quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I only happened to see one poll... in that poll they said 56 percent in the UK believed in CP.. .So I am not sure how valid it was. Even at that it seems the younger folks are against, and middle aged to older were for it. It is that way in the US as well... It seems people change their minds as they get older.

I think the UK abolished cp in 1968 or 73.


Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

So I am not sure how valid it was.

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

"You probably havent seen my prior posts, since I havent seen you until redently, but my point of view is that the state (or any given society) CANNOT be hypocritical because society is the only valid determiner of "right and wrong". There are no absolute rights, no universal moral code. "

Excuse me?  Umm, so Nazi Germany is OK with you, Allende in Chile, Stalin's Soviet Union etc?

There is no geist- no collection of individuals where the state miraculously gets rights that an individual doesn't possess.  Feel free to start arguing and come up with a number- 10, 1,000, 10,000.  All merely accidents of geography.

Of course lawyers like to argue that the body of law represents some wonderful achievement of humanity and by extension, lawyers being acolytes of this magnificent pile of knowledge, they too represent humanities highest achievement.  I blow a razzberry at lawyers and people that believe that states have rights that individuals don't possess, because they're the ones who've bought into the big steaming pile of law representing something beyond other accomplishments of individuals.

In terms of their being no moral universal code- try reading Kant.  A moral code evolves from the process of intuiting the world.  Kant has been ahead of science for a few hundred years- I wouldn't count him out just yet.

Sam

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I may be mistaken but i think you will find that the majority of citizens in the UK support the death penalty

Butch

I have never given much thought to whether they did or not, but now that you say that, I am surprised they do. Now I am really going to show my ignorance and ask if they still have the death penalty.

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

"Derivation from natural laws doesnt mean the codes themselves are universal, anymore than all poker games that use a 52 card deck are the same, even though they ultimately depend on the laws of probability.)"

Au contraire mon frere- Kant's point about the universality is that for anyone to be able to think, they have to be able to intuit the world using both tables of categories and tables of judgments which is the genesis of Kant's moral code.  In essence, Kant's argument is akin to a naturalistic one of convergent evolution.  Given the same problem, the solutions are going to have a lot in common.  It's a hair splitting point to argue whether this universal moral code was from a creator (I think Kant would take that view) versus convergent evolution, because the end result is going to be pretty similar.

"Since when does "not hypocritical" = "ok"?  Just because there are different moral codes that are internally consistent and viable for a given society doesnt mean that another society's isnt superior. Recognition of different codes and that none are "divinely inspired" isnt the same as believing in moral equivalency."

You're losing me on this one- I think you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.  If right or wrong depend solely on an individual society- then how can one society be superior to another?  What exactly are you using to make this judgment?  The only way to allow this distinction is if there is a fundamental moral code and the degree of "goodness" of a society is how closely they hew to it- otherwise all societies are functionally equivalent.

Sam

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

"All think they are, or they would change their code, obviously. Survival is what determines which is actually superior."

Sieg Heil! 

I have no idea what Genghis Khan's rallying cry was- but he'd have agreed with you. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

I'm sorry- but survival is not a viable metric to measure either the health or how advanced a society is.  Barbarism does fine- it's just static.

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

"Survival is not a metric to measure health or advancements, I agree, but it is the only metric of success."

Nonsense.  How long was Italy in barbarism after the fall of the Roman Empire?  Or England- or what's now Germany?  How about China?  Seems to me on the basis of time and headcount- barbarism has it all over our so called civilization.

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

May I suggest that you look up the definition of reductio ad absurdum?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual

quote:

ORIGINAL: samboct

May I suggest that you look up the definition of reductio ad absurdum?

I know it well...your point? Nothing in my arguments employs any logical fallacies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Thanks NorthernGent... If people were to just read the posts from Europe they would think everyone there was against cp and only us bloodthirsty Americans were far it.

Even though it is outlawed in many countries it does not necessarily represent the majority view of the citizens in those countries.

I don't think there will ever be a time when there is a clear majority either way... especially with the violent world we live in.

Butch