Rights and Duties

[Athena]

Rights and Duties

Paul said-

You present your argument as if we only have two choices - return to the ways of the past with all the things that were wrong with it, or move toward a more socialized future, with all the things that Socialist experiments have shown to be wrong with that.

CanadysPeak said-

In Pennsylvania, and some other states, you still are responsible for supporting your parents, your brother, your cousin, or any other indigent relative. If your parents are receiving Medicare, that alone is considered sufficient to cover medical costs and you will likely not be held responsible.

What do these statements share in common?

How about the seat of authority?

Does authority rest in the individual or the state?

How is the power of authority created?

How is the power of authority destroyed?

What is the relationship between rights and duties?

[CanadysPeak]

We live in a society of law. We make the laws, though some of us have much more input than others. The ultimate authority rests always in the government created to adminster those laws. We may individually acknowledge other authority, e.g., religious or moral, but we do so at peril of sanctions by the government. In such an instance, we must be prepared, like many Vietnam war COs, to go into exile or to go to prison.

Hume, whom you seem to admire, wrote of the original contract,

"The people, if we trace government to its first origin in the woods and deserts, are the source of all power and jurisdiction, and voluntarily, for the sake of peace and order, abandoned their native liberty and received laws from their equal and companion."

This voluntary surrender of individual authority is held by most to be irrevocable. Hume, That Damned Infidel, also acknowledged that authority from a deity was secondary to, or perhaps a thinly disguised version of, this original contract.

[owleye]

Athena...

You keep asking important questions and I find myself thinking that in order to respond to them I have to work my way through an array of posts that I haven't read in which you've already responded to something that I might say in response. In other words, I find myself in need of researching all your posts just to respond to the question being posed, something I'm not inclined to do.

Despite this, though, let me suppose these are bare questions I can begin with without all that work.

With respect to rights, I'm in general sympathy with the view that government (by however means it is established) is what grants rights. No government, or governing body, no rights.

And it is in conformance with this idea that some libertarians advocating a limited if not no role for government in our lives, say Chief Justice Thomas, that rights are not something we have. Though the Declaration of Independence expressed the sentiment that some rights (life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness) are granted in an inalienable sense possibly by some Divine law, it is only secular (positive) law that establishes them because despite the claims of kings and popes, we are all human beings, none of us being gods.

This is where it begins. In granting rights to folks in accordance with laws that establishing them, there is an expectation that we have obligations respecting the government to enforce them, since in the absence of government enforcement power, these granted rights might as well not have been granted as they will be trampled upon by the powerful. Of course we should stand up for our rights, but in the end, none of us have the power to overcome those more powerful than us. If the law is meaningless, because it is unenforced, there is no governing body, and we are left on our own. It is only when the governed collectively can establish its own rules and a body to keep the powerful in line (requiring at least a degree of power adequate to the task), that rights can be maintained.

This establishes the rule of law, something made possible by something within us that grants laws the power to rule our lives, though perhaps missing in some folks. I don't think it necessary to go into what it is within us (perhaps its merely that we fear being caught, perhaps its because we believe obeying the law is a moral obligation). If what you are after is a psychology of law or a moral theory associated with law, then I suspect the discussion will need to be expanded to cover the topic of jurisprudence. For now, however, let me suspend that discussion of it.

Duties, then, or responsibilities, which is also a term often used in this context, derive from the duty of citizenship, one that means we give up something to get something better. Yes, we might be granted freedom, but such liberty when it infringes on some other's freedom deprives us from getting that something we collectively think is better. As such, we restrict our freedom or it becomes a duty, obligation or responsibility to restrict our own freedom in order to gain the benefit of living in a society that grants us a modicum of it, a modicum that is sufficient for us creating a government that grants us those rights in the first place.

This would be my considered response to the question, they being taken in a vacuum of understanding of where you're coming from in asking them.

James

[Athena]

We live in a society of law. We make the laws, though some of us have much more input than others. The ultimate authority rests always in the government created to adminster those laws. We may individually acknowledge other authority, e.g., religious or moral, but we do so at peril of sanctions by the government. In such an instance, we must be prepared, like many Vietnam war COs, to go into exile or to go to prison.

Hume, whom you seem to admire, wrote of the original contract,

"The people, if we trace government to its first origin in the woods and deserts, are the source of all power and jurisdiction, and voluntarily, for the sake of peace and order, abandoned their native liberty and received laws from their equal and companion."

This voluntary surrender of individual authority is held by most to be irrevocable. Hume, That Damned Infidel, also acknowledged that authority from a deity was secondary to, or perhaps a thinly disguised version of, this original contract.

Now I have to speak of God and argue Hume. I am really torn, because his reasoning is excellent, and this thread might be better if I could avoid the God issue, but man is not the ultimate authority, and neither is his government the ultimate authority. God, is the ultimate authority. Unfortunately religion has given us a false God, and that really messes things up. However, during the renaissance of Athens' philosophy and reasoning, it was considered our duty to use science to reveal God, and because democracy begins with this reasoning, I think we should stay with it. Our liberty depends on that. Governments are of men and they are not always right, but can be very wrong, deadly wrong.

Our liberty is not the freedom to do anything we please, because this would lead to doing wrong things, and that would be destructive, so it is not tolerable. Our liberty is restricted to the freedom to do the right thing, and it is our God given duty, to know right from wrong. For every freedom there is a duty.

In a democracy, everyone holds the duty of knowing right from wrong, and the responsibility of governing the nation by naming The Laws (logos), and then protecting their liberty by following the laws. When a person realizes a law is wrong, a person must speak up, and reason with others why the law is wrong, until the law is corrected, because God, not man is the ultimate authority. It would not be the wrong thing, if it did not do harm. So if we have laws that enable us to suck the last drop of water from the ground, and we know this is causing problems, and could destroy our way of life, we must speak up, because we, and the gods, are subject to The Law. We violate The Law at the peril of the consequences. This is either ignorant or foolish.

We are made in the image of the gods, because we can reason, and because we can reason, we are capable of self government. This is the fundamental principle of democracy.

[Athena]

Athena...

You keep asking important questions and I find myself thinking that in order to respond to them I have to work my way through an array of posts that I haven't read in which you've already responded to something that I might say in response. In other words, I find myself in need of researching all your posts just to respond to the question being posed, something I'm not inclined to do.

Despite this, though, let me suppose these are bare questions I can begin with without all that work.

With respect to rights, I'm in general sympathy with the view that government (by however means it is established) is what grants rights. No government, or governing body, no rights.

And it is in conformance with this idea that some libertarians advocating a limited if not no role for government in our lives, say Chief Justice Thomas, that rights are not something we have. Though the Declaration of Independence expressed the sentiment that some rights (life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness) are granted in an inalienable sense possibly by some Divine law, it is only secular (positive) law that establishes them because despite the claims of kings and popes, we are all human beings, none of us being gods.

This is where it begins. In granting rights to folks in accordance with laws that establishing them, there is an expectation that we have obligations respecting the government to enforce them, since in the absence of government enforcement power, these granted rights might as well not have been granted as they will be trampled upon by the powerful. Of course we should stand up for our rights, but in the end, none of us have the power to overcome those more powerful than us. If the law is meaningless, because it is unenforced, there is no governing body, and we are left on our own. It is only when the governed collectively can establish its own rules and a body to keep the powerful in line (requiring at least a degree of power adequate to the task), that rights can be maintained.

This establishes the rule of law, something made possible by something within us that grants laws the power to rule our lives, though perhaps missing in some folks. I don't think it necessary to go into what it is within us (perhaps its merely that we fear being caught, perhaps its because we believe obeying the law is a moral obligation). If what you are after is a psychology of law or a moral theory associated with law, then I suspect the discussion will need to be expanded to cover the topic of jurisprudence. For now, however, let me suspend that discussion of it.

Duties, then, or responsibilities, which is also a term often used in this context, derive from the duty of citizenship, one that means we give up something to get something better. Yes, we might be granted freedom, but such liberty when it infringes on some other's freedom deprives us from getting that something we collectively think is better. As such, we restrict our freedom or it becomes a duty, obligation or responsibility to restrict our own freedom in order to gain the benefit of living in a society that grants us a modicum of it, a modicum that is sufficient for us creating a government that grants us those rights in the first place.

This would be my considered response to the question, they being taken in a vacuum of understanding of where you're coming from in asking them.

James

You include so many valuable concepts, I am going to chew on your post one bit at a time.

"I'm in general sympathy with the view that government (by however means it is established) is what grants rights. No government, or governing body, no rights."

Coming from the bible democracy is not possible, because the bible freezes morality with kings and slaves and this not a good belief system. The bible would have us believe we are children to the king, and God chooses who will be masters and who will be servants. The terrible conflict the Jews had with Hellenism was very much the result of Greeks appointing men to positions of authority, without regard for the family blood line, and the God of Abraham rules of social order.

Now obviously there is reasoning that makes democracy something different from the social organization of kings, subjects and slaves, and this reasoning comes from the Greek and Roman classics. We fought a war to rid of the hierarchy of the king, subjects and slaves. What comes first is not grants rights, granted by government, but our understanding of the Laws of Nature and Nature's God. What we allow or will not tolerate, begins with the concepts we learn and agree to live by. That is, it begins with the thought that develops a culture of united individuals. We can unite and rebel against the government, and that is what humanity did, war after war, around the world.

The drug problem is subculture and the intelligent thing to do is manage it as a cultural problem.

[CanadysPeak]

Athena,

This is the politics forum, yet you keep invoking the authority of a god. You are free to believe as you will, but lots of citizens don't accept any god. Your argument is weak and self-centered. Can you approach this a different way?

[owleye]

Athena,

This is the politics forum, yet you keep invoking the authority of a god. You are free to believe as you will, but lots of citizens don't accept any god. Your argument is weak and self-centered. Can you approach this a different way?

Though I would agree that one's own beliefs about a god shouldn't influence a discussion intended to be about political philosophy, as this would be more like offering one's political views, I'd say part of political philosophy often includes one that is based on Divine rights, or Divine Law, sometimes called Natural Law. And though there is a sense in which Athena is projecting her own frustrations with the current state of affairs, attempting to find where it goes wrong, I get the impression that she is making references to religion in order to clarify how it might be contributing to the problem, despite that it supposed to be helping.

Though the climate in the U.S. today is remarkably different with respect to religions than in the earlier times of my youth, possibly from the rise in influence of those on the Confederate side of the divide, I recall a moment when I sat in a pew listening to a sermon the purpose of which was to get us to be better persons. (I phrase it this way because I don't remember anything that was actually said.) In the pew there were pieces of paper whose purpose was for us to make comments, which i did. My comment was basically to ask why sermons were so ineffective -- nothing really changed. Well, I was a bit naive, of course, and sermons really do have some effect, but overall, it seemed that they didn't have enough of a political effect generally. And that this had something to do with the Establishment clause of the Constitution, and that I was living through a time of liberals on the Supreme Court. Times have changed, and so, perhaps Athena is attempting to get at the role religions are playing in her frustration.

Just a thought.

James

[CanadysPeak]

James,

I grant you much of that, but my question to Athena stands: the constant reference to god precludes any discussion with those who do not recognize that god. Is there another avenue for this discussion?

[Sisyphus]

Athena,

This is the politics forum, yet you keep invoking the authority of a god. You are free to believe as you will, but lots of citizens don't accept any god. Your argument is weak and self-centered.

Agreed. I can't take those sort of arguments seriously.

[Athena]

Athena,

This is the politics forum, yet you keep invoking the authority of a god. You are free to believe as you will, but lots of citizens don't accept any god. Your argument is weak and self-centered. Can you approach this a different way?

No I can not approach a discussion of democracy differently, because government by law relies on faith that the universe is governed by laws, and that as intelligent creatures we can come to understand those laws, and realize they apply to us. It is just how the universe works, and how democracy works. Not mentioning this makes discussion of democracy meaningless.

On what do you think we should base our laws, self interest? Don't you realize a problem with that?

[Athena]

Athena,

This is the politics forum, yet you keep invoking the authority of a god. You are free to believe as you will, but lots of citizens don't accept any god. Your argument is weak and self-centered. Can you approach this a different way?

Though I would agree that one's own beliefs about a god shouldn't influence a discussion intended to be about political philosophy, as this would be more like offering one's political views, I'd say part of political philosophy often includes one that is based on Divine rights, or Divine Law, sometimes called Natural Law. And though there is a sense in which Athena is projecting her own frustrations with the current state of affairs, attempting to find where it goes wrong, I get the impression that she is making references to religion in order to clarify how it might be contributing to the problem, despite that it supposed to be helping.

Though the climate in the U.S. today is remarkably different with respect to religions than in the earlier times of my youth, possibly from the rise in influence of those on the Confederate side of the divide, I recall a moment when I sat in a pew listening to a sermon the purpose of which was to get us to be better persons. (I phrase it this way because I don't remember anything that was actually said.) In the pew there were pieces of paper whose purpose was for us to make comments, which i did. My comment was basically to ask why sermons were so ineffective -- nothing really changed. Well, I was a bit naive, of course, and sermons really do have some effect, but overall, it seemed that they didn't have enough of a political effect generally. And that this had something to do with the Establishment clause of the Constitution, and that I was living through a time of liberals on the Supreme Court. Times have changed, and so, perhaps Athena is attempting to get at the role religions are playing in her frustration.

Just a thought.

James

I love you all for advancing my understanding of the problem. When I began my efforts to write a book about democracy and how our democracy was hijacked, when we adopted the German model of bureaucracy and education, I thought the biggest problem was Christianity and having to explain that the God of Abraham is mythology, and is a stumbling stone that prevents us from knowing truth, and from understanding democracy. When people believe they know God, they know God not, and become blocked from knowing God. It is like when we were burning witches, instead of studying cause of disease. Such beliefs prevent us from knowing truth.

You all are helping me get a grip the problem is equally, an intolerance of any consideration of God. Something that is quite baffling to me, because it is so obvious the universe is manifest by forces beyond our own, and we cannot violate the laws without having a problem, and therefor, must come to understand the laws of nature, and govern ourselves by them. How do you all understand laws without understanding this? Like I understand not accepting mythology, but to insist because a religious explanation of God is myth, there can be no God, doesn't make sense to me, especially considering democracy comes out of philosophy, and the concept of logos, "reason, the controlling force of the universe". Democracy is a search for truth and rule by reason, or it is nothing worth having, and certainly not something to defend in wars, or by investing in the education of other countries. Democracy is the hope of humanity, and comes out of a notion of a God force, logos, universal laws that manifest our experience of reality.

Is it understood when Jefferson wrote of the Laws of Nature and Nature's God, in our Declaration of Independence he was quoting Cicero, and coming from a period in our history when it was considered our duty to use science to reveal God?

Is there an understanding of the difference between studying nature to know God, and studying holy books to know God?

Science is to democracy what religion is to autocracy. Science is what brings us to modern times and our real ability to over come evils, such as knowing it is polluted water making people sick, not witches, and learning if we treat milk right babies stop dying, and a vaccine protects us from polio. I fear we have become so Jaded we no long have a since of awe and reverence. Now some men of science refuse any notion of God, and insist we remove any thought of God, and morals, from our political discussions? This boggles my mind. I can not imagine anything worse than this. This is exactly what Zeus feared, and why he gave Pandora the wedding gift of a box filled with miseries to slow man down. Hum, perhaps Zeus's fear should be a subject of discussion? Being smart and lacking the wisdom to manage our technology is not a good thing.

Tell me my dear friends, what should we study that we might be wise?

[Athena]

Considering this thread is about rights and duties, and comes from what people said about family and responsibility and our liberty without government interference, does anyone have anything to say about the subject?

How about why should we have marriage, considering so few people stay married?

What is the a relationship between marriage and government and liberty?

[owleye]

James,

I grant you much of that, but my question to Athena stands: the constant reference to god precludes any discussion with those who do not recognize that god. Is there another avenue for this discussion?

I've given this further thought, and I'll admit that political philosophy, albeit relevant to one of the premises of the American Constitution, following Locke by a hundred years or so, where in Locke's time the Divine Right of Kings was a hot topic, has moved on and is probably not worth resurrecting on this board. Locke rejected the Divine Rights of Kings, but still clung to the need for the rights of man (life, liberty and property) to be derived from God, where in a state of nature this implied that these rights gave each of us in equal measure the equal claim to them -- thereby emphasizing equality. His second treatise on government, however, foreclosed quite a bit on on this ideal (he was a large landholder with serfs -- which under his conception of government, allowed for at least a modicum of inequality). Jefferson made use of Locke's ideas of inalienable Creator-endowed rights, though changed 'property' to 'pursuit of happiness', which amounts to the same thing, at least among the wealthy.

A positive law based government is now what is taught in most law schools under the rubric of a course in jurisprudence. (I'm guessing here.) And rights have to be carved out of some doctrine (argument) that excludes God. In the course I took from a Stanford professor (not as a law student, however, nor was I enrolled in Stanford), the first question that is asked is What is Law? As a prospective juror I recall an instance where the prosecutor was outraged over the defense attorney who seemed to him to want to open up a discussion of the law to we jurors. Having taken this class, I can see why. It's not a settled question.

James

[owleye]

I love you all for advancing my understanding of the problem. When I began my efforts to write a book about democracy and how our democracy was hijacked, when we adopted the German model of bureaucracy and education, I thought the biggest problem was Christianity and having to explain that the God of Abraham is mythology, and is a stumbling stone that prevents us from knowing truth, and from understanding democracy. When people believe they know God, they know God not, and become blocked from knowing God. It is like when we were burning witches, instead of studying cause of disease. Such beliefs prevent us from knowing truth.

You all are helping me get a grip the problem is equally, an intolerance of any consideration of God. Something that is quite baffling to me, because it is so obvious the universe is manifest by forces beyond our own, and we cannot violate the laws without having a problem, and therefor, must come to understand the laws of nature, and govern ourselves by them. How do you all understand laws without understanding this? Like I understand not accepting mythology, but to insist because a religious explanation of God is myth, there can be no God, doesn't make sense to me, especially considering democracy comes out of philosophy, and the concept of logos, "reason, the controlling force of the universe". Democracy is a search for truth and rule by reason, or it is nothing worth having, and certainly not something to defend in wars, or by investing in the education of other countries. Democracy is the hope of humanity, and comes out of a notion of a God force, logos, universal laws that manifest our experience of reality.

Is it understood when Jefferson wrote of the Laws of Nature and Nature's God, in our Declaration of Independence he was quoting Cicero, and coming from a period in our history when it was considered our duty to use science to reveal God?

Is there an understanding of the difference between studying nature to know God, and studying holy books to know God?

Science is to democracy what religion is to autocracy. Science is what brings us to modern times and our real ability to over come evils, such as knowing it is polluted water making people sick, not witches, and learning if we treat milk right babies stop dying, and a vaccine protects us from polio. I fear we have become so Jaded we no long have a since of awe and reverence. Now some men of science refuse any notion of God, and insist we remove any thought of God, and morals, from our political discussions? This boggles my mind. I can not imagine anything worse than this. This is exactly what Zeus feared, and why he gave Pandora the wedding gift of a box filled with miseries to slow man down. Hum, perhaps Zeus's fear should be a subject of discussion? Being smart and lacking the wisdom to manage our technology is not a good thing.

Tell me my dear friends, what should we study that we might be wise?

I think I'm seeing better what Canady is seeing in your posts.

Your thinking is clear enough with respect to an historical account, though some historians may differ in your conclusions. I don't know as I'm weak in much of what you are strong in. However, the references to the need for God, or a god, are clouding the discussion. I believe this is what Canady is referring to. You may have good arguments for the belief in God and that anyone who took the time to understand them would share your belief, but this ought not to be included under the heading of Rights and Duties. Such a discussion belongs instead under the religion forum. If this is a problem, you could just eliminate any discussion of the original endowment and proceed to discuss it from the viewpoint of it being rights that are accrued to our own humanity or something like that.

Secondly your need to refer to mythology, including Biblical references, is welcome, I would think, in order to understand how your thinking on the subject matter is shaped by them, but you should couch it in the sense in which we can interpret the mythology so that it assists with understanding of the topic. In the way you depict it, it comes across as a mythology directed, as opposed to influenced, understanding. Consider the topic on its own, allowing a variety of influences to shape what you're saying. Science, history, religion, art, all of what makes us human, they can be useful. I don't believe anyone is trying to make you give up on cherished beliefs.

Consider what a teacher of anthropology has to do to discuss the different religions of the variety of cultures to a group of students who come from diverse backgrounds and who herself may be of a different background than any of her students. Basically what I think has to be done is to develop her discussions in such a way that she is entertaining the ideas. I see this concept as a psychological state that we or at least some of us are able to adopt when presenting a topic for discussion. We entertain the ideas that are up for discussion. We are not indoctrinating them, so much as allowing the ideas to be presented for consideration. We are taking ourselves out of the picture in some sense and letting the ideas and arguments speak for themselves.

James

[CanadysPeak]

Anyone who is familiar with Mr. Jefferson's writings (If you are not, I recommend the series by Dumas Malone) is aware that Jefferson referred to the "remote watchmaker" who created the universe, then left it alone forever after. Mr. Jefferson was a deist.

[Athena]

James,

I grant you much of that, but my question to Athena stands: the constant reference to god precludes any discussion with those who do not recognize that god. Is there another avenue for this discussion?

I've given this further thought, and I'll admit that political philosophy, albeit relevant to one of the premises of the American Constitution, following Locke by a hundred years or so, where in Locke's time the Divine Right of Kings was a hot topic, has moved on and is probably not worth resurrecting on this board. Locke rejected the Divine Rights of Kings, but still clung to the need for the rights of man (life, liberty and property) to be derived from God, where in a state of nature this implied that these rights gave each of us in equal measure the equal claim to them -- thereby emphasizing equality. His second treatise on government, however, foreclosed quite a bit on on this ideal (he was a large landholder with serfs -- which under his conception of government, allowed for at least a modicum of inequality). Jefferson made use of Locke's ideas of inalienable Creator-endowed rights, though changed 'property' to 'pursuit of happiness', which amounts to the same thing, at least among the wealthy.

A positive law based government is now what is taught in most law schools under the rubric of a course in jurisprudence. (I'm guessing here.) And rights have to be carved out of some doctrine (argument) that excludes God. In the course I took from a Stanford professor (not as a law student, however, nor was I enrolled in Stanford), the first question that is asked is What is Law? As a prospective juror I recall an instance where the prosecutor was outraged over the defense attorney who seemed to him to want to open up a discussion of the law to we jurors. Having taken this class, I can see why. It's not a settled question.

James

This site contributes valuable information to what you have said.

http://lexchristianorum.blogspot.com/20 ... ss-in.html

Cicero wrote a lot, and at the time of Jefferson anyone who was considered literate had to have read Cicero, and probably read Latin. The study of Latin is important to understanding the logic and history of our words.

However, I would not stop with Cicero but would include Chinese/eastern philosophy and this notion of evil being something outside of the order of nature, and the native American concept of our happiness being based on reason. I think the bible does us a disservice by creating evil as a supernatural being of evil. and telling us other supernatural beings, demons, can possess us, and tagging this superstition onto the story of Adam and Eve, and the idea that we are born in sin. This religious reasoning is problematic, especially in discussions of happiness, because it infers we are born to do wrong unless we are saved by a supernatural being, instead of holding it is our nature to do good, and that we can be taught how to reason rightly, so that we fulfill our natural purpose of reasoning and doing good.

I really loved the thread about language, because it adds to the understanding of us being divine by nature. Because we have language, we have the capacity for the reason, and this is divine. We are not limited as the other animals, but with language we can reason and create. Although we evolved from animals, we are like the gods.

[Athena]

Cicero and Jefferson and liberty and God and the law, and rights and duties.

"He insisted on the primacy of moral standards over government laws. These standards became known as natural law. Above all, Cicero declared, government is morally obliged to protect human life and private property. When government runs amok, people have a right to rebel—Cicero honored daring individuals who helped overthrow tyrants."
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/feature ... ern-world/

What does the primacy of moral standards over government laws mean to you? God must be our ultimate authority, because that is how to avoid tyranny. I will die before I stop defending liberty with the notion of a higher authority than the authority of man. Insisting I can not include a notion of such a higher authority in political discussion is a serious violation of the very meaning of our freedom of speech. And how much are we willing to pay for national defense? What are we defending?

"Cicero transmitted the Greek Stoic idea of a moral higher law to the modern world. In his dialogue De Legibus (On the Laws, 52 B.C.), he talked about the supreme law which existed through the ages, before the mention of any written law or established state. He also referred to it as the law of nature for the source of right. In De Republica (The Republic, 51 B.C.) he says True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting . . . there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst penalties . . ."

I am wondering if making an issue out of bringing God into this discussion, is the result of not being able to discuss rights and duties and the connection between them? We really can not progress without some understanding of how the universe works. Speaking of rights and duties is speaking of cause and effect and this is speaking of our reasoning and understanding of The Law which then becomes our written law.

[Paul Anthony]

Athena,

I sympathize with your dilemma. Many years ago, I wrote a book in which I had every intention of discussing the current state of affairs in politics and government. I did eventually write 10 chapters on my chosen topic, but I found it necessary to precede them with 11 chapters on the historical effects of religion!

We cannot understand where we are now without grasping how we got here. Organized religions are a critical part of our history. One need not be religious to discuss the ramifications of that historical significance, but if one refuses to acknowledge the effects of religion, one will remain ignorant of both history and of current events.

The US Constitution was written by religious men. Some were Christian and some, like Jefferson and Franklin, were Deists. If they had been atheists, it is doubtful the concept of inalienable rights would have led them to form this nation! How, then, can a discussion of democracy exclude talk of religion?

[Athena]

I am finding it hard to find a quote about duty without mention of God, but did find some, and I want to add to this thinking of duty an understanding of morale, that high spirited feeling we get we believe we are doing the right thing.

"There is not a moment without some duty". Cicero

"Duty is a power that rises with us in the morning, and goes to rest with us at night. It is co-extensive with the action of our intelligence. It is the shadow that cleaves to us, go where we will." Gladstone

"Every duty which we omit, obscures some truth which we should have known" Ruskin

Now people were speaking of duty to family and we were edging into discussion of the dangers of being dependent on government. Because young children require 24 hours care, 7 days a week, the parent who cares for the child, needs to depend on someone for financial support, or both parents need to share these responsibilities. The high rate of divorce has meant children are often raised by only one parent. While women's liberation doubled the work force and sky rocketed the cost of living, to the point of a family needing two incomes. Now expecting a single parent to do everything alone is like expecting elephants to fly. We may disagree about what our duties are, but surely we can discuss them, and government's role in maintaining a healthy nation.

[CanadysPeak]

James,

I grant you much of that, but my question to Athena stands: the constant reference to god precludes any discussion with those who do not recognize that god. Is there another avenue for this discussion?

I've given this further thought, and I'll admit that political philosophy, albeit relevant to one of the premises of the American Constitution, following Locke by a hundred years or so, where in Locke's time the Divine Right of Kings was a hot topic, has moved on and is probably not worth resurrecting on this board. Locke rejected the Divine Rights of Kings, but still clung to the need for the rights of man (life, liberty and property) to be derived from God, where in a state of nature this implied that these rights gave each of us in equal measure the equal claim to them -- thereby emphasizing equality. His second treatise on government, however, foreclosed quite a bit on on this ideal (he was a large landholder with serfs -- which under his conception of government, allowed for at least a modicum of inequality). Jefferson made use of Locke's ideas of inalienable Creator-endowed rights, though changed 'property' to 'pursuit of happiness', which amounts to the same thing, at least among the wealthy.

A positive law based government is now what is taught in most law schools under the rubric of a course in jurisprudence. (I'm guessing here.) And rights have to be carved out of some doctrine (argument) that excludes God. In the course I took from a Stanford professor (not as a law student, however, nor was I enrolled in Stanford), the first question that is asked is What is Law? As a prospective juror I recall an instance where the prosecutor was outraged over the defense attorney who seemed to him to want to open up a discussion of the law to we jurors. Having taken this class, I can see why. It's not a settled question.

James

This site contributes valuable information to what you have said.

http://lexchristianorum.blogspot.com/20 ... ss-in.html

Cicero wrote a lot, and at the time of Jefferson anyone who was considered literate had to have read Cicero, and probably read Latin. The study of Latin is important to understanding the logic and history of our words.

However, I would not stop with Cicero but would include Chinese/eastern philosophy and this notion of evil being something outside of the order of nature, and the native American concept of our happiness being based on reason. I think the bible does us a disservice by creating evil as a supernatural being of evil. and telling us other supernatural beings, demons, can possess us, and tagging this superstition onto the story of Adam and Eve, and the idea that we are born in sin. This religious reasoning is problematic, especially in discussions of happiness, because it infers we are born to do wrong unless we are saved by a supernatural being, instead of holding it is our nature to do good, and that we can be taught how to reason rightly, so that we fulfill our natural purpose of reasoning and doing good.

I really loved the thread about language, because it adds to the understanding of us being divine by nature. Because we have language, we have the capacity for the reason, and this is divine. We are not limited as the other animals, but with language we can reason and create. Although we evolved from animals, we are like the gods.

You have quoted an article from the Cato Institute as though they were an authority on Thomas Jefferson. They are not. The best starting place for a newbie is Jefferson and His Time, a six volume set by Dumas Malone. It is extremely difficult to understand a man who wrote so eloquently of human rights, yet kept a man who was either his son or his nephew in slavery.

You have accused me of using the constant citation of God as an excuse for not talking about duties and rights. That is pure, unadulterated hogwash. I would like to discuss the subject, but I am not willing to have to have to constantly parry references to magic. Do you want to talk about rights and duties or not? If I wanted to mix God and politics, I have only to turn on Faux News.

[Paul Anthony]

Athena, perhaps this will help answer your question (although it will probably just raise more questions):

Locke discussed "why a man must keep his word" in Human Understanding. "If a Christian be asked, he will say 'Because God requires it...'. But if a Hobbist be asked, he would say 'Because the public requires it...'. If one of the old philosophers be asked, he would say 'Because it would be dishonest, below the dignity of a man, and opposite of virtue, the highest perfection of human nature, to do otherwise'".

Only Locke's third answer shows that sometimes we understand duty without reference to Law - God's or government's. It is also the only answer that allows for Man to act rightly without threat of punishment by an external power.

Kant said "The idea of duty would alone be sufficient as a spring even if the spring were absent..."
The precept can be found in what Aquinas called the "first principle of the practical reason", or Kant's "the categorical imperative". The Stoics said reason is the ruling principle in man, so man's duty is to obey reason. Stoics such as Marcus Aurelius tell us we should be content if we perform our duties. "Man is not destined to be happy: his happiness consists rather doing what is required of him at his post of duty in the order of the universe".

Aristotle would disagree. He didn't say much about duty, since he considered "honor, pleasure, reason and every virtue" to be equal parts of what makes a man happy - and seeking happiness was his reason for doing everything. Duty was just part of the package. He believed that honoring our obligations to others was necessary in order that we not injure others, which is itself necessary if we are to serve the common good.

[CanadysPeak]

Paul,

I recognize that much of what Jefferson felt about duty seconded the views of Locke, i.e. the duty to the law, especially to the Constitution. But, we must keep in mind that Jefferson grew in public life. The selfish viewpoint of a country magistrate became a more enlightened world view as the man aged. In 1810, Jefferson wrote to John Colvin that, "A ship at sea in distress for provisions, meets another having abundance, yet refusing a supply; the law of self-preservation authorizes the distressed to take a supply by force." {from Ford's collection of Jefferson's papers}. We might take this to mean that, in the case of an economy about to founder, a government has the right to ignore it's possible duty to the Constitution and to perform such actions as quantitative easing, bailouts of GM, or even providing a social safety net. I think that we are faced with the dilema, when looking to Mr. Jefferson for guidance, that we must decide which Mr. Jefferson we are seeking wisdom from. I also suspect that Jefferson would have wanted us to live in 2012, not 1782.

[Paul Anthony]

Paul,

I recognize that much of what Jefferson felt about duty seconded the views of Locke, i.e. the duty to the law, especially to the Constitution. But, we must keep in mind that Jefferson grew in public life. The selfish viewpoint of a country magistrate became a more enlightened world view as the man aged. In 1810, Jefferson wrote to John Colvin that, "A ship at sea in distress for provisions, meets another having abundance, yet refusing a supply; the law of self-preservation authorizes the distressed to take a supply by force." {from Ford's collection of Jefferson's papers}. We might take this to mean that, in the case of an economy about to founder, a government has the right to ignore it's possible duty to the Constitution and to perform such actions as quantitative easing, bailouts of GM, or even providing a social safety net.

I think that you are reading your own agenda into poor Jefferson's words. He was justifying warfare, not welfare. The bailout of GM wiped out the holdings of investors while protecting the interests of the unions. Hardly the sort of action I suspect Jefferson would approve.

If he were living in 2012, rather than supporting such actions, I suspect he would be fomenting another revolution.

[CanadysPeak]

Paul,

Good point! My example was weakened by not being broad enough. I will try to bolster the argument by pointing out that Mr. Jefferson, in the same letter, also argued that a President might buy Florida, for example, without worrying about whether it is authorized by the Constitution. Better yet, if I were to be a snake about it (I think I can get away with that with you), I might ask what possible Constitutional right Ambassador Gadsden had to justify his agreeing to purchase Tucson etc. Why was that not corporate welfare for the Southern Pacific?

[owleye]

I think that you are reading your own agenda into poor Jefferson's words. He was justifying warfare, not welfare. The bailout of GM wiped out the holdings of investors while protecting the interests of the unions. Hardly the sort of action I suspect Jefferson would approve.

If he were living in 2012, rather than supporting such actions, I suspect he would be fomenting another revolution.

Locke as well, was keen on justifying revolt, should the government not keep up its end of the bargain (social contract).

James

[Athena]

You have quoted an article from the Cato Institute as though they were an authority on Thomas Jefferson. They are not. The best starting place for a newbie is Jefferson and His Time, a six volume set by Dumas Malone. It is extremely difficult to understand a man who wrote so eloquently of human rights, yet kept a man who was either his son or his nephew in slavery.

You have accused me of using the constant citation of God as an excuse for not talking about duties and rights. That is pure, unadulterated hogwash. I would like to discuss the subject, but I am not willing to have to have to constantly parry references to magic. Do you want to talk about rights and duties or not? If I wanted to mix God and politics, I have only to turn on Faux News.

Locke did not see slaves, serfs or women as equal to men, and would be shocked with our present understanding of equality. Cicero did not challenge Rome's slavery, but personally he had tenets, not slaves, work his farm. The quote I used for Jefferson made my point. Do we have a check mate yet?

The quotes for Cicero are more important to the understanding of democracy being a movement toward high morality that does include a concept of God, however, this is not the God of Abraham, and most certainly is not a reference to magic. The God of nature is known by studying nature, and there was a time when this considered a duty. It is essential to good moral judgment and democracy.

I am not sure if you are playing a game or just being bull headed? The Laws of Nature and Nature's God have nothing to do with magic. Cicero is very clear about this. If we do wrong things go badly, and prayers, sacrifices and burning of candles, do absolutely nothing to change what is and will be. The God of Nature, like Mother Nature, is exacting and will not be manipulated by chants, spells, sacrifices. We have no choice but work with nature.

I lived n the high Sierras with my two babies, and had this wonderful experience with nature, of knowing nature provides what we need for life and can also kill if we don't know what we are doing. It is all very clean and not deceptive like living in the city with humans who create much deception. There is no magic involved. This is a matter of reason that is essential to democracy and morals. and the future of humanity.

[CanadysPeak]

Athena wrote, "Cicero did not challenge Rome's slavery, but personally he had tenets, not slaves, work his farm."

This is the problem. You quote right-wing propaganda sources without any critical analysis. Cicero is well known to have been a generally benevolent master to his slaves. This should be understood to mean that Cicero had slaves. Have you actually read Cicero?

Obviously we do not have check mate. Nor am I playing a game. I suspect I am bull-headed. It is clear that you mean to make your points by simply restating them, except louder each time. I yield the floor to you. I don't want to discuss this enough that I should endure insults.

[owleye]

On the issue of the inequality of women Kant might be said to be in agreement, on the one hand, because in some sense as a devout believer, he can be considered an apologist for the Church, which was notorious for how the Papacy is understood in this context. (Kant's religion was Pietist) And, on the other hand, because of the way he denies women citizenship rights. However, closer inspection reveals that he regarded the moral law within us as due to practical reason, not God. And with respect to citizenship, he associated it with participation with the business of government, one which at that time was performed by the head of the household who in turn represented his family. But this was merely a condition of the time, and Kant clarified his position so that if society were comprised of women who participated in such business, they would be citizens.

We should be grateful that women have made advances at all, considering the entrenched ways of the past holding us back, but social forces are such that even the best of us fall prey to them, including women. It should be a credit to Kant that he was able to overcome this, where it was couched in a framework at a time in which the Church held a powerful sway over the faithful's every thought. I'm not familiar enough with Locke, but I suspect the liberal philosophy he constructed had caveats with respect to women that mitigated any objection to it that we might read into it today. Until I hear otherwise, I'll be charitable. I give a similar allowance to Jefferson, respecting slaves.

Despite this, if I compared Jefferson or Locke to Kant, Kant would stand out as living most in accord with the position he makes a case for in his moral life. No hypocrisy.

James

[CanadysPeak]

James,

I am a great admirer of Mr. Jefferson. I've read much of his writing and think him to have written the single most important document in the US: The Virginia Statue of Religious Freedom. I further thnik that he was a deeply conflicted man, with his head too far turned by public acclaim. Were you to say that Mr. Madison or General Washington were to be given allowances for their attitudes toward slavery, I should likely agree; both agnonized over the injustice of owning humans. Mr. Jefferson's great shame - feet of clay if you will - lies in the probable fact that Sally Hemmings' children were relatives of Jefferson, whether children or nieces and nephews or even cousins.

I don't condemn men of another century for failings that were common in that century. All men fall short of perfection (well, maybe not Saint PeeWee Reese), and we have to look at the overall fabric of their lives rather than at one flaw in the warp.

[Athena]

James,

I am a great admirer of Mr. Jefferson. I've read much of his writing and think him to have written the single most important document in the US: The Virginia Statue of Religious Freedom. I further thnik that he was a deeply conflicted man, with his head too far turned by public acclaim. Were you to say that Mr. Madison or General Washington were to be given allowances for their attitudes toward slavery, I should likely agree; both agnonized over the injustice of owning humans. Mr. Jefferson's great shame - feet of clay if you will - lies in the probable fact that Sally Hemmings' children were relatives of Jefferson, whether children or nieces and nephews or even cousins.

I don't condemn men of another century for failings that were common in that century. All men fall short of perfection (well, maybe not Saint PeeWee Reese), and we have to look at the overall fabric of their lives rather than at one flaw in the warp.

Okay, I can see we are back on subject. What were the rights and duties of White slave owners, to their own kin, who were born of Black of slaves? What were the rights and duties of the children? How do we determine this?