Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Maxperson]

The second one, but not the first. There is an aggregate of people living under ISIS's rule.

But whatever, focus trying to prove that ISIS is a society. What do I care.

That's still them living together in a more or less ordered community. Together =/= equal.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You just said..

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

So morals depend on what the society says is moral. ISIS is a society. It creates laws. It governs. I maintains and builds infrastructure. Therefore, according to what you just said, those beheadings are moral.

How about you read the whole sentence in its context, not just throat you think proves me a liar.

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

The bolded section clearly means I am discussing the 12 Tables of Rome, Deuteronomy, and the other ancient legal directives, not the modern world. Laws like that were the global norm, not the exception. I then explicitly point out that morality has changed on this issue in the last few hundred years.

Such laws would be aberrations in modern societies, not the norm, which has change and views such killings as wrong.

Likewise, jumping over to ISIS and Assad, this brutal policies they use are at odds with the prevailing moral theorems of the day, so would also be seen as invalid.

I didn't say you believed it. I said if your statement above is correct then he is morally justified. He has a society that also believes as he does or the gassing would not have happened.

As noted above, no society exists in a vacuum. As I stated, at one point in human history, the global consensus would likely not have been concerned with the brutality ISIS or Assad. But we don't live at that point in time, and the modern world is perfectly justified in condemning them and acting accordingly to stop them.

You didn't show that, though. The Romans thought it moral to murder children and then the codified it into law. People don't say, "Hey, let's make a law that says X and then we can think it's moral." Rather, they say, "X is moral, so let's make a law that says so in order for there to be no misunderstanding."

Maxperson, you cannot claim both a moral relativist stance and say that ^ when in the context of this discussion, you have revealed yourself to be supporting a moral objectivist viewpoint by posting:

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.

Pick a position and stick with it.

 

[Maxperson]

How about you read the whole sentence in its context, not just throat you think proves me a liar.

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

I didn't ignore it. It just didn't make a difference. That they have those morals now makes them morals "of the day." It doesn't have the world wide in order to be a moral "of the day."

The bolded section clearly means I am discussing the 12 Tables of Rome, Deuteronomy, and the other ancient legal directives, not the modern world. Laws like that were the global norm, not the exception. I then explicitly point out that morality has changed on this issue in the last few hundred years.

Right, but it extends to now. If the Roman morals "of the day" allow the murder of children to be moral, then the ISIS morals "of the day" allow the beheadings of Americans to be moral. You don't get to pick one of those situations to be moral and the other not to be. Both are or both aren't. I'm on the side that says both aren't.

Such laws would be aberrations in modern societies, not the norm, which has change and views such killings as wrong.

Not even. There are dozens of countries where governmental murder and atrocities are commonplace and lawful. All over Africa, places in Asia, Russia, China (though Russia tries to pretend it doesn't), and so on. It is very non-aberrational in these times. It just isn't western.

Likewise, jumping over to ISIS and Assad, this brutal policies they use are at odds with the prevailing moral theorems of the day, so would also be seen as invalid.

No. First, they aren't prevailing. They're western. Lost of other places, enough to make the ideals not prevailing, exist. Second, we don't have the right to declare our morals prevailing and right, and then impose them on others.

As noted above, no society exists in a vacuum. As I stated, at one point in human history, the global consensus would likely not have been concerned with the brutality ISIS or Assad. But we don't live at that point in time, and the modern world is perfectly justified in condemning them and acting accordingly to stop them.

It's not a global consensus. Several countries engage in that sort of brutality, and others like China and Russia actively support regimes like Syria, with Russia supporting Assad and Syria.

Maxperson, you cannot claim both a moral relativist stance and say that ^ when in the context of this discussion, you have revealed yourself to be supporting a moral objectivist viewpoint by posting:

Pick a position and stick with it.

I can't. My position is a blend. Some things like rape and murder are always going to be wrong and evil, but lesser things like theft might or might not be evil depending on outlook and circumstances. As long as I'm consistent, I have a position and I'm sticking with it. You are presenting a False Dichotomy where it's all one or the other and I don't have to go with your false choice.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

That is an extreme example. I can think of laws that we might pass though that would be morally questionable and them simply being laws wouldn't make them just or good in my mind. For example if we pass laws preventing Muslims from immigrating to the US (which seems a lot more plausible than a law allowing children to be killed by their parents) I would call that an unjust law.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Recognition by the rest of the world doesn't matter. If the world decided not to recognize water as being wet, it would still be wet. The same goes for a state. Lack of recognition doesn't stop it from being a state. The world has no real right to impose it's laws on sovereign states.

Recognition by others matters a lot when it comes to calling something a state. If they are not recognized by other countries as a state, it brings legitimacy into question. Right now the people who consider ISIS legitimate would mostly be those on the extreme end of the Salafi movement who are also sympathetic to ISIS. ISIS is definitely gaining legitimacy the longer it holds onto territory though.

Within ISIS territory it is pretty unclear to me how much ISIS reflects the population it controls. I'd be interested if anyone has a link to a real demographic breakdown among Sunni's living in that area. I would imagine that extreme Salafis or Wahhabis within the territories feel their interests are represented by ISIS. They seem to be controlling an area that is primarily Sunni, but I honestly don't know what the breakdown is in that region among sunnis when you start looking at things like what schools of jurisprudence people subscribe to. That would tell you a lot more about what kind of 'society' ISIS has going and how much legitimacy they might have among the population. I am guessing the overall picture may be quite complicated. For example there could be Sunnis there who object to some of ISIS specific beliefs but are glad to have a fighting force who are pro-Sunni.

 

[Maxperson]

Recognition by others matters a lot when it comes to calling something a state. If they are not recognized by other countries as a state, it brings legitimacy into question. Right now the people who consider ISIS legitimate would mostly be those on the extreme end of the Salafi movement who are also sympathetic to ISIS. ISIS is definitely gaining legitimacy the longer it holds onto territory though.

What the rest of the world thinks is irrelevant when it comes to whether a place is a state or not. If the world suddenly changed its mind about Egypt, Egypt would still be a state regardless. What the rest of the world thinks only matters for political maneuvering and nothing more.

Within ISIS territory it is pretty unclear to me how much ISIS reflects the population it controls. I'd be interested if anyone has a link to a real demographic breakdown among Sunni's living in that area. I would imagine that extreme Salafis or Wahhabis within the territories feel their interests are represented by ISIS. They seem to be controlling an area that is primarily Sunni, but I honestly don't know what the breakdown is in that region among sunnis when you start looking at things like what schools of jurisprudence people subscribe to. That would tell you a lot more about what kind of 'society' ISIS has going and how much legitimacy they might have among the population. I am guessing the overall picture may be quite complicated. For example there could be Sunnis there who object to some of ISIS specific beliefs but are glad to have a fighting force who are pro-Sunni.

This is all true. No state reflects all of what the people desire, though. Just look at the U.S. The approval rate of Congress and the President is almost always very low. Obama has averaged 47%.

 

[Ryujin]

Recognition by others matters a lot when it comes to calling something a state. If they are not recognized by other countries as a state, it brings legitimacy into question. Right now the people who consider ISIS legitimate would mostly be those on the extreme end of the Salafi movement who are also sympathetic to ISIS. ISIS is definitely gaining legitimacy the longer it holds onto territory though.

Within ISIS territory it is pretty unclear to me how much ISIS reflects the population it controls. I'd be interested if anyone has a link to a real demographic breakdown among Sunni's living in that area. I would imagine that extreme Salafis or Wahhabis within the territories feel their interests are represented by ISIS. They seem to be controlling an area that is primarily Sunni, but I honestly don't know what the breakdown is in that region among sunnis when you start looking at things like what schools of jurisprudence people subscribe to. That would tell you a lot more about what kind of 'society' ISIS has going and how much legitimacy they might have among the population. I am guessing the overall picture may be quite complicated. For example there could be Sunnis there who object to some of ISIS specific beliefs but are glad to have a fighting force who are pro-Sunni.

It would be rather hard to get a true demographic read considering the marching orders appear to be you're either with us and fighting, or for the (literal) chop.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I didn't ignore it. It just didn't make a difference. That they have those morals now makes them morals "of the day." It doesn't have the world wide in order to be a moral "of the day."

Ack- in my efforts to clarify, I forgot to also bold "predominant" which is key. And it does make a difference.

Right, but it extends to now. If the Roman morals "of the day" allow the murder of children to be moral, then the ISIS morals "of the day" allow the beheadings of Americans to be moral. You don't get to pick one of those situations to be moral and the other not to be. Both are or both aren't. I'm on the side that says both aren't.

The Romans' moral compass was largely in accord with the other cultures of the world. ISIS' is not.

Not even . There are dozens of countries where governmental murder and atrocities are commonplace and lawful. All over Africa, places in Asia, Russia, China (though Russia tries to pretend it doesn't), and so on. It is very non-aberrational in these times. It just isn't western.

You might recall upthread that I mentioned that some laws are passed that are opposed to theories of morality. As the world stands today, facism is generally regarded as morally unacceptable in nearly every philosophy or theocratic system of ethics.

IOW, those dictatorships, and other oppressive regimes are acting in opposition to the prevailing moral theories of the day.

No. First, they aren't prevailing. They're western. Lost of other places, enough to make the ideals not prevailing, exist.

You are conflating the actions of governments with the moral compass of the populace. If you look at the ethics of the populace, you very often see something quite different.

Second, we don't have the right to declare our morals prevailing and right, and then impose them on others.

Then how do you justify judging ancient Romans, Jews, Greeks, etc. for their views on how to treat their children?

It's not a global consensus. Several countries engage in that sort of brutality, and others like China and Russia actively support regimes like Syria, with Russia supporting Assad and Syria.

The most common definitions & usage of the word "consensus" is NOT as a synonym for "unanimity", but rather as "an agreement of a majority ."
So my comment stands.

I can't. My position is a blend. Some things like rape and murder are always going to be wrong and evil, but lesser things like theft might or might not be evil depending on outlook and circumstances. As long as I'm consistent, I have a position and I'm sticking with it. You are presenting a False Dichotomy where it's all one or the other and I don't have to go with your false choice.

There is no false dichotomy between choosing moral objectivist and moral subjectivist. A moral objectivist viewpoint is an absolutist perspective, so it is mutually incompatible with subjective morality.

 

[Maxperson]

Ack- in my efforts to clarify, I forgot to also bold "predominant" which is key. And it does make a difference.

I didn't miss it. Again, it's just doesn't matter. There is a huge chunk of the world that views things differently. A simple majority doesn't get to make their morals apply to the entire world.

The Romans' moral compass was largely in accord with the other cultures of the world. ISIS' is not.

ISIS is in accord with a huge chunk of the world. A majority of the population once you include China, India and Pakistan.

You might recall upthread that I mentioned that some laws are passed that are opposed to theories of morality. As the world stands today, facism is generally regarded as morally unacceptable in nearly every philosophy or theocratic system of ethics.

IOW, those dictatorships, and other oppressive regimes are acting in opposition to the prevailing moral theories of the day.

Prevailing? If a majority of the world's population is not western with morals and is okay with things like killing women for being raped and other things that the western world find morally wrong, then why do you think the western version is the prevailing one?

You are conflating the actions of governments with the moral compass of the populace. If you look at the ethics of the populace, you very often see something quite different.


Then how do you justify judging ancient Romans, Jews, Greeks, etc. for their views on how to treat their children?

The "and then impose them on others." is rather critical. We can judge our morals the best all we want if that's as far as it goes.

There is no false dichotomy between choosing moral objectivist and moral subjectivist. A moral objectivist viewpoint is an absolutist perspective, so it is mutually incompatible with subjective morality.

The False Dichotomy was in you trying to pigeon hole me into those two options as if they were the only two I am allowed. You presented those two options and declared that I had to stick with one. I have a third view.

 

[Cor Azer]

Recognition by the rest of the world doesn't matter. If the world decided not to recognize water as being wet, it would still be wet. The same goes for a state. Lack of recognition doesn't stop it from being a state. The world has no real right to impose it's laws on sovereign states.

Recognition by other states is critical for legitimacy - that's why you can't just declare your property and family a sovereign state separate from whatever country you're in (despite some extremist radicals' wishes).