[MD] NAP

[blue-jay maple]

> Nick previously:
> I don't reject culture.  Without culture then the law of jungle happens and
> people will be initiating physical coercion without a culture to stop them.
 
> Ron:
> But Nick, whats a more natural law?

Nick:
What's a more natural law than what?  HUH?  So you're saying 
"might makes right" is law?  That's not a reasonable law of human 
nature.  We can sit and talk about this, we don't have to bash our 
heads with clubs to figure this out.


> Ron prev:
> Does this mean that coercion by lying is acceptable?
> 
> Nick previously:
> Lying is unacceptable to honest people.  But law has nothing to
> do with this.  That's an issue that virtuous people try to
> handle themselves to counter.  Is that what you're asking?
> 
> Ron:
> So far we have established that natural law is actually cultural law.

Nick:
No, it's not simply just culture.  It's also natural to not want to murdered 
unless your John who has just said he indulges in being physically coerced 
and thus murdered.  We call it unnatural and a perversion of nature to 
murder and steal.  Culture can realize this.

Ron:
> NAP is centered and justified on the principle of a natural universal law
> which is culturally defined, by (western culture to be specific).

Nick:
Yes.  It is culturally defined.  I agree here.  I disagree that it's only western.  Lao-tzu, 
Ghandi, and Buddhists are also known for their non-initiating of physical coercion.

Ron:
> This is a serious flaw in the legitimacy of your arguement.

Nick:
Huh?  No, it's not.

Ron:
> The second is the assumption that honost people can not
> be un truthful.

Nick:
Honest people can be untruthful, but then we call them dishonest.  Lying and honesty, 
again, are not of natural law.  You are discussing value preferences.  Somebody prefers 
not to lie or maybe they prefer to lie.  I don't think we should get the sheriff cause 
somebody lied about they took a second piece of bread, and told everybody they only 
took one piece.

Ron:
> We have a social ideal based on a culturally derrived notion of truth
> which may or maynot be verifyable by it's citizens.

Nick:
So are you saying it's ok to murder and steal Ron?  Can't you verify if those 
are good or bad?

Ron:
> The question of truth has it's problems also it's universal meaning
> in relation to your theory, main pillars in your thesis. Which translates
> to main problems.

Nick:
Nope.  No problems so far.  Just your misunderstanding of what is a good law.  
To not murder is a good law and swift justice is a good action.  Can you argue 
otherwise?

Ron:
> Remember you asked to test your theory for soundness in relation to the MoQ
> I am not attacking you.

Nick:
I didn't think you were.

Ron:
> I know you have well meaning concepts but often the best of 
> well-meaning systems
> are often hi-jacked by the most ruthlessly evil people (just ask Karl Marx).

Nick:
The NAP is not hijacked.  It's a solid principle if followed.  If not, then it restores 
itself with justice in a civil society.

Nick


-- 
Be Yourself @ mail.com!
Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
Get a Free Account at www.mail.com