- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Law by Frédéric Bastiat
Posted on 6/23/26 at 11:19 am to 4cubbies
Posted on 6/23/26 at 11:19 am to 4cubbies
quote:
Could someone who has never been exposed to the concept of the Christian God still come to know morality through reason?
We have thousands of years of this being shown, from societies that predate Christianity (and even Judaism).
0
Posted on 6/23/26 at 11:20 am to AllbyMyRelf
Natural Law is just the concept that you own yourself. That you have the right to protect yourself. It all flows from that.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 11:22 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:I don’t really follow. By “wall” do you mean how I explain the source of objective morality?
Naw. I'm just describing a wall you've put up to create a space to retreat to.
quote:I don’t really know what this sentence means. What is “this”? Are you saying critique of the Christian view is only possible within a Christian worldview?
I imagine this is only possible within the walls you created (that I described above and in the prior post).
Posted on 6/23/26 at 11:24 am to stuntman
Ok. I’ve never heard that perspective before.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 11:26 am to AllbyMyRelf
Posted on 6/23/26 at 11:26 am to 4cubbies
quote:Yes.
Is survival the basis of property rights?
Human beings don't survive the way animals do hand to mouth, we survive across time, planning, producing, storing, and building on what we've already made.
The product of your labor today is the means of your survival next month, next year, and in old age when your capacity to produce diminishes.
Property rights are what make that temporal dimension of survival possible. Without them, you can possess what you hold right now, but you cannot produce for the future, because anything you set aside can be taken before you need it.
Strip away property rights and you reduce human existence to the the level of a brute animal. The right to property isn't just some made up social convenience, it is the institutional expression of what human survival, as differentiated from brute savage survival, actually requires.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 11:26 am to AllbyMyRelf
quote:
I don’t really follow. By “wall” do you mean how I explain the source of objective morality?
This exchange (that just occurred) should illuminate it for you:
quote:
As Christians, we should distinguish between how morality is known and what its source is. We can know many moral truths through reason alone, and don’t need to appeal to scripture in every instance. But if Christianity is true, goodness itself ultimately exists because all being and order derive from God. We can explain morality through natural law, human flourishing, and rational nature, but those realities themselves are grounded in God’s creative act.
quote:
The problem is that we were having a non-religious discussion about humanity, which has existed without Christianity for the vast majority of its time on earth. This just frames the discussion in a way that (1) prohibits any actual discussion and (2) insulates your position from any crituque/commentary.
If I were to describe any morality outside of this framework (will you accept that other than using "wall"?), you have created a space where you can retreat, rhetorically ("well God created it so you can't be correct" or "God created that. Man couldn't" etc.)
Posted on 6/23/26 at 11:30 am to LSUnKaty
quote:
Human beings don't survive the way animals do hand to mouth, we survive across time, planning, producing, storing, and building on what we've already made.
The product of your labor today is the means of your survival next month, next year, and in old age when your capacity to produce diminishes.
It sounds like you're describing man in society. I reckon what you're describing is a function of living in that society, which implies the concept of property rights evolved within that framework/mindset/culture (whatever descriptor you want to use).
quote:
The right to property isn't just some made up social convenience, it is the institutional expression of what human survival, as differentiated from brute savage survival, actually requires.
Again, it sounds like you're specifically noting the distinction of humanity living within societies and life predating that societal living (and our elevated standards and conceptualization of life).
IF there is a distinction in pre and post societal humanity, then these concepts are not universal. They're a derivation and function of living in advanced societies.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 11:33 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:That’s not exactly what I’m saying. I’ve said a few times that many moral questions can be answered through reason (i.e., not through special religious revelation such as scripture). I do, however, believe that there are some moral questions that can only be answered through special revelation, such as which god do i worship. Someone who doesn’t believe in God would likely not be interested in these moral questions, however.
If I were to describe any morality outside of this framework (will you accept that other than using "wall"?), you have created a space where you can retreat, rhetorically ("well God created it so you can't be correct" or "God created that. Man couldn't" etc.)
As for the source of morality, yes, you’re right, I believe it comes from somewhere, that it is objective, and that the source is the Creator. I am aware that other people have different answers, but this is a fundamental question where the answer is really just discrete.
I haven’t read the full thread, but did you say whether you believe objective morality exists?
Posted on 6/23/26 at 11:40 am to 4cubbies
quote:How is this different from a gift made the day before death?
He may have willed it to his descendants, but why should a deceased person's wishes determine the disposition of property after that person no longer exists? Again, I'm not proposing an alternative to succession or wills, merely questioning their premise.
The right to determine what happens to your property is inseparable from owning it. The moral weight doesn't come from the dead person's wishes, it comes from the living person's right to dispose of what is theirs.
Since no one knows exactly when they will die, allowing transfer instructions to be recorded in advance is simply the practical mechanism for exercising a right that already exists.
What alternative would you suggest? If property rights were to extinguish at death with the state or some other collective determining where it goes, wouldn't that just substitutes someone else's preferences for the deceased, without any principled reason why theirs should prevail over the wishes of the person who produced it?
Posted on 6/23/26 at 11:45 am to AllbyMyRelf
quote:
but did you say whether you believe objective morality exists?
That depends on how you define it.
There are certain social mores that appear to be universal among different populations, religions, etc. that indicates the source of the concepts can't be tied to any god.
But, accepting these examples can change, depending on how squishy you (the general you) make "objective morality"
Posted on 6/23/26 at 11:47 am to 4cubbies
quote:I'm confused by what is meant by "someone else's stuff" here.
someone else's stuff.
Surely we are talking about the actual owner of the stuff, not someone else.
Do you dispute the idea that someone has the right to dispose of their own stuff however they see fit?
Posted on 6/23/26 at 11:48 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Or, perhaps, man is made in God’s image, with the ability to reason, which allows him to consistently and across multiple societies, discover certain moral truths that make up the natural law.
There are certain social mores that appear to be universal among different populations, religions, etc. that indicates the source of the concepts can't be tied to any god.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 11:53 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I truly have no idea how the retarded idea started
bullshite, you know exactly how.
You were "both" posting in a thread in which someone called her fat.
You answered, as her, but from your SFP account.
And the posts were almost instantly deleted.
So what's the official explanation for that?
Posted on 6/23/26 at 11:54 am to AllbyMyRelf
quote:This sounds like you are saying your dog does not have an innate understanding that it owns itself.
This does not follow from my original question of what if I don’t have an innate understanding that I own myself. My dog is not looking to get killed and also has survival instinct, but I own my dog, and I don’t think of dogs as having natural rights.
If so, I would argue that is up for debate.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 11:54 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
You were "both" posting in a thread in which someone called her fat.
You answered, as her, but from your SFP account.
And the posts were almost instantly deleted.
What?
Posted on 6/23/26 at 11:57 am to AllbyMyRelf
quote:
Or, perhaps, man is made in God’s image, with the ability to reason, which allows him to consistently and across multiple societies, discover certain moral truths that make up the natural law.
You're literally doing exactly what I just said. Yes, if this exact scenario happened, you're right. You don't have to keep repeating it. Who is debating whether or not IF the scenario is true that you are correct?
It's like you want to turn this into a debate about whether God exists and I don't really know who's trying to get into that.
If that is your statement and your thesis and you have nothing else, I don't know if you have to keep copying and pasting it. Everyone understands the argument at this point.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 11:57 am to LSUnKaty
quote:
Do you dispute the idea that someone has the right to dispose of their own stuff however they see fit?
That guy is disputing that we even have the right to ownership. Which is to say that our labor isn't ours, it's someone else's. In other words, this person is trying to play coy instead of just admitting that he is advocating for communism.
Straight from the Communist Manifesto:
"In this sense, the theory of Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
This guy thinks he's Marx by inadequately twisting around his belief. Says "ownership is a made up concept."
Ownership is a real, & instinctual concept. Try to take a piece of meat away from a lion (male or female, only two genders) & see whether or not "ownership is a made up concept." The lion killed the zebra, effectively owning the meat.
Posted on 6/23/26 at 12:01 pm to 4cubbies
They have that concept from what they see, hear as they begin understanding their surroundings. Kind of like a Democrat, I want what is yours
Posted on 6/23/26 at 12:04 pm to SlowFlowPro
It goes to the heart of the original question, which was whether law or rights came first.
Page 12 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News