Neutral Evil
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2010
- Messages
- 56
Those who adhere to the principles of it and use their strength of character to make it mean something worthy.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Religious People with Political Views
- Thread starter historylass
- Start date
Those who adhere to the principles of it and use their strength of character to make it mean something worthy.
Werbung:
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Like creating the "master race" in Nazi Germany through eugenics and mass murder... It was done for the "greater good" you know.
Or the Holodomor in Soviet Russia, again said to be for the "greater good".
The Killing Fields in Cambodia, once again mass murder done in the name of the "greater good".
"“The common good” is a meaningless concept, unless taken literally, in which case its only possible meaning is: the sum of the good of all the individual men involved. But in that case, the concept is meaningless as a moral criterion: it leaves open the question of what is the good of individual men and how does one determine it?
It is not, however, in its literal meaning that that concept is generally used. It is accepted precisely for its elastic, undefinable, mystical character which serves, not as a moral guide, but as an escape from morality. Since the good is not applicable to the disembodied, it becomes a moral blank check for those who attempt to embody it.
When “the common good” of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals.
It is tacitly assumed, in such cases, that “the common good” means “the good of the majority” as against the minority or the individual.
Observe the significant fact that that assumption is tacit: even the most collectivized mentalities seem to sense the impossibility of justifying it morally. But “the good of the majority,” too, is only a pretense and a delusion: since, in fact, the violation of an individual’s rights means the abrogation of all rights, it delivers the helpless majority into the power of any gang that proclaims itself to be “the voice of society” and proceeds to rule by means of physical force, until deposed by another gang employing the same means." - Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
It is not, however, in its literal meaning that that concept is generally used. It is accepted precisely for its elastic, undefinable, mystical character which serves, not as a moral guide, but as an escape from morality. Since the good is not applicable to the disembodied, it becomes a moral blank check for those who attempt to embody it.
When “the common good” of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals.
It is tacitly assumed, in such cases, that “the common good” means “the good of the majority” as against the minority or the individual.
Observe the significant fact that that assumption is tacit: even the most collectivized mentalities seem to sense the impossibility of justifying it morally. But “the good of the majority,” too, is only a pretense and a delusion: since, in fact, the violation of an individual’s rights means the abrogation of all rights, it delivers the helpless majority into the power of any gang that proclaims itself to be “the voice of society” and proceeds to rule by means of physical force, until deposed by another gang employing the same means." - Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
You see, the definition of the "greater good" is not decided by "Those who adhere to the principles of it and use their strength of character to make it mean something worthy", it is always decided by whoever is in power, and they can define the "greater good" to mean anything they wish.
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
Everyone has a right to have an opinion shaped by whatever shapes it. If someone wants to have an opinion shaped by last nights psychedelic mushroom they still have a right to that opinion. I don't have to have a high opinion of it myself but they can have it and express it.
If some persons religiously based opinion shapes their politics they have just as much a right to that opinion as the guy whose opinion is shaped by something they read in the university library.
Our founding fathers always wanted individual religious opinion to shape politics. They were afraid of politics shaping religion though.
Yes, that is the trick, no question. We can elect leaders with strong religious opinions, no problem. What we need to guard against is legislation based on someone's religious values. The government has its responsibilities, and the churches have theirs. Even though the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear as such in the Constitution, the principle that religion must be kept separate is fundamental to our liberties.
We have only to look at nations that have combined religion and government to see that our founding fathers were wise indeed to have kept religion and government separate.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
So guard against legislation that makes such things as murder, purgery, and stealing illegal?
I have no problem with "legislation based on...religious values" but any proposed legislation, whether based on religion (or in the case of the left based on ideology), needs to be logically valid. Legislation that is justified as "God says so" is just as dangerous to our nation as legislation based on emotional appeals and other logical fallacies.
Those are illegal because they violate the principle of self-ownership not because of morals.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Take a look at the statement I was responding to:
What we need to guard against is legislation based on someone's religious values. - PLC
I gave three examples of legislation that any Christian could point to as being based on their religious values. There is nothing dangerous about someone using their religious values to guide them in a legislative capacity anymore than there is something dangerous about people using ideology to guide them. What we need to guard against are laws that cannot be justified through logic and reason.
Quite frankly thats rubbish in a truly free republic laws would be based on the protection of right not the arbitrary rules of an individuals religion. Morality can be legislated it must be taught.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
If you think I'm suggesting that laws should not be based on the protection of individual rights, that laws should be based on religion, then you're not hearing me...
If a Chrisitian says murder should be illegal because of their religious views, they are using religion as justification.
If you say murder should be illegal becuase it violates "self-ownership" (or whatever), you are using ideology as justification.
You both agree murder should be illegal but you offer different justifications for the same law. Just because someone offers religion as justification for a law does not mean the law cannot be justified by logic and reason.
What if I think murder should be illegal in order to protect the right to life? It's pretty hard to have liberty and the pursuit of happiness without that first one.
The first amendment supposedly gives us the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. How can you claim that we as a nation hold true to that if we legislate using the arbitrary rules explained in the bible as our guide for legislation? To claim this nation was meant to be a Christian theocracy is total BS.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Can you offer a logical explanation for why murder should be illegal? I would imagine you can. So where is the problem?
Werbung:
Life is one of the three inalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, is it not? Doesn't murder violate that right? Aren't governments, the law makers supposed to be there to protect our rights? Yes, I think there could be a good case made for outlawing murder.
Don't you?
Similar threads
