[2dogs]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32886

The legal system is now our enemy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 3, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

I was raised to believe that law is the glory of decent society; that the rule of law is the sine qua non of civilization; that international law is the greatest protector of human rights; that lawyers should be coupled with doctors as an elite profession to which a young person can aspire; that making laws is the great work of legislatures; that law schools are among the noble places of learning in society; that the title "judge" was perhaps the highest appellation in society; and that the jury system is an essential component of a just society.

Most of the preceding has become nonsense.

I have come to fear almost everything having to do with law. Though there are many fine people in the legal profession, and though law is necessary to protect society from descending into chaos, I now fear the legal profession more than I do Islamic terror. I am far from alone. I believe that more Americans rightly fear being ruined by the American legal system more than being killed by a terrorist.

Tens of millions of innocent Americans and untold numbers of innocent institutions – from schools to businesses – stand a good chance of having their money legally stolen through litigation or even the mere threat of it.

Innumerable American children are terribly harmed by family lawyers who egg on their clients to destroy the other parent.

Parents fear allowing visiting children to play on their property – in their pools or on their trampolines, for example – lest they be sued in case of injury.

Airlines won't give passengers aspirin for fear of lawsuits.

Physicians prescribe unnecessary procedures, raising the national medical bill astronomically, for fear of being sued.

American hotel guests can no longer breathe fresh air because hotels are no longer built with windows that open lest they be sued if a hotel guest falls out of one.

Men and women fear speaking normally at work, lest they be sued.

The deprivation of freedoms in America because of laws and litigation has made this country less free than at any time in its history.

Law in America and internationally is no longer on the side of the decent. It is a weapon in the hands of the indecent.

Everything related to law has been corrupted.

Law schools. Most people leave law school morally worse than when they entered. When they enter law school, most students think in terms of right or wrong. In law school they are taught to reject such thinking and to think only in terms of legal and illegal. This transformation of morals into legal categories, reinforced most especially in trial law, and particularly among criminal defense lawyers, explains the proliferation of amoral lawyers and the destructive role many trial lawyers play in our society.

Lawyers. The best humor is almost always the truest humor. The funniest jokes I ever heard were those told by Soviet dissidents; the funniest today are about lawyers. Both types of jokes are so humorous because they come from the same place – bitterness at one's helplessness against an overwhelming and oppressive power – the communist system in the Soviet Union, the legal system in America.

International law. Had America followed the proponents of international law, the people of Iraq would still be tortured and murdered by Saddam Hussein's regime. The frenzied screams of the international law community against American liberation of Iraq were the screams of people who hate American power and values far more than they hate tyrannies. International law and international treaties (all broken by the very regimes that we need to be protected against) are now the weapon of choice against American moral and military power.

Law. Law is a man-made series of rules. That is all it is. In and of itself, law is entirely amoral. There are moral laws and immoral laws. Both decent and vicious governments make laws. The Holocaust began legally. Nazis and communists had judges and lawyers who respected their societies' laws. In our country, slavery was entirely legal, as was the racial segregation that followed it. The notion that obedience to a society's laws is always moral is itself immoral.

Judges. Too many judges are unfit for their position. How else can one explain the New York State Supreme Court ruling that women can bare their breasts in public because men can? How to explain the judges who liberate criminals only to have those criminals murder and rape again? Or the many judges who regard their primary role as imposing their values on society? This has led to an undermining of the democratic process beyond the wildest hopes of any homegrown fascist or communist.

Juries. Juries are now merely weapons in the hands of amoral attorneys. The attorney's purpose is to win, not to find justice, let alone truth, and the jury is selected only for that purpose. The Florida lawyer who brought the new legal terror weapon of "class action suit" against tobacco companies rejected over 800 potential jurors before he could find 6 people who do not believe that anyone who smokes has freely chosen to do so.

And now a trial lawyer is seeking the Democratic Party's nomination for president. He ought to win it. Trial lawyers are, after all, the largest contributors to him and to his party. And if that doesn't frighten enough Americans, we will cease being a free country.

If America is destroyed, it will be done legally.

[Lone_Gunman]

How else can one explain the New York State Supreme Court ruling that women can bare their breasts in public because men can?

Even liberal judges have good ideas occassionally.

:D

[Beorn]

How else can one explain the New York State Supreme Court ruling that women can bare their breasts in public because men can? This is merely some Puritanical mini-diatribe. If there's one thing that gets more conservative folks in trouble, its the "selective permission" that gets ladled about. This is okay, but that is wicked, dirty, and unnatural.

I don't want anyone telling me what to do or how to do it, provided I do not harm anyone else in the process. If the Republican Party stopped trying to tell people what to do in their bedrooms, the Democratice Party would fade into a spectre of their former selves.

Don't tell me what guns to buy, don't tell me what to do in my bedroom, don't tell me where to send my children to school, don't preach to me about immorality. Morals are personal, laws are public.

I am a school teacher (as many of THR-ers know), and I state categorically for the record that I don't talk morals at work. That's the parents' job.

Parent- Thou shalt not kill
Me- Murder is against the law, and there are varying degrees as set forth by law based on intent, severity, completion, etc.

Parent- Thou shalt not steal
Me- Theft is against the law, and there are varying degrees as set forth by law based on amount, use of force, etc.

And so on and so forth...

Back to the original subject. Women were baring their breasts for centuries with no repercussions. Breast-feeding was nearly criminalized for Goodness sake! Our greatest scientific formulas are still less efficient and healthy for infants than simple, effective breast milk. And since breasts are a secondary sexual characteristic, they really only 'offend' if the onlooker has some sort of 'issue' with healthy body acceptance anyway.

It's very hard to be 'right' when so many issues are decided on a morality based upon a One-Hundred-year dead English Queen.

[2dogs]

Not the point of the article really, but I wonder how having women go topless would actually help society?

Other than the obvious.

[Oleg Volk]

People's actions don't have to "help society". Sometimes men wish to go shirtless for comfort. Women ought to have the same options. Otherwise we are running a slightly less restrictive version of the Moslem veil (which is fine if adopted voluntarily, not fine at all if enforced by law).

[Boats]

Speaking as a lawyer, one who is evidently on a bender to destroy America via the courtroom, I have to laugh. No lawyer I know played an overarching role in raising the society that produces a surplus of people whose character is so lacking that they will not take responsibility for their own actions or those of their children, or accept the fact that unfortunate things do befall innocent people with no one necessarily to blame or play victim to.

The grim fact of the matter is that there are unscrupulous attorneys, ones with crusader's complex saving us from Oreos, incompetents, and every other stereotype of the profession ever created or exaggerated about. However, none of them can do anything to anyone else without a client.

People suing over their Darwin Award self-nominations, parents who sue when their darling daughter didn't make the cheerleading squad, yuppies who move to the country and then try to shut down farming as a dirty and noisy affront to their sensibilities, corporate bigwigs who feel the rush of defrauding investors and undermining pensioners, and crime victims who sue gun makers all have one thing in common besides a lawyer(s)--no personal integrity to speak of.

Fix the entitlement mentality in this country and stress personal responsibility again and you can watch the "legal problem" mostly solve itself. I acknowledge that some class action lawyers will have to be bludgeoned into submission by the Congress or state legislatures as that pack of lawdogs is particularly inventive and ridiculous.

Looking for the problems of society? Get a mirror first.

[longeyes]

Excellent retort (no pun intended). But wouldn't it be good if lawyers, as a group, refused frivolous suits rather than, as seems to be becoming more and more common, pursued them? On the grounds of, lacking a better term, Honor? You are right to point to a corrosive culture of entitlement but for every addict there has to be a dealer somewhere. I think the culture of lawyering may need some some revision also.

[Bikeguy]

I was going to reply on behalf of my profession, but Boats has done such a fine job that I just wanted to thank him for his reply.

[longeyes]

Not all lawyers, by any means, are to be condemned. But surely there are some potential "clients" who deserve to be laughed out of one's office.

[matis]

A really good description of the destruction wrought upon our society by a legal profession out of control.


Beorn and Oleg,

I've got bad news for you both.

After a lifetime spent first as a left-liberal and then as a libertarian, I've come to a sad conclusion.

There is an inherent contradiction at the heart of the democratic ideal of separation of church and state.

No one has felt as strongly as I have or argued as vehemently for this separation.

After the birth of my daughter, now almost 15, however, I've had to rethink all of this.


Of course no one wants the morality of others imposed on them --or their religious teachings. As a Jewish kid attending a "Protestant" School Board of Greater Montreal grade school, I used to remain silent when during the hymns we sang, the Christian deity was mentioned.

I was especially bitter about this since I often had to choose my route home from school carefully, to avoid being caught by gangs who would beat me up because I was as they termed it a "dirty Jew" -- "moodzie Juif" in French.

Yet, I have had to overcome this bitterness in order to understand that without strong emphasis on morality and religion in the raising and teaching of children -- society falls to pieces.

Compare any social parameters from, say, the fifties with their counterparts today and try to tell me that our society isn't disintegrating at an accelerating pace.

Compare crime rates -- and the increasing viciousness of the perpetrators;

the rate of children born out of wedlock (it's alright -- you can feel free to attack -- I wear a very good quality flame-suit);

the precipitous decline ,the "dumbing down" in educational achievement (in terms of content, not inflated grades);

the sneering refusal of so many students to accept discipline in school or anywhere else;

the widening gap between parents and children and the lack of respect for parents;

the increasing dependence on "society" (government) for our well-being instead of on self-reliance;

the general coarsening and crassness of society at every level;


And yes, the corrosive role of the legal industry in tearing society apart, turning justice and truth inside out and intruding law into every nook and cranny where common decency and private solutions used to prevail.



There is, of course, more than one reason for the decline of the West back to the savagery we struggled so long to emerge from.


But the main driving force IMO is the decline in morality resulting from the toppling of religious authority.


Now it's ok with me for you to flame me. But I do ask that you first at least attend accurately to what I'm actually saying.


I am NOT a religious believer; never have been.

And I believe, with Winston Churchill that, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." Republican democracy, that is.


But I also understand that children come into the world as, in a sense, wild beasts, at the mercy of their own whims and emotions, their ignorance and lack of experience.

In order to provide love AND discipline and give them a chance to become free AND decent citizens, it is IMPERATIVE to lay unceasing stress on the teaching and the modeling of morality. Not just in church and home, but everywhere!


As a libertarian, I would dismantle the government schools and replace them with private schools of every description -- secualr, religious -- whatever the parents choose. Then you wouldn't have to EXCLUDE all moral teaching because of the (puke) DIVERSITY of the student body.

But morality is now outlawed in almost all social institutions except church and home.

Anyway it is actually impossible to NOT TEACH morality. SOMETHING is ALWAYS being taught. As things stand now, we are teaching the unimportance of and the ridiculing of morality. THAT is the morality we are currently teaching.


By removing the teaching of morality and relegating that ONLY to the home -- where it happens little -- parents too busy earning a living, or watching TV, sports and other diversions we are actually discrediting the very concept. And anyway, where would the parents have learned it?

How can anybody believe that the vacuum this leaves is just fine and that this space inside us will not be filled with every kind of accidental garbage instead?

Or be filled with the agenda of those who hate the values this society was founded upon?

And the legal profession, given the moral vacuum now in our society, has filled it with their venal drive for power and money.


Before you get excited, let me say that I too want power and money. I want the power to provide freedom and well-being for myself and mine. And I want the money to be able to do that and to invest so that I don't have to go to a job and do what others want instead of what is meaningful to me.


The problem with the legal industry is that they are the gate-keepers to all power in the society and therefore they can, by various devices and rationales, funnel to themselves more and more of our money.


IMO the root of all of these problems is the decline in morality and I now support religion because -- like it or not -- THAT is where the morality is found and taught.


I don't want to argue whether that morality is G-d given, or as I believe, the result of millennia of accumulated human experience and wisdom. But that's where it is to be found.


How do we reconcile our need for morality with the struggle about whose morality should prevail? I am not Solomon and I don't know.


But I don't think it an accident that the societies where people are the most free, live the longest, healthiest lives, treat the weak and even animals the most humanely, and where most of what we call human achievement has occurred -- that these societies are ALL based upon Judeo-Christian values. I am NOT at all saying that other religious traditions have not contributed.

But you compare the achievements for yourself.

Maybe there is a clue here?


Without drumming morality into our children, we cannot have a decent society. And the inculcation of morality is actually an emotional and NOT a rational process.

It is like self-defense training and "muscle memory" when the SHTF. You survive by falling back on what was drummed into you. You DON"T rationally appraise the situation and calmly choose a course of action. Try that and you'll probably die.

Look around you and tell me that our society is not dying.


For those, who like myself have mistrusted "tradition" and religion for so long, it can be infuriating to have to admit that people are NOT basically rational and that we must have our emotions and morality programmed, so to speak, when we are young. Sounds like the worst, authoritarian, fascist, theocratic tyranny, doesn't it?

Most 2nd amendment types can recognize the stupidity and the destructiveness of the liberal world-view. So what world-view will you support and teach to your children in place of it? Do you believe that the family should be "fair" and democratic and the kids will choose for themselves when they come of age? On what basis will they be able to choose? Again, look around you to see what results from that.

I have spent the latter part of my lifetime, so far, watching society spiral back into the abyss because of the rise of what I used to defend as "humanistic" values.

Until my daughter was born, this was mostly "theory" to me. I'm ok and I can always land on my feet.

But my dilemma as to how to raise my child was simply an individual case of the greater social problem. The children and therefore the society will NOT turn out all right, if we throw out the great body of human experience embodied in morality which is found in religion. They will not turn out alright by accident.




OK, I've zipped my flame-suit up to the neck, cuffs and leggings tight -- flame away!



Matis

[Oleg Volk]

I see a number of improvements over my lifetime. In the last decade, which is about when I began paying attention, I see more and more people adopting "live and let live" attitudes. People of various religious, origins, orientations and vocations co-exist very peacefully. Fewer than before argue for the expansion of the state powers. It is my impression that while the human nature may be relatively constant, the United States benefit from the influx of the freedom-appreciating immigrants from other countries and sometimes from the (sub)American territories like Chicago, Wash DC who come to live among decent humans. So I see no decline of morality except among those whose bad choices are subsidized by the state. Eventually, tax revenues would flee to saner locations, and outright predators would be mostly killed off by humans.

Some people find morality in God, some within themselves, others yet in the happiness of people around them. So "live and let live" approach works whatever motivation produced it.

[eotp]

It is never a question of morality or no morality...

it is always a question of whose morality.

[matis]

We are controlled by laws, and lawyers -- in litigation, as judges and as the majority of the legislators -- have more power than the rest of us in creating these laws.

That's why I think that as a class, lawyers can wrest more of our power and money from us.



That said, my own lawyer was a brilliant, decent guy who "forgot" to bill me after doing an excellent job in my divorce.

In fact his first response, when I phoned to tell him she had left was, "What's her phone number, let me talk to her."

Having failed to re-unite us, through no fault of his own, he crafted a very fair division of property, custody arrangemnt and supported me through a harrowing experience.

Finally, after 11 months, I had to almost barge into his office to get him to take money from me. When we looked at the file, he had paid the court costs himself and wasn't going to ask for that either.

So not all lawyers fit the stereotype, do they?


Except for the issue of power, I agree with everything in your reply.


And since I don't want to embarrass anyone, I won't even mention what sheer pleasure it was to read such a beautifully written piece.

I'm going now, I gotta look in the mirror.




Matis

[Boats]

Not to blow my own horn, but last month I had a client who had missed his statute of limitations on a workers' compensation hearing loss claim by about 14 years. I negotiated a $2500 settlement for him with the insurance carrier at no charge so that he might get most of the way to a set of hearing aids though he had severely screwed his own case long before meeting me. It is not all that uncommon for attorneys to offer to eat costs or negotiate down or eliminate their fees in the interests of "true" justice.

Like doctors, insurers, politicians and yes, gun nuts, we attorneys are continually tarred by the bad examples in our midst. I usually take no offense at the contention that all lawyers are evil until someone tries to lay all of society's ills at the doorstep of our profession. I do grant that it is a time honored rhetorical device to lay such blame. One can read of complaints about "proto-lawyers" in Cuneiform, Sanskrit, Sumerian, Ancient Egyptian, Chinese, Greek, Latin, and Old Norse.:evil:

[CZ-75]

FWIW, cuneiform is an alphabet; Sumerian, among others, the language it represents.

[matis]

How come I struggled through pages to try to say what you said better in 2 short sentences?

Life ain't fair!




Matis

[2dogs]

People's actions don't have to "help society".

No, they surely don't. However, given that some actions will either help or degrade "society" would women going topless (or bare @$$ nekkid) in public be a boon or detriment to the public?



I see a number of improvements .......... I see more and more people adopting "live and let live" attitudes.

As you are walking home one evening and come across a little old lady having the stuffing kicked out of her by 4-5 thugs, do you pass her by?

Live and let live? What business is it of yours what those fellas are doing?

Feel "morally" compelled to intervene? What right do you have to impose your idea of "morality" (i.e. they have no right to stomp her, take her money and be off) on them?

What, no one has the right to initiate force against another person- says who- you?

Do you really think that all that is necessary for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is a "live and let live" attitude?


A really good description of the destruction wrought upon our society by a legal profession out of control.

matis, all well said. I don't think that he is implying that all lawyers are scum- but there seems little doubt that the legal system and laws are being more and more used against citizens rather than to protect rights, IMHO.

[Boats]

FWIW, cuneiform is an alphabet; Sumerian, among others, the language it represents.

Thanks for reminding me. I was wondering about that when I posted it. Oh well.

[Erik]

"FWIW, cuneiform is an alphabet; Sumerian, among others, the language it represents."

And some folks have the gall to label firearms enthusiasts as uneducated.



:rolleyes:

[Beorn]

Matis,

There is no need to put the flame-retardant suit on. No flaming will come from me. You were exceptionally adept in your commentary about the state of affairs.

2dogs,

As to the "live and let live" attitude, I prefer to think of it as "do what you want as long as you don't harm another." Or maybe, "my rights end where your rights begin and vice versa." I would not let the old lady get beaten because the meat-sacks making her into a geriatric pinata broke the "don't harm another" portion of our shiny-happy mantra. I would happily assist all involved by making the naughty fun-boys take a 'nap' and then I would get some medical attention to the elderly victim.

Life is too short to try and end someone else's, unless they are attacking you. Smack 'em over the head with the nearest tree branch and kick 'em out of your tribe. I figure we were a bit more civil when your very survival meant depending upon one another.

I hate violence. It just so happens that I am very good at it. In other words, I won't start it, but by G*d, I'll finish it.

<sigh>, you know... I was a liberal teacher until I moved to Kalifornia and they said I couldn't get the rifle I wanted. Then I took a long look at things and realized I needed to get personal freedoms re-prioritized. I haven't done it yet, but I'm trying.:D

[moa]

My limited experience with lawyers is that they are mostly incompentent. I think some of that comes from laziness and complaceny that is perhaps a result of an inflated view of themselves.

It is interesting that some lawyers sole line of work is suing other lawyers.

[Mike Irwin]

When did anyone ever think that the legal system was really your friend?

[CZ-75]

It is interesting that some lawyers sole line of work is suing other lawyers.

Sounds like poetic justice.

When did anyone ever think that the legal system was really your friend?

I never have. I always viewed it as a self-perpetuating racket that occasionally, mostly by coincidence, manages to dispense justice. How's that for cynicism?

[BrokenPaw]

I fail to see why so many people automatically reach the conclusion that right and wrong (as far as the schools should be concerned) must be based upon a theological premise.

If we define "wrong" as "that which causes unjustified harm to another person", and we define "right" as "that which does not cause unjustified harm to another person", suddenly a whole lot of sensible morality becomes self-evident:

Want to drink? Fine. Want to drink and drive? Go ahead. If you injure someone, it's automatically aggravated assault. If you kill someone, it's automatically Murder 1 (because you premeditated your actions when you chose to operate dangerous machinery while impaired).

Want to smoke dope? Go ahead. Drive while stoned? Sure. Injure or kill someone? Aggravated assault / Murder 1.

Want to pour toxic chemicals out in your backyard? Be prepared to be liable for every illness and death that results.

Want to speed? Ok, sure. Don't get in an accident; oops, there's Murder 1 again, because you didn't have to speed; you chose to break the law and in so doing you harmed someone.

Once such a code is in place, laws must only set out plausible limits, within which you cannot be held liable. If you stay within those limits (sober, driving at or below the set speed limit, not talking on your cell phone, not eating behind the wheel, for instance) and something still occurs, you cannot be held liable, because you were taking reasonable measures to be safe.

Want to own a gun? Go for it. Want to shoot it in your yard? Fire away. Hit someone's house? Destruction of property. Injure someone's kid? Assault with a deadly weapon. Kill someone? Murder 1.

Society doesn't need to be based upon a theological premise to have reasonable, fair, enforceable, and effective laws.

A society based on the "Don't hurt other people, dipstick!" rule would do fine.

The only thing that would prevent such a system from working would be selective enforcement. That's the primary reason our current system doesn't work, either; the criminally-inclined do not fear the law because they know that they'll get off on a technicality, or be paroled after a cakewalk term.

-BP, expecting vehement rebuttal.

[sanchezero]

BP, why exactly are you expecting 'vehement rebuttal'?


Matis, religion certainly isn't the home of morality. In fact, most religions tend to be self-contradictory in their approach to developing a moral code.

IMO, one of the largest problems facing the development of morality in anyone is an incoherent or inaccurate understanding of the way the world works. By 'works' I mean in the scientific sense, not the 'school of hard knocks, wink wink' kinda knowledge.

Morality ultimately rests on the foundation of our understanding of our environment and if that's flawed (or we have no concrete knowledge) then our moral code will be tainted as well.

:cool:

[BrokenPaw]

BP, why exactly are you expecting 'vehement rebuttal'? sanchezero, I'm expecting it because I've been jumped on before for suggesting the same idea; there are many people out there who are unwilling to believe that it's possible for a "moral" code to exist that does not derive from one form of scripture or other.

I could go into more detail than that, but it would be rude to hijack 2dogs' thread, and ultimately my ranting on the matter is off-topic. :D

-BP

[CZ-75]

BP,

Most of the crimes you mentioned as Murder 1 are actually Murder 2, as there was no intention to kill beforehand nor were the offenses commited that led to death felonies.

[BrokenPaw]

CZ-75,

I understand. I'm suggesting that, to make the code more likely to work, those offenses should be upgraded to Murder 1. Essentially, my premise is that causing death or injury through willful negligence should be punished no less heavily than doing so with intent.

People do stupid things all the time, knowing that they're stupid, dangerous things, because they know that the "Golly, I didn't mean to hurt anyone" defense works. If that defense did not work, people would start having to decide whether it's really actually all that important that they call their hairstylist while driving.

-BP

[Fair 'n Square]

First of all, I have a couple of friends who are attorneys, and I consider them to be as honest and downright good as anyone I know. And I know of others who are just as good.

But I see TV commercials from two legal firms that smack of ambulance-chasing, and it really irks me. When did lawyers starts to advertise like that?

Anyway, there are good guys and bad in every profession.

But I have two thoughts about lawyers and clients...

We can't excuse ourselves when we sin by saying, "The devil made me do it." Nor can the client who wants his/her attorney to sue wrongfully, say it's the attorney's fault for tempting them.

Just as much though, the devil (or lawyer) who tempts is immoral, to my way of thinking.

The Good Book condemns those who "make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought." Sounds like it's talking about bad guys in the legal profession, doesn't it? (Or the Brady Bunch, maybe!)

[Elmer Snerd]

http://www.reason.com/links/links052803.shtml

[Poodleshooter]

I'd be happy with one fix for the current legal system. Allow jurors to judge law as well as fact. Take away some of the judge's monopoly on the interpretation of law, and give it to the locals. This would destroy the authority of lawmakers who make ridiculous laws hundreds of miles from where those laws will be put into place.
As a recent juror, I was able to experience firsthand the nullification of a stupid law in a case that was perfect according to existing case law. Unfortunately, there weren't enough people in the jury pool to give a fair trial. Why? So many prospective jurors disagreed with the existing case law. Poof-mistrial!

[Zander]

Matis, religion certainly isn't the home of morality.To the contrary, it is exactly that.

Having been through this discusssion more times than I care to admit, suffice it to say that the majority of our criminal code in this country is based on the very clear concept of Judeo-Christian morality. No amount of historical revisionism will change that...despite the undeniable fact that certain factions adopt such revisionism for the sole purpose of furthering their anti-religion ideology and blatant discrimination.

To the members of an honored profession in our "society" who choose to follow certain precepts...thank you. The danger that you might become a minority is regrettable. You have our eternal gratitude for adhering to your oath and I'm proud to converse with you in this forum.

In the meantime, we'll have to endure the very public assault on our inherent Rights by those of your profession who put current income ahead of the true rule of law.

For the umpteenth time...[I]malum prohibitum laws threaten malum in se laws because of their sheer number and speciousness. I'm not sure what we can do to counteract the trend, but it is dangerous in the extreme.

[Ian]

BrokenPaw - The moral code you described does come from a piece of scripture: The Book of Kyfho. :D

IMO, the legal system is absolutely, positively NOT my friend. It is far more of a threat to me than the freelance criminals it purports to protect me from, and I can protect myself from those freelance types just fine. Individual police officers can be (and in my experience nearly always are) friendly, fair, and personable folks - but when they are on duty and upholding the law, they are not my friends and I do my darndest to give them a wide margin. I have less experience with lawyers, but I would tend to believe that a lawyer working on behalf of the legal system is someone to watch out for (though a lawyer working to protect someone from the legal system is generally a very good thing).

[Bikeguy]

Allow jurors to judge law as well as fact.

GA's constitution allows just that - but try and argue jury nullification. Ever see a Judge's head explode with rage?

[sanchezero]

suffice it to say that the majority of our criminal code in this country is based on the very clear concept of Judeo-Christian morality. No amount of historical revisionism will change that

I certainly won't argue that point.

However, morality is practiced solely by individuals. You can have a rational moral code without being religious or american.

:)

[Zander]

You can have a rational moral code without being religious or american.Based on what? :)

PS: really like your tag-line...

[sanchezero]

Based on what?

Based on reality. Here are a coupla examples...

Short: http://www.aynrand.org/objectivism/io.html

Long: http://www.aynrand.org/objectivism/pobs.html


While I don't really consider myself an objectivist, I'd have to say that's about the closest I come into line with any established pattern of thought.

:)

[Khornet]

A C.S. Lewis fan like me would say:

What do you base your morality on if not something higher than man? I mean, if we are here by chance, our 'morals' are nothing more than biochemical phenomena which are here by chance. Your revulsion at my child-molesting has no support: just because you don't like it, and even the kid doesn't like it, doesn't mean it's wrong. It's just your brain chemistry saying that. And if you say that I'm violating the kid's person, I say so what? What possible reason could I have for refraining from what I want?

Some will try to answer that revulsion at child molestation arises not from any moral force, but from the fact that it's bad for the species. To which I say, "What you mean bad, Kemosabe?" What do I care about the species? I want what I want, and I'll take it if I can get it.

You may answer that that way leads chaos, the breakdown of society, no safe place for anyone. I say, so what? Who says that's bad? Why do you think it's bad?

But though there are many gods, from the Hebrew God to a funny-shaped rock to the sun-god, there are some basics forund everywhere. Some cultures think marital infidelity is OK, some think polygamy and incest are OK, some even think child sacrifice is OK. But none think it's OK to enter your brother's house, kill him and his kids, and steal his wife.

So I think that even those of us who think there is no God are still hearing Him....one evidence is that we all have some sort of moral code.

Sorry to hijack thread, couldn't resist...

[sanchezero]

What do you base your morality on if not something higher than man? I mean, if we are here by chance, our 'morals' are nothing more than biochemical phenomena which are here by chance. Your revulsion at my child-molesting has no support: just because you don't like it, and even the kid doesn't like it, doesn't mean it's wrong.

Khornet, the child molesting example is a REALLY bad prop for your argument given the recent insights into the behavior of some 'men of the cloth'.


Again, morality is practiced wholly by individuals. It may be your choice to adopt a moral code set forth in a religious text, but thats exactly it - your choice.

:)

[Khornet]

I think you missed my point, compadre.

What's wrong about men of the cloth molesting kids? Why?
Why does an individual have a moral code? If it's his free choice, why did he choose it? Who cares about freedom, anyway? We're an ACCIDENT. No more intrinsically valuable than a mouse turd.

Why does Ayn Rand think it's wrong for the state to suck up a man's earnings? Who says it's wrong?

As a man once said, when someone tells you there is no universal moral code, just try stealing his seat on the bus.

[matis]

sanchezero said:
___________________________________________________

Matis, religion certainly isn't the home of morality. In fact, most religions tend to be self-contradictory....
_____________


I didn't say it didn't contain contradiction, sanchezero, just that it is the best we have -- and good enough to have provided the foundation for the highest human achievements in science and in society.


Quote:
____________________________________________
IMO, one of the largest problems facing the development of morality in anyone is an incoherent or inaccurate understanding of the way the world works. By 'works' I mean in the scientific sense, not the 'school of hard knocks, wink wink' kinda knowledge.
_____________________________________________


Sanchezero, I could probably be convicted of "reverence" for science. But as a method and for its achievements, not for the scientific establishment.

But science is most powerful studying everything but human behavior. Trouble with studying us humans is that we are perverse enough to practise choice. Although certainly constrained in the choices available to us, we nevertheless CAN choose. Each choice closes off whole worlds of possibility AND opens up whole other worlds to us. After a very short while the branching becomes pretty close to inifinite. Try tying up human behavior in neat, scienftific packages in light of this reality.

That is why we live best and accomplish most when our freedom and liberty are maximized.

For such reasons, in my experience, most of the social sciences are not that at all but are instead biased opinion based upon current fad. To paraphrase a wise man: All that is REALLY known about psychology would fit in a very thin book.

Or perhaps a Torah scroll?


quote:
_______________________________________________
Morality ultimately rests on the foundation of our understanding of our environment and if that's flawed (or we have no concrete knowledge) then our moral code will be tainted as well.
_______________________________________________

Sanchezero, you seem to be saying that until we have perfect knowledge of reality, we cannot have a good system of morality. Well much as I revere science, my friend, we will NEVER achieve a perfect understanding of physical reality.

Science has made us pretty powerful and has improved our lives, again in those societies that happen to be based upon Judeo-Christian values -- tremendously.

But to believe that we can ultimately apprehend the totality of existence, using of course, scientific method -- is extremely naive.

Inherent in scientific method is the tentative nature of its discoveries. Newton made the industrial age possible. But Einstein found errors in his paradigm and now we have nuclear power, can travel in space and enjoy the silicon revolution.

Already, Einstein is coming up for correction.

We see "reality" through the filter of our world-view. And that filter EXLUDES oceans of incoming data that don't "fit" our paradigm. And the current paradign is already unraveling at the edges.

I don't think this process will EVER end. So at what point have we sufficient scientific knowledge upon which to base our
system of morality -- so that it is not "flawed" or "tainted?

My answer is NEVER. Our learning will never stop. And to believe that we can, peeking out through our "filter" find the final or the whole truth of existence is silly. To think that is to believe that one can see his eyeballs with his own eyeballs. And no, Johnny, using a mirror is cheating.

The religious say this beautifully in a way that I can completely accept -- as METAPHOR. "How can man with his puny mind understand G-d's great and glorious creation?" Einstein was also an atheist. But he said that if he had any eligious feeling it was one of awe at the enormity and the mystery and the beauty of the cosmos. And of course when approaching the limits of human understanding what method other than metaphor is available?


Yet, when I read Torah, I am amazed at how much they DID know about human nature and what is necessary for humans to thrive.

The value of each indiviual human being, justice, mercy, peace, liberty -- all of these they already understood well and passed down to us. And all this without cell-phones, while riding around in ox-carts!

Religious Jews have 613 and not just ten commandments. I have made a tiny start in learning them. And you know what? This little atheist boy can defend every single one I've encountered so far.


For instance to love peace is NOT to say that one should never go to war. To ALWAYS eschew violence is stupid and can only be preached while protected by police and soldiers.

"We sleep soundly in our beds only because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf." says George Orwell in a THRers sig line.

To decry violence ALWAYS is to turn our backs on justice. Todays self-anointed "enlightened" are actually leading us to self-destruction. By thinking themselves qualified to overthrow the "eternal verities" they undermine the basis of our progress and, indeed, our very survival.

There is a proverb. "Do not throw out the baby with the bath-water."

How can we advance human welfare if we willfully ignore the wisdom that has been painfully accumulated over millennia?

We moderns are just not as smart as we like to think we are.

Looking around me, I can see the horrible results of such nihilism.

We abandon our heritage at our own ultimate peril.



Matis

[Baba Louie]

Know your enemy as you know yourself. I think Sun Tzu said something to that effect a couple of years ago.

Treat others as you would have them treat you. A golden rule.

He who has the gold, makes the rules. Probably THE golden rule in play since mankind started getting their tribes together. Sometimes at odds with the rule stated above.

Speak softly, but carry a big stick. Just a good idea.

The legal system is a business loosely based on "justice", I've heard tell. Everyone has to be able to pay their bills somehow.

If you can't stand the heat...

That's all.

Some great posts, as usual. It scares me that so many people here think alike.

Adios

[sanchezero]

matis,

Sanchezero, you seem to be saying that until we have perfect knowledge of reality, we cannot have a good system of morality.

Not at all. This would imply that only scientists on the bleeding edge could have any hope of acting morally.

We don't need to know everything or even a whole lot. We need a basic, factual understanding of how the world works and that it, in fact does work.

There are schools of thought that teach that reality doesn't really exist or that we can mould it to our whim as if in a dream. Take this as a foundation for your philosophy and it becomes impossible to develop a cohesive moral standard. How do you know how to treat others if they don't really exist except as props in your subconscious?



How can we advance human welfare if we willfully ignore the wisdom that has been painfully accumulated over millennia?

I see no reason to ignore wisdom, old or new. Again, you don't need to be religious to be moral. Neither do you need to look to religion to find examples of morality.


Khornet,

1st, just because something is an accident doesn't render it worthless. I believe the discovery of antibiotics was an accident.

What do you base your morality on if not something higher than man?

By higher than man, I'm gonna stick my neck out and label that God. Since we can't actually base our morals on God (he being all-powerful, we being not-so-all-powerful), then there must be a reason given to us by God to act a certain way. This is fear. Whether it be fear of eternal hellfire or of spending your next turn on 'the wheel' as a cockroach, religion uses fear to enforce morality.

I don't believe fear is necessary. Humans have the capacity to reason, to perceive their environment and to make choices based on their knowledge. Certainly today, we see many people who seem to have lost the ability to do any of that, but that doesn't mean the capacity isn't there.


A coupla sound bites from the essays I linked to earlier:

Reality, the external world, exists independent of man’s consciousness, independent of any observer’s knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears.

If I die, the world doesn't cease to exist. Lucky for you guys.

Man’s reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality. Reason, the conceptual faculty, is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses. Reason is man’s only means of acquiring knowledge.

This doen't mean that we'll ever know everything, only that we can learn about our world and apply that knowledge. It seems like a no brainer but Plato and Kant disagree.

Reason is man’s only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to action. The proper standard of ethics is: man’s survival qua man — i.e., that which is required by man’s nature for his survival as a rational being (not his momentary physical survival as a mindless brute). Rationality is man’s basic virtue, and his three fundamental values are: reason, purpose, self-esteem. Man — every man — is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life.

In the essay, the word rational is italicized for emphasis.

The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that no man has the right to seek values from others by means of physical force — i.e., no man or group has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others. Men have the right to use force only in self-defense and only against those who initiate its use. Men must deal with one another as traders, giving value for value, by free, mutual consent to mutual benefit.

This trading and mutual consent/benefit is not just for business, but for all aspects of life.

Thanks for your time.

:)

[Feanaro]

One comment, rather off topic...

And since breasts are a secondary sexual characteristic, they really only 'offend' if the onlooker has some sort of 'issue' with healthy body acceptance anyway.

To add to this, doctors have proven that staring at breasts for fifteen minutes a day is good for your heart. ;)

I don't think religion created morality. A person raised without any religious thoughts and without any moral teachings would, I think, have a sense of right and wrong. I see no reason for us to have developed such a sense, since doing what we term right is annoying as hell, other than perhaps along the lines of "if I don't screw you you won't screw me, eh?" But we still most often do what is wrong, though in small ways. In fact we are so reverant of this code that we will not try to dispute someone when they say we have broken it, but rather we will attempt to excuse ourself by presenting a circumstance that allows us to ignore this code.

'Course this might just be hog-wash but I never said it wasn't. ;)