User Tag List

First 891011 Last

Results 91 to 100 of 104

Thread: Polygamy

  1. #91
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    What do you know about the "Is-ought problem" and naturalistic fallacy? You can probably see where I'm going with this.
    Yeah I can see, and you're still wrong. Damn and I should've paid more attention last night when glancing through Strauss' Natural Right and History. Oh well!

  2. #92
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I didn't say we always follow our instincts, only that our desires come from our instincts.
    The same goes for consumer goods... the desire, I mean. The actions taken are directed by environment, be it "Ipod" or "Marriage". Different instincts prompt the behaviour, but the targets are defined by the environment.

    The original point being that marriage is a trained institution - there are instincts that work with it (claiming mates, resources, support, etc) and against it (maximising survival of offspring, variation, etc).

    We want it because that's the norm, not because we want sex.

  3. #93
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    I find this terrifying, especially considering the ramifications that most religious espouse for violating God's will (violating others "rights", even!).
    The notion of religious freedom was articulated in the 13th century by St. Thomas Aquinas; and justified on the grounds since faith is a matter of free will, the state has no right to force the faith onto non-believers, for that violates their free will before God.

    What, you didn't mention religion? Well, then I suppose I can use any definition of God, and thus any rights that I deduce from that are immediately valid...?
    I don't adhere to that concept, but that is the concept Leo Strauss adhered to and is found among the Neo-Conservatives. Ironically it's a rather secularist understanding of God-given rights.


    So you must mean a specific God, and the codified beliefs.
    Yes, in the larger sense I mean Christianity. More specifically Catholicism.

    Legitimate to you, perhaps, but your belief system doesn't make it legitimate, because it requires assumptions on God's nature, which cannot be universal.
    Assumptions about God's nature are universal, since God is the first cause of the universe. So how can it be so that a mere earthly entity like the state defy the will of an eternal being who is also the first cause? That doesn't make any sense.

    And as Carl Schmitt noted in Political Theology, most the Liberal assumptions we have today about natural rights ultimately derived from religious sources.

    Without references to their origins in God, one cannot talk about rights in any real sense of the term.

  4. #94
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    The same goes for consumer goods... the desire, I mean. The actions taken are directed by environment, be it "Ipod" or "Marriage". Different instincts prompt the behaviour, but the targets are defined by the environment.
    Oh please, the desire for particular consumer goods is not nearly as hardwired as the desire to reproduce. They're very, very different.

    The original point being that marriage is a trained institution - there are instincts that work with it (claiming mates, resources, support, etc) and against it (maximising survival of offspring, variation, etc).

    We want it because that's the norm, not because we want sex.
    People choose marriage because how our society defines the choice of a mate. Not the other way around. The desire was there long before people created the concept of marriage.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  5. #95
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    The notion of religious freedom was articulated in the 13th century by St. Thomas Aquinas; and justified on the grounds since faith is a matter of free will, the state has no right to force the faith onto non-believers, for that violates their free will before God.
    If you believe the only valid rights come from God, then there can be no seperation between states that enforce rights as they require the 'religious' determination of what rights God has deemed proper, and religion that is suppose to determine such rights, by definition.

    Either the state does not enforce rights, or it enforces the wrong rights, or it enforces God's rights. In the first, it is not a state at all, in the second it is immoral, and in the third it is "religious" (as in, interpreting God to derive its actions).

    If the rights it enforces are God-based, then it is not a matter of free will anymore - the state enforces God's rights.

    Assumptions about God's nature are universal, since God is the first cause of the universe. So how can it be so that a mere earthly entity like the state defy the will of an eternal being who is also the first cause? That doesn't make any sense.
    A first mover does not automatically state anything about humankind or our rights. A first mover doesn't even need to consider us "alive" and any different from any other process in the universe. Even if there was a first mover (a human concept as there is no certainty that something cannot come from nothing, only that we have not observed it - a curious thing considering how advances in quantum mechanics is starting to show how wrong we are about our preconceptions of how the univere works), no rights can be assumed without assuming a nature beyond the logical construct that there must be a first.

    The most notable assumption here is that humans are 'special', 'alive' and often 'the chosen'. That's a human concept. We could be atoms to the first starter, and our rights as meaningful as we assign to atoms as we split them apart.... or as meaningful as computers saying that their rights come from humans.

    Just as I would imagine that the response would be that "computers aren't alive", you therefore must assume that our "life" is somehow meaningful to the first mover - more meaningful to have given specific rights to us and not, say, animals... or rocks. The same rights, I mean.

    And as Carl Schmitt noted in Political Theology, most the Liberal assumptions we have today about natural rights ultimately derived from religious sources.

    Without references to their origins in God, one cannot talk about rights in any real sense of the term.
    The human concept of God is only several thousand of years old... How about we talk about apes and evolution to derive human pre-conception of rights first? We can't really discuss human's perceptions without going at least that far back.

    The first mover God has no meaning to rights. Religion is a human institution, just as human interpretations of all things are human based. To understand rights, we must understand the source of the human interpretations. For that, we need to understand where we come from - we should work back to the creation of life, through the evolutionary process, to understand where our concepts and definitions of rights come from.

    Then we can talk about how religion formed, taking the evolutionary pressures and traits and transforming them into codified rights and then into a social institution to enforce such traits as we moved beyond our evolutionary threshold for natural social integration.

  6. #96
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hmm View Post
    It is assumed that hetero couples in the U.S. will reproduce and most do.

    Yep. Because...

    THE FUTURE BELONGS TO THE BREEDERS.

  7. #97
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    People choose marriage because how our society defines the choice of a mate.
    If you go back to the original reference, I was replying to the concept that "women want a single mate". That is taught by society, exactly as you said.

    I see no disagreement. The reference I made is that instincts are all low-level impulses that gain form in their local environment. Yes, we are hard wired with instincts - for sex, food, consumption, social status, dominance, nuturing... but none of these are tangible. A simple example - remove all of one sex from a population and you end up with a very different form of sexuality - it doesn't just go away, it is transformed.

  8. #98
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    If you believe the only valid rights come from God, then there can be no seperation between states that enforce rights as they require the 'religious' determination of what rights God has deemed proper.
    "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesars, and unto God the things that are Gods"
    --Matthew 22:21

    This theme has been articulated and meditated upon for 2000 years by Christian thinkers. St. Augustine famously described this as the contrast between the City of Man and the City of God.

    Linda C. Raeder explains some of the implications involved in St. Augustine's analysis in [u]Augustine and the Case for Limited Government:
    "Augustine was the first major philosopher to reject the deeply normative politics of classical thought and its conception of the state as the highest achievement of social existence. For Aristotle, the polis was the perfect communitythe fulfillment of human association and the precondition for the cultivation of intellectual and ethical excellence. Cicero too defined the state in normative terms; a republic, he maintained, was an assemblage [of men] associated by a common acknowledgement of right and by a community of interests.3 To the classical mind, human flourishing was inextricably entwined with the flourishing of the state; personal and political fulfillments were symbiotic and inseparable.4

    Augustine, the mystical Christian sage, was not impressed with such views. For he held a higher allegianceto his Godalong side which the human state and its strictly secular concerns paled to insignificance. Moreover, he held no illusions regarding the essence of political authoritycoerciveness. Coercive rule was, for him, a necessary aspect of human existence but certainly not one worthy of reverence..... "
    So Augustine, and by extension the Christian tradition, noted the strong distinction between religious and secular authority. This was not heard of elsewhere in the Ancient world - where the two were closely mixed.

    The notion that the state is not the highest authority, but is itself answerable to a higher authority(God) has been a powerful concept in terms of encouraging people to stand up to the tyranny of the state. This is true with the concept of conscience, which dictates that one has the right to refuse to obey an order of the state that violates ones conscience.

    St. Sir Thomas More demonstrated this when he refused to take the oath of loyalty to King Henry VIII, and paid for it with his life. His final words were: "I die the king's faithful servant, but God's first."

    I will stress that conscience in it's original and authentic meaning is not subjectivist but rather objective in nature.

    A first mover does not automatically state anything about humankind or our rights.
    Yeah it does. If our rights derive from an eternal being who is the first cause, then essentially the state can't violate his will - for the very existence of the state is derived from that first cause.

    The most notable assumption here is that humans are 'special', 'alive' and often 'the chosen'. That's a human concept.
    Humanist would be more accurate.


    We could be atoms to the first starter, and our rights as meaningful as we assign to atoms as we split them apart.... or as meaningful as computers saying that their rights come from humans.
    If so, then one cannot argue anything about rights. You're essentially a nothing in the grand scheme of things. That's why many theistic Existentialists argued against the predominace of the laws of necessity in regards to human affairs.

    Just as I would imagine that the response would be that "computers aren't alive", you therefore must assume that our "life" is somehow meaningful to the first mover - more meaningful to have given specific rights to us and not, say, animals... or rocks. The same rights, I mean.
    Man was created in the image of God, so by such that mean that man is endowed with many special qualities which also means man must be given certain rights. Without this basic concept, you cannot argue jackshit about rights.



    The human concept of God is only several thousand of years old...
    Assuming this is even true, it is also irrelevant.

    How about we talk about apes and evolution to derive human pre-conception of rights first?
    Rights are not a biological concept, but a social-ethical one. So you're out of your league here.

    To understand rights, we must understand the source of the human interpretations. For that, we need to understand where we come from - we should work back to the creation of life, through the evolutionary process, to understand where our concepts and definitions of rights come from.
    It seems you're arguing from a socio-biological perspective, which still in the end does not actually show that the concept of rights even exists or is true, but rather is an attempt to naturally explain them(or explain them away).

    You're falling into scientism here.

  9. #99
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    Hi. I am God. I created you all. I now declare that I want to find 20 naked virgins in my bed tonight.
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

  10. #100
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    Marriage is sub-optimal in the long run,.
    Zzzz. I've seen you making this point too many times. It's not true. Utility functions are purely subjective, so marriage can be perfectly optimal for the subjective perferences of the two people choosing it (indeed, if we follow a revealed preferences structure, then whatever we choose is what we deem as optimal at a given time).
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

Similar Threads

  1. Polygamy
    By themightyfetus in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-28-2016, 12:01 AM
  2. Polygamy: Do You Support It?
    By Passacaglia in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: 08-18-2015, 02:32 AM
  3. Polygamy and Gay Marriage
    By lowtech redneck in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-03-2014, 08:59 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO