Who’s Got the Moral Compass?
Since the days of Edward the Confessor, our justice system has tempered the right of the Monarch to do whatever he would with we serfs, by reference to the tenets of Christianity by way of moral compass. We called this interpreter of the moral compass ‘Lord Chancellor’, and declared the system equitable and fair.
We still have a Lord Chancellor, sitting there fat and Buddha like, and so far as we were all aware, the sole concession to modernity was that these days he wears Brown Suede shoes. How wrong we were – apparently he has chucked out the moral compass, otherwise known as the book of Christian values, or Bible. He is now a defender of ‘multi-faith values’ who is guided by something called a ‘secular compass’.
Christianity no longer holds sway in the legal system, one of the country’s most senior judges said yesterday, declaring that courts must serve a multicultural community of many faiths.
As a Quaker, I hold no particular brief for the Bible; I respect those who do, and I understand the certainty that some gain from following its tenets. I can respect and understand those who follow the Koran. I could even understand if the majority of the country became Muslim and decided that the Koran was the moral compass in future. Such is democracy.
I can comprehend that few people go to church these days, even fewer ever read the bible. This isn’t about whether you hold the bible to be true or not – it is about the fact that it has always been the benchmark against which our laws are set – take it away, and what are we left with? What do we replace it with? The individual views of those who have navigated a (at least publicly) blot-free path through the legal hierarchy?
What puzzles me is where does this secular moral compass reside – who is the arbiter of when it is facing true north or magnetic north? How does anybody know whether their proposed action is morally correct or not?
Under civil law, Roman law, as practised in the rest of Europe, you can’t do anything unless it is in the book of law as being permissible. So far so good – whether you agree with that or not, at least people know where they stand.
Under common law, as practised in the United Kingdom, you have the freedom to do anything unless it has been proscribed by law – which means that if you are the first person to think of some new aberration to societal peace and quiet, you need some sort of guidance as to whether your proposed action is likely to be acceptable.
Sir James Munby, the President of the Family Division, said “Happily for us, the days are past when the business of judges was the enforcement of morals or religious beliefs.
“All are entitled to respect, so long as they are ‘legally and socially acceptable’ and not ‘immoral or socially obnoxious’ or ‘pernicious’.”
So where does this secular moral compass that decides what is ‘socially acceptable’ reside then? On Twitter? I’m genuinely puzzled – anybody care to explain it to me?
-
November 3, 2013 at 10:25 -
If the moral compass is to be ‘You shall not steal, murder, envy, bully, cheat, fraud, hate other humans or lie about them’…….who is to impress this code on the populace. Police? Teachers? Parents? Politicians? The judiciary? The moment a politician moves to try and be more firm, the MSM start to undermine their efforts. They dig around for a factoid to accuse a politician of hypocracy. If Canterbury says anything remotely moralising they find an obscure investment that contradicts what he has said. If a teacher tries to deal effectively with student bad behaviour, an angry parent may go on the attack. The police are being constantly attacked for a whole variety of naughty things they are accused of. Looks like an a revolving circle of lets get even on someones part. What are we to do to bring on the respect needed to look up these people, not be constantly reminded how incompetent they are? At the moment it is nurse bashing time too!
-
November 3, 2013 at 02:28 -
I think the chain of events goes something like this:
– Man rejects God
– Man rejects God’s law
– Man collectively decides he’d rather be governed by his appetites
– Politicians embrace this new post-modern amoral culture (and “don’t do God”)
– Kids grow up in broken families to immature parents, are told to “be good”
– Kids have no concept of what this actually means
– Kids go wild
– Man asks the State to step in to sort out all his problems
– Politicians invent a new morality based on the doctrine of “anti-social” behaviour
– Legality is redefined as “whatever the victim thinks it is” (Hazel Blears)
– The law loses two key principles – Objectivity and Impartiality
– Immigration further dilutes the Christian culture of a nation
– Further social degeneration happens
– A few acts of terrorism spread fear to a nation that has lost it’s moral fibre and courage
– The State starts assuming more and more powers
– ….?-
November 3, 2013 at 15:32 -
Was it GK Chesterton who remarked that people who believed in nothing would generally end up believing in almost anything? It has struck me that there is an element of the reverse of the Chinese worship of Ancestors going on in Britain just now. Rather than worship the past there is a move to worship the future and the Gods of the future are the children, and so children seem ascribed an almost supernatural importance. It also reminds me of the notion of the “Noble Savage”, the idea that Civilisation is a corrupting influence on the human animal. It all fits with the ideas in teaching that somehow children “discover” knowledge rather than being “taught” it. How hard every generation has to work if it has to “discover” everything for itself all the time – no wonder there seem to be so many mistakes being made and not enough time available to know about, and learn from, the past.
-
-
November 2, 2013 at 13:18 -
And while I’m here, don’t look for this mythical compass at the Huffington Post. Community moderation must be the best means of perpetrating and disseminating more bias than almost any other form of media control so far.
-
November 2, 2013 at 14:17
-
-
November 1, 2013 at 22:04 -
Quite so. Constitutionally, we are a still a Christian country. Maybe Grayling has forgotten that? After all, why would the Lord Chancellor need to be aware of such?
-
November 1, 2013 at 11:34 -
A moral compass is a a vague ideal. Who is to be the arbiter of the latest fad of human behaviour? At one time torture and slavery were the norm until protest has cleared some of both detestable activities away. War has certainly not ceased. Trashing your own country and citizens is to keep in power is in full swing. Religious schism still causes deaths in many places. The pendulum swings back and forth between lax sexual behaviour and repressive moral disaproval of human sexual activities. It seems some kinds of fashions bring trends into being. The youthful Twitter is one such invention, to act as steerage in these matters. In my book it is the same as small town gossip might have been at one time…..quickly spreading disproval. It all boils down in the end to the individual and their own decision to act in a considerate, careful way towards other humans. Avoid excesses of any kind. Keep within sensible laws and respect wisdom and seniority in the wider society. If you do not, then the only way is not Essex but ANARCHY and that is not a comfortable way to be.
-
November 2, 2013 at 14:33 -
“It all boils down in the end to the individual and their own decision to act…”
Which is as good a definition of ANARCHY as any other.
Frightened people are more likely to call for a strong State. Consider the way some parents frighten their children, to induce compliance with the parent’s wishes; a State with ambition to total rule, will benefit from ‘frightening’ their charges, then proffering a ‘solution’. As W. C. Fields might put it: “I keep a flask of brandy with me at all times, in case I see a snake… I also keep a snake handy.”
Presumably fear feeds on the unknown, for why else do frightened people flock to the absolute certainty of the ‘solution’? A practise by our caring ‘democratic’ State, that could be termed democratic extortion.
I put it to you, that a private citizen, with a clear sense of right and wrong, as derived by their chosen or inherited ‘moral compass’ [cultural ethics], will be less susceptible to the machinations and political extortions of a State with totalitarian ambitions, than a citizen who is morally paralysed by the substitution of their cultural ethics, by a dismissable “vague ideal”, such as State managed ethics.
Having a bad or dubious ‘moral compass’, that is nevertheless fixed and incorruptible, maybe better than having none, as Anna suggests; because a fiducial point that moves, is not a fiducial point. Hence a dichotomy has emerged: the dangers of personal liberty, versus the safety of the caring State.
If we want the happy stable compromise of the Laffer curve, between liberty/anarchy and socialist State rule/fascism, we must depend on the ‘negative-feedback’ loop that is untrammelled democracy, complete with its never ending squabbles. Alternatively, we can opt for the ‘positive-feedback’ of State sponsored propaganda led ‘democracy’, which by its ‘caring’ guidance, will feed itself to busting, leading to either anarchy or fascism. For what State would advise a democracy to vote against the State’s wishes?
So, “Who is to be the arbiter of the latest fad of human behaviour?” The answer to that is: nobody and everybody; because controlled, or even nudged democracy, is no democracy. If you want safety, vote one way; if you want freedom, vote the other.
-
November 2, 2013 at 18:03 -
Interesting thinking- the only dissention I have is the notion of a ‘caring state’ . That term suggests a personal realtionship where actually it is clear the only persons the state appratchick actually care about is themselves- but their actions reflect the need to keep its citizens well being in view- even that jars somewhat when one sees the huge inequalities / injustices that actually result in suffering of many at the hands of the state itself. The state as an impersonal identity will always behave thus.
-
-
-
November 1, 2013 at 11:05 -
Benefit Sanctions Must Be Stopped Without Exceptions in UK?
Petition Calling For Benefit Sanctions To Be Scrapped Hits Nearly 2000 Signatures In First Few Hours
http://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/benefit-sanctions-must-be-stopped-without-exceptions-in-uk -
October 31, 2013 at 22:19 -
I was under the impression that “Common Law” is based upon “Natural Law”. You might say that the ten commandments are a verbalisation of what is rather obvious in natural law – don’t kill people merely because you are more powerful than them, or steal their possessions, or their ‘mate’. I suspect that power was a major factor at that time. Christ changed the emphasis from the negative to the positive. Not only do not hurt your fellow man but go out your way to help him.
Circumcision, as practised in the Jewish community, is not necessarily harmful to a boy. Certain common infections are avoided by that practice. It is a simple procedure and is best done young. To describe that procedure as ‘abuse’ is nonsense.
And there is where the modern world is becoming unhinged by propaganda. Natural law would say that if a person wants to drink himself to death, or go swimming with sharks, that is his decision. It is contrary to natural law for the powers-that-be to pass statutes designed to stop him. Try to persuade him – yes, but force him – no.-
November 1, 2013 at 00:21 -
Junican / With development of brain it common sense one coming to the aid of a other
where with lack of brain use / it brings american military mindset in killing any whom
may oppose / even claiming it right in killing those whom believe may become a threat
the american way of thinking (never use the brain) USA thinking becomes ever more in
line with that of the jews / where it taught through religious brainwashing that they are
Gods choosen thus by Gods blessing in having the right to kill as take ownership of all
their neighbours possessions / thus in bringing appalling acts of brutality as / suffering.Why do jews have such power over USA policy as set the american people’s upon
countless acts of aggression brutality /of mass murder killing millions of muslims ?.ISRAELI Govt’s have convinced USA Govt’s / it’s military command that they as
ISRAEL are Gods choosen thus freely abled to kill and destroy as whom pleasing
thus international law as domestic law long abandoned it money & military might
that now king. Military as the banking barons rule / even robbing their own banks
it the people in taxes whom pay costs to refund banks / both Military commands
USA as ISRAELI guilty of mass murder / yet none brought to trial / USA Military
command as USA Govt now believe as the Jew that they Gods choosen abled do
as please kill & plunder the world / any whom attempt to stop them are murdered.Junican / with regard to your comment on circumcision /you wrote with humour
however on a more serious note / it being circumcision is justified in many cases
however mass circumcision / without being true cause is that of appalling abuse.Circumcision was but arrived through the channel of religious brainwashing / it
was simply to keep one a member of the same tribe thus one did not but joining
another tribe / religious brainwashing did not bring freedom but that of serfdom
one being made a prisoner / where to disagree then one faced death / in the case
of such female stoned to death / where the female binded unto the tribe via guilt
t’was claimed by Church Authority she be the cause of man being evicted from
heaven / that she tempted man commit sexual sin /and God whom t’was against
sin in punishment having had both man as woman evicted from heaven / saying
for her sin it t’was the fate of woman ever to be the servant of man / that she in
her life would only know suffering / on death of the body her soul in going to a
place called hell where being caste into a fire (Gas Mark 8) (electric 250c) thus
as punishment to go throgh eternal suffering her having annoyed God and Man.The reality such nonsense placed upon woman was but to keep her a prisoner of
the tribe in having no rights / but to supply children in strengthing the tribe / such
halfbaked mindset in ideas / beliefs could have been understood in early stages of
humanity / however in clinging to such stupidity through the centuries / in never
allowing progress in brain development has but made jewish people but isolated in
the Twilight Zone / whom now joined in Twilight Zone by USA politicians as USA
Military Command whom join ISRAELI govt Military Command in seeking world
domination / claiming their right in doing such being that they are God’s Choosen.-
November 1, 2013 at 21:58 -
Here’s a little bit of Jewish misogyny, just to keep your presumptions up to speed. You know that those terrible people are just so far behind the rest of their neighbours in their treatment of their other halves.
http://biblehub.com/niv/proverbs/31.htm Start at v10. It’s only got a few thousand years of history behind it
And FWIW, my grandchildren are Jewish. They are. Really, that are! And their mother is such a terrible person.
-
November 2, 2013 at 02:01 -
Never understood the hatred of Jews.
In fact, when some local bastards (turned out to be born again christians,) burned my Grandmothers house down, whilst the men were at sea, and she was with the reindeer to market. It was the local Synogogue and the Rabbi, the offered help, and somewhere to stay until the insurance paid up, and a new house could be built.
-
November 2, 2013 at 13:25 -
Funny sort of ‘born again christians’ you must must have over there, wherever that is. Not like any I know, so a real shame about that.
-
November 2, 2013 at 17:02 -
My Grandmother, and HER Mother, Grand mother, etc were Saami shamans, going bach….to who knows when.
The local “born agains” decided to “have a go at the witch.”
Any way. ALL christians/jews/muslims are under the same blanket.
A bunch of sand niggers, allowing their lives to be lead by the ramblings of a load of desert hippys on acid.
-
November 2, 2013 at 20:41 -
Well, that makes it easier to see why my kids had people following them down the road, yelling ‘Juden’ at them, when they were visiting one part of the Germanic Kingdom a couple of years ago
Takes all sorts, so it’s not really terribly surprising, I suppose
-
-
-
-
-
-
November 2, 2013 at 13:44 -
Common Law based on Natural Law?
Good grief, no – you’re out by around 7 centuries.
The origins of English Common Law lie in Anglo Saxon Law which, in turn, was originally the King’s Law or, to be more precise, Athelstan’s law because it was Alfred the Great’s grandson, King Athelstan, who really set the ball rolling on the whole business of having a unified and commonly applied law of the land.
The concept of Natural Law, as distinct from god’s/religious law didn’t begin to emerge until the Renaissance and only really took shape in the second half of the 17th Century through the works of Hobbes and, particularly, Locke, and only became embedded in our thinking about the nature of the law and our legal system during the 18th Century via the likes or Blackstone and other notable jurists of the period.
As for where our moral compass is to be found, I can only point out – putting my psychologist’s hat on for a moment – that the evidence we have from experimental studies of the psychology of morality, i.e. how people actually make moral judgements as opposed to how various philosophers and theologians believed that we should make moral judgements, most closely resembles and, to a considerable extent, validates the Humean view of the origins and nature of morality.
-
November 4, 2013 at 11:17 -
Gosh Unity –Nice to find someone who agrees with me in this forum and I think you are probably more correct than I am in defining Common Law as the Kings Law than the law of the common man —my distinction was based the different application of rights and duties to the different classes in Society. I would though disagree on the date when Natural Law really took hold and that I believe to be the period of Thomas Aquinas though the Great Thomas looked for proof of religious law in nature whether successfully or not is a separate debate. But you are on the button about Hobbes who maintained there should be no inconsistency between faith and reason—though whether his faith and his reasoning is consistent with Aquinas’s faith and reason is another matter —nut wow its nice to see other disciplines , particularly Psychologists taking an interest in something which lawyers have arrogated pretty much to themselves with the consequences that endure in Ann’s piece —-It why I think the web will change the law for the better
-
November 4, 2013 at 19:32 -
Unity
Your post about the origin of common law sparked my interest.
I studied some English Legal History though it was post conquest and was heavily skewed toward the development of principles of Equity and the development of the Law of Real Property.
You may well be right that the concept of King’s Law originated pre conquest and of course our constitution is still based on ‘The Sovereign’ to whom we are all ‘Subjects’ —-so strictly speaking all law is Kings Law.
What I do recollect was that immediately post conquest William 1 imposed a feudal system —in theory the King could do as he wanted to his subjects since a Baron’s rights derived from the King —-and the Barons could do as they pretty much liked within their fiefs making their own laws —-The Origin of Common Law is usually claimed to be Magna Carta —law that curtailed the Sovereign’s right as against his Barons.
The development that subsequently took place was the centralisation of the administration of Justice with the Assize system where the Kings Justices travelled to dispense the King’s Justice rather than allow any Baron the right to implement his own law.
You are on the button about common law not having any discernible origin in Natural Law so far as I can see —its development owes more I suspect to the raw political power of particular classes that have had to be appeased as their power has emerged throughout English History –Whether your critique or mine of the history and why its termed common law is right we would both agree it has little to do with ‘Natural Law’..
A little quoted fact is that during the Terror of the French Revolution more were executed in England than France —as we all know one could be executed in England for stealing a lamb as well as a sheep as well as more than 200 other offences —so much for Natural Law as the origin of the Common Law.
The extensive use of capital punishment to protect property rights actually collapsed under the weight of those convicted —it had been customary for the Judge at Assizes to pass the death sentence and then commute the majority of them before execution but some bright spark Evangelical Christian thought this was wrong —wrong for the criminals who would never learn right from wrong unless examples were suitably and consistently punished and so lobbied successfully (to some extent) for all death sentences to be carried out eventually causing the collapse of the system.
The evolution of the Common law is I am inclined to think based more on political pragmatism than much else —-grant rights only when you can’t avoid granting them.
There is probably the basis of a reasonable doctoral thesis that Aquinas, in putting forward his theories of Natural law, sought to give a basis for the Church to hold power to legislate in a period of tension between the power of Church and the power of Monarchs and a Marxist critique might interpret history in that manner though my personal view is rather different.
I would be interested in a psychologists view on natural law if you were interested to venture it .
-
-
-
-
October 31, 2013 at 21:43 -
The final stage of learning in regard to spiritual development ( I say spiritual
development as in main people use the word spiritualin regard to the creator
as giving a name to that which other than the body) however not all people
are of a religious background or look seeing spiritual in having any meaning
thus if not of religious background or the word spiritual having no meaning
then look upon spiritual development as / one coming to know the true self.Many people are at the stage of having no religious beliefs as religious ideas
such people in main regarded as atheist/atheism being not highly praised by
majority of christians whom themselves victims of years /of brainwashing.In reality Atheists in development knowing the creator on a scale one to ten
are at eight / they being as farmer in having done the work in preperation of
the land / they are at such stage in planting the seed which will in bringing a
fruitful harvest / thus the idea that the atheist but a worthless non believer is
much wrong / the Atheist but the seed that falling on good soil which brings
a good harvest / in time bringing them an rich deep experience of the creator
thus a christian giving criticism of the Atheist /comes of poor understanding.To continue…The final stage of human development is via meditation where
one turns the senses inward / in doing so one then gifed by an very practical
experience of creator / a experience that in gifting a clarity of understanding
where all question but answered / all question one longed in being answered.Through history of humanity there’s (always) a “Teacher of Teachers” the
Teacher of Teachers is aid guide to all in reaching the stage that meditation
is then required in their furthering development unto their knowing creator.Present time the Teacher of Teachers being Prem Rawat / Prem in having
dedicated his life as aid guide to all reaching the stage where meditation is
then required / thus their going beyond ideas as beliefs unto their knowing
creator / in having clarity of understanding toward creation of universe to
the ultimate purpose of a human life /in one’s greater understanding of life.On PC search put (words of peace) or (words of peace global) on sit be
a selection of videos in which Prem explains meditation / as a open invite
that he will guide as aid all in approaching as reach such stage that being
meditation now needed as required /vital in one’s furthering development
unto knowing creator /thus bringing the clarity of understanding all seek.In giving solution / knowing the solution is a simple matter / the problem
is accepting the solution as in putting it into practice/ one’s focus having
been directed unto the material realm / to put one’s focus upon the one’s
knowing the true self takes at first determination as effort / it’s easier to
watch threehours of telivision nonsense / than in giving one’s focus for
five minutes in meditation / where one can experience the very essence
of creation / in one knowing creator. Such is the power of the material
realm / the senses but run wild uncontrolled as have for so long / thus
when one first attempt bringing the senses under control can be most
daunting / yet when achieving the rewards in doing be beyond words.Thus the need of a Teacher / in giving the inspiration as the guidance
as aid as the encouragement that one needs toward their development. -
October 31, 2013 at 21:26 -
I am grateful that the moral compass is not set by the Bible.
Leviticus 25:44-45
“‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. ”Leviticus 19:19
“thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.”Leviticus 19:28
“‘Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the Lord.”And lots and lots more. A long time ago, we realised that we can’t get our moral compass from a holy book, and it’s still true today.
-
October 31, 2013 at 21:42 -
Sure, let’s just chuck out the Sermon on the Mount, too, while we’re at it, shall we?
http://biblehub.com/niv/matthew/5.htm through to end Ch 7. Yeah, really vitriolic, retrograde, demeaning stuff, isn’t it?
And as for the Old Testament and its strictures, you really need to catch up at the back there.
http://biblehub.com/niv/galatians/5.htm
-
October 31, 2013 at 21:43 -
Rats…forgot about the 2 url ‘gotcha’
So
Sure, let’s just chuck out the Sermon on the Mount, too, while we’re at it, shall we?
http://biblehub.com/niv/matthew/5.htm through to end Ch 7. Yeah, really vitriolic, retrograde, demeaning stuff, isn’t it?
-
October 31, 2013 at 21:43 -
And as for the Old Testament and its strictures, you really need to catch up at the back there.
http://biblehub.com/niv/galatians/5.htm
-
-
November 1, 2013 at 13:03 -
Thanks to the law taking its moral compass from the bible, homosexuality used to be illegal.
-
November 2, 2013 at 11:03 -
Well Dr Solly I am pleased also that THE LAW is NOT NOW set out in the Old Testament particularly Leviticus —Leviticus is a set of LAWS . It is not a moral code —actually so I seem to recollect predominantly for the Priestly class of the tribe of Israel —-The laws as set out in Leviticus may have had some moral basis but that moral basis is not to be found in Leviticus —-it might be believed by many that they are god given much like the ten commandments –you know Moses up the mountain and the tablets of stone —well could be true though I am a little doubtful —-bit like parting the Red Sea or god intervening with Plagues and at the first Passover — I am personally a little doubtful about concepts of Theism—–though theism is useful as a tool by any Priestly class who mutter watch out for thunderbolts if you disobey—enforcement from on high —so I suspect many Jews might be a little doubtful logically on the theism of the Old Testament since the Holocaust —but Deism may be a little more defensible —not saying I personally do or do not buy into it —my views are irrelevant —-but the New Testament does contain a moral code rather than just laws—-suggestions of the objectives that individual laws (if made) might seek to achieve and should override the word of the law —-and one can make what one wants of it whether one believes in the Divinity of Christ or not . Same too the Koran though there is the odd bit of law slipped in in that one but it might be fair to say that the New Testament and the Koran are about overriding moral principles —the Old Testament (Leviticus in particular) is about Laws. Although a little off topic Robert Graves in the White Goddess gives an interesting and plausible explanation for the contents of Leviticus. Gotta say though for all the failures of Western and Islamic Civilisations over the last two millennia they are still around and have achieved rather more than say the Mongol Empire ( for a period one of the largest in the world) which appears to have lacked a moral code that could produce a sustainable civilisation/Society —Might say the same of Communist Russia (whose moral code was based on the word of Marx) though I am no expert on such things but Arnold Toynbee’s critique of history might give some insight.
So The New Testament and Koran as Natural Law? On the basis that they provide moral codes that produce sustainable societies that are on balance are more civilised than uncivilised? Well I reckon one can make out a reasonable case for that —whatever ones belief.
Mind though is civilisation the objective to be sought?-
November 2, 2013 at 11:32 -
“Gotta say though for all the failures of Western and Islamic Civilisations over the last two millennia they are still around and have achieved rather more than say the Mongol Empire”
People are living longer, but no one says they are acheiving much- why? Could it be because the notion of what amounts to ‘achievment’ is merely subjective? Maybe you mistake technological / scientific developments as major achievements- to some extent they would appear to be so. But lets take anti-biotics- hailed as a great development responsible in part for our longevity. Now we have willy nilly dished them out and demand them repeatedly we have the prospect of a return to bacterial diseases, thanks to bacterial resistances being a threat.
The growth in easy access to consumer goods now threatens the gound space for hugely increasing volumes of ‘waste;’ as we clammer to replace ever new versions of goods. So yes we are still all around- but the future for our children may not be the same. and the quality of life such that people may not want to be around. We have been sowing seeds which will have consequences, because our psychological make up is underdeveloped. I see that as the ultimate threat- whichever civilisation you want to point to. That is something we cannot easily change. Much of the human race does not much care because it is busy trying to compete or survive, in times where change is rather more intense and rapid than when man first populated the earth.
Looking for a moral compass outside of oneself is a futile task. We can only change ourselves and maybe influence a few around us, is it enough? I doubt it.
-
November 3, 2013 at 12:09 -
@Edna Fletcher
‘Maybe I mistake technological /scientific development for achievement’
I often miss the obvious point and my use of language is imprecise but actually I was thinking more about cultural/social/political/intellectual achievement than technology —though technological achievement might possibly be seen an outcome possible of a ‘good’(?) rather than a bad(?) civilisation —well lets say a stable society where enquiry —a level of questioning is permitted in so far as the two are not incompatible —-a society where ‘the tablets of stone’ are not arrogated by a class or a tribe as theirs and theirs alone alone.
No I was thinking more of the Literature /Philosophy/Architecture/ Art/Music —even food —– of both ‘Christian ‘and ‘Islamic’ Societies (I put both Christian and Islamic in parenthesis for obvious reasons)—-’High’ culture if you will —-but I should not be and am not dismissive of more popular culture of the ‘Christian’ and Islamic cultures save on a personal level which is irrelevant to the point under discussion.
Your point or points about how Society might develop and the role of the individual are hugely good —I averted to the views of Patrick Lord Devlin Professor Hart in a different post and these were the issues at the heart of the debate. I wouldn’t attempt to summarise the views of Patrick, Lord Devlin coz he was waaaay more clever than I can ever hope to be but he took the view that without moral consensus and laws that followed that moral consensus any Society would run the risk of disintegrating —he was a devout Catholic but didn’t (unless one was minded to judge him on that basis alone) espouse Christianity as the basis for law making though what he suggested was not incompatible some of the tenets of Christianity —he was more I think a traditionalist holding views that the individual owed duties to Society —both positive and negative duties and Society owed positive and negative duties back —-his basis of that contract was a common shared morality —-perhaps in so far as that basis might have been weakened it might explain concerns for the futureby some of those who post on this blog
‘
-
-
November 2, 2013 at 13:11 -
That’s a pretty good summary. Whatever you believe him to have been, or even to be
, Jesus take on it was – as quoted from Matthew 22:36-40 (New International Version)36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
In practical terms, St Paul wrote to the church at Galatia, at a time when many first generation Christians were, of course, Jewish by birth, trying to point out much the same, and the outcomes. The url to Galatians 5, up above, sets it out, if you have both interest and time for a quick scan.
And have you ever noticed just how often Christ, and his followers, enjoined people not to rush to judgement on others for their actions, as in the spiritual and divine world, they are not the ultimate judges, our knowledge of all the causal issues, and individuals’ motivations, are partial at best? And how, consequently, St Paul actually wrote that what one person might have a bad conscience about something, but that for another that same thing might be perfectly acceptable and that, irrespective of their different understandings, both would be equally right to do, or not to do, as their conscience dictated, while not condemning the other for their perceived freedom, or lack of it?
Christians who really understand the issues involved certainly don’t have a legal code. That’s for the Pharisees and their mates. There are very very few absolutes, and far, far, more shades of grey than merely 50. LOL
And it’s difficult to see a ‘compass’ as a great measure of moral direction, if it can only point one way. There lies coercion, not freedom
-
-
-
October 31, 2013 at 16:06 -
Please excuse my delay in reply to your question Who’s got the moral comkpass ?
the answer to such question is that it be ever individual having the moral compass.Some use their moral compass more than others / thus are blessed with the deeper
experience as understanding / this does not mean one’s better than others it simply
that one serves the creator/ in doing so becomes a servant of humanity as creator.In other words if seeking the Lords company then become a servant / it saves one
a lot of prayer as tears as misery as stupidity as foolishness as in wasting your life.I went to a Quaker meeting (some years ago) it t’was a surprise to me as it being
silent and one if felt inspired to speak then they spoke ( not as the normal church
worship as one would expect) I found it fitted my nature it being more a apt way
of worship / I did speak in giving the message that t’was needed at such the time.In terms of development in understanding as experience / on a scale one to ten I
would place Quakers betwixt 6 & 7 in the development to knowing their creator.
The majority of christian churches as as (Catholic arena) are in it for the money
both christian as catholic brainwashing realms realms have a yearly turnover of
$billions / in selling a fictional heaven where Jesus but used in the gain of power
the gain of wealth it’s simply appalling behaviour. It being a simple formula they
use / you create a problem /then you produce the cure. The problem be SEX is
a SIN as all be born of sexual union then all but SINNERS…the SINNER can’t
enter their fictional heaven / thus can’t be with GOD and claimed Son JESUS
thus they produce the cure to one being a SINNER they claim JESUS be born
of a virgin thus not born of SIN / not being born of SIN in having the power
to remove the SIN of others thus one then qualifies to enter a fictional heaven.In main christianity is a appalling fraud / has caused grave harm to humanity
over many many centuries / for many many centuries the Church Authority
would not allow the ability to read write / fearing with education the people
would then challenge Church Authority fearing with education people then
question centuries of christian religious brainwashing / thus it being many
centuries of brain development being lost / it t’was through great sacrifice
of the few whom challenged such christian brainwashing /having brought
freedom for millions worldwide / where free from religious brainwashing
were abled to continue in having brain development abled to read as write.Of course basic knowledge that Jesus was the Teacher of the true spirit
that his guidence strength came from the creator / that he was a servant
of God as Humanity / t’was never in doubt / yet his Teachings t’was but
abused misused in giving power to few whom then controlled the many
controlling them via appalling brutality /centuries of burning at the stake
centuries of great injustice / of destruction centuries of pain & suffering.T’was a simple formula that western nations adopted / as exampled by
the Jews / Church Authority supported the divine rights claimed by…
Kings as Queens to rule…. in return Kings Queens granted the Church
Authority (wealth TAX FREE as land thus making them all powerfull
thus for centuries great power to do as please /in being above beyond
all law / thus reigned with brutal force // an situation lasting for many
centuries till the people said Enough is Enough / a situation where the
power of Church Authority was greatly reduced / a situation where
many royalty found their royal heads / placed on the chopping block
thus the birth of parliament / where people were represented where
just laws being made that offered rights of protection from injustice.Speeding through history / there a saying power corrupts / which is
now clear with the political scene /politicians but through worsening
coruption are no longer the servant of the people / they in having….
become master of the people having stripped the people of all rights
thus present day for western nations / the coruption of ROYALTY
& CHURCH AUTHORITY replaced by CORRUPT POLITICIANS.I intended to give as answer question as how one in knowing the
creator via very practical experience as giving one clarity in their
understanding but have got waylaid away looking at past history
thus I will write a further comment soon and in doing but focus
on information that being vital to that of one’s Spiritual Learning.
history unto present dire state for humanity -
October 31, 2013 at 10:55 -
“I can respect and understand those who follow the Koran. I could even understand if the majority of the country became Muslim and decided that the Koran was the moral compass in future. Such is democracy”
Oh dear, and this way lies madness. You talk about a moral compass but islam has no moral compass that non-muslims can appreciate; under their rules you either convert or you suffer — possibly even die. The cult that is islam holds no respect for any moral compass but its own, but as much as I detest the left and its apologetic love of the murderous and the disastrous there is — for the moment at least — a right for you to choose which moral compass you will follow. Should the muslims ‘win’ control of our western nations you can safely bet there is only one compass to follow, and that requires to have your nose pointing east and your rear lifted to the west. Unfortunately it will not bring peace of mind or peace in reality: the ability of one sect of islam to kill members of another so-called ‘faithful’ sect is astonishing for a so-called religion of peace.
Morality ultimately lies within a person. We can listen to others, and we can decide which way we go. You can give it all the respect you wish, but in the end we can only tend our own garden.
-
October 30, 2013 at 23:00 -
It is often said that ‘what goes around comes around’ so… when do you think the powers that be will get around to reintroducing the principle of a good old Act/Bill/Writ of Attainder? Its easy!
From that well known and reliable source WIKIPEDIA: ‘An act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without privilege of a judicial trial. As with attainder resulting from the normal judicial process, the effect of such a bill is to nullify the targeted person’s civil rights, most notably the right to own property (and thus pass it on to heirs), the right to a title of nobility, and, in at least the original usage, the right to life itself.’
Sounds like it could become the next ‘bright idea’.
-
October 30, 2013 at 22:14 -
The secular moral compass is to be found in the Holy Guardian, as preached by the BBC priesthood.
-
October 31, 2013 at 19:06 -
Some say it is hidden in a secret place in the realms of the Peoples Republic of Islington. Known only to those who can decipher the esoteric runes within the Protocols of the Elders of The Observer.
-
-
October 30, 2013 at 20:39 -
A very thought-provoking and timely article. I am interested to see that the idea still persists that there is something essentially good about humanity and that there is a consensus about what is right and wrong. excellent article in the Spectator this week noting that about 2 billion people in the world are getting more tolerant and about 5 billion are going the other way (not “catching up”). Seriously, do we really believe that human beings will become one happy family? Is that not a conceit of those whose lives are (relatively) comfortable? Every witness of people under extreme circumstances show heroism and brutality in simultaneous relief. The generally positive principles that directed British people in the past definitely came from a christian tradition. I accept that this is no longer the case-certainly not among the self-appointed ruling and coercing elite, but to (probably mis-quote) Robert Ruark, “when you put aside the traditions and values that served your fathers well, be sure that you replace them with something of value”.
-
October 30, 2013 at 19:17 -
I will answer your question as give the direction you need take in your life.
However a solution the cure for humanities ills be not a problem / it being
accepting the solution as putting it into practice / which being the problem.I will write a further comment soon in giving the information you require
unto your greater understanding of creation /of one knowing their creator. -
October 30, 2013 at 17:51 -
XX Under civil law, Roman law, as practised in the rest of Europe, you can’t do anything unless it is in the book of law as being permissible.XX
BOLLOX!!!!
Take Germany;
Think of the impossibility of running such a legal system
I cross the road and step off with my left foot first. Can I therfore be arrested, because the “law does not say you can do that”?
Can I be arrested for drinking milk? NOWHERE in the German law books does it say I can do that. So it MUST be an offence, according to you….right?
Why is the most seen sign in Germany “XYZ’ VERBOTTEN”. If your theory was true, it would be “XYZ’ ERLAUBT.” ?
Art: 2 I GG. (Grundgesetz) “Jeder kann tun und lassen was er will.
” Each person can do, and let be done, what he wishes, UNLESS it is against the law”.Art 104 GG. “Danach kann die Freiheit der Person nur aufgrund eines förmlichenGesetzes und nur unter Beachtung der darin vorgeschriebenen Formen beschränkt werden.”
The freedom of the person can only be taken away through a formal law, and under the conditions set out under that law.” (It has been found by appeal, that in this case “freedom from arrest” can also be taken to mean any legal penalty. So, NO one may be arrested, or be penalised for any act, or ommission, for which there is no law.)Now, what was that rubbish you were spouting again?
-
October 30, 2013 at 18:53 -
I doubt if the Romans’ expectations of their legal framework really had such minor trivialities as spouting nonsense in mind
-
October 30, 2013 at 19:13 -
Answer the question.
CAN I be arrested for drinking milk, when the law book does not specifically say I can?
-
October 30, 2013 at 21:29 -
Yes. Unless, of course, that the law book really does specifically state separately that stealing milk is a crime
-
October 31, 2013 at 16:30 -
READ the post. I said DRINKING!
So. Answer the question.
-
October 31, 2013 at 19:17 -
I’d guess if you tried to guzzle down a bottle of milk, acquired and used in breach of the following regulations, which cover transinternational, and internal EU and German flights, if spotted, you’d stand a fairly good chance of an unscheduled meeting with the Bundespolizei, or whatever part of Germany’s law enforcement authorities deals with those. While I can’t be certain, I’d seriously doubt that they don’t have some grounding in German criminal law. Of course, if you’re sure you they aren’t, and no problem would arise, just tell me that I’m talking from my posterior, and give it a go.
http://www.lufthansa.com/us/en/Carry-on-baggage
-
October 31, 2013 at 19:22 -
Being a total prat, does NOT answer the question.
GIVEN the comment “you can’t do anything unless it is in the book of law as being permissible.”
IS IT ILLEGAL TO DRINK A BOTTLE OF MILK IN A COUNTRY THAT DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY ALLOW YOU TO DO THAT?
Now. Your answer?
To help, the comment is total BGOLLOX.
Work from there.
-
October 31, 2013 at 19:23 -
I find it interesting that Anna appears to be in hiding as to a reply to this idiotic comment.
-
October 31, 2013 at 19:25 -
Or perhaps “suposition” would be a better description of what she said.
-
October 31, 2013 at 20:16 -
Some aspects of “the law” are purely cultural. For instance, back in the 1980′s it would have been completely illegal for gay men to have sex with anyone under 21, but everyone knew that lots of gay folk were doing so. In 2013 we know there is masses of this sort of historical law-breaking that could be cleared up by the Met; but the CPS will not proceed with any such cases as it is deemed to be not in the public interest.
John Wayne once remarked, “Git down off yer horse an’ drink yer milk” but who remembers John Wayne in the 21st Century? Only the old people.
-
-
October 31, 2013 at 20:08 -
Not at all. She just had more sense than me
-
October 31, 2013 at 20:17 -
And let’s not forget that she’s not been at all well, has she?
-
November 1, 2013 at 19:03 -
Did John Wayne say ‘get off your horse and drink your milk?’ I thought it was Freddie Starr in his show when he did the John Wayne impersonation. Very funny it was too.
-
-
-
October 31, 2013 at 21:05 -
Is that answer, then, one in which you saying that you think that maybe the issue is one that is still up in the air?
-
October 31, 2013 at 21:20 -
And, FWIW, do you think that because those regs don’t specifically mention milk, that means that specificity in their wording matters? If you do, I find it quite interesting that anyone could take nitroglycerin with them with legal impunity. If you think that that’s so, again, why don’t you do it, and take a big swig? I’d put money on linguistic niceties then almost certainly becoming irrelevancies
Regardless of whether or not the shock awakened any latent SOH-
November 1, 2013 at 02:07 -
XX I find it quite interesting that anyone could take nitroglycerin with them with legal impunity. XX
No they can not because that is SPECIFICALLY BANNED.*
You know? BANNED! Under a legal system which has not supposed to have laws banning anything unless it is not mentioned, then they are banned?* (Unless in the form of medicine. But that is not EXACTLY the same sort of nitro you would blow a bridge with)
-
November 1, 2013 at 10:40 -
OK, my SoH is about to give up on this one, even to the extent of resorting to Wikipedia, so help me.
No law, no penalty, is true in Germany
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nulla_poena_sine_lege
The English, and to a large extent also British, view of Germany as having a stance in which ‘everything which is not allowed is forbidden’ is a product of that particularly quirky British sense of humour, possessing which, what Anna said can be equally ‘true’ – the funniest thing about that probably being that it is not without some pedantically, factual, basis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everything_which_is_not_forbidden_is_allowed
And the quirkiness of this humour extends even unto the Fawlty variety, in which I can say that I no longer care who first crossed the border in this particular conflict, and much less, why
-
-
November 1, 2013 at 13:06 -
have you ever though of not posting hundreds of times on a forum and going and getting a job?
-
November 1, 2013 at 14:09 -
What would be the fun in that? This is better than using a Biro
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
October 30, 2013 at 22:08 -
Furor, you might not be arrestable for DRINKING milk, but if you milked a cow and then offered a glass of it to a passerby for 50p ….. THEN you would be guilty. Y’gotta git it pasteurized first!
– MJM
-
-
-
-
October 30, 2013 at 16:36 -
To thine own self be true…..
-
October 30, 2013 at 21:50 -
A bit like this bloke, perhaps?
“You will never learn what I am thinking. And those who boast most loudly that they know my thought, to such people I lie even more.”
-
October 31, 2013 at 19:18 -
Er, no – I wasn’t thinking of Adolf, just quoting Polonius to Laertes!
-
-
-
October 30, 2013 at 15:56 -
To quote beauty pageant contestant Sharon Craig in Woody Allen’s Bananas (one of his early funny films
):“I think Mr. Mellish is a traitor to this country because his views are different from the views of the President and others of his kind. Differences of opinion should be tolerated, but not when they’re too different. Then he becomes a subversive mother.”
That’s roughly what Brother Munby meant
-
October 30, 2013 at 19:05 -
He probably wouldn’t be too happy with old Woody as the arbiter of taste, I suspect. More’s the pity. He’d probably not like St Paul being given that job either, as he wasn’t too keen on people being judged on the basis of other people’s tastes and consciences either. Not that too many people know that, mind, given the fiction that proliferates today about what he did write
-
-
October 30, 2013 at 14:58 -
It’s quite simple really. It rests with whichever omnipotent moral busybody* has the power to enforce their pernicious version of busybodying on the rest of us. It doesn’t matter what that might be.
* http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/C..S..Lewis.Quote.E1E7
-
October 30, 2013 at 15:06 -
Sorry. That link doesn’t seem to copy/paste too well. The quote was from C S Lewis, writing in ‘God in the dock
“Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good
of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live
under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may
at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good
will torment us without end for they do so with the approval
of their own conscience.” -
October 30, 2013 at 16:59 -
Ho Hum,
Re: “It’s quite simple really. It rests with whichever omnipotent moral busybody* has the power to enforce their pernicious version of busybodying on the rest of us. It doesn’t matter what that might be”
True…
-
-
October 30, 2013 at 14:57 -
Having just browsed googlenews…………
“High Court denies press industry an injunction to prevent Royal Charter on press …”
“Government Poundland ‘back-to-work’ schemes ruled legally flawed by Supreme …”
I’m inclined to think the moral compass is in the hands of the lawyers just now. -
October 30, 2013 at 13:19 -
“The Left” has largely dictated the moral compass of the “western world” since the end of WW2, probably because “The Right” was deemed to have forfeited the privilege after two world wars. What seems to be happening in America and Britain is that a left/right debate has been occurring since the Eighties. America is so big and it’s States so varied that the effects are more confused and perhaps any resultant fall-out is muffled by it’s fundamental diversity anyway. In Europe the debate has been blocked by the overriding influence of the perecieved importance of the creation of the EU.
In Britain we seem to have arrived at a point where people of “The Left” now oppose Capital Punishment because they prefer the idea of making “criminals” suffer “for life”, and paedo’s even more so. This mercilessness seems to have flipped the Left’s moral compass by 180 degrees. In a similar way we now have “The Left” demanding we go to war against those nations and societies that fail to abhor what the British Left abhors – much of which seems to revolve around issues of gayness, transgenderness or oppressed femaleness.
So the same folks seem to be holding the moral compass as have held it for the past 50 years or more, but it seems now to be only those on the Right who favour ideas of “Innocent until Proven Guilty” and “live and let live”. The Left has become the New Right and the Right seems somehow to have become the New Left. I’m not sure the politicians have fully noticed what has happened yet.
The voters seem to no longer have any compass of their own and just wait until the needle is swung for them by someone-else.
-
October 30, 2013 at 13:23 -
“In a similar way we now have “The Left” demanding we go to war against those nations and societies that fail to abhor what the British Left abhors – much of which seems to revolve around issues of gayness, transgenderness or oppressed femaleness.”
All the while strenously avoiding seeing the FGM, gay-bashing in Tower Hamlets and Muslim grooming scandals happening right under their very noses…
-
October 30, 2013 at 13:28 -
It is an extraordinary juggling act – you have to give them ten out of ten for moral agility……
-
October 30, 2013 at 19:27 -
As with many juggling acts though, it’s going to be quite a mess when it all comes tumbling down
-
-
October 30, 2013 at 13:30 -
@JuliaM
I guess when the compass is spinning, nobody is really sure which way is up anymore, and start just making stuff up.
THIS way………. No…….. THIS way……..
Perhaps we’re all just lost in the jungle and liable to start eating one another, so the best thing might be to just to head off into the trees alone.
Keep out of both sight and hearing of the predatory crowd, and their crowd-pleasers.-
October 30, 2013 at 17:06 -
Where did they get this Moral Compass from anyway?
Captain Jack Sparrow?
-
-
October 31, 2013 at 10:26 -
@Julia M —-’The Left ‘ demanding we go to war —History is written by the victors and I think few visitors to this blog would question that ‘The Left’ were politically victorious in post war Britain until Thatcher (her legacy and motives are a matter for separate discussion)—-but a fair case is made out by Maurice Cowling in his magisterial analysis of British Politics since the Reform Bill that ‘The Left’ wanted war with Germany to support their political allies in Russia —-great stuff of course when Hitler and Stalin carved up Poland between them —-and Britain declared war on Germany for invading Poland but not on Russia.
But Anna as always you are back on form picking up on the best and most interesting topics in the News. However I am a little surprised as a law graduate that you are surprised by the judges words. The debate about the part morality should play in the law was held in the 1960s and the two sides chose their champions —Patrick Lord Devlin on one side and Professor Hart on the other —-if you explored their personal backgrounds you might find their differing points of points of view explicable and worthy of your attention as an essayist.
Whilst the debate was carried out publicly in the sense both published books and there was press comment it attracted relatively little attention apart from in some academic circles since it was of seen as of interest and importance only to relatively few but the sea change that took place as a result Professor Hart’s opinion winning out so to speak has flowered in the Judges words you quote.
But worry not in the longer term Anna —the Judiciary is only ever the enforcement arm of any ‘ Establishment ‘ —it doesn’t lead (as much as it sometimes likes to think it does)—- it follows —-and is usually well behind the political curve —-like a rather rusty wind vane that changes direction only when the wind has blown in a different direction with sufficient strength for long enough —it would be difficult to argue to the contrary—and much as the wind changed direction and gained sufficient strength in the 1960s to move the weather van so too some might see the direction of the wind has changed —my guess is that in a few years time this judges words will be looked on much as we look on some of the judicial attempts in the early 1900s (and back throughout History) to set an Establishment’s views in concrete for all time.
Plus ca change C’ est plus de La meme Chose as they say in your part of the world (with apologies for my Schoolboy French)-
October 31, 2013 at 21:39 -
“Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose”
-
November 1, 2013 at 13:37 -
Jinican
You teach me French and I will teach you Law and Moral Philosophy —Deal? —I believe the bargain I suggest favours you coz on present evidence I appear to have the more difficult task.
Lesson One —Common law is not based on Natural Law —Common Law is, as its name imputes, based on common practice —now that doesn’t necessarily mean that Common Law might not draw on Natural Law (if there is such a thing) but common practice might not reflect it particularly well coz Joe Public doesn’t spend much time pondering the universe coz he is too busy earning a crust and will welcome any law personally that permits him to do it in any way he can.
Lesson Two —Since when did one person have the moral right to inflict physical disfigurement on another other than to save his life without consent as in circumcision.? A baby is incapable of giving consent —if I went to a Surgeon and said take my son’s appendix out coz he doesn’t need it and he might get appendicitis the surgeon would probably ring social services and rightly so.
Now how do you translate ill informed in French???-
November 1, 2013 at 17:34 -
I would have thought that “Natural Law” was the law of the jungle. Kill, run, eat or be killed, outrun and eaten.
-
November 2, 2013 at 13:00 -
Well Moor Larkin a little pessimistic as to the nature of humanity —-but if you reckon ‘Natural Law’ is as you postulate it might be then you will have to explain a few things away —start perhaps with why humanity —young children in particular have notions of justice —-Why is truth important? Why some things are considered ugly or beautiful? Why search for knowledge for Science coz most Scientists don’t live to enjoy their discoveries ? Why worry or think about the future? Why do you feel strongly about the raw deal Savile might be getting ? Why some non material/ non utilitarian concepts have the import they have?
No No I am not gonna give you answers —a man who aspires to wisdom (Gosh why wisdom if natural law is as you postulate it might be?) well advised to think of Socrates who was deemed wise because he had few answers but knew there were questions that might usefully be considered but was wary of the answers that some gave which appeared wrong when tested by reason —but you give me and humanity the answers if you can-
November 2, 2013 at 18:59 -
How at odds modern society is with the society of the 1950′s, when Lord of the Flies presupposed that without adults to educate and “control” us, we children of the new would inevitably revert to savagery and the natural laws. I would date the popular ending of that notion to Pink Floyd and The Wall.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfnJOtih08I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
October 30, 2013 at 13:16 -
Although the Ten Commandments seem very basic and fundamental to civilisation, in fact they are tribal laws designed for iron age tribesmen and many are probably obsolete now.
For instance people forget that “an eye for an eye” was originally seen as a call for moderation, at a time when massive retaliation for minor slights was the norm. Thou shalt not kill seems fair enough, but I hardly think that President Obama would want to feel constricted by such old-fashioned emotions. Not coveting the partner of the person who lives next door seems like it would be pretty easy to keep to in England, where, let’s face it the average neighbour’s spouse is less desirable than their real estate. Thou shalt not steal is a tricky one, because since Jesus passed away, can anyone really define stealing these days, and if you are a banker then that is what you are supposed to do. Not envying would have been OK in a tribal society, and if you were rich you would certainly not want some lazy unemployed bastard envying your riches, but in a capitalist society envy is important for upward mobility.
Not bearing false witness seems to be the only one that is still really relevant, and perhaps we could take a few leafs out of the Bible for sentencing guidelines on perjury and false allegations of rape, kissing on the mouth, saying beef biryani, and so on.
Another problem with the Bible is that it has very little to say about prisons and how they should be run. It seems that only the Romans used them and then only for a brief hiatus before a trial and summary execution, a one-size-fits-all sentence that is a more cost effective means of addressing recidivism that seems to have fallen out of favour in the UK, partly out of a desire to to repeat errors made by the Romans.
Another problem is that the Bible has absolutely nothing to say about motoring offenses, or even the precursor crimes of allowing sweet chariots to swing low, a dangerous practice of bronze age drivers.
The Bible does address immigration, especially in the Old Testament, but most of the remedies suggested for dealing with invading gods and religions would not stand up to the European Court, and Samson would not have been regarded as a hero at all. Far from it.
-
October 30, 2013 at 13:11 -
Anna, there is no puzzle at all.
You supplied the answer right at the end.
Look To Twitter And Thou Shalt Be Saved!
– MJM
-
October 30, 2013 at 15:25 -
Or convicted. Depending upon the mood.
-
October 30, 2013 at 18:44 -
Forget the convicting. That is so passé. Just let’s get on with the hanging, drawing and quartering. With some burning at the stake for afters. You know that the plebs will approve
-
-
-
October 30, 2013 at 13:04 -
The rules are becoming vague and plastic. Cui bono?
-
October 30, 2013 at 12:49 -
I await the next trial accusation of bigamy, and the defence applied.
-
October 30, 2013 at 12:42 -
Edna,
Surely the problem with losing a clear external moral compass is that so many of our laws are based on and reference reasonable behavior and the like, so without a common idea of what probably is or isn’t good then you’ve no idea what society or more importantly the police and judiciary will consider to be bad. To take a topical example if you belong to certain cultures and cut off bits of babies anatomy that’s all right, but if you don’t belong to those cultures then the law of the land takes the view that you’re committing child abuse. Without a common shared framework of values we ae not all equal before the law.-
October 30, 2013 at 13:03 -
anonymong,
Somewhere in the early days of human evolution we appear to have lost the notion, if indeed if it ever existed, of a universal moral compass. The laws of the land and cultural aspects of society are rather superficial but important in that there are often consequences for those who do not behave or ‘conform’.But being a human, if one is indeed a human in every aspect, requires you to have insight into what this means- so to some extent external laws may re-enforce what is seen as right and wrong e.g. it is wrong to harm others.
Cultural aspects are about acceptance within / by a group. Humans being territorial animals needed to belong to a group survive, In modern times, with the globalisation shift and movement things are not so clear cut and diversity increasingly becomes the norm for many behaviours. But the laws of the land still pertain, increasingly, aside from ‘religious dogmas’ some groups insist upon, there is more widespread agreement of what are acceptable behaviours and what are not. Perhaps communication / the media have assisted this- as has education for more people.
-
October 30, 2013 at 14:34 -
“Somewhere in the early days of human evolution we appear to have lost the notion, if indeed if it ever existed, of a universal moral compass.”
How have you come by this extraordinary knowledge?
-
October 30, 2013 at 15:06 -
Duncan Disorderly
By a movement of self knowledge- those who look for external compasses will not necessarily follow this.
Ultimately anything that leads to actions driven by fear, which amounts to just about most actions, will cause chaos and ultimately harm. E.g. The saying that this will be a war to end all wars is justified by many who seek to put an end to atrocities perpetrated by others, driven by fears e.g. of ‘weapons of mass destruction’. But the insight of an internal moral compass will make you question the notion that ‘the means justify the ends’. Wars have never led to permanent peace, otherwise there would never be another war or threat of one. Perphaps brave people like Gorbachev realised this. He had an interrnal moral compass- which brave people have- they do not go with the masses.
-
-
October 30, 2013 at 19:45 -
I’m always uneasy about talking about people being “fully human” or not as that way lies the excuse for all sorts of terror.
The “harm none” sort of approach requires an agreement on what counts as harm is someone offended harmed, currently the answer seems to be yes if it’s some people.
I suspect that a notional majority still hold to a recognizable moral compass, unfortunately our law givers may have broken theirs so we can no longer be sure if any given action will be taken as causing “harm”. As the saying goes the fish rots from the head, when the moral compass of those charged with the law is broken, it trickles down, possible along group/tribal divisions – so people get less fussed about the harm they do to people that belong to the “other” especially if they’ve seen the law treat the “other” differently. When the consequences depend on which group you’re perceived to behave in then the law and the standards that people are generally held to can’t help but collapse as equality (or at least consistency) before the ancestors/gods/god/law/state/peers is rather vital.
(Sorry I appear to have rambled)
-
October 30, 2013 at 20:03 -
By ‘being fully human’ I mean the insight into the fact that the ‘other person’ is essentially no different to you, with the same feelings and desire to be happy. The superficial diffferences give people who lack insight into humanity the notion that others are essentially different to them. They theefore cannot be fully human- other than in the genetic sense. If you act as a fully human person you would never inflict any terror on anyone and act lawfully and kindly to others. Unfortunately we seem to have developed a deviance from humanity in its essence. As Conrad Lorenz noted humanity is on the wane.
Sorry I think in vrey complicated ways.
-
October 30, 2013 at 20:13
-
-
-
-
October 30, 2013 at 12:34 -
Perhaps there is no ‘external’ moral compass that resides anywhere, which in
Regardless of whether or not the shock awakened any latent SOH
Comments are closed.
{ 93 comments }