Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

Maxperson · Nov 25, 2015

Umbran said:
Quite true. You and I were not materially harmed, so we could not bring the case in our own names. But clearly *someone* was harmed - a person was harmed enough to have died.

The case can be brought in the name of his estate. Or, relatives that could consider his death a loss could bring it in their own names.

Yeah, for sure. I was just adding that to the list of things needed. I think it's a flaw in the system that I need to be related to him in order to bring an unconstitutional law to the courts. Almost the entirety of the U.S. wasn't "harmed" by that drone, and his family is unlikely to sue. They'd probably be arrested if they came to America and tried.

Maxperson · Nov 25, 2015

Umbran said:
Ah, well, we are a nation of the rule of law, not the rule of what Maxperson thinks is right.

There'd be less evil

More to the point, though - your statement assumes a conclusion. There is no justification for the "murder" of Americans... "Murder" is something legally defined. As soon as you phrase it that way, you're including law.

The legal definition simply defines a concept that was around before law. Murder is not dependent on the legal definition. It just has to be a killing that is not justified.

Dannyalcatraz · Nov 25, 2015

The legal definition simply defines a concept that was around before law.

Depends on the law in question. Some laws (and the definitions tut attend them) introduce entirely new concepts upon the world. Others refine or expand extant confers in new ways.

It just has to be a killing that is not justified.

...and it is laws that define what is considered justified or not within a given society.

Maxperson · Nov 25, 2015

Dannyalcatraz said:
Depends on the law in question. Some laws (and the definitions tut attend them) introduce entirely new concepts upon the world. Others refine or expand extant confers in new ways.

I was talking only about the concept of murder, not all concepts in general.

...and it is laws that define what is considered justified or not within a given society.

No, not really. If the U.S. passed a law tomorrow allowing children to be killed by their parents on Tuesdays, it still would not be a justified act to kill your child on Tuesday. Most laws mean well, but some are just borked. For the most part, laws are written to recognize pre-existing justifications.

Dannyalcatraz · Nov 25, 2015

No, not really. If the U.S. passed a law tomorrow allowing children to be killed by their parents on Tuesdays, it still would not be a justified act to kill your child on Tuesday. Most laws mean well, but some are just borked. For the most part, laws are written to recognize pre-existing justifications.

Well, now you're raising different issues: you meant morally, while I was talking legally.

However, it should be noted that not all moral codes are identical. Individualistic societies place different values on human lives than collectivist societies. Cultures differ in how they value the lives of children.

So, when you say "If the U.S. passed a law tomorrow allowing children to be killed by their parents on Tuesdays, it still would not be a justified act to kill your child on Tuesday," it really depends on whose definition of "justified" you mean.

Umbran · Nov 25, 2015

Maxperson said:
There'd be less evil

I am not at all sure that's correct. To first approximation, there's less of what you consider evil - until you get to the unintended consequences of your positions, which may increase the amount of evil in the world.

To first approximation, I am not convinced there'd be less of what anyone else considers evil, and I am even less convinced once we consider consequences. This is part of why we have laws and representation - what we get will not agree 100% with anyone, but it has a better chance of hitting some acceptable compromise than taking a single person's choices.

Murder is not dependent on the legal definition. It just has to be a killing that is not justified.

"Justified" is not a universal objective thing, though. Again, this is why we have laws.

Umbran · Nov 25, 2015

Maxperson said:
If the U.S. passed a law tomorrow allowing children to be killed by their parents on Tuesdays, it still would not be a justified act to kill your child on Tuesday. Most laws mean well, but some are just borked. For the most part, laws are written to recognize pre-existing justifications.

That's a nonsense hypothetical, though. Our culture as it now is would not pass such a law. The hypothetical "if it did" is meaningless, because no Congresscritter looking for re-election wold vote for it, and no President would sign the thing.

This practical point matters in Danny's statement that the laws define what we consider justified.

Dannyalcatraz · Nov 25, 2015

Umbran said:
Dannyalcatraz said:

Maxperson said:

If the U.S. passed a law tomorrow allowing children to be killed by their parents on Tuesdaysi, it still would not be a justified act to kill your child on Tuesday.

Click to expand...

However, it should be noted that not all moral codes are identical. Individualistic societies place different values on human lives than collectivist societies. Cultures differ in how they value the lives of children.

So, when you say "If the U.S. passed a law tomorrow allowing children to be killed by their parents on Tuesdays, it still would not be a justified act to kill your child on Tuesday," it really depends on whose definition of "justified" you mean.

Click to expand...

"Justified" is not a universal objective thing, though. Again, this is why we have laws.

...and here's a perfect example, from the 12 Tables of Rome:

TABLE IV. concerning the rights of a father, and of marriage.

Law I.

A father shall have the right of life and death over his son born in lawful marriage, and shall also have the power to render him independent, after he has been sold three times.

Under Roman law- the law of most of the known world for @1400 years- had the right to kill his lawfully born son at any time, for any reason, at any age unless and until he was emancipated. Such a killing would be deemed "not murder"...even after Christianity became the official state religion under Constantine.

And in the Old Testament, we have this:

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (NIV)

A Rebellious Son
18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

So, killing a rebellious son was again, not murder, but justifiable homicide.

Maxperson · Nov 26, 2015

Dannyalcatraz said:
...and here's a perfect example, from the 12 Tables of Rome:

Under Roman law- the law of most of the known world for @1400 years- had the right to kill his lawfully born son at any time, for any reason, at any age unless and until he was emancipated. Such a killing would be deemed "not murder"...even after Christianity became the official state religion under Constantine.

And in the Old Testament, we have this:

So, killing a rebellious son was again, not murder, but justifiable homicide.

Just because a society said something was moral or okay, doesn't mean that it was, or that it was justified. The Roman killing his son was still committing murder, even if the law doesn't define it as such.

Dannyalcatraz · Nov 26, 2015

Those are not murder by the predominant moral, religious & legal codes of the day, but rather justifiable homicides.

It is one of the traps of the passage of time and cultural absolutism. What humans define as "murder", "marriage", "property", etc. change over time. Just because WE consider something good or evil, doesn't mean our ancestors- or descendants- agree.

The objectivity of how people judge actions is the source of some of the deeper philosophical/moral/ethical questions.

Remember, your stated position re:murder was:

The legal definition simply defines a concept that was around before law.

But, as I illustrated, this position is factually incorrect from what we know of human history. The concept codified into law was that killing your offspring for a variety of reasons- including "just because" was OK in nearly every culture in the world at one point. Besides the Jews & Romans, look at India, Hellenistic Greece, Japan, Meso-American cultures.

At some point, the global consensus changed, yes, but only in the past few hundred years.

Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator

Umbran

Mod Squad

Umbran

Mod Squad

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator

Similar Threads