..had forgotten #4 above! :D 4. Most of the laws in the West emanate from the Code of Hammurabi and not sources more commonly attributed.
On Jul 1, 12:27 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > Yep fran, I should have read your post first. I will add a few quick > observations: > 1. Some find divine law to be above sectarian law. > 2. I find that some such things are indeed innate, such as divine > virtues. > 3. What seems confusing to many today is the apparent relativism of > such determinations. Of course, this is true for relative thinking > only. > > On Jul 1, 9:19 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 1 Jul., 17:28, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > So this debate takes place against a> universal background of agreement: > > don't murder. > > > Ah but, Alan, "murder" itself is a complex term which needs to be > > defined. And not all definitions are the same. Even if we take a > > fairly, old, generally accepted legal definition - "when a person, of > > sound memory and discretion, unlawfully killeth any reasonable > > creature in being and under the king's peace, with malice > > aforethought, either express or implied." (Blackstone, Commentary on > > the Laws of England [1765-69]) - questions arise. Particularly with > > regard to the qualification "unlawfully". What if the law is unjust, > > allowing for all sorts of legal killing, what we might term "judicial > > murder"? Whatever one's view of abortion may be, for example, the fact > > that it is legally allowed in a society automatically means, according > > to Blackstone's definition, that it cannot be defined as murder. > > > Let us take the example of the position taken by many in the USA who > > campaign against abortion, on the grounds that it is murder, while at > > the same time condoning capital punishment. Both are legally > > permissible. So in this case, in order to define murder, one must move > > beyond legal definitions. But here it becomes difficult. Can one say > > that all killing is wrong? Or does one define a particular subset of > > killing? If not the legal ones, than what criterea does one use? > > > I realise that your scholastically grounded position defines moral > > precepts on the basis of derivation from general principles. But there > > are many of us who do not share your philosphical position. (Apart > > from the question as to the stage at which a fertilised embryo can be > > considered to be a human being - and no, I don't want to discuss that > > here at the moment ... Chris would just accuse me of throwing hand- > > grenades!) > > > Francis- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
