What’s Wrong with the World

Excellent post, Paul. It's difficult to decide what the liberals' best next step would be here. An "Okay, you got us, it is possible to legislate on the basis of morality" is obviously in order, but what then? I would predict some sort of attack on religion as other than morality and as inherently irrational.

Amen, Paul. My favorite part is where you say that secularism is a debater's tactic. Yes, it is. And so is the call for not legislating morality. Let's be honest. They just mean sexual morality because they are oh so moralistic in so many other ways.

This reminds me of Michael Bauman's piece "Legislating Morality".

You know you're a liberal if you think a McDonald's happy meal is immoral but giving out condoms to fourteen-year-olds isn't.

Nice one, Lydia.

I'd say you can't legislate morality...you can legislate behavior. Moral behavior, even. And you can definitely legislate because of moral beliefs. (like you point out, that's basically why we legislate. Someone says "this is wrong" and we act.)

Maybe they mean "can't" as in "you can't do that" said to someone who is doing that?

And it is the business of self-government to reconcile competing moralities in mutual acceptable ways.

That's funny. Let's stop the charade that there is such a mythical beast as "mutually acceptable reconciliation" between a faction that routinely encourages disunion and perpetual war.

Although I'm sure at some point I've made an argument against "imposing morality", in general I attempt to show why the liberal position is good public policy and the conservative position is unnecessarily narrow or factually flawed if not false.

The only time religious arguments seem to me automatically suspect is if they are grounded in OT divine commands (because the Old Testament is basically a bloodbath) or some variation of, "Because some miracle connected to the life of Jesus supposedly happened, it must be true for every human." Other than those two debate tactics, I'm enough of a philosophical pragmatist to go with or against religious arguments. The flaw in Paul's argument is that he seems to think a consistent secularist has to hold every religious position as totally irrational. Of course we don't, but the wheat has to be separated from the chaff :)

Step2, human history is basically a bloodbath.

The flaw in Paul's argument is that he seems to think a consistent secularist has to hold every religious position as totally irrational.

It's simpler than that. I don't think there can be a consistent secularist, at least to the extent that moral and theological arguments are conflated.

Let's stop the charade that there is such a mythical beast as "mutually acceptable reconciliation" between a faction that routinely encourages disunion and perpetual war.

That's not a complete sentence, so I'm a bit unsure what you're getting at.

You can't legislate morality? Oh, poo! We have been legislating morality since Adam. What they really mean by that old cheatnut is: don't you tell what I can do! However, for the sake of good moral order, God gave simple basic laws to show man how to worship God and get along with his fellow man. Man has proven time and time again that he won't be consistant in his obedience to the law. Hence the need for God to punish wrongdoers by his own hand or by the hands of human deputies. So you can legislate morality and you can enforce penalties upon those who defy laws meant for the good of all.

One of the characteristics of modern liberalism is that a "moral law" is implicit not simply in legislation, but determined by political ideology and implemented in the plans of social engineers.

I say "a moral law" and not "the moral law" because liberal morality is based on an intuition that liberal moral ( i.e. utilitarian) principles are what all right-thinking people would endorse anyway. Transcendent values are not a consideration in this formulation of secular moral imperatives - which is not the entirely rational process that liberals would have us believe.

There are two ways to understand the sentence "You can't legislate morality." One makes the sentence true, the other makes it false. The older, original intention of the statement was to demonstrate that laws do not make men moral. In this sense the statement is correct -- laws do not change hearts. If pornography were outlawed tomorrow, that would be great, but no one would expect the mere illegality of it to cause men to stop wanting it. The legislation would not necessarily "moralize" men into ceasing their desire for it. I may be wrong, but I believe this sense of the statement was used by some opponents of Prohibition. So when older folks (I remember my grandfather using it in regards to various proposed smoking bans in the 70s) used this statement they meant something like "You can't legislate a man into being moral," which is true.

Unfortunately this meaning of the phrase has been lost, and the more common understanding, which means something like "You can't legislate from morality," and which is nonsense, is the sense we usually hear. It seems to me that what the Left does is to conflate or confuse the two meanings, and then assume that Sense B is true because Sense A is. The Left also seems to insert an unstated adjective in their version of Sense B so that it reads "You can't legislate from (religious) morality," which again is nonsense. And as is said above, nine times out of ten the morality in question has to do with sexual matters. The Left is perfectly happy to impose their morality when it comes to myriad other things, from light bulbs to water usage in toilets.

Let's stop the charade that there is such a mythical beast as "mutually acceptable reconciliation" between a faction that routinely encourages disunion and perpetual war.

Yeah, that lost me too, Paul. Reconciliation between a faction? Seems we're missing a faction.

I just popped in from my Holiday vegging (today, I am pretending to be a cucumber) because there is a subtle point that is being missed.

Can we impose morality? The correct answer is, in my opinion: absolutely not!

All laws, at the highest level, are derived from a recognition of some pre-existing order in our (or the universe's) existence. Subsidiary laws, in order to be consistent, must recognize this order. Thus, one cannot legislate the building of a perpetual motion machine, since this law would be subsidiary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics and therefore inconsistent with a higher law. Order cannot come out of disorder.

Since the highest laws of order in our existence are derived from God's existence acting secondarily in his creation to produce the laws of our existence, it is right to say that just as the physical laws of the universe have been imposed on the universe by an act of God, just so, the moral law has been imposed, already, on man by an act of God.

The moral law is pre-existent. The moral law has already been imposed on us.

Just as one cannot legislate subsidiary laws in opposition to universal physical laws, neither can one legislate consistent subsidiary laws in opposition to universal moral laws. An attempt to do so must introduce inconsistency within any system.

What, then, do proper laws, do? Proper laws recognize and support the pre-existent moral order imposed by God. To the extent that they fail to do this, they are both inconsistent and prideful, since to impose a law upon man not consistent with the laws of God is to act as God. Now, conserve is derived from the Latin, com - servare, which literally means: with protection (indirectly, to guard or save). A person who enacts a conservative law is someone who protects, in the doing of it, the integrity, the consistency of the moral law that pre-exists the law under consideration. A person who enacts a liberal law is someone who challenges the pre-existing moral law, or worse, attempts to subvert and replace it with his own moral law. By this definition, at least from a moral perspective, political conservatives who attempt to profit by usury laws are, in fact, moral liberals (indeed, by allowing poor people to buy houses they know they cannot pay for, such conservatives are committing scandal by causing their brother to sin), while political liberals who recognize trade unions and subsidarity are really moral conservatives.

In other words, the traditional political labels, conservative and liberal, simply are not helpful in relating the correctness of morality contained within a given proposed law. The moral content must be judged independently of political labels.

I have made several assumptions in the above that anyone who wishes to impose morality must challenge to be successful in being consistent and logical:

1. There is order in the universe
2. This order flows from a singular God
3. God has imposed order not only on nature but on man
4. These laws can be known
5. God has not allowed man to impose a separate order which is inconsistent with his order
6. Laws become broader the more subsidiary they are

The postmodernist, for example, rejects assumption 5, while the Muslim rejects, st least in part, assumption 2, since there can only be, according to it, one God with specific characteristics. They've got the one God part, but not the specific characteristics. Obsessive compulsives reject assumption 6, since, for them, laws become more specific the more subsidiary they are.

So, can we impose morality? No, since one has already been imposed (per hypothesis). At best we can pass laws that recognize morality and attempt to put the pre-existing laws into practice. Where a law becomes immoral (and, therefore, no law) is when the law attempts to impose a moral law in contradiction to a pre-existing law. The law allowing subprime mortgages is not immoral, per se (this is the part of the freedom of assumption 6), but a law requiring subprime mortgages is (since it moves up the ladder of order - a must is of a higher order than a might - and becomes a form of scandal).

It is not that political liberals don't think that we can't impose morality and political conservatives think that we can, it is, rather, that both sides are inconsistent in their application of recognitio lexus, the recognition of the law. The laws of man either speak aloud an application of the pre-existing law - makes the law visible in the actions of men - or it produces a phantom, a shadow law that traces it origin to the delusions of a man just as surely as a perpetual motion machine is a mere shadow of existence.

Why does this happen? St. James explained this, years, ago [Jas 4: 1 - 12]

[1]What causes wars, and what causes fightings among you? Is it not your passions that are at war in your members? [2] You desire and do not have; so you kill. And you covet and cannot obtain; so you fight and wage war. You do not have, because you do not ask. [3] You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions. [4] Unfaithful creatures! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. [5] Or do you suppose it is in vain that the scripture says, "He yearns jealously over the spirit which he has made to dwell in us"? [6] But he gives more grace; therefore it says, "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble." [7] Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. [8] Draw near to God and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you men of double mind. [9] Be wretched and mourn and weep. Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to dejection. [10] Humble yourselves before the Lord and he will exalt you. [11] Do not speak evil against one another, brethren. He that speaks evil against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. [12] There is one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy.

So, if one must impose morality, at the very least, make sure it is both consistent and right. There is only one morality that is both consistent and right. I will leave it to the reader to supply the proof. I am going back to vegging (tomorrow, I get to pretend to be a radish - I can't wait).

The Chicken

That was a wonderful eye-opening post. I've never quite seen it put that way. Thank you.

BTW, you appear to be a Darwin-Denier - Order cannot come out of disorder.. Is that why you wear a mask?

M.C., you appear to be clucking out of both sides of your beak! At the top of your post you say, "Can we impose morality? The correct answer is, in my opinion: absolutely not!" Yet at the end, you say, "So, if one must impose morality, at the very least, make sure it is both consistent and right."

Paul's point is that in lawmaking we are always imposing morality; the question is, whose morality? This is where the Left misses it; their legislating is just as much an imposition of morality as ours is, despite the fact that it has no obvious or explicit religious dimension.

Paul's point is that in lawmaking we are always imposing morality; the question is, whose morality? This is where the Left misses it; their legislating is just as much an imposition of morality as ours is, despite the fact that it has no obvious or explicit religious dimension.

The whole point of the post is that when we ( or laws) impose morality as oppose to express morality, we err. My point is that morality does not have to be imposed, it already is by virtue of the Creator having done so. Lawmakers who actually attempt to impose a different morality are, by this definition, necessarily, imposing a false morality. The problem is that, as I mentioned at the outset, the word impose is used in a subtly equivocal manner where impose means (in my sense) refer to or (in the false sense) command onto. Laws that impose morality in the proper sense do no such thing, but rather cooperate with or reference the already pre-existing morality and put its application in a context. Laws that impose morality in the improper sense command a particular action at variance with the pre-existing moral order.

Yes, I used both senses in the post, allowing the subtle shift from the first paragraph to the last paragraph. I guess I wasn't cluing enough as to the shift.

Make any more sense? We cannot impose morality since morality is not ours to impose. We may impose laws that reference the pre-existing morality, but that isn't really imposing so much as recognizing its pre-imposition in the law. Finding the correct morality imposed on man by God is the first step before any laws can really be written that are cooperative of it and not trying to impose a foreign, man-made morality. So, a law should not impose but express the moral law. The results of that expression are that certain behaviors are delimited and that is a second-order imposition, but it is not an imposition of morality, but and imposition of behavior given a morality. If the morality is wrong, the behavior will be wrong, as well. So, let's call a law that has behind it a man-made morality to be a first-order imposition, I1 and the type derived from a correct pre-existing moral condition a second-order imposition I2 (the first-order being already taken care of by the imposition by God). In essence, my post asserted that I1 is something we should not do, but I2 is something we should do when writing laws. Man, at his best is a cooperative imposer, not a substitute imposer. So, let me clarify the quotes:

"Can we impose morality (I1)? The correct answer is, in my opinion: absolutely not!"

"So, if one must impose morality, (I2) at the very least, make sure it is both consistent and right."

Back to cucumber mode.

The Chicken

P. S. BTW, you appear to be a Darwin-Denier - Order cannot come out of disorder.. Is that why you wear a mask?

No, that is straight A-T thinking.

M.C., I understand the distinction you are making, just wasn't clear on the two variants of imposition. In that light what you say makes sense, although I'm not sure that there is such a stark difference between 'imposition' and 'expression,' at least in terms of how the state applies the law. But that's a small point.

Whenever you see "legislate morality," just change it to "legislate sexual morality." That's what it really means in 99% of the times it's used.

It's amazing how illogical most liberals will take it. I've lost track of how many liberals I've seen argue in favor of laws for marriage, but making adultery a private matter.

I guess it would just be tyranny if we said that if the state is going to regulate marriage that it should go without saying that it can regulate with whom you have sex after you get the marriage license.

"Can we impose morality?"

Isn't the issue I was addressing. Of course we "can"; that is what bayonets are for. My point is that in a secular and free republic we shouldn't unless we have an achievable and legitimate state interest and that the proposed vehicle bear at least a rational connection to the achievement of that interest.

For example, you wrote;

"A legislative proscription of robbery imposes a distinctly moral framework, highly onerous to those inclined toward the robber’s trade. The claims standing behind progressive taxation are emphatically moral in character."

And that legislation fits my prescription while this,

"The evidence of the advantage to the upbringing of children of the traditional home of a married mother and father is supererogatory. But to the liberal it is also somehow sectarian or tradition-bound and thus inadmissible.

is another matter entirely. It isn't enough to point out the obvious or state a desirable end. It is also necessary to make the connection between banning certain classes of folks from marriage and achieving the end of married mothers and fathers. That connection wasn't made in the trial and it can't be made. There is absolutely no evidence that allowing gays and lesbians to marry will prevent opposite sex couples from marrying and procreating. Likewise there is no evidence that allowing gays and lesbians to marry will somehow cause already married opposite sex couples with children to divorce or, should they not have already produced children to decide to remain childless.

We live in a culture where people divorce, singles (straight or gay) can adopt (lesbians can always bear their own children) and folks will always suffer the death of a spouse from time to time. Studies have repeatedly shown good outcomes for children of same sex couples and there is no way to prevent same sex couples from forming unions outside of marriage.

Paul, so far, your side has been unable to make the connection in court. Perhaps you can help them.

al,

I told myself I wouldn't respond to you anymore, because you just raise my blood pressure, but I couldn't resist pointing out that just because Judge Walker says "X", doesn't make it true:

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/243083/judge-walker-and-supposed-lack-evidence-marriage-s-procreative-purpose-ed-whelan

Or as Paul might put it, if we can define private property, we can define marriage.

Agreed. We need to focus on the right questions. Not "can" but "how" is the focus.

Too many liberals get to define the questions and, hence, the power.

Conservatives need to provide definitions because we have the power of God on our side.
His power, not ours. We define according to His Word and then He gives the power.

Yep, no rational connection at all between homosexual "marriage" and defining down heterosexual marriage./sarc But the homosexual activists are pretty pleased about the fact that their form of so-called "marriage" is redefining "monogamy."

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/open_monogamy/

Hi Paul!

‘I say of course we can impose morality. That is the business of legislation.’

Legislation can certainly provide for penalties to be imposed when norms are broken, but legislation also has to be capable of being effectively implemented; so perhaps there’s no point in legislating, say, against suicide. There may well be a moral consensus that committing suicide is unethical, but ‘You can't legislate morality’ may simply mean that legislation and morality aren’t or can’t be co-extensive.

Anyway, ethics is not exhausted in grasping one horn of Euthyphro and sliding into some ‘divine command theory’ or other, down to a prohibition of condom use, and I’m not aware of any proposals for the sort of machinery a government should put in place to monitor condom use among its citizens. I think the practical difficulties of setting-up and maintaining such a monitoring mechanism are sufficient to explain why condom use is not outlawed, independently of any specific moral, political or religious stance.

When a Liberal says; "we cannot impose morality", he merely is announcing his wish to impose its opposite. His quest for Power is facilitated by the breakdown of moral restraints and the personal virtue essential for a free and self-governing people to remain so.

Should read:
Let's stop the charade that there is such a mythical beast as "mutually acceptable reconciliation" with a faction that routinely encourages disunion and perpetual war.

I would be happy if there was a way to find a mutual compromise, but that's an unrealistic expectation on the most contentious issues. Given that reality, I'm not buying that the faction that encourages perpetual war and secession if they cannot get the policies they have convinced themselves are God's will is entirely interested in self-governance.

I don't think there can be a consistent secularist, at least to the extent that moral and theological arguments are conflated.

A long time ago on Right Reason, I agreed that liberals let the Religious Right claim the word "moral" and that was a huge political mistake. Of course liberals do promote moral values, and in some ways they mimic conservative values. Example: While many religious conservatives have a strong purity instinct on sexual matters, many secular liberals have a strong purity instinct on healthy/organic food as Lydia alluded to above. It’s the same instinct, but it manifests in different ways. This isn't entirely a left-right thing either, crunchy cons manifest both.

Back to the topic at hand, as long as the secularist doesn't claim his own support for a policy is because it is found in Holy Scripture, instead of saying he supports it because it is moral; I don't see how he is conflating the two arguments. What Paul appears to be saying is that anytime a secularist doesn't condemn a theological argument that supports his position, the secularist is contradicting himself. By the same token, one could say that a religious person who doesn't condemn a secular argument that supports his policy preference is contradicting himself.

Of course liberals do promote moral values,

How so? What is the source for those values? Holy Scripture, John Stuart Mill essays, social "instincts", self-interest? Please explain.

An order founded on "neutrality" soon finds the only authority it can invoke is brute force.

Well Al, I think we can both agree that it is unlikely that Judge Walker will have the final say in all this. And something tells me you will be less insouciant about court decisions at variance with this one. We shall see.

Step2, these insinuations are tiresome. If you're going to accuse someone here of being a secessionist and warmonger, out with it. Otherwise, pray tell what faction you are referring to.

Paul, I caught the oral arguments at the Ninth Circuit. the defendants didn't look good and based on the questions from the judges I would expect a very narrow ruling upholding Walker and holding things to California. That is assuming that they are granted standing.

Jeff, please don't stroke out on us. I went to the transcripts and on a hunch to the initial motion by the proponents for summary judgment which they lost. Much of what Ed calls evidence is besides the point and Walker's impatience is justified. Using Blackstone is simply ridiculous as the law's treatment of both marriage and homosexual behavior have seen significant changes.

Gay sex no longer is a capital crime (or for that matter any kind of crime) and coverature and legally mandated gender roles are long gone.

This was a trial brought on by significant changes in our society and the law. This is from the summary judgment decision,

"Now, the plaintiffs demonstrated a genuine issue that
Proposition 8 is rationally unrelated to a legitimate state
interest."

http://www.afer.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/2009-10-14-AFER-Hearing-Transcript-MSJ.pdf

Stating the obvious isn't good evidence; a weak appeal to tradition was all they had but it didn't cut it.

Al, since there is no defender of traditional marriage who can "look good" to you, I'm afraid I must take your observations with a grain of salt.

There are still some 30 states with same-sex marriage bans, plus the Defense of Marriage Act. Is it your position that these statutes and constitutional provisions will see no more activity in the courts? My expectation is that this, like so many other sensitive issues, will be decided by the Supreme Court, which means (most likely) that the decision will hinge on what Tony Kennedy had for breakfast some morning. Ain't judicial supremacy grand?

Gay sex no longer is a capital crime

Then the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry which has come to me.” (Gn 18:20-21)

Al favors positive law opposing God on this Mortal Sin.

And the Lord said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground.” (Gn 4:10)

Except for Abortion, (and Euthanasia?) presumably Al does not favor positive law opposing God on this Mortal sin

“You shall not afflict any widow or orphan. If you do afflict them, and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry.” (Ex 21-23)

Presumably Al does not favor positive law opposing God on this mortal sin.

“You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether he is one of your brethren or one of the sojourners who are in your land within your towns; you shall give him his hire on the day he earns it, before the sun goes down (for he is poor, and sets his heart upon it); lest he cry against you to the Lord, and it be a sin in you.” (Dt 24:14-15)

Presumably Al does not favor positive law opposing God on this mortal sin.

Nope, it appears that when it comes to the Four Sins Crying to Heaven for Vengeance, Al is only in favor of opposing God for the putative societal benefits deriving from sexual perversion.

One can't make a progressive "culture" without breaking a universal and objective moral egg or two.

If you're going to accuse someone here of being a secessionist and warmonger, out with it.

Although there aren't any main contributors who are warmongers, our two Jeffs seem very sympathetic to secession (which doesn't automatically make them bad people it only means that obtaining a mutual compromise isn't a high priority). Just because this isn't a neoconservative blog doesn't mean that you can deny that warmongering neoconservatism is a reality in conservative politics, for the same reasons I cannot deny that animal rights activists have a home in liberal politics, despite their essential incompatibility with pro-choice justifications.

What is the source for those values? ...Please explain.
It's a combination of different things, but I think you were smart to suggest that utilitarianism is a fundamental part of liberal morality.

For a biological/scientific viewpoint you can read more here:
http://edge.org/3rd_culture/morality10/morality10_index.html

Vermont Crank,

Classical Jewish texts are seen by many as not stressing the homosexual aspect of the attitude of the inhabitants of Sodom as much as their cruelty and lack of hospitality to the "stranger."[6] The Jewish Encyclopaedia[7] has information on the importance of hospitality to the Jewish people. The people of Sodom were seen as guilty of many other significant sins. Rabbinic writings affirm that the Sodomites also committed economic crimes, blasphemy and bloodshed.[8] One of the worst was to give money or even gold ingots to beggars, after inscribing their names on them, and then subsequently refusing to sell them food. The unfortunate stranger would end up starving and after his death, the people who gave him the money would reclaim it.

A rabbinic tradition, described in the Mishnah, postulates that the sin of Sodom was related to property: Sodomites believed that "what is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours" (Abot), which is interpreted as a lack of compassion. Another rabbinic tradition is that these two wealthy cities treated visitors in a sadistic fashion. One major crime done to strangers was almost identical to that of Procrustes in Greek mythology. This would be the story of the "bed" that guests to Sodom were forced to sleep in: if they were too short they were stretched to fit it, and if they were too tall, they were cut up (indeed, in Hebrew and Yiddish, the corresponding term for a Procrustean bed is a "Sodom bed").

In another incident, Eliezer, Abraham's servant, went to visit Lot in Sodom and got in a dispute with a Sodomite over a beggar, and was hit in the forehead with a stone, making him bleed. The Sodomite demanded Eliezer pay him for the service of bloodletting, and a Sodomite judge sided with the Sodomite. Eliezer then struck the judge in the forehead with a stone and asked the judge to pay the Sodomite.

The Talmud and the book of Jasher also recount two incidents of a young girl (one involved Lot's daughter Paltith) who gave some bread to a poor man who had entered the city. When the townspeople discovered their acts of kindness, they burned Paltith and smeared the other girl's body with honey and hung her from the city wall until she was eaten by bees. (Sanhedrin 109a.) It is this gruesome event, and her scream in particular, the Talmud concludes, that are alluded to in the verse that heralds the city’s destruction: "So[9] said, 'Because the outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah has become great, and because their sin has been very grave, I will descend and see...'"[Gen 18:20-21]

A modern orthodox position is one that holds, “The paradigmatic instance of such aberrant behavior is found in the demand of the men of Sodom to 'know' the men visiting Lot, the nephew of Abraham, thus lending their name to the practice of 'sodomy'."[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah#Jewish_views

Apparently, if you're just a "chimp on a roll," it somehow matters what you do with your fists, but not what you do with your naughty bits.

(Unless, of course, what you do with your fists is done in combination with your naughty bits. But that's another story.)

Step2, I really was just looking for clarification. Honestly.

What's your view of the left-wing Vermont secessionists? I told Al not long ago that I must admit to a certain contrarian sympathy for these guys.

http://www.counterpunch.org/ketcham09022010.html

Just because this isn't a neoconservative blog doesn't mean that you can deny that warmongering neoconservatism is a reality in conservative politics

Who the hell denied that? Several of our contributors (and former contributors) have gone toe-to-toe with neocons over war and torture repeatedly. We've had literally dozens of posts critical of the neoconservative worldview.

I think you are really asking should we impose morality, but you used the word 'can' and if you thought in terms of whether or not we are able to, then you might realize you are spinning conservative fairy tales. Our governing institutions aren't even capable of basic governing- abortion on demand is in effect across the land, and yet you think somehow the leviathan can be tamed? The political system content to devour our youth isn't the sort of strap with which you can whip whatever is left of the youth into shape.

And you keep talking about usury while the Fed pushes another billion or trillion electrons out into the world. They are making so much money out of thin air that they can't even use paper anymore. You are telling me the counterfeiters will keep the usurers in line? We both know that's a lie; they've been in collusion with each other for ages.

Can we impose morality? Not with this crew.

Now, we can declare morality, and I think this is what we see in history, especially among some of the better monarchs. One realm, small enough for some sensible governance to be had- no attempts to run 300 million lives with institutional structures meant for the private property owning white males of thirteen small colonies. And the better monarchs also tried to be examples, at least publicly.

We could also, if we were allowed to fully express it in this country, use our right to property and freedom of association to form private jurisdictions in which we could agree to 'impose' morality on ourselves. Morality breeds true prosperity, so we would see strong differences in neighborhoods with strong moral codes and those without. This would be incentive for many who would not otherwise behave to agree to behave. As folks build up relationships, property, and wealth in such a system, they have ever more reason to keep behaving.

Those interested in good governance should seek ways of achieving better conditions in a non-coercive fashion where ever possible. God gave us our freedom; anyone interested in good governance should take this into account. Why does the state lay claim to power in an individual's life that God has specifically chosen to avoid? If free will is that important to Him, it should be important to us.

Busy day (no rain, yea!) but I can't let this pass,

"...abortion on demand is in effect across the land"

No, it isn't and never was. It would be useful for those who believe this to read Roe,

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZS.html

and relevant state law.

BTW, I meant to comment on the Vermont guys but don't believe I did. The problem is the asymmetrical nature of things.

A favorite sport of folks on the right is to find some obscure nut on the left, trumpet the discovery and demand that everyone on the left denounce him. Ward Churchill was a perfect example of this. The typical liberal reaction was, "who the heck is Ward Churchill" as no one had heard of him until the right discovered him?

On the other hand (and on the right), we have sitting governors and candidates for office who are members in good standing of a major political party who espouse all sorts of off the wall views (Perry, Bachmann, Angle to name three but the list is very long).

The notion that Vermont could make it as a separate nation is insane (think Latvia, for example). These guys are outliers and few have even heard of them. Calling attention to them doesn't take the onus off the right for the insane views of folks who actually have power.

The Ninth can likely write an opinion that will make it easy for the Supremes to avoid granting cert. The difference in state laws may not mature into a SC case until we a divorce case involving property or children and "full faith and credit" enters the picture.

Sure, we can compare the proportion of right-wing birthers to left-wing truthers until the cows come home. All it will demonstrate is the high level of irrationality in modern men.

Of course, you've conveniently forgotten the context of my bringing up the Vermont secessionists in our discussion a couple weeks ago. (The reason in Step2's case should be obvious, given the tissue of innuendo with which he began his contributions to this thread.)

For your benefit, I'll simply reprint the comment in question:

+++

Let me add, Al, that this "sweet air of freedom" talk from you is frankly risible. No one on this website has demonstrated more stridency on the matter of political loyalty than you. Just recently your hair-trigger resulted in a humorless, churlish remark about "rebellion and treason" in what was obviously a lighthearted post offered for amusement.

Now, I share your antipathy for active and designing disloyalty. But on the evidence I approach the matter with a great deal more forbearance, not imagining any good would come from (for instance) cracking down on the leftists agitating for Vermont to secede from the Union. Indeed, I would greet calls for such a crackdown with a choke of horror. I must confess to a touch of sympathy for these Green Mountain eccentrics. But what can we expect of a man still jonesing for an American Katyn massacre at Appomattox, a man who stands up sharply and pounds his desk with inquisitorial pedantry when someone posts a funny map of the "United State of Texas" -- what might we imagine he has in store for the poor Vermonters and their defiance of empire?

It aint the sweet air of freedom, that's for sure.

As far as I can tell, the difference between us on the question of disloyalty is not that one of us opposes it and the other does not; or that one of us prefers, in dealing with it, to error on the side of liberty and the other on the side of order. Nothing so simple as that. It is that one of us thinks it is a solvable problem and one of us does not.

+++

So you see that you have blatantly misrepresented my reason for adducing the Vermont secessionists. The fact is that numerous memorable comments here have shown your inquisitorial mindset on these questions of political loyalty. Which is ironic, given your repeated castigation of my much more mild proposals, like a handful of mostly symbolic adjustments to 18 USC 2384 and 2385.

The truth is that I don't want the Vermonters hounded and harried and denounced. And I demanded no such denunciation from you. But unless you can give me an actual reason why your ruthless suspicion of any hint of disloyalty should not apply here, I am going to assume that (a) you would like to hound these poor folks with instruments of law and inquisition or (b) all your bluster about disunion and treason is a function of sheer rhetorical expedience.

Al obviously has not heard of Doe v. Bolton and the sweeping nature of the "health" exception. Perhaps he could explain to us how the late George Tiller was able to operate doing late-term abortions on healthy women in a state with such on-the-books strict laws as Kansas. Hint: He just had to get another tame doctor to say magic words invoking the "health" exception.

Lydia my understanding is that the handful of late term abortions typically involve actual problems, not a woman, at say 29 weeks suddenly deciding she doesn't want to finish the pregnancy. Do you have any hard stats on this?

Paul, the map was a rework, likely by a Los Angeles County Republican, of the old Jesusland map that came out of the 2004 election (note that the capital is Crawford not Austin). I wasn't all that serious and was somewhat surprised at the reaction. Being ever generous, I chalked it up to my coming too close to the darkness that lurks in too many conservative hearts and resolved to move on.

We may be talking past each other here but I'm not interested in hounding anyone. We missed our chance to root out the "secession gene" 145 years ago and that is that. I think it somewhat important that elected officials of one ideological persuasion are still able to make hay by pandering to emotions that exist to a significant extent only on the right. That's all.

Dear Step2. I have read similar pro-perversion eisegesis but I stick with the time-tested and true exegesis re the Mortal sin of Sodomy.

Haydock’s 1859 Catholic Bible Commentary

Jude; As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighbouring cities, in like manner having given themselves over to fornication, and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.

Ver. 6-7. Principality. That is, the state in which they were first created, their original dignity. (Challoner) --- Having given themselves over to[7] fornication, or to excessive uncleanness. --- Going after other flesh, and seeking unnatural lusts, with those of the same sex. (Witham) --- Impurity punished by fire and sulphur. Fire is a punishment proportioned to the criminal passion of the voluptuous. That of Sodom was most dreadful, but then it was of short duration. There is another fire that will never be extinguished.

Dom Orchard's 1953, "A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture = page 1192, reads: "....giving themselves over to immorality, like the Sodomites.."

I could cite many, many others, of course

Dear Step2. The Talmud also teaches that Jesus is the bastard son of a Jewish whore and a Roman Soldier and that He was justly put to death for blasphemy and that Jesus is now in Hell submerged in boiling shit - so - I think that sort of "theology" tends to call into question their other ideas about Holy Writ.

The problem is that not every one agrees on what is moral or not. "Moral Relativism" is straw man routinely used by conservatives to describe any one who does not agree with their rigid views on what is moral or immoral.The term implies that "moral relativists' believe that anything should be permissable and that there is no such thing as right or wrong. Conservatives regularly,and wrongly accuse liberals of this.
Obviously, murder,violence,cruelty,lying,cheating,stealing etc are immoral. No right-minded person could ever condone a man abducting,raping and brutally murdering a little girl. This is obviously a heinous crime.
But not everything is black and white.Not every one considers abortion to be murder.But some do.
Some consider homosexuality to be immoral.But others do not. Who is right? The debate will never cease.
Many conservatives want the government to criminalize certain behaviors , products and substances which THEY consider immoral,even though they are not, and despite the fact that the government has absolutely no business interfering in such matters.
They disapprove of homosexuality,therefore they demand that the government criminalize it. But does the government have any business prying into our bedrooms? And many of these homophobic conservatives have the nerve to demand that "freedom" be restored to America. If homosexuality is to be criminalized again,does this mean that the government should have the right to put up surveillance camers everywhere and to arrest,prosecute,imprison and possibly execute any one caught in the act of having homosexual sex?
With freedom like this,who needs tyranny?

It's a combination of different things, but I think you were smart to suggest that utilitarianism is a fundamental part of liberal morality.

In other words, the beauty of liberal morality is its elasticity and utility. Seems ideal for those seeking to escape responsibility.

my understanding is that the handful of late term abortions typically involve actual problems, not a woman, at say 29 weeks suddenly deciding she doesn't want to finish the pregnancy.

Would you object to late term abortions for those "suddenly deciding" to finish off their pregnancies?

Dear Mr. Berger.They disapprove of homosexuality

So, you can aver that -Obviously, murder,violence,cruelty,lying,cheating,stealing etc are immoral. without even realising that you are appealing to an objective universal code of morality (OUCM)that everyone must adhere to; even though you do not even realise you are appealing to an OUCM that has always taught that homosexual sex is a grave sin.

So, you think you can exempt your own self from that same OUCM in certain particulars - homosexual sin and abortion, for instance - while demanding that everyone else adhere to the OUCM in all particulars and not, let's say, punch-out homosexuals or assassinate late-term abortionists.

Why is it that you think you can exempt your own self from certain particulars of the OUCM while at the same time demand that everyone else adhere to that same OUCM in all particulars?

Look, if you and your pals think it is fine to legislate in favor of homosexual sins then you have no basis to object if me and my pals gain political power and legislate that all homosexuals be deported to Mykonos.

C.S. Lewis addressed this error in a 99 page book - "The Abolition of Man" - and I have a bunch of company that brought some great Cabernet and I know I should not even be trying to write anything...

Nite.

Al, the meaning of the word "marry" is a meaning that can only be encompassed by a man and a woman. If 2 males or 2 females do something "like" some of the things that married folks do, that doesn't make them married.

The state may decide to call the 2 gay males "married" but the state doesn't have the authority to actually make them married, because the state doesn't have the authority to decide how the word "marry" is defined. At most, the state can make them to be " 'married' insofar as the purposes of the laws of the state are concerned", which is a far cry from actually being married. All this does is create a secondary sense of the word "marry", one that is a creature of the state, and then we begin to speak equivocally, by which we cease to speak to each other and instead speak past each other. Which is a sure way to foment more unrest, more social hatred, more disruption of the unity of the polity.

"you think you can exempt your own self from that same OUCM in certain particulars...while demanding that everyone else adhere to the OUCM in all particulars"

Liberal Ethical Principle #1 : There is no such thing as an OUCM, but if there is, it shall not apply to any activity involving one's sexual organs, unless said activity is deemed "non-consensual."

Nevermind that the very notion of consent is rooted in that selfsame OUCM.

Lewis, Weaver, MacIntyre & Kalb are all correct: liberalism is self-devouring.

It's not a matter of "typically," Al. It's a matter of the actual legal situation and the requirements on the states of the combination of Roe & Doe. I remember vividly a case where a girl in Michigan was discovered to be pregnant by her parents late (this can also be a cause of late-term abortion) and transported to Tiller in Kansas for a PBA despite the fact that Kansas had recently passed a supposedly restrictive late-term abortion law. The only "problem" alleged was that the pregnancy was a result of incest; that is to say, there was every reason to believe that the pregnancy itself was not a danger to the mother's physical health or life. Paul's assertion was that the courts have made abortion on demand the legal set-up across the country. The truth is that some people _believe_ there can be legal restrictions on late-term abortions, but functionally, the breadth of the health exception in Doe means that it all depends on the abortionist and, if the state requires a second opinion, the abortionist's pal. There is no accountability and no allowed accountability for preventing this from being an abortion-on-demand regime. The only thing that keeps it functionally more difficult than that is the difficulty finding a doctor who will play along. Tiller and his second-opinionator had no such qualms, which is why they were able defiantly to operate in a state with allegedly restrictive late-term laws. Statistics aren't really very much to the point: If the state cannot prevent even a _single_ late-term abortion for reasons that are not really "health" reasons but are said to be so by the abortionist involved, and if this is what the Doe & Roe combination meant, then that's where we're at, legally speaking.

"All this does is create a secondary sense of the word "marry", one that is a creature of the state, and then we begin to speak equivocally, by which we cease to speak to each other and instead speak past each other."

Which is fine by me. As long as gays and lesbians who have formed relationships that involve children, property, and issues like health care have access to the relevant body of law, religions can have the ability to define marriage for those who voluntarily accept their discipline.

My objection to the "abortion on demand" line is that it creates an inaccurate impression. Back in the PBA controversy days I checked around and all the information I could find indicated the lack of a problem. The total is very small and while I understand that we will disagree on what constitutes "health" there just isn't that much of a demand.

On a related issue, I see the Arizona Catholic hospital abortion case is still chugging along.

‘The only "problem" alleged was that the pregnancy was a result of incest;’

Lydia, I’m surprised by the way you put this; I was under the impression you’ve got girls yourself. Did the girl 'discovered' and 'transported' have an abortion against her will? If so, perhaps you'll want to rethink your position over parental consent laws.

‘…there was every reason to believe that the pregnancy itself was not a danger to the mother's physical health or life.’

Not if incest is sufficient ground for an abortion beyond the third trimester. Anyway, I doubt pregnancy is no danger to an under-age girl’s health or life. I understand that, compared to early abortion, carrying a pregnancy to term involves a ten-fold increase in the chances of dying; and that pregnancies resulting from incest are more likely to involve genetic abnormalities. But who’s to assess threats to health if not doctors? And how many doctors should get to agree to make sure they aren’t unprofessional and just ‘pals’? I’m afraid I can’t see the bright line between ‘physical’ and ‘mental’ health you assume you can detect. Or does the law make the distinction?

I'm with Van Til: there is no neutrality and pretending that there is brings delusion. The left has no problems using the Bible for their own ends when they want to. See, for example:

http://livingtext.wordpress.com/2008/06/03/obama-the-theologian/w

Genetic abnormalities in the child are not a matter of harm to the mother's health, Overseas. And, yes, I do detect a very bright line between physical and mental health. An abortion is physically traumatic as well. A PBA involves delivering the child up to the head, holding the head in so it doesn't slip out, and then sucking out the brains. They could have just as easily delivered the child alive and placed it immediately in foster care with later adoption.

Your comment about physical and mental health simply confirms my point: Liberals want abortion to be available for whatever reason the woman (and/or the minor girl's parents) and the doctor agree upon, with the mantle of "health" thrown over that reason. That is exactly what Paul was alluding to concerning abortion on demand, and your desire to have all manner of things included in "health" merely confirms this.

Al, the legal point is what it is, regardless of whether "the demand is low" for this particular type of late-term murder during pregnancy. You were your usual condescending self to Paul, and you were wrong, but I doubt you'll admit it.

In other words, Overseas, _no_, the legal regime created by Roe & Doe _doesn't_ distinguish between physical and mental "health." That's _our_ point, but I'm not sure you understand what the argument is about in this particular thread.

Al, as usual, is talking about what he thinks or doesn't think is "a problem" in terms of policy. He doesn't think sucking brains out of half-born infants is "a problem" in terms of policy as long as the "demand is low." He uses this casual and horrific statement to distract attention from the fact that he snootily implied that the states really can stop women from having late-term abortions for whatever reason they and their abortionist(s) agree on and that we pro-lifers are just uneducated when we say something different. But the states can't. So Paul's assertion that the courts have imposed a regime of abortion on demand across the land was correct. But Al likes to change the subject. I'm sure he's good at that in the courtroom.

Lydia

So you claim that giving birth to a child who is also a sibling would not impact an under-age girl’s health. Of course there’s no doubt that abortion can be traumatic; so can any operation, including a Caesarean. But the rationale for a medical operation is that failing to intervene will likely result in greater trauma than the intervention entails. As for genetic abnormalities, they can indeed complicate pregnancy and delivery. My point is that it would not be safe to assume there was an absence of health reasons if the incest was sufficient to ground the abortion.

It’s quite possible I don’t understand what the argument is about; I’ve certainly never heard of Doe before. But the point I’m trying to make is that there’s no need to invoke high level combats between ‘right’ and ‘left’ where there’s a mundane and pedestrian explanation: I suggested above that the practical difficulties associated with setting-up and maintaining state machinery for monitoring condom use among citizens would sufficiently explain why condom use is not outlawed, even if there was a consensus that God frowns upon condoms and that the state’s role is to implement God’s will.

I’m not sure what being liberal or illiberal has to do with being able to discern the bright line between ‘physical’ and ‘mental’ health: The Supreme Court in Ireland accepted that a threat of suicide constitutes a ‘threat to life’ and is sufficient to ground a right to an abortion (done abroad, which sounds to me like the ‘demand is low’ argument you mention). But I can’t think of a European country less liberal on abortion than Ireland, save perhaps for Malta; so there are probably other reasons why the legislation doesn't distinguish between physical and mental health.

And my point is that you don't mean by "health" what most people think is meant by "health" and that the "health" exception forced upon the states by the Supreme Court does indeed mean that abortion on demand must be permitted throughout the United States, by all states.

What do you mean by "impose morality"? We have to know what morality is, first, and then we have to know what it means to impose it.

Now if someone's morality is some collection of beliefs about what one should do, I do not see how it is possible to impose morality on a person, unless it is also possible to impose beliefs on a person.

Certainly I can tell someone what I believe he ought to do -- and I can even get him to do it -- but I can't make him believe that he should do it, unless I convince him that he should do it.

Morality is relative. The law is not there to enforce one group of people's moral code onto everybody else. To some people, masturbation is amoral behavior. Should we outlaw masturbation because some people think I shouldn't [indulge in sexual narcissism]? No.

Every man has a right to his personal well being, his property, and the civil liberties granted to him by the constitution. In an ideal society, the law would only deal with behavior which deprives a man of his rights. Is a man taking away anybody's rights when he drinks or does drugs in the privacy of his own home? No. Is he taking away anybody else's rights when his wife [reference to an outlandish sexual perversion]]? No. Is he taking away anybody else's rights when he pays for a prostitutes services if all the parties involved are fully consenting? No. Is he taking away anybody else's rights when he engages in homosexuality? No. Is he taking away anybody else's rights if he marries another man? No.

Of course, violent crime deprives you of your rights and it should be addressed by the law. Same thing with white collar crime that seriously damages the economy of a country. Ideally, the law in a civilized society should be based on the harm principle. Arguments for laws based on somebody's personal sense of morality are very weak just because of the fact that a person from southeast Asia will have different social taboos than a person from the midwest United States. Not everybody thinks the same way you do.

All the behaviors I've listed are considered amoral by quite a few people. But one of the fundamental rights we have in this country is the right to be left alone if we're not hurting anybody. My point is that what you find offensive might not be offensive to the next person. Should that person not be allowed to masturbate just because you think [narcissistic lust for one's self] is sinful and wrong?

I don't know of anyone who believes that all immoral actions should be illegal. That's a straw man the size of the Colossus of Rhodes.

Yeah, well the problem with attempting to legislate morality is where do you stop and who gets to decide what is moral or amoral behavior? Again, if a behavior isn't harming anybody or depriving somebody else of their rights, it shouldn't be illegal.

Jacob, I've imposed my morality by editing the first of your comments in several places, because the phrasing was either crude or obscene. As you might have guessed, what you do not find offensive, others do. Christian ladies read this site. They do not have to be subjected to your filth, which deprives them of their right to a clean environment. Find a civilized way of putting things, or I'll have you banned.

Lydia

This is not about my idiolect! In Europe abortion is basically grounded on what you call the ‘health exception’ only. Effectively this works out much as in the States i.e. it’s easier to have an early abortion rather than a late one, since the risks of abortion increase as the pregnancy progresses; which does not exactly entail ‘abortion on demand’ beyond the first trimester. An abortion policy on health grounds seems more streamlined compared to the fragmented US situation which involves, as far as I understand, a time-limited ‘right’ with a ‘health exception’ plastered on thereafter. Now the Irish Supreme Court has accepted that being in a suicidal state of mind constitutes a ‘threat to life’; and if the Irish Supreme Court cannot discern this ‘bright line’ which also eludes the US Supreme Court, it can't be because the Irish are liberal over abortion.

Rob G

OK. Which immoral actions should not be illegal in your view, and why?

Paul,
What's your view of the left-wing Vermont secessionists?

If they weren't so clueless and badly organized I would condemn their disloyalty.

Vermont Crank,
I'll regret this later, but this song is perfect for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zruFhtDLcY

"if a behavior isn't harming anybody or depriving somebody else of their rights, it shouldn't be illegal."

What constitutes "harm"? Which "rights" do you have in mind? Your summary is nowhere near as simple as you seem to think it is.

"Which immoral actions should not be illegal in your view, and why?"

Lying is immoral. Cheating is immoral. Fornication is immoral. I don't believe they should be illegal, however, in that they do not necessarily rise to the level of seriousness to the injured party that would warrant intervention by the state. However, this is not to say that all instances of lying, cheating, or fornication should be legal, obviously. Lying on a contract, cheating on a business deal, or fornicating with a minor are all illegal, and should be.

Jacob, the first sentence -- "Morality is relative" -- vacates the force of everything else you say. For instance, "Every man has a right to his personal well being, his property, and the civil liberties granted to him by the constitution." That appears to a statement of absolute morality, but you've already renounced moral absolutes. You cannot, logically, declare all morality relative and then promptly set up some scheme of "rights" the absolute criterion of morality.

You're going to have to try harder at this, because the philosophy you've sketched out so far is incoherent.

There is another aspect of this that most people are utterly reluctant to see, much less admit – all non-trivial laws, all laws which command “Do this!” and “Don’t do that!” are backed up by, implicitly and frequently explicitly, by the threat of force and violence, and ultimately by the threat of violent death.

Now, one serious implication of this fact, one which most people adamantly refuse to see, is that there are, nor can be, no sound arguments against capital punishment per se. For, any argument against capital punishment itself is also an argument against all laws themselves, as all laws are backed up by the death penalty.

Moreover, and unlike capital punishment, which is meted out “in cold blood” after careful deliberation and further appeals and re-evaluations of the case, the death penalty which attends to laws in general is meted out “on the fly,” non-judicially, typically on the emotional decision of one person.

Ilion,
Like you, I don't think that capital punishment is immoral or unjust in principle.

But because I do not think our criminal justice system is sufficiently reliable in the verdicts it reaches, I think capital punishment is perhaps insupportable in practice. We make too many mistakes. Our juries are not always to be trusted. To send innocent folks to their deaths is a horrible injustice. If they were incarcerated instead of executed, at least we could release them and give them some sort of compensation for their loss of time and reputation. But if they are dead, we cannot.

Thanks Rob G. You seem to favour some cost-benefit calculus to justify intervention by the state according to the extent of damage an act inflicts to an injured party. There’s a cost to law-enforcement, the state’s resources are limited and we need to set priorities. So your proposal sounds prima facie sensible and seems to take care of the condom-use point I made. But it also seems to take care of a more general point, that usually ‘the morality in question has to do with sexual matters’. Fans of divine-command theories can still insist that the injured party is God, but you’ve provided an explanation why, irrespective of whether they lean right or left, people who may consider a certain behaviour to be morally wrong and people who may fail to see anything morally wrong with it may nevertheless still agree that the behaviour in question is not an appropriate subject for legislation; QED as far as I’m concerned.

You say that ‘fornicating with a minor’ is illegal but I’m not sure this is the case when two minors are involved, or that ‘fornicating’ is the right term when an adult is. Do you think that having sex with a wife is morally wrong for the spouse of one of those 9-year old girls being married off in Yemen? We often have strong feelings over issues, but it’s often hard to tell what’s the source of our attitudes. As Alex Leibowitz noted, ‘We have to know what morality is, first’, and ethics is not always easy to distinguish from, say, custom or convention. Perhaps in Yemen there’s support for parental consent laws over marriage like there’s support for parental consent laws over abortion elsewhere; unless support for parental consent laws is conditional on the parents deciding the way supporters would!

Mr Bauman,
True enough, but what you’ve said addresses different matter(s) than my point.

"But because I do not think our criminal justice system is sufficiently reliable in the verdicts it reaches, I think capital punishment is perhaps insupportable in practice. We make too many mistakes."

I think the worst/major cause of that is because our "criminal justice system" doesn't give a damn about justice; it’s about bureaucratic process and bureaucratic CYA. The lawyers have taken over, and intentionally corrupted to their own benefit, both the creation of laws via the legislatures and the application of them via the courts.

"Our juries are not always to be trusted."

True; but on average I’d sooner trust my freedom, or my life, to a jury than to a panel of “judicial experts.”

"To send innocent folks to their deaths is a horrible injustice."

Indeed; it is a horrible thing.

Yet, the “liberal” disinclination and/or outright refusal to punish the guilty -- including executing them when justice demands it -- is at least as great an injustice. And, since the guilty frequently go on to prey upon other innocents, this “liberal” refusal to punish the guilty tends to create even further injustices.

"If they were incarcerated instead of executed, at least we could release them and give them some sort of compensation for their loss of time and reputation. But if they are dead, we cannot."

True; but the adamant capital punishment opponents tend also to be against any punishment for actual crimes … though, in their defense, they do tend to be very much for punishment of thought-crime.

In case the reader is interested, as a comment in this thread I expressed/explained in more detail the logical fact that *all* arguments against capital punishment itself are also an arguments against all laws themselves. Should one be interested, one can see from the responses that these issues are not something most people want to think clearly about.

Michael Bauman-
As folks generally do when arguing against the death penalty, you aren't considering the folks killed by known murderers who are let go. I don't have the statistics at hand, but a majority of murders are committed by those who were already tried and convicted of murder before.

There's a couple of options: the death penalty is moral or it isn't.

If it's moral, then it's either moral in a reachable sense or it isn't.

If it's moral but only if you can find perfect juries who you can always trust, cops who never break the rules, lawyers who don't lie and investigations with no accidents, then it's theoretically moral but not in any reachable sense.

If it's moral in a true sense, then there are solutions to be offered, and you should offer those rather than say "oh, I think it's alright in principal, but...."

You can offer rare cases where the system fails and an innocent is killed; I can offer frequent cases where the system fails the prior victims, and innocents are killed. (Don't get me started on the innocence project-- anyone ever look at how many are listed as 'innocent' not because they were shown to be innocent, but because it would've been a mistrial?)

Here we go:

Because most violent acts are not reported to the police, and many do not result in any kind of officially recorded action (arrest, conviction, or imprisonment), official records of the previous violence of homicide offenders represent only the tip of the iceberg. Records of previous arrests for violent acts seriously underestimate previous violent behavior, records of prior convictions do so even more, and records of prior imprisonment do so still more. Nevertheless, it is useful to look at the evidence regarding officially recorded prior violence of known homicide offenders, in order to establish a minimum, baseline estimate of the prevalence of prior violence among killers. The most representative available samples of known or suspected homicide offenders would be samples of homicide arrestees, since samples drawn at later points in the criminal justice process (e.g., samples of persons convicted or persons imprisoned) would be subject to case loss and various selection biases, including bias associated with prior criminal record (see Wolfgang, 1958: 11-13). There is little evidence concerning prior convictions for such samples. Usually the data either concern prior arrests (and the proportion of arrestees with prior arrests would necessarily be larger than the proportion with prior felony convictions) or refer to samples of incarcerated persons, who would presumably be more recidivists than general samples of arrestees. Wolfgang (1958: 170-172, 183) reviewed earlier studies of the prior records of homicide offenders, most of them done in the 1930s and 1940s. In one sample of persons imprisoned for homicide offenses, 82% had previous criminal convictions, while the [Page 293] figure was 98% and 32% for two other similar samples. In a sample of persons convicted of homicide offenses, 43% had previous convictions. Regarding prior record of arrests, three studies indicated that 54%, 50% and 55%, respectively, of samples of homicide prisoners had previous arrests, while Wolfgang’s own sample of homicide arrestees indicated that 64.4% had a record of prior arrests (1958: 175). More recently the Careers in Crime data of the Uniform Crime Reports indicate that 77.9% of persons arrested for murder or nonnegligent manslaughter in 1970 had previous arrests, and 50.1% had prior convictions (FBI, 1971: 38). Among those homicide offenders arrested in the United States between 1970 and 1975, 67.6% had previous arrest records (FBI, 1976: 43).

Also:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html

I cannot believe you when you say that we who dislike the death penalty must in the end rely upon it. Is it impossible to persuade other people that what we think is good, is good? I remember reading a passage from Brentano where he says that the state must be morally legitimate, since it can be preserved only so long by guns.

But here is where I believe I disagree with the general trend of your arguments: a good state does not impose morality from on high, but lives in the agreement of all citizens with each other that their laws are good. If you cannot persuade someone else that what you think is good, really is good, at best, you will never be friends, and at worst, you are likely to become enemies.

But I think we should all be very anxious to see ourselves in agreement with other people about what is good. If we disagree with anyone about what is good, that should give us pause, and invite us to critically reflect upon our own and their beliefs. Conversation, excellent conversation, is the only antidote.

And yet the quality of the debate in America over what is good is laughable, and the Internet makes that only too apparent. But we must restrain ourselves at all costs from becoming angry with those we disagree with. It is better to be robbed of your own good, because you could not persuade someone else it was good, then it is to rob another person of his good, because you could not persuade him.

And that is why I cannot hate the muslims. If they will not talk to me, I must be brave enough to let them kill me -- because it is not worth living in a world where I must kill or be killed, and anyone who removes me from it, is doing me a favor.

In our anger, all we can see is our desire, that what we say be true. But this desire is perverted by debate, when we become so concerned that other people believe what we say is true (believe what we say is good, is good) that we lose sight of the question, whether or not it is true. If anyone disagrees with us about anything, we must take it as a sign, insofar as we cannot persuade them, that we ourselves are not secure in our beliefs. For this reason too, I would not rely on faith as the bulwark of my life, because faith is something private, which is given to men only by God, and not by other men. But as the rabbis are fond of saying, the Torah is not in heaven, but on earth.

"As folks generally do when arguing against the death penalty, you aren't considering the folks killed by known murderers who are let go. I don't have the statistics at hand, but a majority of murders are committed by those who were already tried and convicted of murder before."

Would you care to back that up?

"True; but the adamant capital punishment opponents tend also to be against any punishment for actual crimes … though, in their defense, they do tend to be very much for punishment of thought-crime."

Ditto, with names and sources.

"(Don't get me started on the innocence project-- anyone ever look at how many are listed as 'innocent' not because they were shown to be innocent, but because it would've been a mistrial?)"

Who needs a fair trial? If they were arrested they must be guilty.

Would you care to back that up?

Ditto, with names and sources.

Al, you're intellectually dishonest; I *know* this (Hell! we all do). And I don't allow intellectually dishonest persons to waste my time, nor do I play their little games.

Foxfier wrote,

"As folks generally do when arguing against the death penalty, you aren't considering the folks killed by known murderers who are let go. I don't have the statistics at hand, but a majority of murders are committed by those who were already tried and convicted of murder before."

IIion defended the statement after I asked for verification by replying,

"One can always count on a "liberal" to try the intellectually dishonest little trick of making that demand when it doesn't apply -- while doing all he can to avoid his obligation to meet it when it doe apply."

Ok, If one states, "I don't have the statistics at hand", that would seem to indicate that one has seen the relevant stats, i.e. they exist and should be displayable. Rather than call me names, how about explaining how I am being unreasonable?

IIlon, you wrote,

"True; but the adamant capital punishment opponents tend also to be against any punishment for actual crimes … though, in their defense, they do tend to be very much for punishment of thought-crime."

Now, either

1. you are aware of folks who hold such views and should be able to inform us as to who they are,

2. you read the unsupported assertion on some other conservative blog and uncritically accepted it because it confirmed your ideological prejudices,

or

3. you made it up and figured you could get away with it because this is a conservative blog and, sadly, most conservatives fall into category 2.

I cannot believe you when you say that we who dislike the death penalty must in the end rely upon it.

And that is why I cannot hate the muslims. If they will not talk to me, I must be brave enough to let them kill me -- because it is not worth living in a world where I must kill or be killed, and anyone who removes me from it, is doing me a favor.

Repeat it then, so that I can understand it. And I am not brave enough to kill myself, but if there is anyone who thinks that I should die, and he can convince me that it would be best for me to die, perhaps he will be able to help me.

Dear Mr Leibowitz. You aver -

But I think we should all be very anxious to see ourselves in agreement with other people about what is good.

- when it is the plain and simple truth that both Divine Revelation and the Natural Law imprinted on our Souls by Our Creator tells us otherwise and it is incumbent upon our own selves to be in agreement with God if we are to avoid Perdition and gain Salvation.

IOW, I must fear God, not avoid disagreement with another's personal opinion about the Objective, Universal, Code of Morality.

Bob Dylan was right when he observed -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEJ5nil2rhg

and The Old Testament teaches....

Judges 21 - The children of Israel also returned by their tribes, and families, to their dwellings. In those days there was no king in Israel: but every one did that which seemed right to himself.

..... how things go to Hell when we prefer our own limited, time-bound ideation over Divine Revelation and The Natural Law imprinted on our Souls by our Creator.

But how do we know that the revelation is telling the truth? If I disagree with a geometer about some one of his proofs, he can show me where I have gone wrong, and I feel as if I have some standard in myself against which to check his word. But what standard do I use to check God's word? I want to put the situation as I find it, because I can at least say how things appear to me. There are many people, who propose that I should be many things. How am I to decide between these competing claims? Now if I were to have some sort of mystical or divine experience, that could convince me of the truth of a thing. But I have as yet had no such experience. My only light, since I have yet to be saved, is the natural light. And yet I believe with far more certainty that 1+1 is 2, than I do that the world has a creator.

But I feel it is a fine thing to agree with a person, when he can persuade me of what he says. Agreement seems to be some indication of the truth in all matters. I can believe what a person says, when I understand what he says, and assent to it (as if there were something inside me that nods, whenever it hears something true). And sometimes my fault is that I do not understand what a person says. But that fault is easily corrected, especially if my interlocutor is skilled in explanation. But what am I to do when I do not agree with what a person says? It is wonderful to be told where to look.

But what anybody who believes something tells another person to look at, is some book, which contains other words like the words he himself is uttering. And if I disagree with what he has told me, and then find the same thing I disagreed with in person, in the book, I am bound to disagree with that too. So how are you going to correct me?

Dear Mr Leibowitz. I am not going to correct you because you have already stated you are the ultimate authority about what constitutes existence - just like The SCOTUS, in Lawrence V Texas, declared you have the right to decide.

At this time of year, we Christians are celebrating the Incarnation when God became man and the God-Man tells us that if we wish to know what it is we must do to avoid Perdition and gain Salvation then one way is to A.S.K. Him.

Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you. For every one that asketh, receiveth: and he that seeketh, findeth: and to him that knocketh, it shall be opened.

But, if one is a Jesus-Denier, if one rejects Jesus, one has also, simultaneously, rejected Logos - reason.

In his speech at Regensberg, The Holy Father said, "Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, the first verse of the whole Bible, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words; "In the beginning was the Logos." This very word used by the Emperor (Manuel II Palelogos) ; God acts with Logos." (E. Michael Jones, "The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History")

Jesus not only has the answers; He is the answer.

Stop looking for arguments, adopt humility and learn at the feet of the Master; Jesus.

Repeat it then, so that I can understand it.

Now, if you have a specific question about something I said which you didn't understand, then ask it. But, an open-ended "prove it again" is just the set-up for another round of "Deny And Demand." And I don't play that game.

Wow.

I go out and FIND the statistics-- both linking and quoting-- and then get asked to find them.

Please note, Al loves the non sequitur. Pointing out that the "innocence project" often fails to prove innocence as they claim, and he acts as if you're claiming all accused are guilty.

The question is: stupid or a troll?

As a point of psychology, I do not think that asking someone to submit to something which he does want to submit to, will make him submit to it. It is not the way to get your wife to do the laundry, I would imagine, so I cannot see how it is a way to get me to believe in Jesus. I would like to believe in Jesus, if I should, but I am not convinced that I should. And I do think (this is what is frustrating for both of us) that I do not want to. But I must find out why I do not want to. And I will give you these reasons:

1. I find other men attractive and enjoy sleeping with them from time to time. I have not been able to convince myself that this pleasure is harmless when appropriate precuations are taken.

2. I think there is nothing wrong with masturbation -- again, I class masturbation under the harmless pleasures -- or at least (because I will give you this much) those pleasures which are harmless when not indulged to excess.

In general, I think there is such a thing as moderate pleasure, and I think it is permitted to take moderate pleasure in many things, which I imagine the Church says I am not permitted to take pleasure in. And then I ask why I am not allowed to take pleasure in these things, and I am told it is because God has told us. And this answer does not satisfy me, anymore than it would satisfy a child, I think.

On the other hand, I once as a child tried to put a key in a socket, and my Dad spanked me and told me that if I did so, I would be electrocuted. And I suppose somehow I made sense of that, and desired not to learn from experience that the object of my pleasure (a certain curiosity) was not to be entertained.

Now it would be wonderful if I would come to feel some pain after having sex with men, which would make me think that I should not do it at all. But so many of these pleasures are harmless when pursued in the right way and to the right extent, and so one cannot see the long term harm.

And yet (because I am trying to make my reasons clear to you, and I am not, I hope, your enemy, nor am I even trying to persuade you that your own beliefs are wrong, but simply trying to give you an account of why I myself cannot believe them) there is also something distasteful in the idea that God will come down, like a reprimanding father, and punish us for these sins.

A sin must be its own punishment.

But I will listen to anyone -- I will listen to Scotus -- provided he can satisfy me, when I ask a question.

But is it unreasonable for someone to ask a question in a public forum such as this? Perhaps it is -- if he refuses to listen to your answer. But it would be nice if somehow it were possible for us to make question and answer easy to listen to and easy to give, so that in the end we might both satisfy ourselves, and so that neither of us need labor much more for the other's sake, than will be profitable to himself.

I am always being told, you see, what I should believe, by all sorts of people, and instead of shaking my head whenever I disagree with them, and walking away, I would like to try and discover another way for myself and others to decide, what we both should believe.

But now I think you should ask me, "Mr. Leibowitz, whatever do you mean by, 'to the right way', and 'to the right extent'?"

But I suppose there is something perverse about being told to ask someone I don't believe in to make me believe something I don't want to believe or think is true. Yet I think a bad desire is something that can be pruned, if there is a way to prune it, just as a bad belief is something that can be pruned, if there is a way to prune it. And then the fruit is not wholly lost.

My intellectual difficulty, which has kept me from believing Jewish doctrines (which I am more inclined to believe, by education) let alone Christian doctrines, is my conviction that the Bible was written by man. It is credible, when we ask how life was made -- as we see that every living thing was made by another living thing -- to be told that a god made it, just as we might make a pot. But it is less credible to say, when asked why a man said something, that a god made him say it, or write it, and so I find it difficult to believe in prophets. And all the moreso, because there are no prophets these days. (This has been a difficulty both for Christianity and Judaism and, I would think, Islam: explaining the end of prophecy.)

I do not doubt explanations can be given. But I am a child, and when a child is taught something, it asks questions. A teacher answers those questions, insofar as he is able, and becomes annoyed, insofar as he doesn't understand the questions himself, or isn't able to answer them. And the child should listen to and respect his teacher, because the teacher has something to tell him. Yet the teacher must respect the child, I think, and realize that what he says must be within the child's capacity to understand.

I am a philosopher by persuasion, and I think that understanding a thing is wonderful, and to be sought after. Either I have been taught and have believed, or have decided of my own accord, that curiosity is not a thing to be stifled. And so I will ask my questions, if I am allowed to ask them, and I will often misunderstand your answers, reply hastily, pick on an idle and unimportant point. But are you here to serve me this knowledge, which I must ask for from you, since I only know how to ask questions to those men I can see? Or will you begrudge it to me?

I am saying what Socrates would say, but only because I think it is right to say it -- and if it is not right to say this, please pardon me, because I do not want to say what it is not right to say. And yet I cannot convince myself it is holy to deny the compulsion to say it.

And so I would say, I do not see how I have rejected reason, and I would like you to tell me more as to why, when it seems to me I have not rejected reason, I have in fact rejected it.

"Wow."

"I go out and FIND the statistics-- both linking and quoting-- and then get asked to find them."

Foxfier, you wrote,

"I don't have the statistics at hand, but a majority of murders are committed by those who were already tried and convicted of murder before."

I don't believe your statistics show that. They seem to show that folks who murder usually have prior criminal records for lesser offenses. That is a ho hum sort of statement that I assume is basic knowledge.

Most people don't get off work one day and out of nowhere decide to get a firearm and go rob a liquor store. Crime, especially violent crime, is largely a young man's game and proceeds in a somewhat orderly fashion from petty crimes to more serious offenses (I believe robbery is the largest single category in California prisons and robberies can easily go south). First and second degree murder convictions carry a heavy sentence (a friend of mine is nearing retirement - he first did criminal law and some of his early clients are still in prison) and violent criminals tend to "age out" after serving 25 years or so (an old friend whose life has taken some strange turns called me some time back after a long period of silence. Turns out he had served a year up in Washington where he now lives. He was one of the older inmates. As he put it, "the guys called me 'pops' and the guards said 'back again, rick' - al, I'm getting too old for this." He seems to have aged out.

There are repeat murderers, of course, and the murder for which one is convicted may not have been the first (or second) but my impression is that murder is sort of the high point of a criminal career (folks commit the crimes they are capable of - think Wall Street - armed robbers usually aren't that capable) followed by some serious time in prison.

One of your sources wrote,

"Homicides are largely unpredictable "crimes of passion" committed by otherwise law-abiding citizens not distinguishable from other people. Everyone is potentially a killer, and we can not tell in advance who is likely to kill and who is not. Therefore, control must be directed at all gun owners rather than select criminal subgroups."

and the other one wrote something similar.

They seem somewhat dated as gun control as an issue peaked sometime ago; we now live in the post-Heller world The propositions themselves are dubious and at best may have been believed and asserted by a small segment of anti-gun nuts.

Still waiting, Ilion.

Al -- do you disagree with the source who said homicides are unpredictable crimes of passion, or not? There must at least be a way for us to predict the passions, and avoid those situations in which they arise, I hope! (Because I do not want to find myself in a situation where I have an urge to kill someone, whether I obey the urge or not.)

In general, how does Catholocism deal with akrasia and akratics? (I keep hoping to attract Edward Feser's attention, because I am told he knows about these things -- perhaps only because I am a vane little man.)

Lurking behind the matter of imposing morality are the questions:

1. Are there moral truths independent of man
2. If yes, must they be followed
3. If no, may they be invented
4. If invented, must they, then, be followed

The Chicken

Nice questions, Masked Chicken, albeit lacking question marks. I suggest interjecting

1.1 Are moral truths knowable, and by which method?

Mr. Leibowitz, your rather scatter-shot questioning is certainly permitted. We do not begrudge folks asking questions, even questions evidencing a vaguely nihilistic tone.

However, there are certain other considerations to attend to. One is that you have appeared very late in a long thread of comments in just before a major Christian holy day. I myself did not notice your first comment until just recently. Another is that we have not, it so happens, left the principles that guide this website to the imagination of readers. We have declared them forthrightly: here and here. Another consideration is that there are numerous previous posts here that more directly address your doubts and disagreements. My illustrious colleague Lydia McGrew possesses a masterful command of the empirical demonstrations of scriptural authority and Christian revelation (see, e.g., this).

So I would respectfully recommend that you spend some time (if you have not already) reading up on our previous discussions and debates around here. Then, as new items go up on the front page, go ahead and post your questions and comments as they relate to the discussion.

Now, on to the questions in your first comment -- What do you mean by "impose morality"? We have to know what morality is, first, and then we have to know what it means to impose it.

The phrase "impose morality" is not, of course, one of my own invention. I used it because it is a very common catchphrase, especially in matters related to what is called "morals legislation," that is, legislation written to curb vices, to effect the moral sensibilities of the community, etc. In my life of public debate, I have heard this phrase more times that I can count. For a certain class of libertarian there is no end to the usefulness of it.

One of the points of my original post is that virtually all legislation partakes of morality. Another point (more implicit) is that virtually all legislation imposes. That's its purpose -- either to proscribe certain conduct or to insist of certain other conduct. The legislative body writes law that imposes on the whole commonwealth. Recent legislation here in this republic will force everyone in the country to purchase health insurance from specific private providers on pain of fines and other penalties.

It is often supposed that only moralistic conservatives want to impose morality, but no one who is familiar with the debate over health care in this country can fail to notice the strongly moralistic tones on liberal side of that debate. Nor (as I mentioned in the OP) can one fail to note the strongly moralistic tones on the liberal side of the gay rights debate.

Now if someone's morality is some collection of beliefs about what one should do, I do not see how it is possible to impose morality on a person, unless it is also possible to impose beliefs on a person.

Morality compasses more than just beliefs about what one should do. It includes conduct and actions, which can be imposed or prohibited by law, on pain of fine, incarceration, loss of rights, even death.

I go out and FIND the statistics-- both linking and quoting-- and then get asked to find them.

"Liberals" are almost always intellectually dishonest. And the more "liberal," the more doctrinaire leftist, the more certain the probability that one is dealing with a person who will say *anything,* including the denial of what he asserted just moments before.

1. I find other men attractive and enjoy sleeping with them from time to time. I have not been able to convince myself that this pleasure is harmless when appropriate precuations are taken.

Did you mean to indicate that homosexual sex is harmful? Did you mean that homosexual sin is only harmless if it does not injure the Body while you entertain no thoughts about The Soul?

2. I think there is nothing wrong with masturbation -- again, I class masturbation under the harmless pleasures -- or at least (because I will give you this much) those pleasures which are harmless when not indulged to excess.

The Capital Sin of Lust renders one spiritually blind but one proof that you are not totally blind is that you contend that one can enjoy self-abuse, masturbation, just so long as it is not indulged in to excess.

IOW, you admit there is such a thing as excess while not acknowledging that even one act of masturbation is excessive in that it is an act opposed to the Will of God. So, that is a thing one can build on.

In any event, I am always quick to Confess my inadequacy when it comes to certain questions and conversations and I confess it now.

Other than what I have already written, I have no other things to write. You reject objective universal morality when it comes to homosexual sex and masturbation and so you have imprisoned yourself in Lust and if you can not see that then, I think, you have rejected the Grace of God who created you and you have had your heart hardened.

Now, you could adopt radical humility and repent of your sins and have the scales removed from your intellectual eye but you give no indication that is your desire so it is likely you will continue on your current Path to Perdition enjoying your sins while seeking pleasing conversations about them.

I am not writing these words with the intent to harm or shame you in any way and I certainly do not wish you ill in any way. In fact, I desire just the opposite. It is just that in my admittedly limited ability I know not what else there is to be written.

Overseas,

I left off the question marks because they are terminal punctuation and I was making a list (I know my sentiments are not MLA-approved) - may also be a hold-over from writing computer code. In any case, I trust the statements are clear as questions from comments.

Obviously, I think there are moral truths independent of man. Must they be followed: no - free will and all that; shoul they be followed - aye, but a should is not a must.

My point is that even God has trouble getting man to follow the morals that he, himself (God), imposes (the whole Garden of Eden thing didn't go so well) and his laws are not burdensome. I imagine that when we can at least follow his laws, we will then be mature enough to add our own.

The Chicken

That should be:

clear as questions from context

Not to start a sectarian war, but Overseas is spot-on: if there is a moral truth independent of man, how come there are so many different opinions of it? Even when God shouted the Law from Mt. Sinai, did man listen? No, they asked him to stop shouting! If God wants us to know the moral law (and one may assume that he does), how can we be consistent in our legislation if we can't even be consistent about his? Isn't there always the danger of laws limping, otherwise?

The Chicken

Masked Chicken

I think it’s possible for arguments to clash without the people who put them forward necessarily declaring war on one another.

That was a tongue-in-cheek comment about the missing question marks; I’m glad you can appreciate the significance of epistemological/methodological considerations: I’ve never seen eye-to-eye with a masked chicken before!

One of your sources wrote,

"Homicides are largely unpredictable "crimes of passion" committed by otherwise law-abiding citizens not distinguishable from other people. Everyone is potentially a killer, and we can not tell in advance who is likely to kill and who is not. Therefore, control must be directed at all gun owners rather than select criminal subgroups."

and the other one wrote something similar.

... you have GOT to be trolling.

Either that, or you're not even reading other than trying to scan for cues.....

The page you are directly quoting from is called "THE FACTUAL FOUNDATION FOR CERTAIN KEY ASSUMPTIONS OF GUN CONTROL"-- amazing you didn't find this quote that isn't stating a 'key assumption of gun control':

Even arrest records grossly underestimate prior violent behavior of assaultive offenders, since for every arrest for a homicide or assault there were at least six such crimes committed.[2] There is, however, another official indicator of prior violence, which produces somewhat less underestimation: police records of patrol car "disturbance calls." A study of Kansas City killings found that 90% of the homicides had been preceded by past disturbances at the same address, disturbances which were serious enough that the police had to be called in, with a median number of five previous disturbance calls per address (Wilt et al., 1977). Thus killings are rarely isolated outbursts of previously nonviolent people, but are usually part of a pattern of violence, engaged in by people who are known to the police, and presumably others, as violence prone.

The other source quotes an example of the same assumption and says directly after it:
Although the first part of the claim of Webster et al. is probably correct (Kleck and Bordua conservatively estimate that 25% of homicide offenders have prior felony convictions. [Kleck, Gary and David J. Bordua. 1983. The factual foundations for certain key assumptions of gun control. Law and Policy Quarterly 5. p. 293.]), their conclusion that most homicide offenders "would be considered law-abiding citizens prior to their pulling the trigger" is not.

Slightly below that:
Excerpted from, Kates, Don B., et. al, Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 (1994):

"Looking only to official criminal records, data over the past thirty years consistently show that the mythology of murderers as ordinary citizens does not hold true. Studies have found that approximately 75% of murderers have adult criminal records, and that murderers average a prior adult criminal career of six years, including four major adult felony arrests. These studies also found that when the murder occurred "[a]bout 11% of murder arrestees [were] actually on pre-trial release"--that is, they were awaiting trial for another offense."

"The fact that only 75% of murderers have adult crime records should not be misunderstood as implying that the remaining 25% of murderers are non-criminals. The reason over half of those 25% of murderers don't have adult records is that they are juveniles. Thus, by definition they cannot have an adult criminal record."

We are getting an example here of how misinformation comes into being.

Foxfier wrote,

"...but a majority of murders are committed by those who were already tried and convicted of murder before."

and submits statements in support that simply don't show that. The statements assert prior criminal records which is hardly controversial. They don't assert prior murder convictions.

Note the arc here:

Ilion posts a reductionist and incorrect argument for capital punishment (e.g. shooting a fleeing shoplifting suspect is out of policy in most jurisdictions).

Michael B submits a reasonable assertion about capital punishment - our documented history of problematic enforcement.

Ilion then makes up stuff about liberals,

and

Foxfier misreads an article on a anti-gun control website to mean that we have a revolving door re: the punishment of murderers.

"Michael Bauman-"
"As folks generally do when arguing against the death penalty, you aren't considering the folks killed by known murderers who are let go."

I merely point out the problems.

On another note,

"Morality compasses more than just beliefs about what one should do. It includes conduct and actions, which can be imposed or prohibited by law, on pain of fine, incarceration, loss of rights, even death."

Which begs the question as to which actions is it appropriate for the state to prohibit (or for that matter to encourage). Your position seems to be that the only criteria should be the ability to muster a majority in the legislature. How does a constitutionally imposed order function in your scheme?

That's not what I interpreted Paul to say. To me, he implied that after the background morality is established, then laws may be written to enforce the actions implied in them. I read nothing about majority rule, per se. There are many different ways to legislate in the u. S. from rules of dress from the boss at work to full-blown debated/signed federal law.

The Chicken

al,
You're right. The trajectory of the discussion is a bit unsettling. Folks tend not to read what's written or, if they do, they draw conclusions about what's written that go far astray from the author's meaning or intention. Too infrequently are objections raised on the same basis as the assertions against which they are made. For that reason and more, I despair the outcome of the marketplace of ideas. Yet, that marketplace seems to be the best tool we have available to us at the moment. It's just that truth suffers badly at the hands of its friends and defenders.

Perhaps we ought to make a point of consciously under-concluding about another person's posts. Otherwise it's too often a complete waste of time and pixels. Ideology runs rampant -- and hermeneutical precision is sacrificed daily on that altar. I was giving a bit of support to my online friend Ilion, and articulating what, at least for me, is a problem that I must face given my belief in capital punishment. That led to false speculations about things I allegedly overlook or forget -- as if because a responder cannot think of an answer to a question, therefore, I cannot think of one either and that I therefore must be forgetting or overlooking what trips them up. No so. I might reach the conclusion I do precisely because I have not forgotten such issues and can answer them with more skill, precision, insight, and creativity than those who fail to seek out my reasons and who simply substitute their own for mine, and then mock the ideas they supply -- and rightly so.

As for the introduction of false data in support of equally false conclusions, one can only move resolutely forward, trying to dislodge bad arguments with good ones. (Nevertheless, I admit to being overly fond of the sarcasm of Christ, Paul, Erasmus, and Milton in response to error). The truth does not always prevail.

Foxfier misreads an article on a anti-gun control website to mean that we have a revolving door re: the punishment of murderers.

The article is THE FACTUAL FOUNDATION FOR CERTAIN KEY ASSUMPTIONS OF GUN CONTROL. Direct cut-and-paste of the title from the top of the page.

Please note:
Al gets to demand this, that and the other, make false claims, misleading quotes, contradictory quotes... but we're using misinformation.

Foxfier misreads an article on a anti-gun control website to mean that we have a revolving door re: the punishment of murderers.

The article is THE FACTUAL FOUNDATION FOR CERTAIN KEY ASSUMPTIONS OF GUN CONTROL. Direct cut-and-paste of the title from the top of the page.

Please note:
Al gets to demand this, that and the other, make false claims, misleading quotes, contradictory quotes... but we're using misinformation.

I admit that I can always read more before I post. I was also having display problems with my browser yesterday, and all the posts were showing up backwards.

Let me tell you why I am here. I am here because I am unsettled by the heat of public political dispute, and I share your goals of having intelligent conversations about those things in respect to which we disagree.

Nonetheless, I urge you to remember that I am a person, and I have feelings. I am not saying that I might not deserve to be shamed for what I believe, but I am not going to become better if my teachers shame me, because I can tell you that a conversation which excessively piques me is not worth participating in. I do consider that you will become my teachers, if you have something to teach me. I admit on the other hand to not believing that what you will teach me is true, but I want you to help me see why I do not think at is true. And perhaps in the course of the discussion, I will see I have no good reason to believe it is not true. This can happen when discussing mathematics, so I do not see why it cannot happen when discussing other matters.

Also, I have never up to this point participated in American democracy, because of the way arguments seem to be conducted, which I do not like. I will tell you frankly that Socrates is my intellectual ideal -- because, as you might say, my idol. I think that what Socrates did was the right thing to do -- going up to people and asking what they believe, and why, and objecting where he had trouble believing them, or where they said something to him he did not think was true. And if I cannot be Socrates and become a Christian, then I would far rather be Socrates. But I think that a Christian is permitted to be Socrates.

I know we disagree, but it seems to me if we are going to have a productive conversation, we must try to approach the conversation as equals. If I insult you and call you stupid when you disagree with me, which I hope very much I have not, and if you say anything to me which I perceive as an insult, even if it was not intended as an insult, anger and fear will cloud my judgment, and I am afraid they will dislodge me from my goal, which is to discover what is true.

I do not now claim to know what is true. I cannot promise, if you tell me that something is true, that I will agree with you that it is true, and I will try to articulate my reasons as best as I can, when I do disagree with you. Psychologically I do not think I am capable of believing something, so long as I can see a reason to disagree with it, so we must root out these reasons.

You tell me I should live my life differently, and I do want to take that seriously. But I am not going to make changes until I am persuaded I have good reasons to do so, and so far I have not been persuaded. Please let us not write as enemies. I hope you don't think a man is your enemy simply because he disagrees with what you say?

But I know that you think of me like a spoilt child, who complains loudly when he doesn't get his way, or argues simply for the sake of argument. Please, if you see me this way, for I fear you do, allow that I am trying to do the best I can, by my own lights, and that I am always looking for other lights to lead me, even though they sometimes can be hard to see. I think there is something good in human nature, that seeks to correct itself and lead itself aright, but there is also something bad in human nature -- and perhaps what is bad will always creep into our conversation, but I think we can do something to make sure that what is good always shines more brightly.

Finally, I will let you know my own belief -- which is that I ought to spend my life asking questions about everything I can, and trying to make certain whether I understand the answers or not. I do not seek a family, I do not seek love, I do not even know if I want friends, but I do want this one thing: to learn about as much of the world as I can, while I am here. If I were to become a Christian, and I were told that I was not allowed to study mathematics or history or science, and that somehow what I learned from those studies should be considered less marvelous and less wonderful and less worthy of admiration, I would also abandon Christianity for the sake of science. I am a Platonist with Pyrrhonian leanings (like all Platonists) and I will not love your God if he does not love mathematics.

I have read a lot of things. I do not claim to have understood them, but it has been the most wonderful part of my life. I could not become a Christian if I were not allowed to write as St. Augustine writes. And it is because of people like St. Augustine, that I respect Christianity at all. If Christianity had not produced a St. Augustine and a St. Aquinas, I would think it as dull and vulgar as Mormonism, since the Mormons seem to believe, unless I am mistaken, that God has a body. (And yet I will tell you that I will talk to the Mormons too about their opinion, and I will talk to every man who has an opinion about something, and try to see if his opinion is correct, and if I should adopt it, or not.)

There is no "marketplace of ideas", or if there is, it does not much concern me. All I care about is what I should believe, and I am to go around to all the people who tell me that I should believe something, and ask them why I should believe it.

But you must not make me feel guilty! Guilt infuses me and gives me a terrible anxiety -- what you called my "nihilism" -- and I must not allow myself ever to be paralyzed. I am going to make terrible mistakes, and you are going to reproach me for them, and I will allow myself to be approached, but I must try not to be too quick to believe your reproaches. Because if I believed someone every time he reproached me, I would end up having a very low opinion of myself indeed -- and that is something that I do think has happened.

But are you going to try and break me, like they break in new recruits? To a certain extent, I can endure pain, and it is not noble to flinch from a certain amount of pain -- but I hope that coming to believe the right things is not like that. Physical health can be improved by pleasant though slightly strenuous exercise, and it must be the same with the health of the soul.

And yet I'm afraid you tell me that the health of the soul is something over which I have no control at all, but it is all in the hands of God. And in that case, I despair of ever becoming better, I think, because so far I have not.

I think it there is also a tendency like you said when a person reads something he doesn't understand to assume that there is nothing in it to understand. We are all too quick to attribute errors to others and too slow to attribute errors to ourselves. Or at least I will admit that I for my part am too quick -- but I think, given the amount of rancor that turns up on Internet discussion boards, that it is probably common to both participants in a debate, in the usual case.

Mr. Leibowitz, chill. Give it a rest with the hyper-personal, rambling, repetitive comments.

Do you think all pleasure is bad, or are some pleasures bad, and some pleasures good?

Which begs the question as to which actions is it appropriate for the state to prohibit (or for that matter to encourage). Your position seems to be that the only criteria should be the ability to muster a majority in the legislature. How does a constitutionally imposed order function in your scheme?

I'm not begging any question, Al. I'm simply leaving aside the specific details of how sovereignty works in any given state. Our system is modified majoritarianism -- majority rule filtered by a variety of checks and adjustments. Publius uses a fine phrase to describe this in The Federalist: "the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail." So my answer to your question is the Madison and Hamilton answer. How does a constitutionally imposed order function? By the cool and deliberate sense of the community.

Now, in other times and other places, sovereignty works in different ways. I am not one of those moderns who thinks only democratic forms are legitimate. I follow Burke in sneering at the insane Jacobin notion that "all government, not being a democracy, is a usurpation."

So I leave aside the question of precisely how the sovereign generates legislation. I only insist that it does, always and everywhere, involve morality applied to "conduct and actions, which can be imposed or prohibited by law, on pain of fine, incarceration, loss of rights, even death."

Nonetheless, I urge you to remember that I am a person, and I have feelings.

I thought you were a Socratic method phrase generator or a postmodern performance artist :)

Anyway, your desire to avoid guilt is highly immoral, in my opinion. Christians take this good idea too far, saying Man is guilty for all the evil in the world, but feeling guilt for real misconduct is a healthy thing. That is part of the internalization of morality that everyone learns in childhood. The question is whether or not that training in childhood was correct, but to deny it altogether is evidence of psychopathy.

As to the question of moral truth, the world's religions all start with the same "problem" and have different fixes for it. My inner contrarian tells me that the problem may be that nobody understands the problem.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/04/25/separate_truths/

Mr. Leibowitz, can I recommend that you address your particular interlocutors by name in your comments? We cannot tell exactly who you are referring to in several instances.

Step 2: I think you're right, that some guilt is healthy, but I think there may be such a thing as too much guilt. Or perhaps too much anxiety about doing something wrong. It seems to me that in order to ever act well, we have to put ourselves in a situation where we risk asking badly. Would you agree?

And while I may write like a postmodern, I believe at least that there are firm truths in mathematics. I am not sure if Derrida believes in mathematical truths. Or at least I think it is important to study mathematics, and try to, now and then -- so I put that forward as evidence, that I believe the thing.

Step2: I'll tell you, and this is just a psychological observation, maybe, that I think I have often avoided interacting with people, for fear either of disliking them or being disliked by them. And perhaps that is a sign of cowardice, but dealing with people can be very painful -- and one can understand why a man would try to avoid pain, even if, perhaps, one should not pardon him for it?

Cella: I think my reason for believing that we shouldn't draft our moral beliefs into law codes is probably because I do not think people are able to agree about what they should and should not do, and it does seem to me like government should be based on agreement. But I think i see the paradox you have in mind?

If we establish a government, we have to establish it on the basis of agreement. But if we are going to establish a government on the basis of agreement, there has to be something we agree about. And shouldn't we agree about something because it is true, and not simply because the majority of us believe it, or some significant portion with an army? But what we want to agree upon, when establishing a government, is what laws will bind us, and what penalties we will enforce upon those who do not follow them, and these agreements, you say, are agreements about morality, or something like that?

But all I can get from that line of reasoning, is that a government ought to be founded on the basis of moral knowledge. On the other hand, governments, we might say, are simply established by the agreement, and sometimes the agreement is incorrect.

I sometimes wonder whether the agreement we came to when establishing the United States was correct or not, because people seem to assume, in political discourse, that it is, and that we should be ruled by the constitution. I don't think the assumption is wrong, necessarily, but I am skeptical that the majority of politicians have given much thought to the matter. I hope I am wrong about that, though. I have not conversed with a lot of people, and I have rarely or never conversed with a politician, so I do not know what politicians think about.

But I'm not sure it's right, either, to say that governments are established by agreement, and then I have to find another argument for you.

Mr Leibowitz: Governments can certainly be established by accident and force, by conquest and plunder and enslavement. Historically, those are the conditions under which most men have toiled.

Also, my point goes not to whether we should or should not "draft our moral beliefs into law codes." My point more descriptive than normative: legislation flows from moral beliefs. That's just the way it is. It's the social state of man.

You're right, Paul. The enshrinement of morality into law is, literally, unavoidable. The real question is not "Can we legislate morality?" but "Which morality ought we to legislate?" Some morality or another will be imposed. Just make it good. As is painfully obvious, not all moral codes are created equal.

You're right, Paul. The enshrinement of morality into law is, literally, unavoidable. The real question is not "Can we legislate morality?" but "Which morality ought we to legislate?" Some morality or another will be imposed. Just make it good. As is painfully obvious, not all moral codes are created equal.

But, but...I said that, like 500 posts ago...sniff, sniff

[Donning monocle and riding crop]: So...you von't leeson to der Chicken....vee have vays, you know, of making you leeson...

You know, you can have legislation not based on morality, such as officially legislating that the speed of light is 299, 792, 458 m/s exactly. The interesting question is, can one have morality not reflected in laws?

The Chicken

Apologies but this item does make the point that considerations of morality do need to be tempered with practical as well as other considerations.

"Maryland has spent $186 million on capital cases over the past 30 years—which comes to $37 million per execution."

"The typical Texas death case carries a price tag of $2.3 million. A 2005 study pointed out that 'New Jersey taxpayers over the last 23 years have paid more than a quarter billion dollars on a capital punishment system that has executed no one.'"

"You might surmise that death sentences and executions have subsided because the homicide rate has dropped so much. But Zimring finds that the biggest decline has been among murders that aren't eligible for capital punishment. Capital murders have declined far less. There are thousands each year for prosecutors who want to pursue them."

http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/27/the-death-penalty-on-the-wane
All of these states have serious budget problems.

Apologies but this item does make the point that considerations of morality do need to be tempered with practical as well as other considerations. [snip] All of these states have serious budget problems.