God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-11-2012, 12:22 AM (This post was last modified: 20-11-2012 12:58 AM by Ghost.)
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
Hey, Starcrash.

You know what? I tried. I don't feel like you're a partner in this and I don't feel like you're trying to understand anything I say.

For the record, I have no idea what you're saying about systems. Of course they're systems. What else could they possibly be?

Quote:...exactly what do you think defines that "wrongdoing"? Laws, of course.

Actually, no. If you'd read or watched anything I posted, you'd know that restorative systems focus on harm. Wrongdoing is defined as something that resulted in someone being harmed (Howard Zehr speaks about this in the first 30 seconds of his video). If you don't see the distinction, so be it.

Quote:Try this on for size... please give me one example of a rule made by a
restorative justice system (and even better, explain how that is
incompatible with secular law).

You're asking me to provide an example of something I just finished explaining doesn't exist.

Quote:Secular law, for example, states that murder is wrong (or illegal, if
you prefer). What would be the alternative to this in a restorative
justice system?

I already answered this. The two PhDs in the videos answered this. The Wikipedia article that you clearly did not bother to read before citing (more on that below) already explained this. The focus is not on laws or the violation of laws. Behaviours are not outlawed or branded criminal or sinful. The notion of murder or anything else being wrong doesn't exist. What does exist is the specific impact of the specific act. That is what is addressed. Obviously harm occurs when someone is killed. Restorative justice would look at what needed to be done to make things right in the aftermath. It doesn't concern itself with punishing the person that committed the act; however, it absolutely involves them in the process of restoration.

Quote:What would restorative justice have to say about murder? And please don't answer by explaining the difference in punishment --

Again. Already answered had you bothered to read. Restorative justice doesn't seek to punish, it seeks to restore.

Quote:...secular law itself does not define what happens when you break it, but merely defines how one breaks it.

That is demonstrably false.

Law has had corresponding punishment since Hammurabi.

Hammurabi's Code Wrote:15: If
any one take a male or female slave of the court, or a male or female slave of
a freed man, outside the city gates, he shall be put to death.


53: If
any one be too lazy to keep his dam in proper condition, and does not so keep
it; if then the dam break and all the fields be flooded, then shall he in whose
dam the break occurred be sold for money, and the money shall replace the corn
which he has caused to be ruined.


132: If
the "finger is pointed" at a man's wife about another man, but she is
not caught sleeping with the other man, she shall jump into the river for her
husband.


New York State Wrote:§ 125.25 Murder in the second degree.
A person is guilty of murder in the second degree when:
1. With intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the
death of such person or of a third person; except that in any
prosecution under this subdivision, it is an affirmative defense that:
(a) The defendant acted under the influence of extreme emotional
disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse, the
reasonableness of which is to be determined from the viewpoint of a
person in the defendant's situation under the circumstances as the
defendant believed them to be. Nothing contained in this paragraph shall
constitute a defense to a prosecution for, or preclude a conviction of,
manslaughter in the first degree or any other crime; or
(b) The defendant's conduct consisted of causing or aiding, without
the use of duress or deception, another person to commit suicide.
Nothing contained in this paragraph shall constitute a defense to a
prosecution for, or preclude a conviction of, manslaughter in the second
degree or any other crime; or
2. Under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life,
he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to
another person, and thereby causes the death of another person; or
3. Acting either alone or with one or more other persons, he commits
or attempts to commit robbery, burglary, kidnapping, arson, rape in the
first degree, criminal sexual act in the first degree, sexual abuse in
the first degree, aggravated sexual abuse, escape in the first degree,
or escape in the second degree, and, in the course of and in furtherance
of such crime or of immediate flight therefrom, he, or another
participant, if there be any, causes the death of a person other than
one of the participants; except that in any prosecution under this
subdivision, in which the defendant was not the only participant in the
underlying crime, it is an affirmative defense that the defendant:
(a) Did not commit the homicidal act or in any way solicit, request,
command, importune, cause or aid the commission thereof; and
(b) Was not armed with a deadly weapon, or any instrument, article or
substance readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury
and of a sort not ordinarily carried in public places by law-abiding
persons; and
© Had no reasonable ground to believe that any other participant was
armed with such a weapon, instrument, article or substance; and
(d) Had no reasonable ground to believe that any other participant
intended to engage in conduct likely to result in death or serious
physical injury; or
4. Under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life,
and being eighteen years old or more the defendant recklessly engages in
conduct which creates a grave risk of serious physical injury or death
to another person less than eleven years old and thereby causes the
death of such person; or
5. Being eighteen years old or more, while in the course of committing
rape in the first, second or third degree, criminal sexual act in the
first, second or third degree, sexual abuse in the first degree,
aggravated sexual abuse in the first, second, third or fourth degree, or
incest in the first, second or third degree, against a person less than
fourteen years old, he or she intentionally causes the death of such
person.
Murder in the second degree is a class A-I felony.

And the punishment for being convicted of a class A-I felony:

New York State Wrote:§ 70.00 Sentence of imprisonment for felony.
* 1. Indeterminate sentence. Except as provided in subdivisions four,
five and six of this section or section 70.80 of this article, a
sentence of imprisonment for a felony, other than a felony defined in
article two hundred twenty or two hundred twenty-one of this chapter,
shall be an indeterminate sentence. When such a sentence is imposed, the
court shall impose a maximum term in accordance with the provisions of
subdivision two of this section and the minimum period of imprisonment
shall be as provided in subdivision three of this section.
* NB Effective until September 1, 2013
* 1. Indeterminate sentence. Except as provided in subdivisions four
and five of this section or section 70.80 of this article, a sentence of
imprisonment for a felony, other than a felony defined in article two
hundred twenty or two hundred twenty-one of this chapter, shall be an
indeterminate sentence. When such a sentence is imposed, the court shall
impose a maximum term in accordance with the provisions of subdivision
two of this section and the minimum period of imprisonment shall be as
provided in subdivision three of this section.
* NB Effective September 1, 2013
2. Maximum term of sentence. The maximum term of an indeterminate
sentence shall be at least three years and the term shall be fixed as
follows:
(a) For a class A felony, the term shall be life imprisonment;
(b) For a class B felony, the term shall be fixed by the court, and
shall not exceed twenty-five years;
© For a class C felony, the term shall be fixed by the court, and
shall not exceed fifteen years;
(d) For a class D felony, the term shall be fixed by the court, and
shall not exceed seven years; and
(e) For a class E felony, the term shall be fixed by the court, and
shall not exceed four years.
3. Minimum period of imprisonment. The minimum period of imprisonment
under an indeterminate sentence shall be at least one year and shall be
fixed as follows:
(a) In the case of a class A felony, the minimum period shall be fixed
by the court and specified in the sentence.
(i) For a class A-I felony, such minimum period shall not be less than
fifteen years nor more than twenty-five years; provided, however, that
(A) where a sentence, other than a sentence of death or life
imprisonment without parole, is imposed upon a defendant convicted of
murder in the first degree as defined in section 125.27 of this chapter
such minimum period shall be not less than twenty years nor more than
twenty-five years, and, (B) where a sentence is imposed upon a defendant
convicted of murder in the second degree as defined in subdivision five
of section 125.25 of this chapter or convicted of aggravated murder as
defined in section 125.26 of this chapter, the sentence shall be life
imprisonment without parole, and, © where a sentence is imposed upon a
defendant convicted of attempted murder in the first degree as defined
in article one hundred ten of this chapter and subparagraph (i), (ii) or
(iii) of paragraph (a) of subdivision one and paragraph (b) of
subdivision one of section 125.27 of this chapter or attempted
aggravated murder as defined in article one hundred ten of this chapter
and section 125.26 of this chapter such minimum period shall be not less
than twenty years nor more than forty years.
(ii) For a class A-II felony, such minimum period shall not be less
than three years nor more than eight years four months, except that for
the class A-II felony of predatory sexual assault as defined in section
130.95 of this chapter or the class A-II felony of predatory sexual

assault against a child as defined in section 130.96 of this chapter,
such minimum period shall be not less than ten years nor more than
twenty-five years.
(b) For any other felony, the minimum period shall be fixed by the
court and specified in the sentence and shall be not less than one year
nor more than one-third of the maximum term imposed.
4. Alternative definite sentence for class D and E felonies. When a
person, other than a second or persistent felony offender, is sentenced
for a class D or class E felony, and the court, having regard to the
nature and circumstances of the crime and to the history and character
of the defendant, is of the opinion that a sentence of imprisonment is
necessary but that it would be unduly harsh to impose an indeterminate
or determinate sentence, the court may impose a definite sentence of
imprisonment and fix a term of one year or less.
5. Life imprisonment without parole. Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, a defendant sentenced to life imprisonment without
parole shall not be or become eligible for parole or conditional
release. For purposes of commitment and custody, other than parole and
conditional release, such sentence shall be deemed to be an
indeterminate sentence. A defendant may be sentenced to life
imprisonment without parole upon conviction for the crime of murder in
the first degree as defined in section 125.27 of this chapter and in
accordance with the procedures provided by law for imposing a sentence
for such crime. A defendant must be sentenced to life imprisonment
without parole upon conviction for the crime of terrorism as defined in
section 490.25 of this chapter, where the specified offense the
defendant committed is a class A-I felony; the crime of criminal
possession of a chemical weapon or biological weapon in the first degree
as defined in section 490.45 of this chapter; or the crime of criminal
use of a chemical weapon or biological weapon in the first degree as
defined in section 490.55 of this chapter; provided, however, that
nothing in this subdivision shall preclude or prevent a sentence of
death when the defendant is also convicted of the crime of murder in the
first degree as defined in section 125.27 of this chapter. A defendant
must be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole upon conviction
for the crime of murder in the second degree as defined in subdivision
five of section 125.25 of this chapter or for the crime of aggravated
murder as defined in subdivision one of section 125.26 of this chapter.
A defendant may be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole upon
conviction for the crime of aggravated murder as defined in subdivision
two of section 125.26 of this chapter.
* 6. Determinate sentence. Except as provided in subdivision four of
this section and subdivisions two and four of section 70.02, when a
person is sentenced as a violent felony offender pursuant to section
70.02 or as a second violent felony offender pursuant to section 70.04
or as a second felony offender on a conviction for a violent felony
offense pursuant to section 70.06, the court must impose a determinate
sentence of imprisonment in accordance with the provisions of such
sections and such sentence shall include, as a part thereof, a period of
post-release supervision in accordance with section 70.45.
* NB Repealed September 1, 2013
Sharia Wrote:Islamic philosophy holds that a harsh punishment serves as a deterrent
to serious crimes that harm individual victims, or threaten to
destabilize the foundation of society. According to Islamic law (in the
first verse quoted above), the following two crimes can be punishable by
death:
  • Intentional murder
  • Fasad fil-ardh ("spreading mischief in the land")
There we have it. Law + corresponding punishment from:
1 - The Code of Hammurabi
2 - The penal code of New York State
3 - Sharia law

I'm done speaking to you about this (if anyone else wants to talk, I'm still more than happy).

As a final note, the next time you cite an Wiki article, you should make certian that:
1 - You aren't just citing something out of context to support your argument
2 - The opening sentence of said article doesn't blow your entire argument out of the water

Wikipedia's article on restorative justice Wrote:Restorative justice (also sometimes called reparative justice[1]) is an approach to justice
that focuses on the needs of the victims and the offenders, as well as
the involved community, instead of satisfying abstract legal principles
or punishing the offender
.
-Emphasis added at the end
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2012, 06:11 AM (This post was last modified: 20-11-2012 11:18 AM by Starcrash.)
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
(20-11-2012 12:22 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Starcrash.

You know what? I tried. I don't feel like you're a partner in this and I don't feel like you're trying to understand anything I say.

I'm not your partner in this. Not anymore. Upon further reflection, I see that this conversation was pointless from the start.

If the original post had asked, "which is longer, a meter or a yard?" your response would have been analogous to answering, "a mile". While it's true that a mile is longer than either of them, and in this example is on point by being a length like both examples, it doesn't answer the question. The word "longer" implies a choice between the two, and your answer wouldn't solve that question. Outside of the analogy, you'll notice that the OP asked "which is more moral" rather than "which is the most moral". I argued for a better among the two, and you chose to answer the question that nobody asked.

I believe that your recent posts reflect your need to escape my criticism of bias by displaying a lack of bias. Ghost, I don't care that you're biased. I'm biased, and I admit it frequently. I just wanted you to be honest about your bias. But if your need to be seen as "impartial" stretches so far that you won't even weigh the two options, I literally do not care where you stand on this question. It was my mistake to even engage in this argument, because even if it was settled one way or the other it still wouldn't answer the question at hand.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2012, 07:13 AM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
(19-11-2012 11:05 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(19-11-2012 12:15 AM)Humakt Wrote:  Maybe its just me, but that sounds a bit like a cop out, I just dont buy that "gods law" is at fault for the failings of those who proclaim to follow it. Dont get me wrong, its not for me, but I dont claim to follow it. On secular law, Im not as full on as Ghost, but I definatly agree with a lot of what he is saying. Secular law, is a mechanism to protect the status quo, and where as it should be the case, it is unargueable that in law money talks. The idea that the law improves to fit the will of the majority, I dont get that impression. In the case of secular law changing in regards to slavery, at least in Britain that is mainly down to a religious movement, I cant remember the exact details and Im kinda in a rush to get to bed, so hope you'll excuse me not linking you a wiki, but I think its amistad the movie depicts it. In short it was a a priest and a whole bunch of bible thumpers that campaigned and against huge inertia and reluctance from the secular authorities got the law changed. I guess if theres something to learn from that, its that complex issues are rarely black and white, and whereas I think both of us have valid points, I think what is actually the case lies somewhere between us.
I didn't claim that God's law "was at fault for the failings of those who proclaim to follow it", but that it's at fault for not being the standard of those who claim to follow it while also claiming that it is their standard. Whether or not they fail to follow it is beside the point, because they're not even trying to follow it: it's not their standard for morality.

While it's true that people claimed that God's morals were the reasons to abolish slavery (even here in the United States), that doesn't mean that the bible is anti-slavery. Just because you can use parts of the bible to refute other parts of the bible doesn't mean that the parts you support actually reflect the bible's position on the subject, and there is ample evidence for where the bible does stand on slavery. I've mentioned before that the book of Philemon, a letter written to by Paul to a slave owner, doesn't condemn slavery or suggest that Philemon (the escaped slave) ought to be free. Paul even suggests that we should be "bondservants" (willing slaves) to God. Jesus didn't speak of freeing slaves, either. The Old Testament is our best record on this issue, and it is clearly pro-slavery (as I've already cited in this thread).
OK, your first paragraph to me just doesn't hold water you are saying that the standard is bad, because those who profess to adhere to it don't. This to me is no different from saying that that secular law is bad, because we still have criminals. The blame does not lie with whichever standard, but with those who transgress. In fact, in the case of Gods law, it is kinda of a given, that they do not follow it, the bible is clear that all are sinners and imperfect. Perhaps, the fact that the standards are impossible to attain make the standard not fit for purpose, but many of the guidelines like eating shellfish and whatnot are ignored piecemeal. Either way, they choose to be christian and subordinate themselves to Gods law, they are at fault. In this, perhaps the bible has a step up on secular law, there is no choice involved in complying with that, but thats a different kettle of fish.

Yeah on slavery, no arguement there, the bible is clearly pro slavery, to the point of being usable as a slave owners manual, however looking at it from an NT point of view - Jesus, expands the religion from the Jew to the Gentile. OT is a jews only club, NT is for everyone - in that context the proscription against holding a fellow jew slave can be expanded to the more inclusive NT view of humanity. Just a thought, but I think the view that slavery was wrong, went hand in hand with the recognition that the negro was a human being and not an animal as was widely the case.

Either way, these differences are of POV are pretty superficial in nature.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2012, 11:13 AM (This post was last modified: 20-11-2012 11:20 AM by Starcrash.)
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
(20-11-2012 07:13 AM)Humakt Wrote:  OK, your first paragraph to me just doesn't hold water you are saying that the standard is bad, because those who profess to adhere to it don't. This to me is no different from saying that that secular law is bad, because we still have criminals. The blame does not lie with whichever standard, but with those who transgress. In fact, in the case of Gods law, it is kinda of a given, that they do not follow it, the bible is clear that all are sinners and imperfect.
I see where you're coming from, but I think you're missing the point ever-so-slightly. It's not just about whether people follow the law but whether they intend to follow the last. Secular law isn't bad because we have criminals, because those criminals don't reject the validity of the law.

Now it's true that there are cases where they do -- for instance, many of us (even those of us who don't smoke) think the laws that persist in most countries against smoking marijuana are bad laws. Does this mean that some people will smoke in protest of the law? Of course. And that does, by my standard, mean that secular law is bad in this respect. However, attitudes towards pot smoking have changed (it is now legal in 2 states by state law) and will continue to change. While there are times and places that secular law is rejected and not considered the standard by which those subject to it will live, it changes to reflect their attitudes towards it. Another good example was the US law of prohibition. The majority of Americans rejected it outright, and so it was abolished. Secular law is flexible in this manner, and will eventually reflect the will of those who are under it.

Does this make it more moral? Since morality isn't objective (in my opinion), then yes, the morality of law also tends to fit the morality of those who live by it. God's law does not have this flexibility, although the moral sensitivities of those who abide by it does (such as the rejection of slavery by those who follow God)... which is one of the many reasons I see superiority in secular law.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2012, 01:10 PM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
(20-11-2012 11:13 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(20-11-2012 07:13 AM)Humakt Wrote:  OK, your first paragraph to me just doesn't hold water you are saying that the standard is bad, because those who profess to adhere to it don't. This to me is no different from saying that that secular law is bad, because we still have criminals. The blame does not lie with whichever standard, but with those who transgress. In fact, in the case of Gods law, it is kinda of a given, that they do not follow it, the bible is clear that all are sinners and imperfect.
I see where you're coming from, but I think you're missing the point ever-so-slightly. It's not just about whether people follow the law but whether they intend to follow the last. Secular law isn't bad because we have criminals, because those criminals don't reject the validity of the law.

Now it's true that there are cases where they do -- for instance, many of us (even those of us who don't smoke) think the laws that persist in most countries against smoking marijuana are bad laws. Does this mean that some people will smoke in protest of the law? Of course. And that does, by my standard, mean that secular law is bad in this respect. However, attitudes towards pot smoking have changed (it is now legal in 2 states by state law) and will continue to change. While there are times and places that secular law is rejected and not considered the standard by which those subject to it will live, it changes to reflect their attitudes towards it. Another good example was the US law of prohibition. The majority of Americans rejected it outright, and so it was abolished. Secular law is flexible in this manner, and will eventually reflect the will of those who are under it.

Does this make it more moral? Since morality isn't objective (in my opinion), then yes, the morality of law also tends to fit the morality of those who live by it. God's law does not have this flexibility, although the moral sensitivities of those who abide by it does (such as the rejection of slavery by those who follow God)... which is one of the many reasons I see superiority in secular law.
That is all well and good, but it has strayed somewhat from the threads topic which is, which is moral. I originally answered both, over several post we have moved the goal posts, nothing wrong with that. Much as you disagree with Ghost, on some points I think we also see things somewhat differently, if that to you is not getting it then I guess I don't. Your latest, seems you suggest that more flexibility equals more moral, to me if your morals are flexible they're really just strongly held opinions. Also I think your applying a double standard, christians do not question the validity of gods law, a lot of them use false justifications or ignore, but its a rare christian that'll flat out state the bibles wrong. As I also said the aspect of secular that makes it less of a moral system is choice, in that you have no choice on weather to follow or not, this to me greatly damages the idea that it is any sense a moral choice. You can certainly follow the law on moral grounds, but the law itself is'nt a system of morality, control at best, oppression at worst.

Also, on objectivity, I would say that morality is both subjective and objective. For example the morality I have selected to follow I have chosen on subjective grounds, but the substance of it is objective.

Legal Disclaimer: I am right, I reserve the right to be wrong without notice, opinions may change, your statutory rights are not affected, opinions expressed are not my own and are an approximation for the sake of communication.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2012, 06:26 PM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
Starcrash.

Our conversation about the subject matter is over. I still feel confident in my position and you have rejected it, which is fine, c'est la vie, but this stuff gets filed in the "what the hell" folder.

Quote:But if your need to be seen as "impartial" stretches so far that you
won't even weigh the two options, I literally do not care where you
stand on this question.

OK. You seriously need to stop assuming who I am and what I'm about because you're always wrong. I assume by 'my so called need to seem impartial' that you're referring to my Agnosticism. You're off base. You have rejected my argument entirely. I accept that. Nothing I can do about that. But if you had understood my argument, you'd see that my issue with religious law and secular law has (almost) nothing to do with religion or Atheism. My issue is with law itself. My argument is that religious law and secular law, while cosmetically different, function identically. That's what I have issue with. But hey, it makes no difference if you decide to summarily dismiss my argument. I'm just going on record.

Quote:Outside of the analogy, you'll notice that the OP asked "which is more
moral" rather than "which is the most moral". I argued for a better
among the two, and you chose to answer the question that nobody asked.

I chose to not fall victim to a false dichotomy. You don't agree with that. Neither are moral, in my opinion. If someone asks me, "Which is a better house pet, a tiger or a lion," my answer is neither. They're both shitty house pets for pretty much the exact same reasons. If you want to respond, "Well tigers weigh more, so lions are better house pets," more power to you. My answer is valid whether you like it or not. Any species of large predatory cat (cheetah, jaguar, leopard, puma, tiger, lion...) is shitty and an animal that won't rip you to shreds makes a much better house pet. "Well which other animal is better then, Matt," the question goes. I don't care which animal you chose, just not one that can kill you. House cat, hamster, iguana, newt, guppies, parrot, chinchilla, Pomeranian, they're all better options and most importantly, they illustrate that there are more options than the binary choices of lion or tiger.

Quote:I believe that your recent posts reflect your need to escape my criticism of bias by displaying a lack of bias.

No. Your criticism as of late has been poor. I haven't found enough value in it to warrant an expenditure of time and energy. Also, you have repeatedly come after me as a person. Give me criticism that I find worthwhile and that has to do with the ideas I'm putting forward rather than your opinion of me as a person and I'll be more than happy to address it head on.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2012, 06:42 PM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
(20-11-2012 06:26 PM)Ghost Wrote:  
Quote:Outside of the analogy, you'll notice that the OP asked "which is more
moral" rather than "which is the most moral". I argued for a better
among the two, and you chose to answer the question that nobody asked.

I chose to not fall victim to a false dichotomy. You don't agree with that. Neither are moral, in my opinion. If someone asks me, "Which is a better house pet, a tiger or a lion," my answer is neither. They're both shitty house pets for pretty much the exact same reasons. If you want to respond, "Well tigers weigh more, so lions are better house pets," more power to you. My answer is valid whether you like it or not. Any species of large predatory cat (cheetah, jaguar, leopard, puma, tiger, lion...) is shitty and an animal that won't rip you to shreds makes a much better house pet. "Well which other animal is better then, Matt," the question goes. I don't care which animal you chose, just not one that can kill you. House cat, hamster, iguana, newt, guppies, parrot, chinchilla, Pomeranian, they're all better options and most importantly, they illustrate that there are more options than the binary choices of lion or tiger.
Actually, the OP asked "Which is moral?" implying (to me) that one was moral the other not.

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-11-2012, 12:11 PM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
Hey, Smurf.

Upon closer inspection, I appear to be wearing loafers. Also, I see your point. Still, take my cat analogy and substitute in the qiestion "Which is a good house pet?" Neither.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-11-2012, 05:10 PM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
(21-11-2012 12:11 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Smurf.

Upon closer inspection, I appear to be wearing loafers. Also, I see your point. Still, take my cat analogy and substitute in the qiestion "Which is a good house pet?" Neither.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

So, am I to understand that you feel the current secular punitive system should eventually be completely replaced by a restorative system operating alone? Or do you feel the restorative system complements the punitive?

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-11-2012, 06:51 PM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
Hey, Smurf.

I think that all punitive systems should be replaced, be they secular or religious. Like I said before, I don't care what it's replaced with so long as it's better. Restorative justice is great; however, it is not the only alternative. There's no magic wand here. Replacing punitive systems of law is a process, not an act; and a fucking complicated process at that.

In terms of operating alone, I want to say yes, but it's complicated. Ideally, all this business about law, crime, punishment and the rest goes the way of the dodo and we wind up with a system that is a true alternative, different in every way. But ideals and Darwinism don't mix. Maybe some of it survives. Who knows? Daniel Quinn once said something very important, "No paradigm is ever able to imagine the next one."

In terms of what is, restorative justice IS being used in a complimentary manner with criminal justice today in different forms and in different places. Again, for me, it's the Dutch story of Hans Brinker. If the dyke is leaking, plug the leak with your finger. But don't pretend like the problem is fixed because the problem isn't the leak, it's the fundamentally unsound dyke that needs to be replaced by something that actually works. Restorative justice used in concert with punitive justice plugs a leak. But it's no solution. Law needs to be replaced.

For me, the system of laws and punishment is rotten at the core. It's fundamentally flawed. It is terrible for people. It has its advantages, but in the final wash, we can do better. A LOT better.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: