
    4,157
    Likes Received:
    1,886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Things are not as straightforward as in your post.

    The Golden Rule is certainly a consequence of the social contract, but it directly contradicts essential liberty. It's intrusive. My neighbor has the right to reject attempts on my part at making his life more like I'd like my life to be.

    The Silver Rule (do no harm) is less intrusive, but it's not always applicable. Parents routinely take children to school where they are bullied, to doctors for scary and often painful or deadly treatments, to trips in cars that sometimes turn into deadly traps in accidents. The definition of "harm" is quite fluid.

    The Golden Rule and Silver Rule may be used as general guidelines at society level, not as rules of daily conduct between individuals.
     
  12. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think you may be thinking that the Golden Rule would actually be "A Rule - enforced by law" and here I think is the disconnect.

    The version of the GR that I have been discussing - "IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM" contradicts essential liberty " FULL STOP" - it in no way restricts or prevents individual liberty from taking place - and in fact this is impossible what you are suggesting.

    Look - If I am observing the GR - a rule which relates only to my actions - a rule which is not proscribing me to do anything to the another individual - how can that individual's essential liberty be effected ? It can't be. this does not jive.
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2020
  13. Pisa

    Pisa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2016
    Messages:
    4,157
    Likes Received:
    1,886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Your post is a textbook example of idealistic thought: if only people were good, everything would be just perfect. Real life doesn't work like that.
     
  14. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,706
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Never said it did - You are on a way different page of the textbook - one that I do not adhere to - in a land of straw man fallacy.
     

Share This Page