Herein lies the paradox. Those they seemed to recognize the innate rights of all men, in practice they narrowly defined who qualified.
This is not entirely true. They narrowly defined certain social and political rights within their particular association, but they recognized the essential human rights of all men. Hamilton, even Washington recognized this. Jefferson, for example, was quite clear that all men had the right to life and liberty, but in his Notes he expressed fear that whites generally would not accept blacks exercising those equal rights alongside them, in competition for the same resources. The problem they encountered was in taking what they knew to be naturally true and then following it to their undoubted physical discomfort, perhaps even destruction. As is true today, the tide of ignorance was ever rising in the land. Even some of the Founders were consumed by it. But those who were not thusly consumed were essentially overcome by it. I wish they had been stronger, but wishing does not make reality here in nature. I credit them nevertheless for at least having the wherewithal to imagine natural freedom for all, if only in theory. The fact is, they even made small attempts to put it into practice, a thing that ought not be ignored.
Their ‘inalienable’ rights were, in fact, transferred to others (rich white guys).
You are confusing the rules of the American Association with natural human rights. The Founders essentially recognized the essential rights of men. But they thought only certain men had the skills, intellect and general worthiness to rule the association that they had formed. You ought to note that their rules here did not merely affect racial minorities. At one time it also affected white non-landholders. This shows that much of what drove the founders was not merely racial.
So, the question is, with regards to this seeming hypocrisy: were the founders lying? Misinformed? Ignorant? Or immoral?
All and none of the above. They were men-- too weak to right the things they knew to be wrong. But rather than claim the wrongs are right, as modern Americans now do, they at least knew the wrongs to be wrongs.
I suppose in the grand scheme, it doesn’t matter.
It surely does matter. History shows that we cannot simply dismiss infringements of human rights. The wrongs of the Founders’ day are having devastating effects upon us today and will continue to war against us for all time. Indeed, even you now assault the Founders because of those wrongs. Infractions never just vanish.
They left the world a better place, though far from the best.
You really ought not state this so categorically. The fact is, it may easily be that from the perspective of others, like the natives the Founders and their ancestors displaced, the world became quite a bit worse than before. This is not a matter of mere morality, but one of subjective preferences.
In their rhetoric, there is no hint of a feeling on their part that they were compromising their moral stances. Indeed, if anything, they were slightly full of themselves, which can certainly be forgiven given their efforts and sacrifices.
This is just not true, though I agree many of the Founders sounded full of themselves. Nevertheless Franklin, Hamilton, Adams, even Jefferson and Washington all lamented, in one way or another, how the weight of history pressed them in directions they did not wish to go. “Many of the Founding Fathers, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, while slaveholders, were profoundly troubled by slavery; leery of rash actions, they initiated a series of cautious acts that they thought would lead to slavery's gradual abolition. These acts included measures in all states north of Delaware to abolish slavery. A few states did away with slavery immediately. More typical were gradual emancipation acts such as that passed by Pennsylvania in 1780, whereby all children born to slaves in the future would be freed at age 28. Two significant measures dating from 1787 included the Northwest Ordinance, which barred slavery from the Northwest Territory (which included much of what is now the upper Midwest), and a compromise reached at the Constitutional Convention that would allow Congress to outlaw the importation of slaves in 1808. Meanwhile, a number of states passed acts to ease the freeing of slaves by individuals, hundreds of whom—especially in the upper South—set some or all of their slaves free.” africana.com
I chose this site to make this point, not because I think it credible (though on this issue it certainly is), but because even an apparently pro-black site recognizes the remorse that the Founders sensed as they responded to slavery.
Thus, my opinion is that they were moral men, acting morally within the time frame’s moral framework.
This is false. They knew that the primary evil of their time, slavery, was wrong and they simply were too weak to correct it. But at least, unlike most Americans today, they acknowledged their wrongs as wrongs. They were not perfect, but they sensed the stable fact of morality and tried, albeit feebly, to codify it in their association.
Not sure what you mean by ‘discriminate’ in this context. I would not think that you mean that these criteria should be used in the area of guaranteeing rights.
It is morally acceptable to build a house and then stipulate who may enter and remain as guests or family. This principle extends from the association within your individual home to the association formed within a nation. The Founders simply formed a national association and then discriminated regarding who would lead it. That in itself was not wrong.
What was wrong was that they forced blacks to do the ugly work of association building, forcing culture, even their sense of “home” upon them, while forbidding the blacks’ natural rights. Then when it became apparent to them that they were engaged in something that was wrong, they wished to create new evil by forcing new ideas of “home” upon the blacks, seriously entertaining the idea of sending them to a foreign land. The Founders knew the wrongs here. They were simply too weak to right them.
I honor the Founders for their considerable greatness. But in my home, they are unworthy of all the mythologizing that so often passes for history in this country. But they also do not deserve the unsophisticated and foolish attacks that come frequently from the left. They were fallible men, great men, but mere men, some with seriously flawed characters. As a unit, they understood the moral issues of their times, but were unable to change them.
Obviously, certain functions must be filled by people who are qualified; that’s not discrimination, it’s sensible business.
Please. Think in essentials. It is discrimination, pure and simple. Not all discrimination is morally wrong.
However, to deny a class or group of people the ability to obtain that qualifying education, skills, etc, would be a denial of rights.
This is not always true. I have a shooting range in my home. My wife and kids are all free to enjoy it, to acquire the skills needed to put a round exactly where they wish to put it, using a variety of firearms. You do not have that ability because I forbid you to have it. I simply do not wish you near my home. No one has an ipso facto right to my assistance, presence or resources in their effort to acquire education. Where I am concerned, they only have a right to pursue their education as best as nature allows. The wrong against blacks was not that America refused to help educate them as it may have helped educate whites. The immorality was that America declared it wrong to allow blacks to educate themselves. The wrong was that America declared it wrong for whites to employ natural freedom to educate blacks. That is the right that was denied. And yet, despite this, whites and blacks knew this denial was wrong. Jefferson himself had along ago declared it wrong. There was no change in morality. There was ignorance and dishonesty. It was wrong to deny blacks freedom. It will always be wrong. That is a moral absolute, one that you claim does not exist.
This is where we disagree, possibly dramatically, possibly semantically. I believe that there was a generally accepted moral framework that shifts over time, given the environment and conditions of the day.
Your belief here has no basis in material reality. It is therefore pure religion - magic.
I suppose another way to look at it is that there is an absolute morality that is not visible to all people, both past and present. And I’ll give you that…
Dear friend, this is precisely what I have been claiming all along. There is indeed an absolute morality that is not visible to all people, both past and present. And oftentimes it is not visible because of fear, weakness, dishonesty. Oftentimes it is visible indeed, but we simply cannot bear to openly acknowledge it because of the pain it promises. So, we deny it, increasing our immorality until such a time as we collapse under it. That is what is happening to America right now. The day is coming when all of our dishonesty here will come back to haunt us.
…to those where it is apparent, it must be frustrating to coexist with those of us who do not see it.
It is frustrating indeed. I think the time has come when those of us who can see true moral infractions all around us and who can see the damage they are causing, must decide whether it is still safe to closely coexist with those who are ignorant. I think it is quite likely no longer safe.
Agree with the Hitler part. There is no moral framework, however distorted, that can justify his actions. But, you’re using a pretty broad brush here.
I am not. I am instead using the extraordinary circumstances caused by Hitler to show that there are indeed moral absolutes. You really need to investigate your thoughts here. You agree with the existence of moral absolutes, but you do not know the basis of the belief. That is profound ignorance. Here is a question that will help you see my point: Why is there no moral framework, however distorted, that can justify Hitler’s actions? When you answer it, keep whittling your answer down to its most essential fact. Then you will see the natural truth. Kevin, it is all you have in this world.
What I mean by tolerance, is the acceptance of that fact that there are, imo, multiple overlapping and valid moral frameworks that must be considered as a union, even when they conflict (more on that latter).
Pure religion, with no factual basis in nature at all. Since it has no factual basis in nature, you have no basis by which you can force it, even its tolerance, on anyone else. I think you haven’t really thought these matters through sufficiently.
Well, first off, I don’t agree with your outlook on the direction of our current society.
Of course not. Few people do. Meanwhile, the bars keep going up on their homes, their marriages increasingly break up, etc.
I think that it is factually incorrect to insinuate that the American society is in some sort of decay. Although certain crimes are on the rise, the overall crime rates are dropping.
The trend is much bigger than apparently you are aware.
There is less underreported crime today, such as rape, child abuse, murder, etc, because of increasing awareness and less corrupt law enforcement… There is, in fact, less ‘tolerance’ of criminal behavior than in decades past.
The actual crime rate has skyrocketed to mammoth proportions. You’ve falsely redefined the meaning of crime. You have also become so saturated in crime that you no longer can recognize it when it occurs. Even your elected officials are committing crimes against nature each day, in broad daylight and in multiple ways, crimes that you’ve legalized for yourselves, but that are destroying you. The infractions are ubiquitous, devastating and worsening. I see I really cannot get you to see this. So I will no longer try.
Not sure that the health trends can necessarily be blamed on any moral decay. The fact is that many jobs today are sedentary…. This shift from an active work style has lead us to the heart disease, diabetes, etc.
This is all surface stuff, the stuff that blinds you from the truth. My job is sedentary also. I ran 6.2 miles this morning, had my own blend of cereal for breakfast, my own grown fruit for lunch because that was all I needed to keep my body functioning at full tilt. I have taken in quite a lot of water, and I am about to have another small snack in a few minutes. I am not fat in the least. I eat and exercise as I do because I know what I am in nature. The reason so many people suffer here has essentially little to do with work-style. Ultimately, it has to do with moral ignorance. People think (or no at all) they can sit all day, have their cake and eat it when nature has always by her means declared a contrary truth.
Given this magnification of the extraordinary and sensational, we are viewing society in a distorted manner.
You really need to think in essentials to see the thing, Kevin. You continually think digitally when the world, the entire natural world, is analogical. The media displays what it displays because there is a market for it – a very large market. This market exists because of the moral ignorance that is everywhere in American society.
By ‘You may think our bodies evolve’, I assume you mean evolution? There is ample evidence of evolution, both in bodies of study and hard evidence.
Well, you’ve never seen a whale become a bat or anything like this. No one has seen it. No one has seen any true evidence that anything of the sort has occurred. It is the result of pure faith, faith that humans in the 21st century, mere flecks of dust in the cosmos, have the power to see what happened in the vast expanse of the universe some alleged billions of years ago.
However, I think that may be a perpendicular argument.
Actually, it is an irrelevant argument that I should not have brought up, since you can’t really argue against religion. The truth is, even were Neo-Darwinian religion true it has not taken place so rapidly that it would affect the biological basis for human morality. You are claiming that morality changes, practically from generation to generation. Darwinian evolution could not possibly account for so rapid a moral change. So then you effectively claim some other basis for it, one not rooted in biology. What that basis is, I have no idea - and apparently neither do you. Therefore, to demand its tolerance is inappropriate because its objective truthfulness between us does not exist.
I am no expert on Judaism or Islam, so I cannot comment as to the original of their shunning of pork. True, to eschew pork has no basis in biology (although it may have a basis in ancient food sanitary issues). But, to avoid working on Sundays also has no basis in biology.
Agreed, but that was not the issue. The issue was whether working on Sunday was disrespectful to the Lord. It is a question that cannot be assessed here in nature. As far as nature is concerned, it is non-sense. But whether it is moral to eat pork is not as unspecified The biological propriety of eating pork can indeed be assessed here in nature. We can objectively discover that it can be quite acceptable to nature’s morality.
I do not see a difference in your ‘means that extend beyond nature’ with regards to working on Sundays, and a potential identical means amongst Jews and Muslims with regards to eating pork.
Well. Of course that was not the issue you raised. As for whether working on Sunday is in of itself wrong here in nature, I know of no Christian who has ever claimed such a thing. What we have instead claimed is that God commands we keep the Sabbath holy by devoting the day to Him. It is an issue that is utter non-sense to you.
Since these means have no provable existence, I can either accept both, or neither. Here is an example of what I call tolerance; I choose to accept both, without question or need for scientific proof.
And this is fine for you, Kevin. But since none of these things are innately rooted in biology you have no naturally moral right to demand my tolerance of any of it. It is pure hogwash to nature. You may tolerate it, but no one else can legitimately be compelled to do it.
If you believe that, in the context of your spirituality, it is immoral for you to work on Sunday, so be it. I won’t ask you to split logs with me on Sunday.
Well, you really do misunderstand your rights here in nature. It is your right to ask whether I believe working is wrong or not. But it is not your right to compel me to work.
If a Jew or Muslim declines to eat the pork dish I’ve offered, so be it, I’ll toss a couple of more chickens on the grill.
It is your right to make this choice. It is not your right to force it on others by law. We need tolerate no thing that is not objectively human in nature.
[This] is an example, though in itself small, of conflicting moralities of different cultures that require a ‘moral union’, and show the difficulty of a single, absolute moral code.
Please. There are no conflicting moralities here at all, certainly none that are naturally valid. In nature, it is all just a bunch of conflicting non-sense. And there is no “difficulty” of a single moral code at all. That code exists and is rooted in nature. You simply wish to tolerate non-sense, which is your right. But it is not your right to force it on anyone else.
I must disagree here, also. Study after study has shown that a vegetarian diet is superior, biologically, to a non-vegetarian diet.
This is just foolish. You are not even defining “superior” in an ultimate sense. These “studies,” performed by people who are as morally blind as you, are in fact measuring the effects of overeating meat vs that of eating vegetables. I eat meat and my plumbing is as clear as the day I was born. That is because I essentially eat only meat that I take with my own hands, which means I do not eat very much meat in any given year. But I certainly do eat meat and, by the standards you’ve referenced, I am healthier than very many vegans, able to run faster and lift heavier weights than every single “vegan” I know. What you are claiming is that eating meat as a principle is morally inferior to eating vegetables, which is to say that if I eat meat once, I have acted contrary to human identity. That is demonstrably false.
Cholesterol, percentage of fat, carcinogens in meat preparation, etc result in higher incidents of heart disease, stroke, and cancer.
False. Eating too much cholesterol, fat are responsible for these illnesses. Eating known poisons are the cause of the problems. The principle of eating meat remains untouched.
In fact, meat is not only unnecessary, it is unhealthy.
That is just not objectively apparent in nature. It is religion.
Additionally, as my vegetarian friends gleefully point out, the amount of natural resources necessary to produce meat is many times higher than those necessary to produce a nutritionally equivalent amount of plant-based food.
Your friends are morally ignorant here.
So, to follow your biological argument, and add in an additional societal argument, meat eaters are the immoral ones, the ignorant ones.
Surely by now you see the pure ignorance of this approach. The immorality is not in eating meat as a principle because eating meat can directly and objectively sustain and promote human life. On the other hand, eating meat until you die from it is quite another matter. That is a principle that is objectively contrary to humanity.
Not sure, do you consider vegans to be heathens?
Depends upon the vegan. Most that I know are pure heathens.
I consider many of them to be self righteous pains-in-the-ass, but I think they are right.
Well this is just fine, but your opinion here is not objective fact. It is speculation based on overeating. There is nothing here resting squarely and directly upon human biology.
I just can’t bring myself to give up a nicely grilled steak. I admit my immorality in this area.
I give them up all the time. But once every fall or so, I do treat myself to venison tenderloin, hickory roasted in the woods with my sons, with a bottle of cabernet sauvignon. And when I do it, I cause no moral infraction, despite the ignorance of your “vegan” friends.
Well, I certainly agree that a strictly biological moral framework is poor. Biologically, one of the strongest emotional responses of the human is self preservation. In a moral framework where self preservation were the highest moral law, we’d be living like, well, cavemen.
This is all we objectively have in the world, Kevin. The stuff external to it, stuff that you rely upon to keep together your society, is just non-sense, almost all of it coming from religion.
However, I cannot say that a Christian moral framework is necessarily superior to other frameworks...
Of course you can’t, but Christianity is certainly superior and you will find that out soon enough. Secular humanism and other systems are systems that aim to piece together higher morality in nature based upon subjective attributes. Subjectivism is insufficient. In nature, Objectivism is all there is, as cold, hard and perishing as it is, it is all we really have here in nature.
The addition of faith in an unseen deity is not in itself a necessity in forming a superior moral framework.
Well, maybe not to you, but it is certainly required to me. It all depends upon our perception of the term “superior.” It is all subjective and therefore it has no authority to be a moral system for anyone. Nature’s caveman morality is the only morality we have that has any real authority.
In fact, one could argue that if the particular flavor of Christian framework were too restrictive vis-à-vis tolerance of other frameworks, that a secular moral framework may be superior…
One could argue this, but not legitimately. See comments above.
…in that it would allow for differences in cultural moral frameworks (such as my Pork/Sunday/Vegan example).
Caveman morality allows for these differences. They simply do not allow you to force tolerance of them upon anyone else. That is the way it is in nature.
Well, I think you’re not allowing for moral frameworks that are not Christian- or nature-based.
I allow for anything, so long as it does not contradict natural human identity. Have your heathen christianity. Just do not compel me to accept it by law. Have your homosexuality, just do not compel me to accept it. Have your Judaism, Hinduism, Mohammedism or whatever, even the Truth of Christianity – just do not compel my acceptance of it in any way.
Some flavors of humanism recognize the need for moral laws and deeds that selflessly advance humankind.
Hogwash. Religion, subjective heathen trash. You may believe it, but you have no basis to force it on me.
In fact, they are arguably more moral, in that they advocate doing good deeds for humankind so that our sons and daughters have a better world, with neither an offer of post-mortal reward nor fear of eternal damnation.
Well this sounds good to you, but it has no natural authority. What sounds even better to me is the system that advocates doing good deeds for me so that my sons and daughters have a better world. Should your sons crap out and die, I may not care at all, or I may care. And that is quite morally acceptable in nature. Ultimately, my view is what drives everything. This altruistic notion of yours is really religion.
Here is where we disagree the most, I fear. I believe that humans are inherently good, without the need of a religious morality….
Well it is great that you have a religion. But it is not my religion.
Call them agnostics, atheists, humanists, pagans, whatever, there is a segment of the population that follow a non-religious moral framework that is in many ways similar to Christianity without the God.
Well, they are heathens and their moral framework has very little to do with Christianity. They don’t even have an authoritative basis for their beliefs, save for their own desires, which may or may not be the desires of anyone else. Magic is insufficient here.
It is a framework that recognizes the rights and needs of the individual, as well as the needs of the society for justice, tolerance, and mutual benefit.
Pure magic. We may agree to these things. But there is no basis compelling us toward them. You speak of “tolerance” as if it is this objective virtue when it is no such thing. I don’t think you’ve thought this through.
I know that many Christians find this concept abominable, a religion without God, so to speak. But, many cannot accept that others could be truly moral people without the need of religion.
I think there are people who are quite moral without God. The problem is, these people, with their morality, are all going to hell. The whole universe is perishing, morality and all. Where Christianity excels all other systems is that it can literally attach to natural morality to open a way of escape to those who are bound by nature. I am “seeing” beyond nature now, Kevin. Here, in nature, I am literally sensing the next world as I type this little note to you. No other faith system does this in humans.
Well, as I’ve said, the example of Hitler is not pertinent. He was obviously immoral.
Well, precisely the same basis that judges Hitler, judges all things in nature. You are for some reason that has nothing to do with reason, treating morality here as if it applies only to Hitlerian behavior. The natural fact is that the means by which you judge Hitler doesn’t just vanish in the face of other behaviors. It judges every single thing in humanity. I know this because I know the basis whereby you judge Hitler. What is it, Kevin?
However, can we say that morality is absolute when we compare, say, Christianity, Judaism, and Secular Humanism?
No. WE cannot say this. I can say it. Christianity, as God reveals it to His Chosen people, is the only means by which humans can escape nature to enjoy ultimate morality. All other systems are heathen failures.
There are many conflicts between these moral frameworks.
As man is ignorant of natural morality, he is quite often ignorant of ultimate morality. You are only witnessing conflicting ignorance.
Can you say for certain that the Christian moral framework is the Absolute One?
Without any doubt at all. Through it, I am gazing right beyond nature as you read this note.
I have to laugh when I read about the close alliances of Christians and Zionists. It seems that the Christians came to support Zionism because they believe that, for the Rapture to be triggered, the Jews must rebuild the Temple (forgive me if I have this wrong; I may be ignorant in this area).
Go ahead and laugh, Kevin. The time will soon come when all I have tried to tell you will come to haunt you. And you will wish you had just taken the time to listen without laughing at what you do not know.
If true, it means that the Christians need the Zionists to build their temple so that God can come down, lift all Christians up in rapture, while flinging all Jews into the pit of hell? Is this an example of absolute morality?
No. But consider this. You are confidently laughing and enjoying yourself at an error you are carrying in your mind, a caricature of Christian belief. And the error now blinds you from the truth, though the truth is right before you. It is this arrogance that cuts you off from the highest truth, the only truth that can save you. It stands near you also, but you laugh and ignorantly declare it does not exist. You are already condemned and there is nothing I or any other human on earth can do about it.
I am certainly not offended. I’m just smart enough to know that there are many things I am ignorant of.
Well I am also smart enough to know there are many things of which you are ignorant. There is still no excuse for being ignorant where you do not have to be. False humbleness is your right here in nature. In the other world, there is no room for it.
I choose to see the things I see. As they say, I may be wrong, but I’m not confused.
Very well then. |
