Friday, April 12, 2013


QUESTIONS

The Spanish Inquisition
 What might be the difference between LEGALITY, MORALITY and COMPASSION? 

Do you see one as having greater value or a higher purpose than the other?

Are the three ever in conflict?

Do you believe that obedience to The Law should always supersede all other considerations?

64 comments:

  1. Lets look at the the difference between Republican and Liberal when it comes to COMPASSION, if I any.
    I'm sure you've heard it before, Democrats are so COMPASSIONATE. I say baloney!
    I think we give entirely too much money to other nations. So on that we agree. Once the government starts doing something, it can't seem to stop.

    If worked hard for money you earned you must be a conservative. If you earn it, you should be able to keep most of it and do whatever the hell you want with it. How could you possibly disagree with that?

    If you want to receive or give away other people's money, you're a liberal. And by the way, I'm all for healthcare reform, and I think it's needed. But not this travesty of a bill that was just passed. The liberal, MUST get more and more of the entitlements! And thats why those who are rational will never vote for them!

    ReplyDelete
  2. LEGALITY, MORALITY and COMPASSION

    If each of us possessed the full measure of the last two, society would have little or no need for the first one.

    As for which has greater value, I'd say that the last two are tied in importance.

    Certainly all three can be in conflict -- particularly if systems of ethos are in conflict to a significant level. For example, the values system of Salafism is in direct conflict with Western ideals of freedom.

    Do you believe that obedience to The Law should always supersede all other considerations?

    No. For example, if there were a law mandating the abortion of all fetuses that would be born to women over 45, that would be a law that violates a high moral law -- that is, do not murder.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Awesome, and Interesting post FT. Let me day this.... Most (not all) liberals/progressives/democrats are very generous with OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY, but when it comes to shelling out their own cash, it’s a much different story. . I believe in helping my fellow man, but when and if I want to. , And when I do it, I do it with MY OWN money! I find that Liberals may claim to be tolerant, but the truth is, they are the meanest, nastiest, and cheapest people I've ever talked to. And frankly, I’m sick and tired of these Leftists telling us what we can and can't have.

    Here is the Difference Between Republicans and Democrats

    A Republican and a Democrat were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person. The Republican gave the homeless person his business card and told him to come to his business for a job. He then took twenty dollars out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.

    The Democrat was very impressed, and when they came to another homeless person, he decided to help. He walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office.

    ReplyDelete
  4. As you are fond of saying, "The law is an ass."

    We are mortal and prone to error, which means we often make bad law.

    It is compounded when man thinks he is making law according to morality, the two become conflated, and "law" becomes license to commit all manner of barbarities, usually in some kind of reactionary frenzy.

    It is also an error to swing too far in the other direction:

    Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent. -- Adam Smith

    Here's what Jesus has to say about it, keeping in mind he was talking to the Pharisees about God's law:1At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath, and His disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat.2But when the Pharisees saw this, they said to Him, “Look, Your disciples do what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath.”3But He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he became hungry, he and his companions,4how he entered the house of God, and they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him, but for the priests alone?5“Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent?6“But I say to you that something greater than the temple is here.7“But if you had known what this means, ‘I DESIRE COMPASSION, AND NOT A SACRIFICE,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.

    8“For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

    9Departing from there, He went into their synagogue.10And a man was there whose hand was withered. And they questioned Jesus, asking, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”—so that they might accuse Him.11And He said to them, “What man is there among you who has a sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will he not take hold of it and lift it out?12“How much more valuable then is a man than a sheep! So then, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”13Then He said to the man, “Stretch out your hand!” He stretched it out, and it was restored to normal, like the other.14But the Pharisees went out and conspired against Him, as to how they might destroy Him. (Matthew 12)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sorry, the question is too complicated for me. Some other time, perhaps.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Do not resuscitate" is a doctor's order that has legality, but may violate a person's morality. Whereas euthanasia, for some people, is an act of compassion, influenced by morality, but is usually illegal.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  9. ...just look at them slobbering this week all over the Newtown parents. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Do you believe that obedience to The Law should always supersede all other considerations?"


    No.

    We have many examples in our own history to show that disobedience to bad law is quite admirable.

    How people go about changing bad law varies. Sometimes nonviolence works, sometimes it doesn't

    Laws that keep minority American citizens as second-class citizens are bad, for example; and we've witnessed how civil disobedience, and the willingness of people to suffer the consequences of that civil disobedience, can overturn bad law.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  11. How people go about changing bad law varies.

    Try introducing a bill in Congress next time.

    Oh, that's right. When Democrats like Harry Reid control the Senate, you can't even introduce an Amendment.

    ReplyDelete
  12. ...and the only laws that can "Pass" the Senate gatekeeper are Bad Laws.

    ReplyDelete
  13. ...riding a tsunami of "Idiot Compassion".

    So much for our much vaunted "deliberative" bodies.

    ReplyDelete
  14. ...more on Compassion, Nietzsche, "Gay Science" (338)

    In sum: All compassion IS "Idiot Compassion"

    ReplyDelete
  15. "What might be the difference between LEGALITY, MORALITY and COMPASSION?

    Are the three ever in conflict?"

    Often.

    For example, it was once legal to own human beings; to prevent American citizens from attending their local, tax-supported universities; to prevent people from different races marrying each other; and just recently, to arrest consenting adults who engage in private sexual practices.

    As a nation, we've decided that the law was wrong in all those instances.

    Morality and compassion are subjects that can be debated endlessly.

    For example, many of your contributors here believe abortion in all instances is immoral. There are two rights in conflict when it comes to abortion: the woman's and the fetus's. How do you solve that? If abortion is always wrong; and if one sees it as always murder, what happens when the woman's life is threatened (as happened recently in Ireland) while the fetus is still viable? Who gets to make that choice?

    Who gets to insist that a 10 or 12 year old girl must carry a pregnancy to full term?

    There is no cut and dry answer to any of these questions.

    Compassion? One woman's compassion is another's knee-jerk reaction to problems. Just ask your friends here.

    It all depends upon what political lens you're looking through

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  16. "Without mercy, man is not a human being."

    --- Mizoguchi, "Sansho the Bailiff"

    ReplyDelete
  17. "There are two rights in conflict when it comes to abortion: the woman's and the fetus's. How do you solve that?"

    You come down on the side of life. Without the fundamental right to life, all other rights are worthless.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  19. SF, you didn't answer my question.

    I said when two rights/lives are in conflict who makes the choice? as was this case in Ireland, The hospital in Galway refused to give the woman, who was a Hindu, an abortion as she was suffering a miscarriage. She died from septicaemia, the fetus had no chance of survival, but the Catholic hospital refused to save the woman's life as long as there was a fetal heartbeat.

    You didn't answer that question.

    For me, it's easy. You save the woman's life. She has a husband, and in some cases other children.

    Law, morality, and compassion all come into play here.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Who gets to insist that a 10 or 12 year old girl must carry a pregnancy to full term?

    Nobody. And if "nobody" intervene's, she WILL carry it to term.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The question obviously wasn't "phrased" properly. It was phrased "biasedly".

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Without mercy, man is not a human being."

    The quality of mercy is not strained. It's effects, however, can be. Just ask Titus... (from Zizek's "La Clemenza de Tito")

    Referring therewith to the Kantian experience of the Sublime, in which the subject is bombarded with an excess of the data that he is unable to comprehend. And do we not encounter a similar excess in Mozart's Clemenza - a same sublime/ridiculous explosion of mercies? Just before the final pardon, Tito himself exasperates at the proliferation of treasons which oblige him to proliferate acts of clemency:

    "The very moment that I absolve one criminal, I discover another. /.../ I believe the stars conspire to oblige me, in spite of myself, to become cruel. No: they shall not have this satisfaction. My virtue has already pledged itself to continue the contest. Let us see, which is more constant, the treachery of others or my mercy. /.../ Let it be known to Rome that I am the same and that I know all, absolve everyone, and forget everything."

    One can almost hear Tito complaining: Uno per volta, per carita! - "Please, not so fast, one after the other, in the line for mercy!" Living up to his task, Tito forgets everyone, but those whom he pardons are condemned to remember it forever:

    SEXTUS: It is true, you pardon me, Emperor; but my heart will not absolve me; it will lament the error until it no longer has memory.
    TITUS: The true repentance of which you are capable, is worth more than constant fidelity.

    This couplet from the finale blurts out the obscene secret of clemenza: the pardon does not really abolish the debt, it rather makes it infinite - we are FOREVER indebted to the person who pardoned us. No wonder Tito prefers repentance to fidelity: in fidelity to the Master, I follow him out of respect, while in repentance, what attached me to the Master is the infinite indelible guilt. In this, Tito is a thoroughly Christian master.


    You're a walking, quacking MORAL HAZARD, duckman.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Shaw,
    For me, it's easy. You save the woman's life. She has a husband, and in some cases other children.

    Believe it or not, Jesuit Georgetown University Medical Center performed one such abortion (2nd trimester) back in the late 1970s -- precisely because the child had no chance of anything but the briefest survival and the physical trauma to the mother would have been such that she could never have had any children.

    This aborted baby was her first child. The woman married late and was pushing 40 years of age.

    About 2 years later, she and her mother had a perfectly healthy child.

    Now, perhaps I'm incorrect, but it is my understanding that even before Roe v. Wade similar procedures were performed.

    I wonder what the stats are for medically-necessary abortions? I'm referring to saving the life of the mother -- not to abortions performed because of certain non-life-threatening birth defects.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Mercy w/o repentance... has no qui pro quo. Pretty soon Titus will find himself broke, and lying dead in a ditch.

    ReplyDelete
  25. An update to the link that Shaw left above:

    A doctor has identified shortcomings in the way Savita Halappanavar was treated in hospital as her condition deteriorated, an inquest into her death has heard.

    The 31-year-old died from septicaemia four days after a miscarriage in an Irish hospital.

    Dr Susan Knowles said most medical notes from the onset of sepsis were made retrospectively.

    Some were added over two weeks after her death on 28 October 2012.

    ReplyDelete
  26. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  27. WHile we're on the subject of medical incompetence and the need for STRICT regulation...

    ReplyDelete
  28. AOW:
    Thank you for the clarification. THese isues are never as simplistic as the agenda-driven left make them out to be.

    The death Shaw mentions is more correctly laid at the doorstep of a nationalized, Obamacare-like health care system.

    So Shaw, I stand my my earlier comment, and I'll include your question again...

    "There are two rights in conflict when it comes to abortion: the woman's and the fetus's. How do you solve that?"

    My answer is the same. On the side of life.

    See what I was answering? Perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem? Or maybe you're respondign too fast, wanting to draw those propaganda knives instead of participating in a Socratic debate that illuminates an issuer rather than muddies it?

    Now, onto you question about the rare situation where it's either the mother's life or the baby's. That is a decision left to the family, their spiritual advisor, and her doctor.

    Happy? Of course not. You want abortion for all under any and all circumstances.

    Progressivism has a strong death cult strain running all the way back through Margaret Sanger.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I don't see that legality, morality and compassion are necessarily related although they could be in certain cases. That which is "legal" means that it is lawful but in the sense that in a larger context of morality could be considered immoral. Morality being deemed to be a code of conduct or behaviour considered to be appropriate, right and proper in living a happy and healthy life on planet Earth. Compassion may or may not be a requirement for living within the context of legality or morality.

    It's interesting to consider how compassion, morality and can be manipulated by sophists who would seek to control the legal framework of a society, country or the world by upholding "compassion" as the bottom line 'raison d'etre', being the moral imperative of the existence of the power to coerce others to follow the dictates espoused by the powers in control of "legality". Something usually detected in the mentalities of the fascistic/socialistic/communoid Marxists —the current plague infesting the planet.

    ReplyDelete
  30. SF: This article on the death of Savita Halappanavar is more detailed.

    Your answer to me is exactly the answer I give to people who are adamantly opposed to abortion under all circumstances, because it is the correct answer: . "That is a decision left to the family, their spiritual advisor, and her doctor."


    No one knows all the circumstances that drive a woman's decision to have an abortion.

    You certainly had your propaganda knife out when you falsely assumed this is my position on abortion:

    SF: "You want abortion for all under any and all circumstances."

    Total b.s. and a made up falsehood, since I've never ever stated that. You can't resist stomping on someone when you need to make a point. Winning is all, apparently, when you're in a debate, even if that means you falsely accuse someone of a position she never claimed.

    But then it was you, not I, who heated up the discussion.

    I set up a circumstance in which the law, morality, and compassion were all in play and in conflict.

    You and your usual need to squash anyone who holds a differing opinion turned it into flame-throwing (or should I say knife-throwing) contest.

    There's no need to do that.




    ReplyDelete
  31. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Nice try, Farmer but the statement stands.

    Mercy can be misapplied without negating the premise.

    ReplyDelete
  33. The statement stands next to Nietzsche's "Four Errors" from "Gay Science" 115

    The Four Errors. — Man has been reared by his errors: firstly, he saw himself always imperfect; secondly, he attributed to himself imaginary qualities; thirdly, he felt himself in a false position in relation to the animals and nature; fourthly, he always devised new tables of values, and accepted them for a time as eternal and unconditioned, so that at one time this, and at another time that human impulse or state stood first, and was ennobled in consequence. When one has deducted the effect of these four errors, one has also deducted humanity, humaneness, and "human dignity."

    Which error was mercy, again?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Compassion = Attempt to negate the consequences of one's own actions and render "harmless" the weak and unprepared...further weakening them and likely making them dependent upon subsequent charity (unless, of course, the recipient is able to learn and/or mature, subsequently).

    ReplyDelete
  35. I'm glad we can agree on something, Shaw.

    So you lament those millions of babies killed when the life of the mother was not in danger?

    I dare anyone to read this Atlantic Article and not be moved.

    ReplyDelete
  36. ... speaking of compassion.

    For if you have no compassion for the most helpless among us, innocent life, you have no compassion at all.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I lament those lives lost as much as you and others on the right lament the lives lost in all wars.

    Yes. ALL wars.

    We humans accept wars as part of our human failures. No one ever says we can't have wars because when we do, fetuses, pregnant women, infants, toddlers, and children of all ages are killed. Through the ages and through all wars, people accept that carnage.

    I'm at least consistent. I deplore war but understand that is part of our human failings. I also accept the fact that that abortion has been practiced through the ages as well, and re-criminalizing it will not stop it.

    The tragedy lies in the fact that certain extremist religionists don't support birth control. That's insane. The morning-after pill is not murder. Nor is the pill, or any other safe method of preventing pregnancy. But there are many powerful groups who wish to prevent women from access to contraception. And that's nuts.

    If the individual states that are making abortions more difficult and almost impossible, and at the same time limiting access to contraception, how many people will have to make decisions on whether or not to break those laws that a state imposes contra to the federal laws?

    ReplyDelete
  38. The morning-after pill is not murder.

    That's YOUR opinion, baby killer.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Opposition to condoms did not only come from moralists: by the late 19th century the feminist movement in both Europe and America was decidedly anti-condom. Feminists wanted birth control to be exclusively in the hands of women, and disapproved of male-controlled methods such as the condom.

    It's ALL about the "control".

    ReplyDelete
  40. Legal opposition to pre-conception "preventative" forms of birth control died in the 30's. Are you having "flashbacks" pShaw? Or are you so paranoid that you believe the Catholic Church is going to bring back witch burnings, too?

    ReplyDelete
  41. As Margaret Sanger would say, "Eugenics now, Eugenics FOREVER"!

    There should be a sign hanging over the offices under Planned Parenthood,

    "Over 1.2 billion abortions served since 1980"

    ReplyDelete
  42. Shaw:

    You traffic in false equivalencies.

    An abortion is not a war. The only belligerent is the one destroying the baby before she has a chance to breath in life.

    I agree with you that "wars of choice" are also a horrible carnage equal to abortion. But some wars are necessary. The overwhelming percentage of abortions are not.

    ReplyDelete
  43. "The overwhelming percentage of abortions are not."

    That is a subjective opinion. But you're welcome to it.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Silverfiddle,
    I just read that story in The Atlantic. The stuff of horror films!

    Usually, the media hop all over gruesome stories such as the vile deeds of Dr. Gosnell. But, this time around, the story receives little mention, which speaks to something seriously wrong with our society's moral compass.

    ReplyDelete
  45. "The leftists, who like to portray themselves as more tolerant"

    Like in the case of Chick-fil for example? That's a Prime example of their tolerances!
    Political correctness is totally out of control precisely because liberals are SO INTOLERANT.

    We see it and read about it every day Kids can’t bring lunches to school from home because liberals are intolerant that the poor kid sitting next to him is going feel inferior. So they ALL have to eat the government mandated slop served by schools teaching politically correctness.
    Tea Party member advocating for low taxes are called Racists!
    Want to wear a crucifix to school? Hell No we can’t do that!! ! But Muslims can wear their religiously RAGS over their heads... (excuse me, I meant to say clothing).

    When the CEO of Chick-Fil-A expressed his “PERSONAL” opinion that he supports traditional marriage as a legal standard and liberals want to put him out of business.
    Liberals are intolerant BECAUSE WE THE PEOPLE LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT.

    That’s why Chick-Fil-A appreciation day was a step in the right direction to put a stop to liberal intolerance. When they realize that it is no longer working, they’ll stop being so intolerant and perhaps we can all live happier and more tolerant lives. MAYBE!

    The progressive liberals have the idea that they can totally shut up anyone who dares to espouse a belief they disagree with. As seen here on this very thread.

    ReplyDelete

  46. Actually someliberals/progressives are SO tolerant, that they didn't even
    "join in on the hagiography of Margaret Thatcher". or sing Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead!"

    The hatred directed by the Left at the late Margaret Thatcher is a testament to just how truly wonderful and great she really was, and to how low, and nasty and sick left is and has always been!

    ReplyDelete
  47. But there are many powerful groups who wish to prevent women from access to contraception. And that's nuts.

    Wish to, but they are not successful. Condoms and birth control methods are legal, cheap and easily available in this country, as are abortions, so that's a red herring.

    There are also people who want to end eating red meat, but that doesn't stop me.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "The overwhelming percentage of abortions are not."

    That is a subjective opinion. But you're welcome to it.


    So you're telling us that over half of the abortions are for the life of the mother? Really?

    ReplyDelete
  49. About Kermit Gosnell's charnel house, Erick Erickson asks the provocative question, What if they were dogs?

    Imagine the outrage.

    I still don't understand how liberals who are constantly wailing that this or that is "For the Children!" can callously look the other way as this goes on.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Speaking of the "children", the Gay California Legislature is passing a law forfeiting the Boy Scouts Tax-free status because they don't admit gays scouts and/or leaders.

    Tolerance, thy name is NO LONGER "liberal".

    ReplyDelete
  51. The new "liberal" motto:

    My way OR hit the highway, dissenters!

    ReplyDelete
  52. I suppose that the BSA will have to now pay the new Homosexual Jizya.

    ReplyDelete
  53. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  54. it is the progressives who are seeking and working on destroying the morality of our children in the public schools. The progressives and their celebration of everything immoral is being passed on to our children via the public school system. This is why progressives oppose vouchers and home schooling, and why they now support universal preschool for the very young. Make no mistake, the progressives only want to abuse the children by exposing them to homosexual acts, and by turning them into slaves of the state.

    Progressives have never stood for liberty and freedom, they have always stood for government oppression. Look how they support murderous tyrants like Obama, Stalin, Lennin, Pol Pot, etc

    ReplyDelete
  55. Your last statement contains a few nuggets of truth, Anonymous, [Please give yourself a name -- ANY name will do, we're not fussy, but using a pseudonym helps avoid confusion] but in the main your remarks are a grotesque distortion and misrepresentation of Reality.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Thank you, SilverFiddle for all those biblical quotations that demonstrate so neatly that Jesus thought the Law was an Ass too. ;-)

    I hope you know what I mean, if not, we've never understood each other as well as I've thought.

    Legalism itself defeats what-should-be the purpose of The Law.

    If Morality and The Law do not aid and support the interests of compassion, they are simply WRONG. and do not deserve to be honored.

    "Good laws lead to the making of better ones; bad ones bring about worse. As soon as any man says of the affairs of the State, 'What does it matter to me?' the State may be given up for lost."

    ~ Rousseau (1712-1778)

    "The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools."

    ~ John Tyndall (1820-1893)

    "When you break the big laws, you do not get freedom; you do not even get anarchy. You get the small laws."

    ~ G.K. Chesterton - in the London Daily News, 7/29/1905








    ReplyDelete
  57. My name will be Daveporter. And may I add that
    It IS the Progressives who embraces communism which destroys liberty, and therefor will destroy America.
    Socialism is overtaking our country and we aren't doing anything meaningful about it. The only one truly laughing his a!! off is Obama and his henchmen and at the rate he's going we will not recognize our country by the end of his administration.

    ReplyDelete
  58. President Obama, a one man wrecking crew of our economy, prices are up ,,,wages are down and good paying jobs are hard, if not impossible to find.. So how is our economy getting better? Maybe Mr. Biden can tell us?
    And just wait until Obamacare kicks in. With a idiot like dictator Kim Jong Un in power, and John Kerry as our Coward,of State. And now with Iran and North Korea with the bomb. So what does Obama do? Cut our Military Budget, isn’t that smart? . We are in for a nightmare.
    But have no fears, Our dear leaders Obama, Biden and Kerry all say North Korea can not be allowed as a nuke state. As usual, Mr. Obama is a little too late to the show, North Korea already is a nuke state. I guess he didn't read that intelligence briefing or attend the meeting. Much like he did, or “didn’t do” at Benghazi.

    ReplyDelete
  59. LEGALITY, MORALITY and COMPASSION?

    The Libtards have no morality or compassion,and they don't give a damn about what is or want isn't legal. They have infested everyone everywhere and use their hate mongering, racial baiting and outright lies as the truth to influence the uninformed voter who wants more and more freebies from the hard working public.They now think of entitlements as rights!

    ReplyDelete
  60. Ducky here is a typical member of the libtard regime..insult and dodge the question....
    Never directly answer the question!
    Is picking between A or B too hard for you?

    ReplyDelete

IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING, YOU DON'T BELONG HERE, SO KINDLY GET OUT AND STAY OUT.

We welcome Conversation
But without Vituperation.
If your aim is Vilification ––
Other forms of Denigration ––
Unfounded Accusation --
Determined Obfuscation ––
Alienation with Self-Justification ––
We WILL use COMMENT ERADICATION.


IN ADDITION

Gratuitous Displays of Extraneous Knowledge Offered Not To Shed Light Or Enhance the Discussion, But For The Primary Purpose Of Giving An Impression Of Superiority are obnoxiously SELF-AGGRANDIZING, and therefore, Subject to Removal at the Discretion of the Censor-in-Residence.