• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Thanks..

The field of ethics (or moral philosophy) involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior.

Metaethical answers to these questions focus on the issues of universal truths, the will of God, the role of reason in ethical judgments, and the meaning of ethical terms themselves.

Normative ethics takes on a more practical task, which is to arrive at moral standards that regulate right and wrong conduct.

By using the conceptual tools of metaethics and normative ethics, discussions in applied ethics try to resolve these controversial issues.


But it also depends on more general normative principles, such as the right of self-rule and the right to life, which are litmus tests for determining the morality of that procedure.

--


Thanks for these 'definitions'....


The discussion of the applied ethics of ethics can in it of itself be a discussion. Since ethics in it of itself is 'controversial'.

The only thing which really seems to matter in some places and during some times is, the 'more general normative principles, such as the right of self-rule and the right to life, which are litmus tests for determining the morality of that procedure'.


So where do those 'normative' principles of right of self-rule and right to self life come from?


So from where do these 'rights' come from within a Society? From those which give 'allowances' to such things.


Let's take 'abortion' as an example. If the U.S closed all its abortion 'places' and made a Law, regardless of what the Constitution was 'construed' as or which precedence could NOT be amended, what could occur? A riot and fetuses being strewn all over the public road ways for 'these' persons' rights of self rule and self governance being 'infringed' upon?


The 'liberties' which the U.S offers and gives is not beneficial for ALL. Look at the Virginia Tech, Pulse Night Club and many other 'public' shootings. The shooters were being filled with too much 'freedoms' and not enough 'patience/and space' within themselves to be able to 'live' comfortably with all the 'freedoms' being 'celebrated' around them. It seems that in a place of 'absolute freedom' to personal self governance and self rule, without actually partaking of those offered 'rights', a person will eventually implode or explode due to the outside verses the inside opposing forces at work in Society.

When local laws were being enforced, those that did not participate in the social norms of 'wrongs', were somewhat 'guaranteed' a safe promise. That they would be 'safe' even though they did not participate. But when these enforcements started to treat their jobs with lack of care due to U.S constitutional arguments and personal rights defining, those that had that guarantee began to be exposed as ones who relied upon the local Authorities for any form of 'protection'. And and but when the local authorities of protection lost its respect from the traditionals of that community, the wrong doers began to increase. And when the wrong doers were not corrected for their wrong doing many others began needing to 'choose' sides. To do right or to do wrong. Then after that the discussions of 'what side' to join. What is ethical? What are my rights? What is right verses bad? Why does some say I cannot do this or do that?

But all along they all continue to miss the greater picture that the traditionals were trying to uphold. The future of the U.S. Not only for the 'now'.. Not only for the 'me' of now or the 'you' of now, but of the future of when there is neither 'me nor you' in the U.S.


It is socially 'norm' to be wrong in dress, in sexuality, in speech, in mannerisms, in public displays. These 'wrongs' are the social 'norms'. To speak or go contrary to these social norms of 'wrongs' can land a person in Court or even cost them their 'job' nowdays.


How is this possible? It isn't. It is not possible for any Law Governed place to have this to be possible. It could occur for a time length but it is not possible that it can live. Why ?

Because of basic taxes.


Let's take a look at Social norms of rights verses Social norms of wrongs.

what are some social norms of rights?

Do not spit on complete strangers.


What would be its opposite?

To be able to spit on strangers.


What if to be able to spit on strangers became a social norm wrong that was accepted in society? Just like any other socially accepted thing such as public marijuana smoking?


What could this line of progress lead to if left unchecked/unpunished by those which Law enforcers and Law was supposed to do in the first place? It will lead to personal rights of both the wrongs and the rights. it will be this person against that person based on their own wrongs and rights without the Law or law enforcers needing to be present.

And this is when the right, not wrong, of the Greater Law comes into play. When a person stands for the Universal right, The Greater Power becomes evident.


It is always more 'right' to have the future of persons' well beings in mind that to not. It is always more 'right' to show honor to those who deserve 'honor' than to not. It is always right to do right than to not. These Universal 'rights', if not being defended and kept by those law agencies being paid monies/salaries to do so, will show itself to be able to defend itself.


How is this possible? Easy. God is not ethics. God is not philosophy. God is not speeches. God is not news articles. God is not ideas. God is not self-ish. God is not wrong.

When a person does right, not according to man but according to God, God's ethics trumps man's ethics, God's philosophy trumps man's philosophy, God's speeches trumps man's speeches, God's news articles trumps man's news articles, God's ideas trumps man's ideas, God's self-ness trumps man's self-ishness, God's wrongs trumps man's wrongs.


Why do I say, God, and not The LORD?

Because the 'torah' belongs unto The LORD. Since the 'torah' is not appreciated in Gentile lands, The LORD stays where He is appreciated, Y'srael. But God is not The LORD. God is God. And God is in Gentile lands not needing to uphold the 'torah' because the Gentile lands do not have the 'torah' within them but does and will uphold the Laws of the land as well as the Laws of Universal 'right'.


What are the 'laws of the land'? City and County of Ordinances. What is the 'law' of the 'torah'?

Show honor to the elderly. Don't beat up young kids. Don't spit on strangers. Such are the 'laws' which the 'torah' upholds.


City and County might allow for dishonor to elderly. City and County might allow for beating up of young kids. City and County might allow for spitting on strangers.


To enforce the 'low noise' ordinances after certain hours contained in City and County rules/laws of Ordinances, would almost seem, now days, to be left to City and County personnel discretion rather than the duty to keep such ordinances.


If you want to join in this fight against 'good' verses 'self', I'd suggest moving your family members out of that city/state before partaking.


Or if you want to welcome such things into your city or town or State, I'd suggest moving your family members out your city or town or State before you do.


When no 'innocent' lives are at stake of getting caught in the middle, then the 'fight' can occur with 'freedom'.

But as long as there are 'innocent' lives, when there are family members around in that city or town or State, Law guarantees for their safety and well being from such social norm wrongs 'freedom fighters'.


So... it all depends. If you want to stick around when the 'fight' might begin, it is your choice to do so.


So instead of thinking The LORD is defending your neighborhood or town or city or State, it is more truer to say that God is defending your neighborhood or town or city or State.


If you have 'questions' as to what God holds as 'good' and 'right', then I'd suggest getting into contact with some 'religion' which talks of God and what He finds honorable and right and just. And it doesn't need to be from a Christian Church.


If your 'god' thinks dishonor to elderly, spitting on strangers, and beating up young kids is 'good', then maybe it will become a War of the (G)ods.


From here, it goes all the back around again.. In 1787, 13 States adopted the U.S Constitution into their Law(s) and lands because they wanted to be able to live in Just and freedom and Safety in the place they would call 'home'.


From 13 States with 1 U.S Constitution, we now have 50 State Constitutions with 1 U.S Constitution. Each State has its own State Constitution with its own set of residents.
 
Last edited:

DustyFeet

पैर है| outlaw kosher care-bear | Tribe of Dan
Hi david,

it sounds like you are making a case supporting "Why we need rules"?
 

DustyFeet

पैर है| outlaw kosher care-bear | Tribe of Dan
david,

i have no idea where i'm going with this, i'm just curious.

in your opinion, which is better? the articles of confederation, or the constitution?
 
Top