# lawful and unlawful



## sola_gratia (Sep 7, 2005)

Today someone told me in law there is no right or wrong. Just lawful and unlawful..that ethics change over time and something becomes unlawful when the society no longer tolerates it. Any advice on this...it kind of stumped me...


----------



## ChristianTrader (Sep 7, 2005)

Well I would ask him if he thought there was any law that society could change and would be wrong for changing. Something along the lines of abortion, rape, etc.

Also ask if he has every criticized a politician for supporting a law that he did not like?


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by sola_gratia_
> Today someone told me in law there is no right or wrong. Just lawful and unlawful..that ethics change over time and something becomes unlawful when the society no longer tolerates it. Any advice on this...it kind of stumped me...



Put a gun to his head and threaten to pull the trigger. Then ask him if that action is intrinsically wrong (not merely unlawful). If he says, yes, you win the debate. If he says No, pull the trigger and you win the debate anyway!













On second though, don't do that.


----------



## crhoades (Sep 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by sola_gratia_
> Today someone told me in law there is no right or wrong. Just lawful and unlawful..that ethics change over time and something becomes unlawful when the society no longer tolerates it. Any advice on this...it kind of stumped me...



Guess they have no problem with Nazi Germany and the holocaust. It was lawful for them. Society tolerated it. So it wasn't wrong huh?

The Nuremberg trials were also then wrong because that was someone external to Germany dictating to them what their society should consider lawful. 

So at the end of the day, the Nazis were ok and other people were wrong for trying to dictate to them morality...

Right?


----------



## sola_gratia (Sep 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> Put a gun to his head and threaten to pull the trigger. Then ask him if that action is intrinsically wrong (not merely unlawful). If he says, yes, you win the debate. If he says No, pull the trigger and you win the debate anyway!
> ...








> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> ask him how he knows all those assertions.
> 
> ...



Good idea Paul, Thanks for the advice. I'll see what he has to say to that.


----------



## sola_gratia (Sep 15, 2005)

Ok...he totally avoided that and said:

"There is no evidence for an objective measure of right and wrong. The next best thing is the laws and teachings of humanity. Those have changed over time. They are not uniform over the earth. Unless something completely unprecedented happens, they will continue to change."


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Sep 15, 2005)

Well there is an objective measure for right and wrong. God exists, He is Holy and Unchangeable.

But as per changing over time to an extent he is correct. Mankind can only implement what they know. And they can only implement the good that they know if they have
1. Revelation of God.
2. The unction to do it.

One cannot deny the fact that it wasn't by coincidence that after the death and resurrection of Jesus, that the world changed from a brutal place to a much more enlighntened place. The Christian ethic spread via the Gospel, and this was possible only by Revelation. Hence the PreChristian ethics and laws will differ substantially from the PostResurrection ethics and laws.

Summing it up, mankind can only make just laws according to revelation of what is just. Because this is so, Just laws being contrived entirely dependent upon the revelation of God, hence in the human sphere because of increase or decreased revelation, it would seem that laws change over time, but in actuality from the eternal standpoint, Laws are unchangeable.


----------



## sola_gratia (Sep 15, 2005)

"I see no evidence of an objective morality. You have not provided any. Therefore, for all practical purposes at this point in time, there isn't an objective morality."


"I make the claim that there is no objective morality the same way that I make the claim that there are no four headed super intelligent chickens. Could there be in some strange corner of the universe? Maybe. I think that would violate the definition of a chicken, but if it makes you happy, sure. For all practical purposes, however, there are no four headed super intelligent chickens.

The laws and teachings of humanity refers to the moralities we have invented and semi-abided by throughout our history. They change according to geography and the society you are a part of. As our societies evolve, so do what we consider right and wrong. Some parts of the globe have not evolved along the same lines as us, and may never do so."

He also says the basis for something being wrong would be rational analysis of the act and it's impact on the individual and society. 

"t is wrong to rape three year olds because it is detrimental to society, detrimental to the three year old and most likely detrimental to the individual doing the rape. I'm not a psychologist, but it seems logical."

Then he goes on:

"The same with stealing a pickle. To steal implies that I am taking without paying back in some form - monetary or with an equivalent service. That's obviously bad for a large scale organized society. Without the ability to anticipate payment in some form, people would stop offering services, and society would collapse."


I think I am missing something here on how this all ties together, but the questions that are raised in my mind are...How are the acts being detrimental to the individual and society related to the acts being wrong? How does he make the judgment that acts detrimental to the individual and society are wrong?

On a side note, He makes fun of me for asking lots of questions and then asks me if I believe myself capable of knowledge...

[Edited on 9-16-2005 by sola_gratia]


----------



## sola_gratia (Sep 15, 2005)

Well, I made a post with the questions I had thought of and a few others to go along with it, and I was met with hostility. I was called an idiot and mentally dysfunctional. So I made a final post to sum up everything and point out that when you sin and reject God's law...you can't make sense of anything.

[Edited on 9-16-2005 by sola_gratia]


----------



## Poimen (Sep 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by sola_gratia_
> ...


----------

