Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

I forgot to reply to this!

Then are you an advocate of a lawless society? I mean, murder is a sin, so do we end the policy of jailing murderers on the premise that God will "get them?"

Americans put their body of morals into a code of law, and punish those that break that law... that's how it works.

Actually, punishing wrongdoing here on Earth DOES serve a purpose! It's called "psychology." When a parent gives his son a little yelling at, or a little swat on the behind when the child runs in to the road after a basketball, then the child psychologically responds by running out into the road less often (in a healthy family situation). That can save the child's life.

Perhaps you read the story in the local newspaper here about 2 years ago about a 5 or 6-year old who walked out into the road from between two cars, without looking both ways, right in front of an oncoming car. The driver couldn't stop, and killed the child.

So, StrongRad, Earthly punishment (prosecution) DOES serve a purpose. It molds the character of the one being punished, and vicariously molds the character of anyone who identifies with the lawbreaker. I commend your grace-filled approach to sinners, and agree that there are a lot of matters upon which humans are not to judge. But if it's sin, the Bible agrees with my point on this one (and so, traditionally, one may say that I agree with God... or, less traditionally, that I speak for God on the matter) concerning punishment/persecution.

Now, though I shot at your general prinicple, that doesn't mean I'm going to go ballistic on your applications. With polygamy, I have made a tongue-in-cheek comment; but in a spirit of "choosing my battles wisely," I am not going to go into a lot of detail or argumentation.

However, someone may contribute an augmentation to my argumentation. I think StrongZysk seconded my sentiment. Motion goes to vote.

_________________

I feel the comparison to murder is invalid because the crime of murder has a clear victim, whereas the "crime" of polygamy (or homosexuality for that matter) hasn't a victim, assuming all of the persons involved do consent (which is implied here). Of course one might argue that a victim need not be concrete, which leads to phrases like "crime against nature" or "crime against God". But a crime against nature, or against God, is very different from a crime against another person, especially one that deprives that other person of life.

I understand that you probably didn't intend for me to read that far into it, but I couldn't let that flawed analogy slip past. For the same reason, I should point out that suggesting StrongRad "advocates a lawless society" in the first place is also fallacious: you know that's not what StrongRad intended to imply (nor can it necessarily be deduced whether it was intended to be implied or not), so you can't work that angle.

Nope, it wasn't implied by me. I didn't compare polygamy to murder, and I didn't make an analogy. All I did was take his principle that "we should not punish sin because God will take care of it" and apply the principle. The fact that murder has a victim was not part of my argument, and the fact that it's murder only comes into play because I assume everyone knows murder is "wrong," "sinful," and "criminal."

A lot of people believe a lot of contradictory things because they have never really thought about them critically. When someone states a belief they have that is terribly nontraditional, they often think "I have come up with this great idea that no one else ever has!" Other times, someone hears something that sounds reasonable from a teacher or friend, and assumes it's true. I love to engage those ideas and suggest that people say, "if no one ever did it this way before, maybe there's a good reason," or other times, "maybe the person who told me this thing was just repeating junk." When people think critically about their own viewpoints, that's ethics. When people grow beyond their suppositions and live a way that they decide consciously rather than just living the way that they're told by others, that's satisfying.

So when your friend and mine, StrongRad, had an idea that was a little (sorry I can't say it more kindly, I really think he means well!) on the absurd side, I wanted him to think about it with reason and from different angles. Not to think about polygamy metaphorically, but to think about his evaluation schema logically.


I think that you think it is different only because you think it is. I am glad you value the golden rule, and it will serve you well. But if anyone doesn't incorporate the golden rule into their personal ethics (and LOTS of people don't), then the "the crime has a victim" argument against crime is irrelevant. The only... ONLY reason hurting a victim is wrong is because the golden rule is right. By what authority is the golden rule right? By the same authority (Judeo-Christian Biblical tradition, or some would say, God himself) that prohibits many "victimless" crimes. If you invoke the golden rule, then you get other rules like "don't get drunk," "take care of your health," "no orgies," and "no cussing" too. Same source, same level of authority, same everything except your recognition.


I didn't accuse him, I asked him. And I did so in a rhetorical context so that I wouldn't have to have 15 back-and-forth posts that would tire out anyone reading it with the same ideas. However, I stand by the fact that if he wants the society to have laws, that implies punishing crimes. Crimes, in a nation with the rule of law, are "sins," though the connotative baggage may keep someone from noticing that fact. He did say that he didn't think sins should be persecuted. Unless there's something I'm missing, my deduction seems straightforward. If you disagree, then please point out in more detail where the connections fail.

Thanks for keeping me on my toes, FurryKef! If I were making a really bad analogy or putting words in someone's mouth, I certainly hope someone would jump out and say, "hey! Back to valid reasoning!" My best friends are those who notice when I do something wrong and aim me back in the right direction.

_________________

Yeah, but there's reason behind that recognition. The Golden Rule and the Fourth Commandment may come from the same source (hypothetically) but that doesn't mean that one comes attached to the other. What Kef's done is apply reason to Christian doctrine to see what is acceptable in a godless world and what isn't.

_________________
"You get the Most Annoying Transsexual I've Ever Spoken To award." -The Zephyr Song

I think it's important that the meta-ethics be revealed in this case. You're probably right. But in a pluralistic mindset, Kef's elevation of the golden rule to the guiding principle for all ethics must then be admitted to be a mere personal preference. If we're going to be truly pluralistic, then not even the golden rule is sacrosanct. In a godless world thought-experement where the citezens try to get along using pluralism, Jack the Ripper and Son of Sam are just as moral as Mother Theresa. Both serial killers did what they thought was right, and the fact that they happened to hurt other people only matters if the "golden rule" is an absolute rule transcending the pluralism. The only way to elevate that beyond the pluralism is to cite divine authority, as far as I know! Can you think of any other way to elevate the golden rule above the pluralism that a fifth grader can't shoot holes through (social contract, benevolent dictatorship, anarchy plus law)? I'd love to hear it.

However, the fact that man needs God is not a sufficient proof that God exists to me. It could just as easily be a proof of evolution (monotheism has survival advantage). So don't mistake my argument here for trying to force people to believe in Jesus. I'm just saying that if there is no god, then there is no fundamental need for morals beyond survival, and there is no moral quality to survival. The assertion that "polygamy is immoral" is useless if there is no god.

I recently heard an interview with Son of Sam on the radio. Wow. I would post a link to an internet stream here except the server is down. Not for the littlest of tiny babies, but fascinating.

_________________