MASS PSYCHOSIS - How an Entire Population Becomes MENTALLY ILL

[Black Diamond]

Society does tach its young. We use Wilhelm I's compulsory education system to teach them what government deems necessary.

Is that Prussian?

[Gunny]

Is that Prussian?

Yes. Our public education system is based on it.

[Gunny]

I'll argue that those are not moral standards. Those are crimes agaist life (murder), liberty (rape), and property (theft) along with breach of contract. Rights that we should all enjoy. I could be a completely amoral person who would like to do all of those things but I don't because I don't want to go to jail or be sued. Once a level of "moral standard" is codified into law then judgement is being passed. Whose judgement do we want to rely on? Our guy we voted for who can do no wrong or the guy we didn't vote for who is morally bankrupt.

You want a check against capitalism? Capitalism is its own check, when capitalism is allowed to be. You want God's clear teachings? Whose version of God would you like?

That those you mention are crimes at all is derived from moral standard. Societies have existed and still exist that do not consider those crimes. The standard that deems them crimes is morality.

When morality is passed as law, the law is (theoretically) the judge, not "our guy we voted for".

I suspect many are as you state however. Completely amoral yet afraid of jail. Society based on fear. Seems we're right back where we began

[fj1200]

That those you mention are crimes at all is derived from moral standard. Societies have existed and still exist that do not consider those crimes. The standard that deems them crimes is morality.

When morality is passed as law, the law is (theoretically) the judge, not "our guy we voted for".

I suspect many are as you state however. Completely amoral yet afraid of jail. Society based on fear. Seems we're right back where we began

The example was only the amoral guy not going to jail based on supposedly morality based laws. Most don't break laws because they're good, moral people. I only argue that those laws are not morality based. Reasonable people can disagree but either way laws morality are subjected to people's differing views on morality. We can look at the same law and disagree on its morality but we can both look at murder, rape, theft, etc. and know that they're wrong and not have to agree on a moral standard.

[Kathianne]

Actually the way fj looks at this is the way it's presented in Con Law 1. Our laws are written for 'We the People' that included, even way back at the founding, Christians, Jews, agnostics, atheists, deists, Quakers, the list goes on and on. Now we add in Muslims, Wiccans, Hindus, etc. Bottom line: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.

John Locke (1632-1704) argued that the law of nature obliged all human beings not to harm “the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another”:

The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions… (and) when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.


John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, ed. Thomas Hollis (London: A. Millar et al., 1764). 12/16/2019.

[revelarts]

I'll argue that those are not moral standards. Those are crimes against life (murder), liberty (rape), and property (theft) along with breach of contract. Rights that we should all enjoy....

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.

Protect your natural rights and enforce contracts.

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.

The example was only the amoral guy not going to jail based on supposedly morality based laws. Most don't break laws because they're good, moral people. I only argue that those laws are not morality based. Reasonable people can disagree but either way laws morality are subjected to people's differing views on morality. We can look at the same law and disagree on its morality but we can both look at murder, rape, theft, etc. and know that they're wrong and not have to agree on a moral standard.

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.

Actually the way fj looks at this is the way it's presented in Con Law 1. Our laws are written for 'We the People' that included, even way back at the founding, Christians, Jews, agnostics, atheists, deists, Quakers, the list goes on and on. Now we add in Muslims, Wiccans, Hindus, etc. Bottom line: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.

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?

[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.

[Gunny]

The example was only the amoral guy not going to jail based on supposedly morality based laws. Most don't break laws because they're good, moral people. I only argue that those laws are not morality based. Reasonable people can disagree but either way laws morality are subjected to people's differing views on morality. We can look at the same law and disagree on its morality but we can both look at murder, rape, theft, etc. and know that they're wrong and not have to agree on a moral standard.

Disagree. I do agree with Kathianne. The laws are worded the best they can be to not reflect a moral basis for the very reason that should they represent specific morality they would give one a basis to scream discrimination or whatever other violation of one's "God-given Rights" is taking place.

The morality behind our law is in fact based on Judeo-Christian laws. Evidenced by those nations whose laws are not, and their what we consider barbaric. inhumane practices, based on THEIR sense of morality.

A BIG issue with our legal system now is it attempts to remove intent - the reason for - the law and it comes up looking just stupid and we get stupid decisions from it. Nevertheless eggheads burn the midnight oil trying to remove the basis with wordsmithing.

Our laws would be very different if our culture was Japanese, Indian, ME, Russian and so on. As they are different from those cultures even now.

Actually the way fj looks at this is the way it's presented in Con Law 1. Our laws are written for 'We the People' that included, even way back at the founding, Christians, Jews, agnostics, atheists, deists, Quakers, the list goes on and on. Now we add in Muslims, Wiccans, Hindus, etc. Bottom line: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.

[fj1200]

Disagree. I do agree with Kathianne. The laws are worded the best they can be to not reflect a moral basis for the very reason that should they represent specific morality they would give one a basis to scream discrimination or whatever other violation of one's "God-given Rights" is taking place.

The morality behind our law is in fact based on Judeo-Christian laws. Evidenced by those nations whose laws are not, and their what we consider barbaric. inhumane practices, based on THEIR sense of morality.

A BIG issue with our legal system now is it attempts to remove intent - the reason for - the law and it comes up looking just stupid and we get stupid decisions from it. Nevertheless eggheads burn the midnight oil trying to remove the basis with wordsmithing.

Our laws would be very different if our culture was Japanese, Indian, ME, Russian and so on. As they are different from those cultures even now.

I'm not sure how you disagree with me but agree with Kathianne; I didn't think we were too far apart.

I don't think I was really saying that there is no morality in our laws but that there is no requirement for morality in our laws. There is certainly morality in some of our laws and those laws have gotten challenged in recent times when they disagree with the morality of a segment of the population. I think our laws would be different if our culture was homogenistic like those that you list. We don't have a homogenistic culture so it opens up the differences in morality driving our laws.

[SassyLady]

Some cultures allow honor killings. It's part of their legal system. In Iran it's in their Constitution to allow a husband to kill his wife for committing adultery.

A society determines what is acceptable. Unfortunately in some societies it's not the majority that determines this .. it's more often than not those currently in power. In Iran (and seversl other countries) it's the men who determine what is moral and legal.

[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.

[fj1200]

Some cultures allow honor killings. It's part of their legal system. In Iran it's in their Constitution to allow a husband to kill his wife for committing adultery.

A society determines what is acceptable. Unfortunately in some societies it's not the majority that determines this .. it's more often than not those currently in power. In Iran (and seversl other countries) it's the men who determine what is moral and legal.

And that is a "morality" that is unacceptable if we all agree that a wife has natural rights.

[revelarts]

And that is a "morality" that is unacceptable if we all agree that a wife has natural rights.

You remember when Robert Bork was up for supreme court nomination?
One the questions the left senators asked was if he believed in "natural rights" the answer they all wanted to hear was, NO.
Most academics have been teaching college/uni students to reject the concept FJ.
Why?
It's religious connotations of a natural law giver.

[revelarts]

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?



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."



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.



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.

Why should we agree to a base level of 'rights'?
Who's base?
If we can't even agree on what human is or a male and female at this point there is no base FJ.

The base that you seem to want to assume is the smoke left from the Christian base.

In India many people will not kill a fly or a rat, because it may be Aunt Rupi. Or simply because it's another soul/person. Animal rights activist are almost there as well.

Most in the west still generally think that humans have MORE rights than animals or plants, why?, it's the smoke left of the Christian teaching that still permeates the culture. Even after the reasons for the belief has been forgotten.
The concept that God made man in His image and set him above the plants & animals. To be care takers of and kill and eat them as necessary.

Other than 'might makes right' what REASON do we have to justify killing plants or animals?

One is hard pressed to think of one. At least one that could be held consistently.

People are claiming free health care as a right.
A living wage as a right.
A free education as a right.
Housing as a right.

Without a universally agreed apon ground for the BASIS of rights,
Either they are arbitrary 100% ...or more clearly, simply non-existent.

If people bristle at the reality of the situation that doesn't make it false.

Libertarians and Atheist and Christians who don't want to rock the secularists boat. Can ACT like rights are unhinged from Christianity but it can't last. Academics and slow boil hedonism has seen to that.

[fj1200]

You remember when Robert Bork was up for supreme court nomination?
One the questions the left senators asked was if he believed in "natural rights" the answer they all wanted to hear was, NO.
Most academics have been teaching college/uni students to reject the concept FJ.
Why?
It's religious connotations of a natural law giver.

I don't recall. Maybe you can help me out with the transcript. But it doesn't really matter because...

Why should we agree to a base level of 'rights'?
Who's base?
If we can't even agree on what human is or a male and female at this point there is no base FJ.

The base that you seem to want to assume is the smoke left from the Christian base.

In India many people will not kill a fly or a rat, because it may be Aunt Rupi. Or simply because it's another soul/person. Animal rights activist are almost there as well.

Most in the west still generally think that humans have MORE rights than animals or plants, why?, it's the smoke left of the Christian teaching that still permeates the culture. Even after the reasons for the belief has been forgotten.
The concept that God made man in His image and set him above the plants & animals. To be care takers of and kill and eat them as necessary.

Other than 'might makes right' what REASON do we have to justify killing plants or animals?

One is hard pressed to think of one. At least one that could be held consistently.

People are claiming free health care as a right.
A living wage as a right.
A free education as a right.
Housing as a right.

Without a universally agreed apon ground for the BASIS of rights,
Either they are arbitrary 100% ...or more clearly, simply non-existent.

If people bristle at the reality of the situation that doesn't make it false.

Libertarians and Atheist and Christians who don't want to rock the secularists boat. Can ACT like rights are unhinged from Christianity but it can't last. Academics and slow boil hedonism has seen to that.

... you're pretty much making my point for me. All those things that can't be agreed upon because there is no basis for morality based law because everyone has a different basis for their morality whether they are based on God or not. You haven't really dispute that point. Propose a law and say it's because of "my God's morality" and see how far you get. Propose a law and say it's because of "an individual's natural rights" and I'm sure you'll get further.

And please don't try and guess what you think I want. Nobody has been very good at that.