Whether people can determine right or wrong is not the issue. They can. Your question of "what happens" is more one of process.
Our democratic institutions answer that question. Our laws are born from the opinions of the people and the culture. If a majority of people in a culture say, favour polygamy, culture will reflect that. That will influence the prevailing ideas of society, from which politicians will borrow because they want to get elected and win elections.
People do agree on issues. Just do a poll. You can find out what the majority (or plurality) believe on anything. The question is: what happens when they are wrong?
When they are wrong, then those who have used reason must use persuasion and transform the culture.
Canadian so-cons have done a horrible job of transforming our culture. I'm not talking about bringing souls to Christ: I am talking about providing a cultural (Re: artistic, literary, media, entertainment) environment where people can derive so-con ideas that lead people naturally to accept so-con ideas.
Most people don't get their morals from religion or thinking. Most people derive their ideas from culture. If their days are filled with lib-left entertainment and art, that's what their minds are going to be filled with, because even if people don't necessarily set out to be lefty, through the assimilation of liberal story-lines, themes and values, they adopt those same ideas, unconsciously. And that's what so-cons must do if they want to win the fight decisively.
When you have a morally sound culture, informed by the proper use of reason, that will naturally translate into people voting according to correct values.
Of course we need all the politicians, the lobby groups and the activist groups that we have. We so-cons just have a great big gaping hole in our strategy, and that's the cultural aspect.
I'm sorry, but all this talk about natural law is a lot more complicated than you make it out to be.
I'm not sure what you mean.
Well said, Epiphany. You're making sense, but so-cons are fond of authoritarian approaches, because, well, they know what's best. And that's what people should do, right? ;)
I'm not sure what you mean.
I'm not sure how to explain it, but it doesn't look clearcut. The issue about polygamy is one that I'm still not clear on how natural law would work.
Natural law is not political system. Democracy is our political system, and whether or not we acknowledge the natural moral law or not, majority rules, electorally and culturally.
The natural law is the moral code. Democracy is the means to implement it.
Whether people can determine right or wrong is not the issue. They can. Your question of "what happens" is more one of process.
Our democratic institutions answer that question. Our laws are born from the opinions of the people and the culture. If a majority of people in a culture say, favour polygamy, culture will reflect that. That will influence the prevailing ideas of society, from which politicians will borrow because they want to get elected and win elections.
People do agree on issues. Just do a poll. You can find out what the majority (or plurality) believe on anything. The question is: what happens when they are wrong?
When they are wrong, then those who have used reason must use persuasion and transform the culture.
Canadian so-cons have done a horrible job of transforming our culture. I'm not talking about bringing souls to Christ: I am talking about providing a cultural (Re: artistic, literary, media, entertainment) environment where people can derive so-con ideas that lead people naturally to accept so-con ideas.
Most people don't get their morals from religion or thinking. Most people derive their ideas from culture. If their days are filled with lib-left entertainment and art, that's what their minds are going to be filled with, because even if people don't necessarily set out to be lefty, through the assimilation of liberal story-lines, themes and values, they adopt those same ideas, unconsciously. And that's what so-cons must do if they want to win the fight decisively.
When you have a morally sound culture, informed by the proper use of reason, that will naturally translate into people voting according to correct values.
Of course we need all the politicians, the lobby groups and the activist groups that we have. We so-cons just have a great big gaping hole in our strategy, and that's the cultural aspect.
Our laws have traditionally been based in “Common Law” which is based in Scripture. Since our Constitution we have based our laws on whatever is popular at any one time. This is commonly called ‘secular humanism’. It places man and his opinions as the ultimate (although changing) authority.
You have already pointed out that How many people really sit down and THINK about human morality? The obvious answer is, some. And how many people sit downs and think about ‘reason’? The obvious answer to that would be some.
Therefore, if people will not consider the ‘rightness’ or ‘wrongness’ of a position and, if they cannot be swayed by logic because logic doesn’t matter to them then... as this is the case, as will always be the case when the standard is human, we find a changing standard. What is ‘right’ today is ‘wrong’ tomorrow.
You give the answer when things are wrongly thought to be ‘right’, “When they are wrong, then those who have used reason must use persuasion and transform the culture”.
However, that presupposes that the majority are interested in logic, which is not the case.
Under your system of ‘natural law’ should the majority of citizens believe that paedophilia is ‘right’, then it follows that it is ‘right’ therefore it should be legal. We see that movement afoot already from groups such as NAMBLA.
Should the majority of citizens vote to have a “Hitler” rule a nation, then it is ‘right’ even if it is wrong. If logicians cannot convince people it’s wrong to wipe out groups, such as Jews, then it remains ‘right’ to wipe out these people.
A logician would simply have to convince people.... "All Jews are evil. All evil people should be exterminated. Therefore, all Jews should be exterminated" This is perfect logic, however, the premisses are not necessarily true.
Logic is not concerned with the rightness or wrongness of an argument, the truth or untruth of a premiss. Logic is concerned with whether the conclusion follows from the premisses presented.
Your conclusion does not follow from your premisses.
Your syllogisms: 1) All people have the ability to reason. Some people reason. Therefore, all people reason.
2) Some people are morally sound. Some people are not morally sound. Therefore, all people will become morally sound.
It’s apparent that your conclusions do not follow the principles of logic.
If we had a morally sound culture, which we do not, and if all residents of Canada used the same standard of rightness, which they do not, then we could anticipate the possibility of a utopian society where all people adhered to the same moral code.... a long stretch at best.
I agree that so-cons have done a terrible job of selling the moral position of our culture, as it once was. We fell for the line that, never would marriage be redefined. Along with many other obviously false assurances.
If, as you say, people get their morals from their culture then in a multi-cultural society the morals become mixed by the cultures. It becomes a ‘grab bag’ of whatever you choose to think is moral, such as your example of lib-left entertainment.
Therefore, the ability to reason what is right will be clouded by the culture you have absorbed. Thus we see the powerful support for a woman’s right to choose, without considering that there is a second right. The child’s!
It's not "who" defines it. You're again falling into the assumption that reasoning is not a proper tool. No matter who uses it *properly* reason will always lead to the same conclusion.
You have tried to make reason apply to where it does not. See my post above.
You can get one standard from a number of religions, so long as they are practiced in their traditional format, precisely because even though some religions are false, the natural law informs them to one degree or another. That's why most traditional religions preach against fornication, divorce, abortion, homosexual acts, etc.
Let's look at your sentence and apply the laws of logic to it...
Most religions preach against fornication etc. Some do not preach against fornication, etc. Therefore we can agree on same values.
Obviously, applying the rules of logic, your arguments do not stand up. They make no logical sense.
In a multicultural society, where people are of many religions, you can't rely on the Bible. Individuals have the right to have a say in their government, and not be ruled by religious doctrine that they do not hold to be true. However, natural law is accesible to all people, because it's based on one's own reasoning. Anyone with an average intelligence can reason.
In a multi-cultural society, where the basis of law and morality is based in the Bible, you must hold onto the basis. That's the foundation... not the culture. We are not talking about individuals having "a say in their government" (That's our political system).
You continue to confuse the use of logic. Logic is regarding argumentation, not morality.