Law above all laws

[4gold]

During the Nuremberg Trials, the German generals' lawyers belabored the point that their clients never broke any law at the time they were committing the atrocities. In fact, the lawyers were correct. The laws that the generals were eventually convicted of weren't even created until the London charter of August 1945.

Frustrated by the lawyers' correct point that the generals broke no laws, Justice Jackson responded, "The refuge of the defendants can only be their hope that International Law will lag so far behind the moral sense of mankind that conduct which is crime in the moral sense must be regarded as innocent in law. Civilization asks whether law is so laggard as to be utterly helpless to deal with crimes of this magnitude by criminals of this order of importance...."

It seems to me that if an atheist were logically consistent, he or she would defend the German generals, but that is not what I see in the real world. Many atheists are morally horrified by the atrocities of these generals and feel that justice was properly executed against them.

I understand how a theist could support Justice Jackson's worldview -- theists believe there is a moral law that supercedes all human laws. However, I would welcome any theist's response that may help me understand better.

How does an atheistic worldview explain this? What is this law that supercedes human laws? Should the generals have been convicted for their atrocities despite breaking no laws at the time they were committed?

[Vladd44]

I can clearly see a process of moral evolution going on.

I see no evidence of this moral evolution.

Our abilities to wage war and kill each other has increased, and that is what we have done. At times we manage to house our actions inside buildings. Legitimize them with words and speak of justice. But we are no less the short fused biped now than we were in Attila's time.

[McCulloch]

I can clearly see a process of moral evolution going on.

I see no evidence of this moral evolution.

During the middle ages, it was considered morally acceptable to drive a people out of a territory simply because they did not have the right religion. This is not considered morally acceptable today.

During the first several decades of the existence of the the United States of America, it was considered legal and morally acceptable by many Christian apologists, to hold slaves. This is not considered morally acceptable today.

During WWII, it was considered morally acceptable to indiscriminately fire-bomb Dresden and drop a nuclear bomb on a city and then on another. Today we don't do that.

When I was a kid, it was OK to discriminate against gay people and call them faggots. It is not OK now.

How can you not see that what is accepted by society as a standard of morality evolves?

[Beto]

I can clearly see a process of moral evolution going on.

I see no evidence of this moral evolution.

During the middle ages, it was considered morally acceptable to drive a people out of a territory simply because they did not have the right religion. This is not considered morally acceptable today.

During the first several decades of the existence of the the United States of America, it was considered legal and morally acceptable by many Christian apologists, to hold slaves. This is not considered morally acceptable today.

During WWII, it was considered morally acceptable to indiscriminately fire-bomb Dresden and drop a nuclear bomb on a city and then on another. Today we don't do that.

When I was a kid, it was OK to discriminate against gay people and call them faggots. It is not OK now.

How can you not see that what is accepted by society as a standard of morality evolves?

Perhaps he thought this "moral evolution" was referent to something inherent to a human being, not as a societal standard, which of course evolves.

[QED]

Moral evolution, like biological evolution, means change -- not necessarily progress. Sure the fast-track to change comes through culture. We can witness something unfolding before our very eyes and swear we won't permit it ever again. But there's a much deeper kind of morality that I think has to be evolved along with our biology. This is the one that will transcend any individual, or culture within a society of individuals. It won't change overnight.

The inertia comes through the built-in resistance of the genome to change. Only by predisposing individuals towards behaviours that ensure higher frequencies of their genes in future populations will any changes be made. I would expect most of this stuff to have been sorted out in primitive societies hundreds of thousands of years ago. Life in society isn't fundamentally different today so the behavioural and ethical inheritance won't be very much different -- and will appear to transcend our short-term cultural law.

[arayhay]

[

quote="r~"]

You mean ' endowed by their creator' don't you ???

The more accurate phrase might be 'endowed by their existence'.

Are yo able to re-write the Declaration of Independence ??? I didn't think so.

[arayhay]

I can clearly see a process of moral evolution going on.

I see no evidence of this moral evolution.

McCulloch
How can you not see that what is accepted by society as a standard of morality evolves?

Now all we need is the animal activist to start fining birds for indecent exposure when they crap in public.

[Goat]

[

quote="r~"]

You mean ' endowed by their creator' don't you ???

The more accurate phrase might be 'endowed by their existence'.

Are yo able to re-write the Declaration of Independence ??? I didn't think so.

Of course, the Declaration of Independence is a political document, and has no legal bearing on the government.

[arayhay]

[

quote="r~"]

You mean ' endowed by their creator' don't you ???

The more accurate phrase might be 'endowed by their existence'.

Are yo able to re-write the Declaration of Independence ??? I didn't think so.

Of course, the Declaration of Independence is a political document, and has no legal bearing on the government.

So that makes it ok to miss quote or embellish with ones own slant, and transform its statement into something not intended in the original ????

[r~]

[

quote="r~"]

You mean ' endowed by their creator' don't you ???

The more accurate phrase might be 'endowed by their existence'.

Are yo able to re-write the Declaration of Independence ??? I didn't think so.

I think Thom. and Ben would approve of my re-interpretation.

Of course, the Declaration of Independence is a political document, and has no legal bearing on the government.

Spoken like a true tyrant.

inalienable right:
A right retained by the people; no matter the law; no matter the constitution.
A right that no one or even government can justly deny; no matter the Words of Belief.

Amendment IX. The Constitution of the United States.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Declaration of Independence is not only legal precedence to our laws and Constitution, it is incorporated into our Bill of Rights; no matter how tyrannical judges might rule.

ItS
liberty and justice for all
r~

[arayhay]

[

quote="r~"]

You mean ' endowed by their creator' don't you ???

The more accurate phrase might be 'endowed by their existence'.

Are yo able to re-write the Declaration of Independence ??? I didn't think so.

Of course, the Declaration of Independence is a political document, and has no legal bearing on the government.

So that makes it ok to miss quote or embellish with ones own slant, and transform its statement into something not intended in the original ????

r
I think Thom. and Ben would approve of my re-interpretation.


arayhay
I don't. They obviously credit their existence to their Creator.