OpsChief wrote:
There is a moral code then there is amoral or immoral behavior - generally we wouldn't say an "immoral code". Morality suggests conformance and virtue. As such it is hard to conceive of "sinful morals" in practice but I get your point. By using the word moral that way you take the moral values/standards out of it.
Temporary failure in following moral behavior (as opposed to a/immoral) is not the same as a society being immoral so the riot thing I don't get.
The root of laws is found in the belief of God (gods throughout the world not just in the west). It is the root that creates the "fear" of eternal consequence or a Golden Rule "do unto others" divine retribution that drives men to honesty. Morality is not human nature. It seems that the only thing setting us apart from animals is Law and morality (and opposed thumbs) - everything else falls under instinctive or opportunistic behavior.
It is problematic to allow everyone to believe anything they want but I think it is the best way to go - Free Will. Couple that to the requirements of living in a community and you need rules, and rules to be followed need consequences. If someone swears an oath to tell the truth about something they believe only they know about, and they lie because nobody will find out - there is the dubious nature of a Godless Oath.
The pledge should stand as is as a reminder that without a moral compass the US is short-lived.
Anarchy is life without fear of consequences enforced by a higher authority whether by governments or God.
Ahh, but morality is a point of view....
Take this to the "riot" example - you are starving so you participate in a food riot, thereby stealing more than your fair share of food. By doing so you are able to keep your family alive, but some else's family pays for your actions. From your point of view it was a necessity, but for those that are now without food, its a crime.
Or let's take the riot thing out the equation - how many times have you traveled faster than the speed limit, because you were late? You have then made a conscious choice to avoid the price of being late, and therefore accept the consequence of breaking the law. And breaking the law = anarchy? Not from your point of view...
I'm not saying that everyone is prone to the free will trap. If you are a member of a society, you have elected to participate by its rules. But when you decide that you want to break the rules of a society, you haven't become an anarchist, you have used your own moral compass on the situation at hand. So it's tied up within your point of view - your decisions of what is right and that of society.
And I do not think you are understanding my point about oaths. A "God-filled" oath or a "God-less" oath are the same, if you have made the effort to participate within a society. Backing up your oath by the bible doesn't mean you can't lie, nor does one based on "I swear on my Mother's grave" mean you can't tell the truth. On the stand, its representative of your willingness to participate in the societal enforcement of law. The consequence of taking the oath is that you have agreed to provide bias-free information for representatives of your society to form an opinion and recommend retribution - without you influencing them at all, as you are required to abide by thier decision. On the other hand, you have agreed to be punished if you break your oath.
Last edited by Pug (2006-12-29 12:03:49)