Mere Christianity

[rusmeister]

I'm not interested in third parties or public debate. You and I only do this in public, because that's the nature of the Watch, and you will not discuss it privately. But I don't care if anyone else is swayed by either of us; I'm just seeing if any legitimate ideas out there contradict what I currently understand about life, reality, etc.

I posted this at Into the Wardrobe. I was told I should read various other books first, so that I'd be able to understand it. That didn't really help with the problem. That's always the answer. You have given me that same answer about books you've recommended by both Lewis and Chesterton. You say "Read X." When I say X is wrong, you don't address the particular problem*, you say "Read Y, then you'll get X." It wasn't that I didn't get X, I just think it's wrong. Now, I could reread up to that part in Miracles, in order to refresh my memory on what I didn't agree with. Do you think it will help? Do you think you'll answer it in a way that changes my mind? We did go back and forth a few times about Mere Christianity, and I still disagree with the basic premise of the book. Your arguments don't work for me, because their starting points are conclusions.

*Yes, I know, you'll now say, "You refuse to tell me the problems with TEM, so how can I address them?" And the non-Chesterton issues I bring up will be forgotten.

All of this says to me that we have reached a stalemate, something that has been obvious to me for some time.

I can refute the claim that starting points are conclusions, but again, think it a waste of time, except maybe for 3rd parties. When Lewis begins Mere Christianity bu stating that what we see is that we feel that we ought to act/be a certain way, and we do not in fact do this, that is not a conclusion - it is an observation, and an excellent starting point. If you don't agree with that observation, fine. But I think most intelligent people will - and that it is not a conclusion.

For the rest, stalemate.

What you see is different people acting in different ways. And you decide they must all feel the same way you feel. That is, they must all feel that they ought to act/be a certain way, and do not in fact do this. That all people feel as you do, rather than thinking that people who act different than you do feel different than you do, is a conclusion that you and Lewis have not only not established, but haven't even considered as a possibility. Most intelligent people will say that different behavior is NOT evidence of same feeling. Most intelligent people will say that, since there is different behavior, whether or not feeling is the same must be determined.

So are you now going to say we simply disagree; not support your assertion; then, at some point in the future, say I'm refusing to confront the issue because of my inability to defeat the idea? You are the one making an illogical assertion: "Different behavior means same feeling." You need to back that up.

Again, Fist, there's nothing more to say. The example of the orange (or the seat) is perfectly obvious and valid. It is a general truth about observable human behavior that I don't need to reference to personal taste; when two people appeal to a common moral standard it can be seen and agreed (except by a tiny minority of people who really CAN'T see it, perhaps but I'm not going to accept their blindness as an 'alternate morality) that this is what we generally see in life. We (except perhapsyou and a VERY few other people) DO see people quibbling over oranges or seats. We do say "X' is not fair!!!" and appeal to a standard of fairness. It's not a question of how I think people ought to be acting. It is an objective observation that humanity in general feels that people ought to act in certain ways. If you insist that that is not so I'll just look at you like someone who insists the sky is green and not blue. All collective evidence of ordinary people indicates that all normal people perceive the sky is blue, and it is far more likely that people who think the sky is green have something wrong with their vision than that the collective witness of humanity has been collectively wrong. They don't always agree on all of these certain ways of behavior, but they are certainly in accordance with a moral compass that has a definite north, even though there IS a significant degree of variation on what societies disagree on what is good (perhaps up to 90 degrees?), it is NOT 360 degrees of variation. Murder, theft, and betrayal of bonds of blood and kinship are not mere matters of taste that vary completely across time and space - we find general agreement within the 90 degrees (as I put it) of variation.

These, then, are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human
beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave
in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do
not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it.
These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and
the universe we live in.

Disagreeing about this is simply a lack of clear thinking, and I have nothing to say to it, any more than you can have a debate with the person who claims the sky is green. The vast majority of human record and the personal experience of nearly everybody will acknowledge that people DO constantly appeal to a common standard that people extremely often do not live up to. It's not at all about how I personally feel. It's something I see external to me.

[Fist and Faith]

You dive right into the explanation that supports your conclusion/starting point. But it is false. What is the observable human behavior? There are more than "a VERY few" people who make their living by stealing. Or by selling various extremely harmful, illegal drugs. And there are many, many murders, unsolved murders, and unsolved disappearances. We're not talking about small numbers of people who could be considered abberations. It's extreme. So, either those who choose to live this kind of life all agree with your morality, but act in total opposition to it (not just shoplifting packs of gum); or they don't agree with your morality. Is there any evidence that things are not what they seem? No, there is not. You only assert that I lack clear thinking for disagreeing with you.

[rusmeister]

You dive right into the explanation that supports your conclusion/starting point. But it is false. What is the observable human behavior? There are more than "a VERY few" people who make their living by stealing. Or by selling various extremely harmful, illegal drugs. And there are many, many murders, unsolved murders, and unsolved disappearances. We're not talking about small numbers of people who could be considered abberations. It's extreme. So, either those who choose to live this kind of life all agree with your morality, but act in total opposition to it (not just shoplifting packs of gum); or they don't agree with your morality. Is there any evidence that things are not what they seem? No, there is not. You only assert that I lack clear thinking for disagreeing with you.

Of course there are a great many people that do wrong things - my charge is that we ALL do - that the wrongdoing is universal, and not limited to murder, stealing and drugs (meaning here that it is not that there is a class of "bad people" and a class of "good people" - which we, of course, happily belong to). Betraying one's spouse (unfaithfulness), lying for personal gain, etc etc. But generally speaking, the violator knows that it is wrong, and reveals this by attempting to cover up or justify the act. As Lewis said,

And the other man
very seldom replies: "To hell with your standard." Nearly always he tries to
make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the
standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there
is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the
seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he
was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him
off keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had
in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behaviour or
morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed.

The thief or murderer really behaves as though there were a standard - by justifying, running and hiding. He doesn't march around saying, "I am right to murder or steal and need no justification" He doesn't treat those things as his own alternate version of good.

The violator, be it criminal or sinner, does indeed see the act, in general, as violation, and justifies his violation as a non-violation, rather than pretend that there is no standard. He says "Here is why I did it" and certainly not, "Your standard is nonsense and my act is inherently good". We see it all the time in business and government cover-ups, as well in personal life. "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" is not a mere religious platitude. It is a practical statement of fact. It is amazingly easy to see in relation to others and most difficult to see in ourselves. We all start (even as small children) by wanting others to tolerate in us that which we would not tolerate from others.

[Fist and Faith]

There is nothing to suggest that, generally speaking, the violator knows that it is wrong. That's the conclusion that you and Lewis begin with. Many people do share many aspects of morality. There aren't terribly many different stances on any given moral issue, after all, so it's not even possible for every human to have a different stance on, say, killing. Some think all killing is wrong, regardless of circumstances (abortion; war; self defense; etc). Some think abortion, and/or war, and/or self defense are acceptable circumstances under which to kill (and, of course, some don't think abortion is killing). Some think it's ok to kill pretty much any time.

The reason people try to run and hide when they do certain things is because they don't want to go to jail. The reason some try to justify what they did is because they don't want everyone to mistrust them in the future. But, by repeating the behavior, he does demonstrate that he thinks those things are his own alternate version of good. Actually, an alternate version of good that he shares with many others.

We all start as small children who are selfish and couldn't care less about anyone else. Left on our own, a much larger percentage of us would remain that way when we grow up. But those raising us do not want us to have extreme difficulties relating to others, and getting into legal trouble, so they teach us to be nice. Some of us would have come to be nice anyway. Some of us become nice only because we know we have to follow the rules or get in trouble. And some of us do not become nice. They keep the morality they started with. They know how society demands they act, but they refuse. And they run, hide, and justify in order to remain free.

[rusmeister]

There is nothing to suggest that, generally speaking, the violator knows that it is wrong. That's the conclusion that you and Lewis begin with. Many people do share many aspects of morality. There aren't terribly many different stances on any given moral issue, after all, so it's not even possible for every human to have a different stance on, say, killing. Some think all killing is wrong, regardless of circumstances (abortion; war; self defense; etc). Some think abortion, and/or war, and/or self defense are acceptable circumstances under which to kill (and, of course, some don't think abortion is killing). Some think it's ok to kill pretty much any time.

The reason people try to run and hide when they do certain things is because they don't want to go to jail. The reason some try to justify what they did is because they don't want everyone to mistrust them in the future. But, by repeating the behavior, he does demonstrate that he thinks those things are his own alternate version of good. Actually, an alternate version of good that he shares with many others.

We all start as small children who are selfish and couldn't care less about anyone else. Left on our own, a much larger percentage of us would remain that way when we grow up. But those raising us do not want us to have extreme difficulties relating to others, and getting into legal trouble, so they teach us to be nice. Some of us would have come to be nice anyway. Some of us become nice only because we know we have to follow the rules or get in trouble. And some of us do not become nice. They keep the morality they started with. They know how society demands they act, but they refuse. And they run, hide, and justify in order to remain free.

It IS true that people can cease to perceive this moral compass. But it is specifically a ceasing to perceive - they do not so begin. The people who do this are overwhelmingly the exception, not the rule, and social morality is generally not based on such people and their views, unless it is a society in final stages of decadence. But it does not take earthly punishment to tell us that something is wrong to do. Indeed, you imply that the absence of punishment means that a thing is not wrong, or at least, not perceived to be wrong.

There is a reason why the two great commandments are to love God and love your neighbor - for the alternative IS to love only oneself, and to see the service of self as the only good.

We ALL justify our acts, even those of us who do not run and hide. As I said, when I cut off someone else in traffic, I 'have a good reason'.

I dunno, this is all so obvious, so ABC to me that if you don't see it, if you really believe that only fear of punishment tells us that something is wrong - that we cannot perceive wrong in its absence, then I don't know what to say to you.

I admit that the perception can be dulled and even killed, but the behavior of most people affirms that this doesn't happen to an egregious extent with most people. The fear of punishment? But whence the punishment? Why do people feel that certain acts ought to be punished in the first place, unless it is that the acts really do merit punishment, whether the perpetrator perceives it or not? Obviously, any one individual could be morally blind; could really get things wrong, but when we look at most people in most places in times, we find, as Lewis asserted, an enormous commonality and agreement, for example, that the people who really do think it's OK to kill any time must be restrained because they are wrong, blind and harmful. We certainly don't acknowledge them to have an equally valid viewpoint. We really do think them to be actually wrong, as Lewis referred to our ability to judge the Nazis. They really are an exception to an overwhelming rule, which is why the world united to defeat those two nations that really wanted to impose the monstrous views of the tiny minority ruling them, and even the Italians recanted.

Beyond that, maybe we could go back and forth, but I don't want to. I think my case overwhelmingly solid, and the objections too easy to rebut, and I don't think debating with you will be of any particular use. (I still think that simple inquiry is not useless.)

[Fist and Faith]

I think my case overwhelmingly solid,

You don't seem to have any case. At least you don't offer one. You claim that different behaviors indiciate the same moralities. They do not. Different behaviors cannot but suggest different moralities. If you would have me believe otherwise, you need evidence. Coming up with (or taking Lewis') explanation for why such a contradiction is the actual situation is not evidence. It's just an explanation Lewis came up with.

Heck, you even offer evidence against Lewis:

There is a reason why the two great commandments are to love God and love your neighbor - for the alternative IS to love only oneself, and to see the service of self as the only good.

Yes! There IS a good reason that those two commandmants are what they are. Because people weren't doing it. They were - and huge numbers still are - loving and serving themselves in ways that harmed others. Again, rules against something are not made unless they're needed. Unless that behavior the rulemakers don't want is already taking place.

and the objections too easy to rebut,

I haven't offered any objections, because you haven't presented a case. I'm just pointing out the way people are. People who consistently steal do so because they think it's okay to steal. They feel it's a valid way to make a living. The fact that society says otherwise does not change their mind or heart. They do it to the degree that, and for as long as, they can get away with it. It's not a tiny percentage, as you would have us believe. It's huge. A ridiculous amount of money is spent trying to prevent shopliftng. And there are news stories every day about people who get caught after years of stealing tens of thousands, even millions, of dollars from employers, employees, investors, charities, the town coffers, etc. There is no reason to suspect the people who do this things consistently, for years or decades, as a way of making a living, do not think it's morally correct to do so. There have always been "Might makes right" people out there, and this is just a variation. "My ability to do it means I have the right to do it. If they aren't paying enough attention to their property or money, then it's their tough luck." THAT is a fairly common moral stance. Not only can it be inferred from the behavior of the millions of people who do it, but plenty of them actually say that's how they feel. They don't even bother trying to make up excuses.

[rusmeister]

I think my case overwhelmingly solid,

You don't seem to have any case. At least you don't offer one. You claim that different behaviors indiciate the same moralities. They do not. Different behaviors cannot but suggest different moralities. If you would have me believe otherwise, you need evidence. Coming up with (or taking Lewis') explanation for why such a contradiction is the actual situation is not evidence. It's just an explanation Lewis came up with.

Heck, you even offer evidence against Lewis:

There is a reason why the two great commandments are to love God and love your neighbor - for the alternative IS to love only oneself, and to see the service of self as the only good.

Yes! There IS a good reason that those two commandmants are what they are. Because people weren't doing it. They were - and huge numbers still are - loving and serving themselves in ways that harmed others. Again, rules against something are not made unless they're needed. Unless that behavior the rulemakers don't want is already taking place.

and the objections too easy to rebut,

I haven't offered any objections, because you haven't presented a case. I'm just pointing out the way people are. People who consistently steal do so because they think it's okay to steal. They feel it's a valid way to make a living. The fact that society says otherwise does not change their mind or heart. They do it to the degree that, and for as long as, they can get away with it. It's not a tiny percentage, as you would have us believe. It's huge. A ridiculous amount of money is spent trying to prevent shopliftng. And there are news stories every day about people who get caught after years of stealing tens of thousands, even millions, of dollars from employers, employees, investors, charities, the town coffers, etc. There is no reason to suspect the people who do this things consistently, for years or decades, as a way of making a living, do not think it's morally correct to do so. There have always been "Might makes right" people out there, and this is just a variation. "My ability to do it means I have the right to do it. If they aren't paying enough attention to their property or money, then it's their tough luck." THAT is a fairly common moral stance. Not only can it be inferred from the behavior of the millions of people who do it, but plenty of them actually say that's how they feel. They don't even bother trying to make up excuses.

One central thing we DO know a lot about (sort of) is ourselves. In absolutely every other sphere of life we suppose (correctly) that there are feelings, desires, never mind biology. We can only speak of what is called 'the golden rule' on the assumption that we share a common moral sense (in general, at least). There is EVERY reason to think that wrongdoers do think - or sense, since often thinking is probably not much involved - it morally wrong in general to do what they do in particular - that they may feel justified is another matter, but certainly they do act as if they need to justify an act as not violating a standard.

"My ability to do it means I have the right to do it. If they aren't paying enough attention to their property or money, then it's their tough luck." THAT is a fairly common moral stance.

This is a case in point. You are right that some people DO say this. That is the justification. But if we turn the table around, people do NOT say, when they themselves are robbed, raped, or whatever, that "His ability to do it means he has the right to do it. If I don't pay enough attention to my property, money, or body, then it's my tough luck." We then appeal to the moral standard and have this strange idea about "justice", an idea that there is a common conception of morality that makes no sense if it is a matter of taste and purely individual judgement. If it were, then the thief, rapist or murderer would have as much right to judge those who judge him. When you propose to judge them you are assuming that there IS a standard that you happen to be right about.

But what's the use? I feel a sense of futility in trying to say any of that to you.

[aliantha]

1. Children are *not* born with an innate moral code. Their parents have to teach them right and wrong, often by using guilt and shame (and anybody who's ever seen a grinning toddler reduced to tears by a parental scolding knows this).

2. Isn't this just a nature v. nurture argument?

3. Here's one thing I know for sure: I could quit reading now and go and knit for several hours, and when I come back, you guys will still be arguing -- but *I* will have finished a nice pair of gloves for my friend's birthday.

[rusmeister]

1. Children are *not* born with an innate moral code. Their parents have to teach them right and wrong, often by using guilt and shame (and anybody who's ever seen a grinning toddler reduced to tears by a parental scolding knows this).

2. Isn't this just a nature v. nurture argument?

3. Here's one thing I know for sure: I could quit reading now and go and knit for several hours, and when I come back, you guys will still be arguing -- but *I* will have finished a nice pair of gloves for my friend's birthday.

I have a toddler in my collection, myself...

It may be fine to make a simple assertion, although I object to the reduction of complex issues to oversimplified dichotomies where few have really thought out much of the actual arguments, but think they know what is being talked about.

When you say "Children are not born with an innate moral code", I think you oversimplify. I would agree that children do not appear as morally perfect beings that slowly become corrupted. Certainly their behavior does not suggest the moral ideal to us. But when we become cognizant, we do begin to demand morality - justice for ourselves, first, and then for others. We even have the cheek to apply that standard to far-off lands and demand that their leaders acknowledge "human rights" and other ideas that refer to a common standard.

And what of the second modern objection - that the ethical standards of different cultures differ so widely that there is no common tradition at all? The answer is that is a lie - a good, solid, resounding lie. If a man will go into a library and spend a few days with the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics he will soon discover the massive unanimity of the practical reason in man. From the Babylonian Hymn to Samos, from the Laws of Manu, the Book of the Dead, the Analects, the Stoics, the Platonists, from Australian aborigines and Redskins, he will collect the same triumphantly monotonous denunciations of oppression, murder, treachery, and falsehood, the same injunctions of kindness to the aged, the young, and the weak, of almsgiving and impartiality and honesty. He may be a little surprised (I certainly was) to find that precepts of mercy are more frequent than precepts of justice; but he will no longer doubt that there is such a thing as the Law of Nature. There are, of course, differences. There are even blindnesses in particular cultures - just as there are savages who cannot count up to twenty. But the pretence that we are presented with a mere chaos - though no outline of universally accepted value shows through - is wherever it is simply false and should be contradicted in season and out of season wherever it is met. Far from finding a chaos, we find exactly what we should expect if good is indeed something objective and reason the organ whereby it is apprehended - that is, a substantial agreement with considerable local differences of emphasis and, perhaps, no one code that includes everything.

It's a heckuva coincidence that we have all of this agreement throughout space and time - and that it doesn't seem to get out-of-date. We don't seem to be evolving beyond justice and mercy. They seem relevant throughout human history.

Have you finished the gloves yet?

[Fist and Faith]

We've been arguing for four years now. Why would we stop in the next several hours???

[Fist and Faith]

No, babies don't have an innate moral code. It's more of a "MINE MINE MINE!!" kind of thing. As we get older, we adopt different moral codes. No two people are exactly alike, and, if all were raised under the exact same conditions, with the exact same parents, even having the exact same experiences, there would be variety in how everyone came to view the world. There would still be different moral codes. But we're NOT all raised exactly the same, so it's even MORE understandable that there are different moral codes in adults. Some come to embrace the "MINE MINE MINE!!!" creed, no matter how they're raised. Some reject it no matter how they're raised.

All we really know is that many different people have very different long-term behaviors. Which does not suggest we all feel the same morality.

"My ability to do it means I have the right to do it. If they aren't paying enough attention to their property or money, then it's their tough luck." THAT is a fairly common moral stance.

This is a case in point. You are right that some people DO say this. That is the justification. But if we turn the table around, people do NOT say, when they themselves are robbed, raped, or whatever, that "His ability to do it means he has the right to do it. If I don't pay enough attention to my property, money, or body, then it's my tough luck." We then appeal to the moral standard and have this strange idea about "justice", an idea that there is a common conception of morality that makes no sense if it is a matter of taste and purely individual judgement. If it were, then the thief, rapist or murderer would have as much right to judge those who judge him. When you propose to judge them you are assuming that there IS a standard that you happen to be right about.

No, that's not how they feel. They do not then feel that there is a standard that all should be judged by. They only want to stop others from doing what THEY want to do. It's all about them. They are better than all others, and should be allowed to do as they please.

But what's the use? I feel a sense of futility in trying to say any of that to you.

Right back atcha.

[rusmeister]

No, babies don't have an innate moral code. It's more of a "MINE MINE MINE!!" kind of thing. As we get older, we adopt different moral codes. No two people are exactly alike, and, if all were raised under the exact same conditions, with the exact same parents, even having the exact same experiences, there would be variety in how everyone came to view the world. There would still be different moral codes. But we're NOT all raised exactly the same, so it's even MORE understandable that there are different moral codes in adults. Some come to embrace the "MINE MINE MINE!!!" creed, no matter how they're raised. Some reject it no matter how they're raised.

All we really know is that many different people have very different long-term behaviors. Which does not suggest we all feel the same morality.

"My ability to do it means I have the right to do it. If they aren't paying enough attention to their property or money, then it's their tough luck." THAT is a fairly common moral stance.

This is a case in point. You are right that some people DO say this. That is the justification. But if we turn the table around, people do NOT say, when they themselves are robbed, raped, or whatever, that "His ability to do it means he has the right to do it. If I don't pay enough attention to my property, money, or body, then it's my tough luck." We then appeal to the moral standard and have this strange idea about "justice", an idea that there is a common conception of morality that makes no sense if it is a matter of taste and purely individual judgement. If it were, then the thief, rapist or murderer would have as much right to judge those who judge him. When you propose to judge them you are assuming that there IS a standard that you happen to be right about.

No, that's not how they feel. They do not then feel that there is a standard that all should be judged by. They only want to stop others from doing what THEY want to do. It's all about them. They are better than all others, and should be allowed to do as they please.

But what's the use? I feel a sense of futility in trying to say any of that to you.

Right back atcha.

Well, if you get what I was saying earlier that would be something - that we do NOT see moral behavior in babies, so I was actually agreeing with you so far. However, the curious fact that no matter where and when a person is, as he grows, his desire for justice when he is wronged is amazingly alike - and it is not merely that we want more for ourselves - we do not, after all, actually demand that (even though we may want it), but we do demand fair redress when we are wronged. We may push our concept of "fair" quite far, but there is always a limit to it. We do not demand capital punishment for shoplifting or minor battery, even though that would ensure an end to possibility of repetition, which would be "better" for us. These strange ideas of punishment fitting the crime and the limitation of punishment are concepts of justice that are not 'all about me' and are not explained by such a view.

And of course, what you call "different moral codes" I call variations within one general code, with some people having a clearer sense of "north" than others - but I do think we are both looking at the same thing.

[Fist and Faith]

The fact that someone yells to be compensated when they are the victim does not meant they think they should be held accountable when they are the peretrator.

[rusmeister]

The fact that someone yells to be compensated when they are the victim does not meant they think they should be held accountable when they are the perpetrator.

No, but it certainly means that they are willing to point to a commonly accepted standard.
So we see that we sense a standard that we want applied discriminately - we want it applied when it works in (what we perceive to be) our favor and want to ignore it - and commonly justify ourselves in the face of it - for "apparent" (actual) violation when it does not. We acknowledge the standard but want our own case, our own violations, to be acknowledged as exceptional and therefore excusable.

That's what Lewis is saying. Maybe you just misread him to think he was suggesting that we appeal to the standard in all cases? (Because obviously, we don't, and I would agree with you on that at least.)

[Fist and Faith]

Whether they are the one who breaks the commonly accepted standard or the victim of someone else breaking it, if it benefits them, they will appeal to it. If it does not benefit them, they will attempt to avoid it, or use any loophole they can find. It has nothing to do with feeling that the standard is right, or just. It only has to do with them getting what they want, by any means. "I have the right to what is mine" is not followed by "And everybody else has the right to what is theirs" for these people.

That is what we see, in all societies, every day. And not in numbers that could be called exceptions or abberations. It's in such numbers that the huge expense of trying to prevent shoplifting is less than the loss from shoplifting. Add the number of police and elected officials that are stealing from the communities they work for. And the cashiers in Wal-Mart and the accountants for local businesses who steal tens of thousands of dollars over many years before getting caught. It's not nearly as infrequent as you think it is. It's common.

[aliantha]

Have you finished the gloves yet?

No, I went to bed. Which I probably should have done before I posted at all....

[Fist and Faith]

Have you finished the gloves yet?

No, I went to bed. Which I probably should have done before I posted at all....

And there ya go doin' it again!!


Anyway, back to it...

I dunno, this is all so obvious, so ABC to me that if you don't see it, if you really believe that only fear of punishment tells us that something is wrong - that we cannot perceive wrong in its absence, then I don't know what to say to you.

Say the same thing you've been saying to Av, who doesn't know abortion is wrong for lack of punishment. Or the various states in the US that don't know capital punishment is wrong.

Oh, here's a good example of what I've been talking about! www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41006570/ns/politi ... ?GT1=43001

Former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, once considered among the nation's most powerful and feared lawmakers, was sentenced to three years in prison Monday for a scheme to influence elections that already cost him his job, leadership post and millions of dollars in legal fees.

The sentence comes after a jury in November convicted DeLay, a Houston-area Republican, on charges of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering for using a political action committee to illegally send corporate donations to Texas House candidates in 2002.

[rusmeister]

Whether they are the one who breaks the commonly accepted standard or the victim of someone else breaking it, if it benefits them, they will appeal to it. If it does not benefit them, they will attempt to avoid it, or use any loophole they can find. It has nothing to do with feeling that the standard is right, or just. It only has to do with them getting what they want, by any means. "I have the right to what is mine" is not followed by "And everybody else has the right to what is theirs" for these people.

That is what we see, in all societies, every day. And not in numbers that could be called exceptions or abberations. It's in such numbers that the huge expense of trying to prevent shoplifting is less than the loss from shoplifting. Add the number of police and elected officials that are stealing from the communities they work for. And the cashiers in Wal-Mart and the accountants for local businesses who steal tens of thousands of dollars over many years before getting caught. It's not nearly as infrequent as you think it is. It's common.

I'm not at all sure what you think I think is infrequent. I have said that sin is universal. It's not only common, it's you and me and everyone else here. I suspect you are arguing against something that I am not arguing for.

The very fact that people refer to the standard, and expect other people to commonly recognize it, is proof that it exists, that it IS something objective and not subjective - or there would be no point in appealing to it to others.

Now I agree completely that for some people the second inference you mention does not follow. (So you need not push the point - it is granted.) Some people are color blind, some have no ear for music - but that does not disprove the music or the color - and indeed, the people can still hear SOMETHING and see something. But the critical point is that we ALL have enough sensibility to recognize the standard, at least when it benefits us. And most people really do recognize it even when it benefits someone else. So the exceptions you refer to prove the rule, rather than disprove it.

[Avatar]

Say the same thing you've been saying to Av, who doesn't know abortion is wrong for lack of punishment.

Uh...even if they punished it, I'd still say it wasn't wrong. (Not that I think it's necessarily right either, I'd rather that it never happened. But everybody should be able to choose for themselves. Just like pretty much everything else.

--A

[rusmeister]

Say the same thing you've been saying to Av, who doesn't know abortion is wrong for lack of punishment.

Uh...even if they punished it, I'd still say it wasn't wrong. (Not that I think it's necessarily right either, I'd rather that it never happened. But everybody should be able to choose for themselves. Just like pretty much everything else.

--A

If only you'd let the babies choose for themselves.