Conflicting Ethical Systems

[Immanuel Can]

There are three general " lines of legitimation " .
1. Authority
2. Reason
3. Romanticism.

Who told you that?

Sorry: they were wrong. You can't get any legitimacy from Romanticism. And it's not clear how one derives it from reason, since reason itself needs to be legitimated as a basis for morality. As for authority, no human authority is capable of it.

I was almost certain you would take your stance on Authority.

There is no ultimate means to legitimate reason or romanticism. Some of us simply get used to not knowing it all.

Well, the problem with that is that it means you always know you're bluffing. When you say, "You must obtain consent from women," for example, the listener simply has to say, "Why"? And there is no answer behind that. So you're forced to threaten with power: "If you do not obtain consent, I/we will thrash you, or lock you up." But that's not in any sense a moral or ethical thing to do...to threaten people with force, so one is thereby becoming a bad person oneself. Because one is simply bullying, with no actual right behind one's use of force.

It would only be ethical if one had some ultimate authority behind one's declaration, some answer to the question "Why?", that one could remain oneself a good person while insisting on an ethical precept.

So a good answer would look like this: "You must obtain consent because women are not your property to abuse, and are made in the image of God; and God ultimately holds you accountable for how you treat people." Even if the respondent said, "Well, I don't believe that," then the answer is still the same: "Believe it or not, it's how things actually are. Ignore it at your own peril."

Furthermore, that ultimate reality grounds the legal judgment of temporal authorities as well: the police have a duty to enforce sanctions against non-consensual relations, not because they invented one, nor even because they have arrogated to themselves the power to do so, but because their law reflects the ultimate moral law written into the universe by the Creator Himself. Women really do have an ultimate right not to be treated in certain ways. And law-enforcer authority is derived from His. Were police not present at all, that law would still be in force...across all societies, all times, and all relevant cases.

That's legitimation.

It's the only final answer possible to the ethical "Why"? And "Why?" is a question so obvious, so simple, so available that even a child uses it. So it can hardly be avoided.

[Belinda]

Who told you that?

Sorry: they were wrong. You can't get any legitimacy from Romanticism. And it's not clear how one derives it from reason, since reason itself needs to be legitimated as a basis for morality. As for authority, no human authority is capable of it.

I was almost certain you would take your stance on Authority.

There is no ultimate means to legitimate reason or romanticism. Some of us simply get used to not knowing it all.

Well, the problem with that is that it means you always know you're bluffing. When you say, "You must obtain consent from women," for example, the listener simply has to say, "Why"? And there is no answer behind that. So you're forced to threaten with power: "If you do not obtain consent, I/we will thrash you, or lock you up." But that's not in any sense a moral or ethical thing to do...to threaten people with force, so one is thereby becoming a bad person oneself. Because one is simply bullying, with no actual right behind one's use of force.

It would only be ethical if one had some ultimate authority behind one's declaration, some answer to the question "Why?", that one could remain oneself a good person while insisting on an ethical precept.

So a good answer would look like this: "You must obtain consent because women are not your property to abuse, and are made in the image of God; and God ultimately holds you accountable for how you treat people." Even if the respondent said, "Well, I don't believe that," then the answer is still the same: "Believe it or not, it's how things actually are. Ignore it at your own peril."

Furthermore, that ultimate reality grounds the legal judgment of temporal authorities as well: the police have a duty to enforce sanctions against non-consensual relations, not because they invented one, nor even because they have arrogated to themselves the power to do so, but because their law reflects the ultimate moral law written into the universe by the Creator Himself. Women really do have an ultimate right not to be treated in certain ways. And law-enforcer authority is derived from His. Were police not present at all, that law would still be in force...across all societies, all times, and all relevant cases.

That's legitimation.

It's the only final answer possible to the ethical "Why"? And "Why?" is a question so obvious, so simple, so available that even a child uses it. So it can hardly be avoided.

I agree with your first paragraph in principle, however I'd rather say 'power' than 'force'.
Power is here to stay. Power always was here and it is silly to quarrel with that fact of existence.

You well know your Scripture, and I refer you to the evolution of thought which led from the behaviouristic legalism implied for example in the Ten Commandments, to the psychological importance of good intentions as implied by the Prophets and lived and preached by Jesus of Nazareth.
A powerful individual, by reason of his power, is all the more enabled to choose to have evil intentions or good intentions.

[Immanuel Can]

Power is here to stay.

Yes, it is. But power is not the same as morality.

That's one thing we can safely say, for sure. Hitler, Mao and Stalin had tons of power. Or as the axiom goes, "Might does not make right."

...the behaviouristic legalism implied for example in the Ten Commandments,

I have to be honest...I think that's a superficial reading. I know it's common, and it's an easy mistake to make, so I don't blame anybody for making it. But I don't think it's warranted by the facts. I would say it comes from a misunderstanding of what the Law is implying and of the purposes for which it is given...both of which are much better clarified in the NT, as you have noted.

It is not "good intentions" that are ever promoted in the NT. (As you know, the old saying is that a certain "road" is "paved" with those: not strictly a biblical thought, but not inaccurate either.) What's promoted by the NT is what's called "the spirit of the law" rather than merely "the letter of the law." That is, that one should not do less than the Law entails, but rather more.

What Christ is saying is this: the purpose of the law was never, at any time, to provide a set of legalistic precepts, far less those merely imposed on a single nation. It was to signal the kind of attitudes any person who wants to know God should adopt. As such, the most important parts of the law were not the actual precepts, the "thou shalt nots," if you will, but the connective tissue, so to speak, implied to be between them, intended to unify the disparate commmandments into a single portrait of right human character.

So he says, "It's not enough to hear 'Thou shalt not murder.' One must also hear, 'It is wrong to hate your brother,' as well...both are encapsulated in the prohibition against all kinds of 'murder.'" Or again, "It's not enough to hear, 'No adultery'; you have to hear 'No lusting,' as well."

You see this in Matthew 5, the Sermon on the Mount, obviously.

This is why Jesus could also truthfully say, “Do not presume that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill." (Mt. 5 again). It's not like the OT gets replaced by a newer, gentler NT with fewer demands; quite the opposite, in fact. If anything, the NT demands are far more stringent and totally comprehensive of all of life, to a degree that the putative 613 known to ancient Judaism never could possibly be, if taken individually and as mere "commandments" rather than as signalling comprehensive principles.

[Belinda]

Power is here to stay.

Yes, it is. But power is not the same as morality.

That's one thing we can safely say, for sure. Hitler, Mao and Stalin had tons of power. Or as the axiom goes, "Might does not make right."

...the behaviouristic legalism implied for example in the Ten Commandments,

I have to be honest...I think that's a superficial reading. I know it's common, and it's an easy mistake to make, so I don't blame anybody for making it. But I don't think it's warranted by the facts. I would say it comes from a misunderstanding of what the Law is implying and of the purposes for which it is given...both of which are much better clarified in the NT, as you have noted.

It is not "good intentions" that are ever promoted in the NT. (As you know, the old saying is that a certain "road" is "paved" with those: not strictly a biblical thought, but not inaccurate either.) What's promoted by the NT is what's called "the spirit of the law" rather than merely "the letter of the law." That is, that one should not do less than the Law entails, but rather more.

What Christ is saying is this: the purpose of the law was never, at any time, to provide a set of legalistic precepts, far less those merely imposed on a single nation. It was to signal the kind of attitudes any person who wants to know God should adopt. As such, the most important parts of the law were not the actual precepts, the "thou shalt nots," if you will, but the connective tissue, so to speak, implied to be between them, intended to unify the disparate commmandments into a single portrait of right human character.

So he says, "It's not enough to hear 'Thou shalt not murder.' One must also hear, 'It is wrong to hate your brother,' as well...both are encapsulated in the prohibition against all kinds of 'murder.'" Or again, "It's not enough to hear, 'No adultery'; you have to hear 'No lusting,' as well."

You see this in Matthew 5, the Sermon on the Mount, obviously.

This is why Jesus could also truthfully say, “Do not presume that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill." (Mt. 5 again). It's not like the OT gets replaced by a newer, gentler NT with fewer demands; quite the opposite, in fact. If anything, the NT demands are far more stringent and totally comprehensive of all of life, to a degree that the putative 613 known to ancient Judaism never could possibly be, if taken individually and as mere "commandments" rather than as signalling comprehensive principles.

I agree with most of that. I do think that Isaiah is something else, a change of emphasis compared with that of the old Jahweh. Isaiah condemns the arrogance, greed, and corruption of the rich and powerful in society and supports the poor, the victims, and the oppressed. This emphasis is a clear forerunner of the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth.

Wash and make yourselves clean.
Take your evil deeds out of my sight;
stop doing wrong.
17 Learn to do right; seek justice.
Defend the oppressed.[a]
Take up the cause of the fatherless;
plead the case of the widow.

[Immanuel Can]

Isaiah condemns the arrogance, greed, and corruption of the rich and powerful in society and supports the poor, the victims, and the oppressed. This emphasis is a clear forerunner of the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth.

Wash and make yourselves clean.
Take your evil deeds out of my sight;
stop doing wrong.
17 Learn to do right; seek justice.
Defend the oppressed.[a]
Take up the cause of the fatherless;
plead the case of the widow.

I don't think even "the old YHWH," as you call Him, ever condoned such things. What do you make of commandments like, " Leviticus 25 or Deuteronomy 14, which are in the core of the Torah?

“If there is a poor person among you, one of your brothers, in any of your towns in your land which the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand from your poor brother; but you shall fully open your hand to him, and generously lend him enough for his need in whatever he lacks. Be careful that there is no mean-spirited thought in your heart, such as, ‘The seventh year, the year of release of debts, is near,’ and your eye is malicious toward your poor brother, and you give him nothing; then he may cry out to the Lord against you, and it will be a sin in you. You shall generously give to him, and your heart shall not be grudging when you give to him, because for this thing the Lord your God will bless you in all your work, and in all your undertakings. For the poor will not cease to exist in the land; therefore I am commanding you, saying, ‘You shall fully open your hand to your brother, to your needy and poor in your land.’" (Dt. 15:7-11)

There's an awful lot the OT YHWH had to say about duties to the poor. And I don't think the Jews are wrong to identify a major characteristic of God as "chesed," meaning "lovingkindness." That's not the portrait of the OT God you get from modern secularists, though, who love to say that the OT God was harsh and mean, and the NT one is soft and permissive. That's just not true.

But I do think a sharper and more personal focus of the point is made by Jesus Christ. The ethics are identical, but the full scope of the Law is not as apparent, because the revelation of God is segmented in the OT commandments, but fully embodied and shown in its true scope in the Messiah.

[Peter Holmes]

There are three general " lines of legitimation " .
1. Authority
2. Reason
3. Romanticism.

Who told you that?

Sorry: they were wrong. You can't get any legitimacy from Romanticism. And it's not clear how one derives it from reason, since reason itself needs to be legitimated as a basis for morality. As for authority, no human authority is capable of it.

I was almost certain you would take your stance on Authority.

There is no ultimate means to legitimate reason or romanticism. Some of us simply get used to not knowing it all.

Agreed."The Authority/the Great Leader/our god says 'this is right/wrong'. Therefore, this is right/wrong."

It's morally craven. And it's why the morally submissive, secular or religious, can can believe and do wicked things.

[Belinda]

Isaiah condemns the arrogance, greed, and corruption of the rich and powerful in society and supports the poor, the victims, and the oppressed. This emphasis is a clear forerunner of the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth.

Wash and make yourselves clean.
Take your evil deeds out of my sight;
stop doing wrong.
17 Learn to do right; seek justice.
Defend the oppressed.[a]
Take up the cause of the fatherless;
plead the case of the widow.

I don't think even "the old YHWH," as you call Him, ever condoned such things. What do you make of commandments like, " Leviticus 25 or Deuteronomy 14, which are in the core of the Torah?

“If there is a poor person among you, one of your brothers, in any of your towns in your land which the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand from your poor brother; but you shall fully open your hand to him, and generously lend him enough for his need in whatever he lacks. Be careful that there is no mean-spirited thought in your heart, such as, ‘The seventh year, the year of release of debts, is near,’ and your eye is malicious toward your poor brother, and you give him nothing; then he may cry out to the Lord against you, and it will be a sin in you. You shall generously give to him, and your heart shall not be grudging when you give to him, because for this thing the Lord your God will bless you in all your work, and in all your undertakings. For the poor will not cease to exist in the land; therefore I am commanding you, saying, ‘You shall fully open your hand to your brother, to your needy and poor in your land.’" (Dt. 15:7-11)

There's an awful lot the OT YHWH had to say about duties to the poor. And I don't think the Jews are wrong to identify a major characteristic of God as "chesed," meaning "lovingkindness." That's not the portrait of the OT God you get from modern secularists, though, who love to say that the OT God was harsh and mean, and the NT one is soft and permissive. That's just not true.

But I do think a sharper and more personal focus of the point is made by Jesus Christ. The ethics are identical, but the full scope of the Law is not as apparent, because the revelation of God is segmented in the OT commandments, but fully embodied and shown in its true scope in the Messiah.

Much good material here, thanks.
My point is more that Jesus did not live, work, and teach in a cultural vacuum. True he did proclaim he had not come to abolish the Law. However there were conflicting interpretations of the Law.

In the early 2nd century BCE, therefore, a rift existed in Jerusalem between an economically weak, observant majority lacking civic rights, and a small Hellenized minority closely linked to the Seleucid authorities and in control of the economy, trade, local administration and even the Temple itself. Tensions were exacerbated by Antiochus' edicts against the Jewish faith, especially those introducing idol worship in the Temple and banning circumcision, and in 167 BCE a rural priest, Mattathias of Modiin, led a rebellion against the Seleucid Empire.[25]

Wikipedia

Jesus of Nazareth was unusually autonomous and eclectic.
I especially appreciated your directions to relevant chapters in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, which I enjoyed reading and I am left with a new respect for the Law as appropriate to the Jews of that time and place; there is also much that applies to other times and other places. I especially enjoyed reading about the Year of Jubilee and here is a more recent hopeful cheerful inspiration from the OT regarding the Year of Jubilee:

Say, darkies, hab you seen de massa, wid de muffstash on his face
Go long de road some time dis mornin', like he gwine to leab de place?
He seen a smoke way up de ribber, whar de Linkum gunboats lay;
He took his hat, and lef' berry sudden, and I spec' he's run away!

CHORUS: De massa run, ha, ha! De darkey stay, ho, ho!
It mus' be now de kindom coming, an' de year ob Jubilo!

He six foot one way, two foot tudder, and he weigh tree hundred pound
His coat so big, he couldn't pay the tailor, an' it won't go halfway round
He drill so much dey call him Cap'n, an' he got so drefful tanned
I spec' he try an' fool dem Yankees for to tink he's contraband

CHORUS

De darkeys feel so lonesome libbing in de loghouse on de lawn
Dey move dar tings into massa's parlor for to keep it while he's gone
Dar's wine an' cider in de kitchen, an' de darkeys dey'll have some;
I s'pose dey'll all be cornfiscated when de Linkum sojers come

CHORUS

De obserseer he make us trouble, an' he dribe us round a spell;
We lock him up in de smokehouse cellar, wid de key trown in de well
De whip is lost, de han'cuff broken, but de massa'll hab his pay;
He's ole enough, big enough, ought to known better dan to went an' run away

CHORUS

[Skepdick]

I stated its 7.9 billion humans on Earth, so that is pretty obvious.
The above data [with very reasonable accuracy] can be compiled from criminal records from each countries.

Why are you working overtime to ignore the change-over-time trend?

Do you think we would've gotten here without laws?

Did the successful insects and other species of animal got here with Laws?
The point is it would be ideal and more effective to progress without Laws than with enforceable Laws. Note the saying 'the Law is an Ass.' https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/the ... n-ass.html
But if Laws are necessary in the present for optimality sake, then it is necessary, however Laws do not belong to Morality & Ethics but rather obviously it is Politics.

The moral principles [as assumed to be justified] is, in the event of a declared pandemic every individual will spontaneously accept the proven and effective vaccination. This is the strategic moral objective which act as an ideal guide but not to be enforceable.

It is empirically demonstrable that individuals don't accept the proven and effective vaccination.

True.
If our ultimate objective is everyone must accept to be vaccinated, then we have to find the root causes and resolve them why the above happens.
As I had stated there are many reasons, e.g. technical, ideological, religious, etc. which must be investigated.

Why there is a Gap need to be investigated for all critical and relevant factors and therefrom to take steps to continuously improve to close the Gap.

Enforcement is one way to continuously improve and close the gap.

Why are you against this particular method?

I am against enforcement at all.
As I had stated above, if enforcement is OPTIMALLY necessary in our present phase of evolution, then we need it. But this is Politics [legislature, judiciary and the police] and not Morality which will be spontaneous.

As such the authorities must push scientists to come up with fool proofs vaccination that the majority will spontaneously accept the vaccine.

OK, what scientific proof would you spontaneously accept that demonstrates your stupidity?

You are the stupid one.
The requirement is the vaccination must be fool proof [period], i.e. the vaccination will prevent any covid19 infection in all cases without any side-effects at all.
Of course there would be a trial and error phase but eventually it must be fool proof such that the common person will readily accept it, except those with ideological , religious, stupidity, etc. reasons. Their resistance to vaccination can be dealt with other means.

Because you are stupid if you think the problem is that the "proof is not good enough"

It is not me.

It is an evident fact a high % of people are not accepting the vaccination because there loads of doubts with a lot of side effects where even fully vaccinated people has been infected and some died.
So to convince these large % of skeptics [not me], fool proof vaccination will certainly convince the majority to accept the vaccination just like those of small-pox, polio etc. [I mentioned these point, why you ignore them for consideration].

Btw, you are stupid to conflate Philosophy of Morality & Ethics with Philosophy of Politics.

Dude. You are so stupid you don't even know what "laws" and "law enforcement" is.

Yes, social animals have laws AND law enforcement.

If you don't like those terms - then call them "social norms". Cooperation (non-parasitic relationships) is not possible without social norms.

[Immanuel Can]

Jesus of Nazareth was unusually autonomous and eclectic.

Eclectic? I don't think so.

Rather, it's obvious that for everything He did, he was able to point to an OT passage that indicated it was exactly what Messiah would do. That's not arbitrary or "eclectic." And on top of that, He was able to exposit the Law to a degree of precision that even rabbis of the present day would envy.

But I understand why He would look "autonomous," for He spoke with unparallelled freedom and authority. As even his critics said, "No man ever spoke like this man." (John 7:46)

[Veritas Aequitas]

Dude. You are so stupid you don't even know what "laws" and "law enforcement" is.

Yes, social animals have laws AND law enforcement.

If you don't like those terms - then call them "social norms". Cooperation (non-parasitic relationships) is not possible without social norms.

You are the dumb one and too loose.

Sure there are natural laws, laws of nature, divine laws and the likes which are not directly man-made.

However the context in this case is specifically related to man-made-laws related to politics and the legislature.

[Skepdick]

Sure there are natural laws, laws of nature, divine laws and the likes which are not directly man-made.

Where are these "laws"? Show them to me!

Laws are a mental/linguistic constructs. They are just instruments for describing regularities, patterns, behaviours etc.

However the context in this case is specifically related to man-made-laws related to politics and the legislature.

Why? All social animals have some sort of social norms and patterns of behaviour they adhere to. For most animals they aren't codified in language because animals don't have language, but the regularities in behaviour exist. Ostracism as way of ensuring group cohesion exists.

If you can't seem to wrap your mind around the point, I'll make it thus: Did humans have laws and law-enforcement before we had written and spoken language?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Sure there are natural laws, laws of nature, divine laws and the likes which are not directly man-made.

Where are these "laws"? Show them to me!

Laws are a mental/linguistic constructs. They are just instruments for describing regularities, patterns, behaviours etc.

However the context in this case is specifically related to man-made-laws related to politics and the legislature.

Why? All social animals have some sort of social norms and patterns of behaviour they adhere to. For most animals they aren't codified in language because animals don't have language, but the regularities in behaviour exist. Ostracism as way of ensuring group cohesion exists.

If you can't seem to wrap your mind around the point, I'll make it thus: Did humans have laws and law-enforcement before we had written and spoken language?

As I had repeated the 'laws' referred are in the context of this OP, in the present situations with reference to human ethics.

The OP stated,

"Principle and consequence ethics tend to have situational, specific, and narrow application; while virtue ethics tend to have general and broad application. Which ethical system to do you prefer?"

[Skepdick]

As I had repeated the 'laws' referred are in the context of this OP, in the present situations with reference to human ethics.

The OP stated,

"Principle and consequence ethics tend to have situational, specific, and narrow application; while virtue ethics tend to have general and broad application. Which ethical system to do you prefer?"

What or where is an "ethical system". Show me one! Outside the domain of human language, and outside the domain of human epistemology.

You continue to demonstrate absolute lack of Metalinguistic awareness.

Which is why, I am telling you to look at human behaviour, social dynamics and social norms. Observe the intentions, actions and interactions - not the linguistic codification/descriptions thereof.

You can't codify ethics because language fails to capture/express the necessary intricacies.

[Sculptor]

Which ethical system to do you prefer?

None of them.

They all have the same fault: they try to make ethics happen without substantive content. (To this list, we might add "Moral Developmentalism," as per Piaget and Kohlberg, for example.)

They're all taking as basic the mistaken assumption that you don't need to have any particular worldview, beliefs or commitments in order to "be morally informed." They're all seeking the "holy grail" of neutral moralizing. It doesn't exist.

That's one big reason why they all fail.

Yes, and, of course not objective.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Sure there are natural laws, laws of nature, divine laws and the likes which are not directly man-made.

Where are these "laws"? Show them to me!

Laws are a mental/linguistic constructs. They are just instruments for describing regularities, patterns, behaviours etc.

However the context in this case is specifically related to man-made-laws related to politics and the legislature.

Why? All social animals have some sort of social norms and patterns of behaviour they adhere to. For most animals they aren't codified in language because animals don't have language, but the regularities in behaviour exist. Ostracism as way of ensuring group cohesion exists.

If you can't seem to wrap your mind around the point, I'll make it thus: Did humans have laws and law-enforcement before we had written and spoken language?

You are veering off tangent very loosely and shooting everywhere pointlessly.

My original point is the Philosophy of Morality is not associated with 'Laws' as in Philosophy of Politics.
As such whatever is referred to 'Laws' herewith is with reference to Politically driven laws, that is so straightforward.

As such the Moral Maxim of "Do not kill humans" should not be conflated with 'Do not kill humans according to the enacted Laws else be punished."