Philosophy Now Forum

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:37 am

TimTimothy wrote: ↑Sat Nov 11, 2017 10:52 pm ...and if you believe power is all that deserves freedom, then there's no need for a constitution, a government, or law/rule of any kind.

might makes right
-Imp

Yes. That's the law of nature in most cases. Humans have the ability, in my opinion, to transcend natural tendencies. Which is why we attempt governments and constitutions.

I'd replace the stoplight at a busy intersection with one word: consent.
(Watch out! That first step's a doozy !)

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:37 am

TimTimothy wrote: ↑Sat Nov 11, 2017 10:52 pm ...and if you believe power is all that deserves freedom, then there's no need for a constitution, a government, or law/rule of any kind.

might makes right

-Imp

Might crucified Jesus...does that mean it was "right"?

artisticsolution wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 10:12 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:37 am

TimTimothy wrote: ↑Sat Nov 11, 2017 10:52 pm ...and if you believe power is all that deserves freedom, then there's no need for a constitution, a government, or law/rule of any kind.

might makes right

-Imp

Might crucified Jesus...does that mean it was "right"?

certainly- without the crucifixion, there is no resurrection or salvation

then again, who you gonna believe?

-Imp

TimTimothy wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 8:19 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:37 am

TimTimothy wrote: ↑Sat Nov 11, 2017 10:52 pm ...and if you believe power is all that deserves freedom, then there's no need for a constitution, a government, or law/rule of any kind.

might makes right
-Imp

Yes. That's the law of nature in most cases. Humans have the ability, in my opinion, to transcend natural tendencies. Which is why we attempt governments and constitutions.

no, we attempt government and constitutions based on the promise of controlling the actions of the other person; as well as the promise of stealing the other's possessions and redistributing them in the name of fairness...

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2017 2:21 am

artisticsolution wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 10:12 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:37 am

might makes right

-Imp

Might crucified Jesus...does that mean it was "right"?

certainly- without the crucifixion, there is no resurrection or salvation

then again, who you gonna believe?

-Imp

You are confusing what is "right" with what is "destined".

I don't think Jesus or God would think it was right to crucify an innocent man...even if the majority thought so...do you?

OuterLimits wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 8:41 pm I'd replace the stoplight at a busy intersection with one word: consent.
(Watch out! That first step's a doozy !)

Should I take this as a serious critique?

Impenitent wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2017 2:25 am

TimTimothy wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 8:19 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:37 am
might makes right
-Imp

Yes. That's the law of nature in most cases. Humans have the ability, in my opinion, to transcend natural tendencies. Which is why we attempt governments and constitutions.

no, we attempt government and constitutions based on the promise of controlling the actions of the other person; as well as the promise of stealing the other's possessions and redistributing them in the name of fairness...

-Imp

So, peasants rose up against overlords to steal the overlord's goods? Or, do you have it backwards? The Overlord was stealing the productive labor of the peasants and they rose up to reclaim their goods?

I get 'consent' but there's ambiguity there, and where there's ambiguity there's a jackass to exploit it.

I like the constitution 'as is', mostly cuz it makes for inefficent and (sometimes) ineffective government (government too busy with itself to be worryin' much about 'me').

But, if I had to draft a new one, the following works (for me)...

Mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself...or else.

artisticsolution wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:20 am

Impenitent wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2017 2:21 am

artisticsolution wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 10:12 pm

Might crucified Jesus...does that mean it was "right"?

certainly- without the crucifixion, there is no resurrection or salvation

then again, who you gonna believe?

-Imp

You are confusing what is "right" with what is "destined".

I don't think Jesus or God would think it was right to crucify an innocent man...even if the majority thought so...do you?

if it was destined, then it must occur regardless of right or wrong

I wouldn't presume to think for god; I'm simply going from what is recorded that he did

-Imp

TimTimothy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:58 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2017 2:25 am

TimTimothy wrote: ↑Sun Nov 12, 2017 8:19 pm

Yes. That's the law of nature in most cases. Humans have the ability, in my opinion, to transcend natural tendencies. Which is why we attempt governments and constitutions.

no, we attempt government and constitutions based on the promise of controlling the actions of the other person; as well as the promise of stealing the other's possessions and redistributing them in the name of fairness...

-Imp

So, peasants rose up against overlords to steal the overlord's goods? Or, do you have it backwards? The Overlord was stealing the productive labor of the peasants and they rose up to reclaim their goods?

no, the new overlords convinced the peasants to give them (the new overlords) power, when the new overlords promised the peasants welfare checks

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2017 2:03 am

artisticsolution wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:20 am

Impenitent wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2017 2:21 am

certainly- without the crucifixion, there is no resurrection or salvation

then again, who you gonna believe?

-Imp

You are confusing what is "right" with what is "destined".

I don't think Jesus or God would think it was right to crucify an innocent man...even if the majority thought so...do you?

if it was destined, then it must occur regardless of right or wrong

I wouldn't presume to think for god; I'm simply going from what is recorded that he did

-Imp

If you say, 'might makes right', then there is no right and wrong, because everything could be right or wrong depending on how the majority swayed.

And as far as God goes...and whether or not he wants us to think about his words...of course he does. If he didnt he wouldnt write a book of rules regarding what he thinks is right and wrong.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2017 2:07 am

TimTimothy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:58 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2017 2:25 am

no, we attempt government and constitutions based on the promise of controlling the actions of the other person; as well as the promise of stealing the other's possessions and redistributing them in the name of fairness...

-Imp

So, peasants rose up against overlords to steal the overlord's goods? Or, do you have it backwards? The Overlord was stealing the productive labor of the peasants and they rose up to reclaim their goods?

no, the new overlords convinced the peasants to give them (the new overlords) power, when the new overlords promised the peasants welfare checks

-Imp

And then the new overlords renigged on the welfare checks...lol

artisticsolution wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2017 2:17 am

Impenitent wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2017 2:03 am

artisticsolution wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:20 am

You are confusing what is "right" with what is "destined".

I don't think Jesus or God would think it was right to crucify an innocent man...even if the majority thought so...do you?

if it was destined, then it must occur regardless of right or wrong

I wouldn't presume to think for god; I'm simply going from what is recorded that he did

-Imp

If you say, 'might makes right', then there is no right and wrong, because everything could be right or wrong depending on how the majority swayed.

And as far as God goes...and whether or not he wants us to think about his words...of course he does. If he didnt he wouldnt write a book of rules regarding what he thinks is right and wrong.

exactly, there is no right or wrong except for what the "victor" claims it to be, and no, not the majority, the mighty

he wrote the book? which original text?

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Tue Nov 14, 2017 2:03 am

artisticsolution wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:20 am

Impenitent wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2017 2:21 am certainly- without the crucifixion, there is no resurrection or salvation
then again, who you gonna believe?
-Imp

You are confusing what is "right" with what is "destined".

I don't think Jesus or God would think it was right to crucify an innocent man...even if the majority thought so...do you?

if it was destined, then it must occur regardless of right or wrong

I wouldn't presume to think for god; I'm simply going from what is recorded that he did

-Imp

Ah...a god believer, now I understand.

Anyone who accepts the bible and god's power without question has a much different value system than I do. And therefore, it's unlikely we can have a productive conversation. It's just a gap too far. Cheers!