MASS PSYCHOSIS - How an Entire Population Becomes MENTALLY ILL

[Kathianne]

tel me if i'm miss reading you here. you seem to say.
Murder, rape & theft are not part of any 'moral' standard.
They are 'crimes' against life liberty property & contract.

Later you say morals are different for different people.
And some people are Amoral but are only afraid of consequences of actions rather than any morals.

Ok 1st of all
Lets get a definition of morals

a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior
ETHICALmoral judgments
b: expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior
a moral poem
c: conforming to a standard of right behavior
took a moral position on the issue though it cost him the nomination
d: sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment
a moral obligation
e: capable of right and wrong action

That's modern Merriam Webster

1828 Websters says

MOR'AL, adjective [Latin moralis, from mos, moris, manner.]
1. Relating to the practice, manners or conduct of men as social beings in relation to each other, and with reference to right and wrong. The word moral is applicable to actions that are good or evil, virtuous or vicious, and has reference to the law of God as the standard by which their character is to be determined. The word however may be applied to actions which affect only, or primarily and principally, a person's own happiness.

I don't understand how you can argue that murder, rape, theft, and "breach of contract" are outside of the realm of morals.

The question really isn't whether any individual thinks this or that is right or wrong... MORAL.
When GOOD laws are enacted they are based on some group's understanding of what RIGHT & WRONG... MORALS. (ideally a Group closely following God's morals in justice & mercy)
in the US, founded primarily by people deeply immersed in protestant Christian theology (sorry Kath that's just the facts). the Moral ethos they based laws on was Christian based. the God of the Bible's concept of what's right and wrong was the foundation of law.



Natural rights?
Based on what?
Without an objective standard to base those "rights" on they are just assertions.
Who says you have ANY rights? if we're all 'just animals' evolved from the goo, then rights are BS. might makes right.
Without God there are no real rights to appeal to. Only the law of jungle.
And BTW yes, ONLY the God of the Bible grants those rights, as each person is created 'in the image of God'. Only the new testament clearly outlines that they apply universally to ALL people on earth male & female.
not Hinduism or Buddhism where it's karma that determines you fate. Not pagan religions where it's the whim of the gods. Not Islam where woman are 3rd class & infidels can be lied to can killed for Allah. Not even Judaism where the gentiles are not really part of God's contract. (BTW the greeks only allowed citizens 'rights' and considered women and 'barbarians' less than human.)
The 'natural right's you appeal to are a philosophical outgrowth of Christian theology.


Most people can look at murder theft rape etc and see the wrong. some cannot nowadays. As time goes on more people are trying to 'morally' justify things most here in the west think is immoral.
Killing children, in the womb, now just after birth. somehow even all murder isn't thought immoral ...or a crime... anymore.



Here's the thing about Locke Even he roots nature back to God. the Christian understanding of God as creator.
Here's a Catholic scholar that makes the point using Locke's own words.
https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/...73&context=tcl
Basically Locke thought that man could figure out law by looking at Nature, Nature made by God, Man created by God therefore God's Natural Law.

the declaration of independence says it this way
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness....

If there's no Creator, then where exactly are these so called "rights" coming from?

There is no denying a God in what the founders, fj, Locke, or I wrote. Not a bit.

Same with 'science.' I believe in the scientific method, (compared to what's too often being called science today), yet I strongly believe in God also.

[fj1200]

tel me if i'm miss reading you here. you seem to say.
Murder, rape & theft are not part of any 'moral' standard.
They are 'crimes' against life liberty property & contract.

Later you say morals are different for different people.
And some people are Amoral but are only afraid of consequences of actions rather than any morals.

Ok 1st of all
Lets get a definition of morals

a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior
ETHICALmoral judgments
b: expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior
a moral poem
c: conforming to a standard of right behavior
took a moral position on the issue though it cost him the nomination
d: sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment
a moral obligation
e: capable of right and wrong action

That's modern Merriam Webster

1828 Websters says

MOR'AL, adjective [Latin moralis, from mos, moris, manner.]
1. Relating to the practice, manners or conduct of men as social beings in relation to each other, and with reference to right and wrong. The word moral is applicable to actions that are good or evil, virtuous or vicious, and has reference to the law of God as the standard by which their character is to be determined. The word however may be applied to actions which affect only, or primarily and principally, a person's own happiness.

I don't understand how you can argue that murder, rape, theft, and "breach of contract" are outside of the realm of morals.

The question really isn't whether any individual thinks this or that is right or wrong... MORAL.
When GOOD laws are enacted they are based on some group's understanding of what RIGHT & WRONG... MORALS. (ideally a Group closely following God's morals in justice & mercy)
in the US, founded primarily by people deeply immersed in protestant Christian theology (sorry Kath that's just the facts). the Moral ethos they based laws on was Christian based. the God of the Bible's concept of what's right and wrong was the foundation of law.

I'm saying that we can agree to respect each other's rights and not have to agree on a moral standard. Does the Libertarian standard of rights include morality?
https://www.cato.org/commentary/key-...libertarianism

I don't deny the existence of God but many Libertarians do? Is their idea of rights predicated on a supreme being?

Natural rights?
Based on what?
Without an objective standard to base those "rights" on they are just assertions.
Who says you have ANY rights? if we're all 'just animals' evolved from the goo, then rights are BS. might makes right.
Without God there are no real rights to appeal to. Only the law of jungle.
And BTW yes, ONLY the God of the Bible grants those rights, as each person is created 'in the image of God'. Only the new testament clearly outlines that they apply universally to ALL people on earth male & female.
not Hinduism or Buddhism where it's karma that determines you fate. Not pagan religions where it's the whim of the gods. Not Islam where woman are 3rd class & infidels can be lied to can killed for Allah. Not even Judaism where the gentiles are not really part of God's contract. (BTW the greeks only allowed citizens 'rights' and considered women and 'barbarians' less than human.)
The 'natural right's you appeal to are a philosophical outgrowth of Christian theology.

But what is that objective standard? I don't believe that there is an insistent view of God that Lockean rights are based on. Others can argue differently but I don't think it's a necessity. I dispute that it becomes the "law of the jungle."

Most people can look at murder theft rape etc and see the wrong. some cannot nowadays. As time goes on more people are trying to 'morally' justify things most here in the west think is immoral.
Killing children, in the womb, now just after birth. somehow even all murder isn't thought immoral ...or a crime... anymore.

And even some Christians will make that argument which goes back to arguing about whose definition of morality are we going to go by. And non-Christians will bristle when you tell them that every child was "knit in the womb", etc. But an argument that says that every being is entitled to life is a completely different argument.

Here's the thing about Locke Even he roots nature back to God. the Christian understanding of God as creator.
Here's a Catholic scholar that makes the point using Locke's own words.
https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/...73&context=tcl
Basically Locke thought that man could figure out law by looking at Nature, Nature made by God, Man created by God therefore God's Natural Law.

the declaration of independence says it this way
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness....

If there's no Creator, then where exactly are these so called "rights" coming from?

Who indeed? But the answer to that question is not necessary if we agree that we each are entitled to a base level of rights.