16 votes

Morality is Subjective...Not.

As a Ron Paul die hard and Constitution lover of liberty I've discovered something that can be lacking in the liberty movement. Freedom and Liberty are not the same thing. Liberty can only come as we adopt laws that align with the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.

As John Adam Stated "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." The famous French Historian Alex de Tocqueville noted,“The Americans combine the notions of religion and liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive of one without the other”. He also stated, “America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

Folks, America is no longer great because America is no longer good. Liberty is fading because Religion and Morality are fading. Lately I've been under attack by "liberty" people because I use my religion as the bases of why I believe in the Laws I do.

Religion is under attack in American and it's sometimes under attack in the Liberty movement. The first Protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution protects freedom of Religion. Any Law or Right you support comes from some moral system you have. For me my morality comes from a study of the Laws of Nature and Science, the Bible and the revealed word of God to men (to me they are the same Laws). If you think deeply about the Laws you support you will find that they too come from a religious belief or a law of science or nature. If you don't believe there are natural Laws then you believe that Rights and Laws come from the Government. This is a very dangerous thing to believe as Government can give and take 'laws' and 'rights' as they please. But as assuredly as the rising sun and the pull of gravity the laws that don't align with Natural Laws will bring disaster to those who follow them. The founders knew this and that is why they established the Constitution and left the States to discover and implement more of the Laws of Nature for themselves.

At the signing of the Constitution 7 of the 13 States had State religions. Religious minds established most of the great Ivy League schools we revere today, Harvard by the Puritans, Yale by Congregationalist ministers, Princeton founded by Presbyterians, University of Pennsylvania by the Church of England and Methodists, Columbia by the Church of England, Brown University by The Baptists, Dartmouth College by the Calvinist.

The integration of religious notions and morality in the City, County and State Law is what made America great and Liberty abound. Being free to do whatever you want is not Liberty. It can be the destruction of freedom and Liberty. The greatness and simplicity of great Laws like love your neighbor as yourself,thou shalt not kill, steal or covet are not meant to enslave you. Those Laws when followed create an environment where you are free to discover great things, ennobling things that bring life and light to a people. Secular laws should align with the Laws of Nature and of Natures God. Choosing to have laws that don't align with them produces what we have today in our country.

Liberty lovers, we need to get back to the faith of our Fathers if we are to save our liberties. I wish I had more time to write with more depth and history here but I hope you would study why you believe you have the Rights that you have. Where do those beliefs come from? How do you know they are true? If your beliefs come from a religious source are you skipping some important Laws because you don't think they are important? Something to bring to the forefront more often then we are.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Cultural differences don't matter if morality is not subjective

So according to Deut 22:28-29, if a woman has been raped, her rapist must give her father fifty shekels of silver and he then gets to rape her over and over again for the rest of her life. But in some twisted sense this is a positive thing for the woman, because without this command things might be even worse for her in that cultural context.

And there are lots of things like this in the OT. In Deut 21:10-13 God commands that if you go to war against your enemy and see a beautiful woman among the captives and you want her, you have to wait a month and make her perform some rituals but then you can take her as a wife. In that cultural context again there's a twisted sense in which it's better that the woman have a month to mourn the death of her family before getting raped by someone from the army that killed her family, because if some other army had invaded she might have seen her family killed and then been raped the same day.

But from a modern perspective on consensual sexual relationships, these commands are vile in the extreme and such practices (at least in a modern, western cultural context) would be rejected as outrageously immoral if anyone were to advocate them today.

If morality is not subjective, and the cultural context doesn't in any way change the rightness or wrongness of an action, then what is there to say about the morality of God's commands here? Is he commanding them to do something that was not immoral at the time? Because then if morality isn't subjective, and it was moral in that cultural context, it would have to be moral in any cultural context including ours. But on the other hand if it was moral for someone to follow God's commands about these things in that cultural context, but would be immoral for someone to try to do the same things in our cultural context, then that's moral subjectivism by definition.

Denise B's picture

I don't have time

To fully respond tonight, but let me just first say that if someone is married, it is not rape, anymore than a betrothed woman marrying someone she barely knew and having to be intimate with them after they were married. God did not and does not consider betrothment sinful. He did not change, we did culturally. Our modern society does not betrothe our children anymore because our culture has changed and woman are now more independent, have the ability to find employment and can survive without being married, where in the ancient world they could not. Modern woman find betrothment offensive because of a vast cultural change, where in ancient times it was common and accepted. It is not so much a shift in morality but a shift in cultural practices. I will try to give a more comprehensive explanation later, but for now I am off to bed..

Denise B, doggydogworld is

Denise B, doggydogworld is putting rape where there is no rape. Read the references. Deauteronomy 22:28-29 "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days."
It does not say he forced her as does the preceeding verses, 23-27 "If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she CRIED NOT, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man FORCE her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her SHALL DIE.

26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to SAVE HER."
A picture of this is with Jacobs daughter Dinah in Genesis 34."And Dinah the daughter of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land.

2 And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her.

3 And his soul clave unto Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel, and spake kindly unto the damsel.

4 And Shechem spake unto his father Hamor, saying, Get me this damsel to wife."
After slaying the males of the town and Hamor and Shechem her brothers ask Jacob, "And they said, Should he deal with our sister as with an harlot?"
There is no forced sex in those references. Rape was a capital crime and punished by death.

Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

Even if they're betrothed against their will?

So when that "beautiful woman" who catches the eye of a soldier is captured and "betrothed" against her will, any non-consensual sex that follows isn't rape? Or when a woman is raped -- and it's rape in this case because the non-consensual sex is outside of marriage -- and the rapist pays the woman's father fifty shekels of silver and marries the woman he raped, then any non-consensual sex that follows isn't rape because the woman's father gave the rape victim to the rapist in marriage?

And you're saying that although these ideas are rejected as immoral by a lot of people today, it was moral then and it would be moral now if someone (a man, presumably) wanted to follow these commands today?

You are again reading force

You are again reading force into the passage. If the soldier "forced" the woman, he would be guilty of a crime punishible by death. There would have to be consent on the part of the woman, otherwise it would be as if a man rose up against his neibor and slew him. Deuteronomy 22:26

Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

Consent to the marriage?

All it says is that (v. 11) if you see a beautiful woman among the captives and desire her, and want her as a wife, then (v. 12-13) bring her home, and after a month of preparations, "thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife." Nothing about her consent, not that the girl's consent was necessary for marriage in general back then.

doggydogworld, you have built

doggydogworld, you have built a strawman. Rape is not mentioned in your references. Rape is here, "If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. (consentual)

25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man FORCE her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.

26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: (Rape)

27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her."
Rape is a capitol offence, and punished by death.

Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

Are you saying

Verse 25 is about a betrothed damsel in the field, verse 28 is about an unbetrothed damsel. Verses 28-29 say "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her; he may not put her away all his days."

Are you saying that "lay hold of her" in verse 28 would not include cases of rape? Or that in cases of rape, it's only the pre-betrothal non-consensual sex that is rape, and the non-consensual sex after the girl is forced to marry the man isn't rape?

It is you who is reading

It is you who is reading things into it that are not there. Have you ever had sex and not "lay hold on her"?
Vss 28-29 are not referring to FORCE. He HUMBLED her, not forced. They fornicated.

The same thing is found in Vss 23-24 Notice the word humbled again. She submitted herself. That is ADULTRY. See the words, humbled his neibors wife? That carried the death penality. Remember the woman taken in adultry in John 8? In john 8, BOTH the man and the woman should have been stoned with stones.

In Vss 25-27 you find the case of force, and it SAYS force. The penalty for that is death.

Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

In that case

the penalty for rape in v25-26 only applies to "a betrothed damsel" and it doesn't say anything about a death penalty if the girl is not betrothed. What verses are you suggesting would apply if the girl is not betrothed? It sounds like verses 28-29 would apply in the case where the girl is not betrothed, even if it was rape. Verses 25-26 don't apply, because that's specifically about a betrothed girl. No?

Denise B's picture

To answer your question,

sex within the confines of marriage is never considered rape and in ancient times it was very common practice for a women to be betrothed to someone that they did not know, and may not particularly like and this practice was common and accepted throughout the ancient world, not just in the Hebrew culture. They did quite a few things in ancient times that would seem strange and foreign because the culture at the time was vastly different than ours. You are somehow trying to twist it to say that God condones rape, when He absolutely does not. As stated in my post above, the rules concerning rape were designed to discourage the practice, but if it occurred, the law insured that the women would be taken care of by the person who had made it impossible for her to marry another by taking her "purity". That may seem unfair to the woman, but if the man was punished by banishment or death, she would then have to face the rest of her life without the possibility of marriage, which in most cases would lead to destitution and likely death.

In addition, the law would certainly cause a man to think twice about raping someone, and if he did he then became fully responsible for that person for the rest of their lives and would have to also live the rest of his life with the stigma of shaming both himself and his family name. Rape was considered immoral then; however, just as it is considered today.

To answer your final question, in today's culture a woman is quite capable of taking care of herself and surviving without a man, if necessary, and rape does not carry the same stigma to the woman as it did in the ancient world (i.e. a women can usually find someone willing to marry her today even though she may have been raped) and the laws concerning rape have changed accordingly; however, the immorality of the act has not. It was immoral then, and it is immoral now.

In most cases, God forbid the Israeli people from marrying outside of the faith because most of the rest of the world were engaged in pagan practices and beliefs that were repulsive to the Lord (child sacrifice, etc.) and He did not want His people to be influenced by their false religions so for the most part the practice was forbidden. So the practice of taking a bride as a result of an invasion was very rare, but when it was allowed, it was in effect treated the same as betrothment, which as I stated was a very common practice and far more moral than how foreign invaders would treat Israeli women when they were captured.

Not true

sex within the confines of marriage is never considered rape

Not true. Sex within the confines of marriage can most definitely be considered rape when the sex is not consensual. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape

That's because views on non-consensual sex have changed a great deal. But then from a modern view of non-consensual sex, some of the things God was commanding in Deuteronomy are monstrous. A woman is raped, and then is forced against her will to marry the rapist and to be subjected to non-consensual sex with her rapist. Or soldier kills a woman's family, but thinks she's beautiful so he takes her home, forces her to marry him against her will a month later, and then she's subjected to non-consensual sex with the man who killed her family.

In the case of a woman being forced to marry the man who raped her, and being subsequently subjected to non-consensual sex with the man who raped her, are you arguing that this was a moral practice at the time, and since morality is absolute, would still be a moral practice today? This practice still happens in other countries -- in countries where this custom is still practiced and allowed by law would you say that such treatment of the rape victim is moral, or immoral? If someone attempted to do that in this country, would it be moral, or immoral?

i can hear but crickets

well played, sir :-)

So your god's morality

So your god's morality changed with the culture of the times? Who is ruling who in that case?

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

Denise B's picture

Now you're just

being disingenuous! That is not what I said or implied, and you know it. God is unchanging and so is His morality. It is human culture that changes...you are not denying that that is the case are you? Or are we still living culturally the same as we did in 2000 B.C.? Is that your assertion?

You are a very silly man. If

You are a very silly man. If you think bad people won't fuck you over because your good u have another thing coming.

You do not realize that you

You do not realize that you are still promoting a morality that is subjective! It is subjective bc of all the holy books that did/do/will exist, you have CHOSEN the morals in only one of them!

also a short rant!

I don't get your point about the Ivy League schools being founded by Christians. I'm pretty sure EVERYTHING was founded by men of god in the history of the world up to the time of Darwin and the success of his theory. It is pretty hard to be godless without an explanation for life. That is why men like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were Deists, but I think if they were of a later time (today) they would most certainly be non-theists.

America doesn't require your

America doesn't require your bogus mythology to be free. The only "morality" required is the non-aggression principal. Quit telling me I need your insipid cosmic monarch in order to live with principals. I don't. Im sick of you Christians pushing your religeous bullshit on other libertarians. Its starting to feel like date rape. Keep it to yourself. If you need a super powered wizard to present you with a carrot and a stick in order to know you don't have a right to trample other people's life, liberty & property. Great. I don't and neither do the countless other atheist libertarians out there.

Also if your dumb religeon is so great at keeping people free, how come the neocon christian conservative republicans have been sodomising freedom for generations; bible in one hand, K-Y in the other? Clearly the ability to believe in stupid, impossible crap hasn't helped them to uphold liberty. Infact, all it seems to have done is the same thing it always does: Make stupid, mean spirited people feel justified when they cram tyrannical, controling laws down my throat to tell me how I have to live my life.

Ridiculous, inexplicable belief in mythological spell casting, high level dieties does not = freedom in any way. Contrary, as Jefferson once said: "The Priest is ever the enemy of liberty."

All that aside, no one will ever take you seriously because you cannot stop using "not" jokes. Its like a compulsion with some of you guys. If there was a god and devil, then hell would be a small room with some idiot spouting "not" jokes 24/7.

Merry Christmas!

You talk about principle Where does it come from?

You talk about a non-aggression principle. Where do you derive that it is a principle?

Same place your magic king

Same place your magic king does: the human mind. Difference is non-aggression comes from reason; religeon from imagination.

Exactly my fear.

When a person says a principle is made up in their mind it is chaos and turmoil. Every man becomes a god unto himself. This is EXACTLY the problem I am addressing in this article. If one does not acknowledge principles come from Nature, Natures God, Science etc, and they are higher Laws, then they accept political Law, i.e. they made it up in their own minds and then ask me to accept the Tyranny they make up in their "mind". When the economic, political worlds collapse it'll be really difficult for liberty to be restored without the knowledge of common law.

So without a magic sky fairy

So without a magic sky fairy you wouldn't know murder, rape, robbery, etc. was morally wrong? If that's the case, you're a sociopath. If the only reason you don't murder, rob, and rape is because of a book telling you not to with the promise of a reward and I don't do it because I know it's wrong without that, to think you are somehow in the morally superior position is pretty laughable which is why your faith based argument fails and why logic and reason triumphs as it always will.

The non-aggression principle comes from self-ownership. We can reason we have the right to own ourselves and that's the only non-arbitrary line there is. If you don't accept that as non-arbitrary, then there are no rights at all.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

You seem to want a real discussion

You seem to want a real discussion about this, so here you go:

Claiming an idea you made up in your head is an eternal truth doesn't make it so. Just because a group of people fevently believe that 1+1=5 doesn't change reality. Its still just delusions, differance is, its delusions that people feel justified in craming down my throat, or burning me in hell forever when I don't agree because they imagine that their "belief" is backed in powerful authority. I don't imagine my ideas are backed by anything save for reason, and I have no right to light anyone on fire for not agreeing. Your god "is" a construct of imagination, and any justification you feel to force that notion on others (ex: but if you don't believe, you'll go to hell, for your own good, please believe!)is what I would call "evil."

You couldn't have made a better case for why religeon is the opposite of individualism and freedom. You believe that people cannot rule themselves and require an authority to govern their lives. Wheras N. Koreans believe Kim Jung is scary enough to be given authority and ownership over them, your dictators requires phenominal cosmic power to sufficently cow you. Without an all-knowing master, we will eat ourselves and are completely incapable of freedom. What do you think every political tyrant has been saying since the beggining. They simply put themselves in that place of power, and cow people into believing it. A mind that already accepts this premis because of their mythology is infinatly more suseptable to this wrong-headed notion. It is the birth of collectivism and tyranny.

You are also wrong. Utterly. We don't need "masters" to be free & prosperious, terrestial or cosmic.

There is nothing "choatic" about human reason. It works like this: You love your children, I love my children. We all have people we love and are attached too. This is the motive force that drives our species to discover the perfect form of civiization where our loved ones can be safe and prosperious. We all want to "protect" our loved ones and give them a life where they can be prosperous and happy. That which causes them harm we consider "wrong" or "immoral." That which benifits them we consider "good" or "moral."

Thats where it all comes from.

Some want to take the easy route, shirk personal responsability, and put all their trust in a benevolant authority who will protect their loved ones and give them a prosperous society, however experiance has taught the human race over countless black marks in history that power corrupts. There is no such thing as a "benevolant" authority, and it will always turn to collectivism and begin devouring liberty until its gone; at which point it begins devouring people. "Authority" means the power to use coersion against others, and you immediatly violate non-aggression principal when you become an "authority." Even if you have King Auther, he'll soon die or be assassinated by his political rivals. Is it any secret which sorts of people "seek" the immoral position of authority over others? The position itself is immoral, why would moral people devote their lives to seeking it save for self defense in dire situations(like now)?

Humans invented a gods because some cannot imagine life without a benevolant authority; even though its impossible. So out of human fear and imagination, they invented cosmic authority like a security blanket to passify them against hard reality. But its a myth and does nothing other than utterly CONCRETE collectivism into the impressionable minds of our children who grow up utterly believing in subserviance to higher authority. Children who will grow up afraid of liberty with the notion that: "We MUST BE RULED!"

Then along comes human reason, thanks to great thinkers like Bastiat and Law. We now understand that if we want to protect our loved ones, the "only" way to do it is to insure that everyone's loved one's RIGHTS are protected equally. And the only way to protect them is to do it ourselves without some detached authority over us. We must be the highest authority and take personal responsability for our own lives if we want this. Only in a society of equal rights where EVERYONE has a right to life, liberty & property and EVERYONE is subject to the law of non-aggression & faces consequences for violating it do we have a chance to give our loved ones safe, happy lives with a chance to prosper by their own merits. Every other system sets up a slave/master paradime where some are above these laws and have rights others don't have. While it will certainly benifit the masters in the short run, it will eventually end in bloody upheval where no one's loved ones are safe or prosperous; least of all the "master's."

The non-aggression principal was birthed of human reason and finds its root in the ability of human beings to love one another. Because of the bonds of love we feel for our children, wives, husbands and close friends, logic has led us to the most perfect form of social organization we have yet come up with. We have learned that non-aggression and natural rights are the absolute best way to protect our loved ones and give them oppertunity for prosperity. This idea is no more "chaotic" or filled with "turmoil" than a simple mathmatical equasion such as 1+1=2. And there is no god neccessary. Not even one. If you want to think that love only exists because of your god... great. Have at it. But don't imagine for a moment that I have to believe in your diety in order to understand the logical benifit of the non-aggression principal and natural rights(note: I only use "Natural Rights" because its the common name. I don't believe they are anything other than a great idea. They can easily be taken away from us by force if we let them.)

And while you're at it, ask yourself this question: If you found out tomorrow that there was no god; would you still love your children/husband/wife/parents. If your answer is no, you're lying. If its yes, then you now understand that love is the bond that makes freedom possible, belief in the divine is optional.

"Just because a group of people fevently believe that 1+1=5"

Totally off topic, but in Modulo 3 arithmetic 1+1=5 is a true statement.

Er... even on a clock 1+1 is

Er... even on a clock 1+1 is still 2. I guess if you set designations to which of the 12 numbers you start with, you could make the answer almost anything, but you "would" have to designate a starting point to have a valid equasion. For instance, 10+3=1 would be a true statment on a circle of 12 numbers like a clock.

Why am I replying to this!?

hahaha awesome post!!

hahaha awesome post!!

Asclepius's picture

Ethical Individualism

The following excerpt is from The Philosophy of Freedom
By Rudolf Steiner
http://wn.rsarchive.org/Books/GA004/English/RSP1964/GA004_in...
---------------
An act, the grounds for which lie in the ideal part of my individual nature is free. Every other act, whether done under the compulsion of nature or under the obligation imposed by a moral norm, is unfree.

That man alone is free who in every moment of his life is able to obey only himself. A moral act is my act only when it can be called "free" in this sense.

Action on the basis of freedom does not exclude, but includes, the moral laws. It only shows that [free will] stands on a higher level than actions which are dictated by these laws.

Why should my act serve the general good less well when I do it from pure love of it, than when I perform it because it is a duty to serve the general good?

The concept of duty excludes freedom, because it will not acknowledge the right of individuality, but demands the subjection of individuality to a general norm.

Freedom of action is conceivable only from the standpoint of Ethical Individualism.

Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery; none but ourselves can free our minds. - Bob Marley

"If you give the government the power to enforce

a particular person's version of God's law, you give the government the power to enforce the Devil's law as well."

--- Harry Browne

God and government don't mix. God is love; government is violence.

That's why it can't be a persons version of God's Law.

It actually has to be Gods Laws to have them enforced. Finding out what they are was the Science of Common Law in day since past. Laws Common to all people religious or not.