Morality question

Ethics, Morality, and Sin

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9161
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 186 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Morality question

Post #1

Post by Wootah »

Suppose you are the king of a country and that country has a small population of jews that you are happy with.

If there were immigrants that really honestly needed your help to survive but they hated the Jews and would overtime force them out.

Is it moral to protect the Jews or moral to save the refugees?
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8487
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Re: Morality question

Post #51

Post by Tcg »

Bust Nak wrote:
Tcg wrote: Because of the 57 words in the OP, none of them are the word, "told". There is absolutely nothing in the OP that would lead one to conclude the king was told anything. In fact, given that neither the word "told" nor any synonym of that word appears in the OP, there is no reason to assume any one was told anything.
Surely the fact that the OP says "they hated the Jews and would overtime force them out" is more than enough reason to assume you was told the Jews would be forced out, if you even need to assume anything as it is literally right there in black and white.
No it isn't. That is why once again you have failed to provide a quote that includes the word, "told". It's not your fault of course, you can't quote something that doesn't exist.

You in fact do need to assume something to continue your line of argumentation. The simple reason for this is because the word "told" is not literally right there in black and white. It's not there in any colors at all.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: Morality question

Post #52

Post by Bust Nak »

Tcg wrote: No it isn't.
What is the "it" referring to here? I ask because the statement "they hated the Jews and would overtime force them out" is right there in black and white. Here is the OP in full:
"Suppose you are the king of a country and that country has a small population of jews that you are happy with.

If there were immigrants that really honestly needed your help to survive but they hated the Jews and would overtime force them out.

Is it moral to protect the Jews or moral to save the refugees?"
Bolded for emphasis.
That is why once again you have failed to provide a quote that includes the word, "told". It's not your fault of course, you can't quote something that doesn't exist.
But I did the next best thing and provided a quote that would lead one to conclude the king was told that immigrants that would overtime force them out.
The simple reason for this is because the word "told" is not literally right there in black and white. It's not there in any colors at all.
The question remains from my first post to you, does it need to explicit use the word told" when it says "they hated the Jews and would overtime force them out" in the OP? Again I point you to my analogy above: "My car is red." Have you been told what color my car is, even when the word told is not there in that short statement? Does that not qualify as something would lead one to conclude you were told the color of my car? Why is the lack of one word such a sticking point for you?

twobitsworth
Student
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:25 am

Post #53

Post by twobitsworth »

The moral response is to let in the immigrants. The right to survival is more important than the right to happiness.

Presumably the King can think of solutions to the "force them out" problem over time, and maybe everyone can be content

User avatar
ThePainefulTruth
Sage
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
Location: Arizona

Post #54

Post by ThePainefulTruth »

twobitsworth wrote: The moral response is to let in the immigrants. The right to survival is more important than the right to happiness.

Presumably the King can think of solutions to the "force them out" problem over time, and maybe everyone can be content
There are 4 inherent rights: to life, liberty, property and self-defense. The right to life guarantees your right not to have you're life taken by force or fraud. A right to survival would make everyone responsible for everybody else's survival--an impossible task. And further the right to liberty gives us the right to band together in a collective for self-defense in the form of cities and states. No other collective or individual has a right to invade those entities.

On another note, the Left is all hot to let illegals into the US without restrictions, yet also side with the Palestinians, even though Jews purchased most of the land they're "occupying" from those same Palestinians--who also get only lip-service support from their two-faced Arab allies, who won't let them [strike]invade[/strike] immigrate to their countries either.

User avatar
bluethread
Savant
Posts: 9129
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:10 pm

Post #55

Post by bluethread »

ThePainefulTruth wrote: And further the right to liberty gives us the right to band together in a collective for self-defense in the form of cities and states. No other collective or individual has a right to invade those entities.
The primary duty of a sovereign is the peace and security of his realm, even the rights of the citizens are secondary to that. That last is the primary difference between a monarchy and other forms of government. A constitutional government, on the other hand, limits what the head of state can do in securing the peace and security of the state. That said, in either case, unless the concerns of noncitizens effects the peace and security of the state, the government has no inherent responsibility with regard to those noncitizens.

User avatar
ThePainefulTruth
Sage
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
Location: Arizona

Post #56

Post by ThePainefulTruth »

bluethread wrote:
ThePainefulTruth wrote: And further the right to liberty gives us the right to band together in a collective for self-defense in the form of cities and states. No other collective or individual has a right to invade those entities.
The primary duty of a sovereign is the peace and security of his realm, even the rights of the citizens are secondary to that. That last is the primary difference between a monarchy and other forms of government. A constitutional government, on the other hand, limits what the head of state can do in securing the peace and security of the state. That said, in either case, unless the concerns of noncitizens effects the peace and security of the state, the government has no inherent responsibility with regard to those noncitizens.
Indeed, government derives its authority, via a constitution, oral or written, from a mandate to maintain civil good order by protecting the inherent rights of its citizens to life, liberty, property and self-defense. Seeking that good order, must is the one and only motivation behind the consent of the governed. Allowing outsiders to infiltrate the citizenry of a country with unknown or hostile intent, is to abet the disruption of the established good order, and is a direct assault on their individual and cooperative rights. A free society has enough trouble maintaining good order among its own citizens without allowing uncontrolled entry to unvetted immigrants. Just because we have not always had the ability to exercise control, doesn't mean we shouldn't.

The only thing open to debate is what we screen potential citizens for and how many are allowed. The number one automatic exclusion, someone waving a flag of the country they're seeking asylum from.

TSGracchus
Scholar
Posts: 345
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2018 6:06 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #57

Post by TSGracchus »

[Replying to post 55 by ThePainefulTruth]

ThePainefulTruth: "Indeed, government derives its authority, via a constitution, oral or written, from a mandate to maintain civil good order by protecting the inherent rights of its citizens to life, liberty, property and self-defense."

The authority of the government derives from the power to enforce. That power may or may not be held by those who are governed. Usually such popular control is a delusion. "Rights" are whatever are allowed by those holding the power, and may be rescinded at will, with or without prior notice. For instance, if charged with "terrorism" in the US, you may be whisked of without a hearing or lawyer to some foreign land where you can be imprisoned, tortured or killed. On mere suspicion you may be deprived of property.

Freedom is a delusion.

Borders are lines drawn on paper to protect the wealth and power of those governing. And any randomly select sample of immigrants, legal or illegal would be no more corrupt or less trustworthy than any randomly selected sample of citizens, and certainly less corrupt and more trustworthy than any similarly sized sample of "elected" officials. There are probably a higher proportion of moral scum in congress than in any prison.
"Patriotism" is the lie that deceives the "governed" into laying down their lives and property to defend the wealth of the governing class.

:study:

User avatar
ThePainefulTruth
Sage
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
Location: Arizona

Post #58

Post by ThePainefulTruth »

bluethread wrote:
ThePainefulTruth wrote: And further the right to liberty gives us the right to band together in a collective for self-defense in the form of cities and states. No other collective or individual has a right to invade those entities.
The primary duty of a sovereign is the peace and security of his realm, even the rights of the citizens are secondary to that.


"Peace and security", "good order", same thing, but how do you define them? Good order for who, the elite, or for all? If for all, that makes securing the rights of all the only governmental goal.
A constitutional government, on the other hand, limits what the head of state can do in securing the peace and security of the state. That said, in either case, unless the concerns of noncitizens effects the peace and security of the state, the government has no inherent responsibility with regard to those noncitizens.
Well, yes. I agree. :D

User avatar
ThePainefulTruth
Sage
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
Location: Arizona

Post #59

Post by ThePainefulTruth »

TSGracchus wrote: [Replying to post 55 by ThePainefulTruth]

ThePainefulTruth: "Indeed, government derives its authority, via a constitution, oral or written, from a mandate to maintain civil good order by protecting the inherent rights of its citizens to life, liberty, property and self-defense."

The authority of the government derives from the power to enforce.


That's merely a statement that power can be self-justified. It is not a statement of the just or moral application of power.
That power may or may not be held by those who are governed. Usually such popular control is a delusion.


The problem is that even when power is held by the people, they can, and often do, become corrupt and sell "their liberty for some temporary security", to quote Franklin.
"Rights" are whatever are allowed by those holding the power, and may be rescinded at will, with or without prior notice.


Not if an uncorrupted people hold ultimate power.
For instance, if charged with "terrorism" in the US, you may be whisked of without a hearing or lawyer to some foreign land where you can be imprisoned, tortured or killed. On mere suspicion you may be deprived of property.
Not legally if you're a citizen. You're mixing civil law with military law.
Freedom is a delusion.
No it is not. It is the rights I mentioned being held as the ultimate authority of the people and protected by the government.
Borders are lines drawn on paper to protect the wealth and power of those governing.


Yes, and in a constitutional republic, the people are the governors, and rightfully so.
And any randomly select sample of immigrants, legal or illegal would be no more corrupt or less trustworthy than any randomly selected sample of citizens
That sample could contain those looking to overthrow the government for religious or economic reasons. So you're saying we shouldn't, much less have the right, to vet them for those and other reasons, such as contagion, criminal record, education and desire to become a part of the citizenry.
"....and certainly less corrupt and more trustworthy than any similarly sized sample of "elected" officials. There are probably a higher proportion of moral scum in congress than in any prison."
If the elected officials are corrupt, that's only because a majority of the electorate is corrupt.
"Patriotism" is the lie that deceives the "governed" into laying down their lives and property to defend the wealth of the governing class.
Yes, if the people are the governing class. And I don't look to elect patriots, that's irrelevant. I look to elect statesmen.

Post Reply