US, you would go the other way? You mean towards a State in which, 'íf you can get away with it, just do it’ becomes the main rule?

We don’t need laws for every eventuality of human behaviour, but we sure as hell do need wide-ranging laws, in order to uphold a functional economy and social structure.

With a much weaker rule of law, the average citizen would become disempowered and the aggressive and ruthless would rule the roost. That’s very straightforward.

And with pressures on our quality of life increasing at a rapid rate, strong governance is going to become all the more important.

GP, you are getting confused.

>>if we are our own ultimate authorities then by definition we don’t need to listen to anyone else. The child abuser just has to say that by his own ultimate authority he has not done wrong and no one can say that that is incorrect<<

That is nonsense. Of course we can say it is incorrect. Moreover, the abuser knows it too.

It does not follow that having made a decision to act on ones own authority, "no-one can say that is incorrect". You are master of your own actions, but you still have to answer to your fellow human beings for the consequences of that decision.

If I make a business decision on my own authority that fails the corporate governance test, and the Board takes me to task, I cannot defend myself on the basis "it was my decision, on my own authority, so by definition it must have been right".

You are confusing "being responsible for a decision" and "being right, simply by reason of taking responsibility for a decision". That's a non sequitur.

Similarly, when a child abuser breaks the law, the act doesn't suddenly somehow justify itself. Society says that it is wrong. The law says that it is wrong. The individual knows perfectly well that what they are doing is wrong, and that if caught, will be punished.

I know this doesn't make a great deal of sense to anyone who has never had to think these things through for themselves. But that's the way it is.

>>They claim that there is a standard of objective morality given by God that they aspire to and so it makes sense to measure them against that standard<<

That sounds all very well and good.

But first you have to choose your God.

Because as far as I can tell, they all have different rules. Catholics disagree with Anglicans disagree with Evangelists disagree with Opus Dei etc. etc. ad infinitum

And they're all following the same God, for goodness' sake.

Talk to me again about God's objective morality when you find one.

Pericles – how can you say that an individual, in this case a child abuser, can be his own ultimate authority (and therefore can declare that it is not wrong for he himself to abuse children), and simultaneously say that the child abuser knows that he is acting wrongly? If he is his own ultimate authority and he tells himself child abuse is not wrong then he will not believe he is acting wrongly.

You then go on to say that he has to answer to his fellow human beings, most of whom you believe would say he is wrong. So what is the ultimate authority here? You are the one who said that the individual should be able to be the ultimate authority of what is moral but now you are indicating it is the majority opinion of society that is the ultimate authority. Which is it? You can’t have two ultimate authorities.

You seem to be saying now that because a society has the power to enforce its will over the individual such exertion of raw power makes something “right”. Really?

The question here is what is the source of actual right and wrong, not who has the power to enforce acquiescence to what is declared to be right and wrong. I agree with you that in a godless world every person is free to define for themselves what is right and wrong – the individual is the ultimate authority. And this does not cease to be the case just because the heavy hand of society may come down on them.

Yabby – I’m not sure where you are going with this. Have you abandoned the view that people are machines? If we are machines then we are not free at all in any sense, no matter what happens to a child. It is only if we are not machines does it make any sense to even begin to talk about the possible abuses that can be made against a child’s freedom.

*Have you abandoned the view that people are machines? *

GP, my view has always been that machines are built by people,
wheras organisms evolve. Machines can be programmed but
clearly so can people.

Take a look at the children of indocrination. Most simply
repeat the mantras that they were taught by their society,
cult or religion. Had Osama bin Laden been born in Melbourne,
there is a high chance that he would be a Christian. Had
GP been born in Iraq, he would most likely be a muslim.

So where is all this "free" will ? Clearly its not so free.

Ludwig,

'íf you can get away with it, just do it’ becomes the main rule?'

Not exactly. But if the law is getting too complicated, step back and think what you're going to realistically achieve.

'With a much weaker rule of law, the average citizen would become disempowered and the aggressive and ruthless would rule the roost. That’s very straightforward.'

Not really so straight forward. As it happens, the rich have good Lawyers to exploit the vast complexity of law, while the poor don't.

'And with pressures on our quality of life increasing at a rapid rate, strong governance is going to become all the more important.'

Strong governance can actually erode our quality of life too. The tighter you make all laws to protect every single citizen's enjoyment and safety in every case the more restricted and less spontaneous life can be.

They're all little things, but they add up to a lot. I look at footage from the 80s at the cricket, with people lying on the grass, bringing their own esky with food and beer, tapping beach balls around and running on the field to see the pitch and players after the game. Hell we cant even have a drink on a Friday afternoon after work as the company can get sued if one of us drink drives. We are losing part of life with this terrible attitude to risk that's all encompassing these days.

Give people more chance to regulate their own behaviour, and use existing laws rather than a draconian no fun attitude because you don't want to infringe on the rights of the 80yo grandmother's enjoyment of the mosh pit at a rock concert.

I think the world worked a lot better when people were given some opportunity to regulate their own behaviour, and the police were given some chance to use their own initiative and common sense. Now everyone expects all laws to be all-encompassing and if there isn't a sign that explicitly says not to do something it's open slather. The law treats everyone like children and then expects to produce adults.

GP, it would appear that you are still confusing two issues here.

Possibly deliberately, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

>>how can you say that an individual, in this case a child abuser, can be his own ultimate authority (and therefore can declare that it is not wrong for he himself to abuse children), and simultaneously say that the child abuser knows that he is acting wrongly?<<

The piece that I disagree with is the part in brackets - "and therefore can declare that it is not wrong".

Child abusers come in many shapes and sizes, but I doubt that many, if any, would be unaware that sexually molesting children is bad.

Let me give an example.

A gentleman of the cloth has lived a celibate life, and finally gives in to the temptation and has his wicked way with a ten year-old. Does he at that point declare "this is not wrong, what I am doing, but perfectly natural and healthy".

I think not.

He knows perfectly well that it is wrong.

Why then do you imagine that someone who is not a practising Christian, making the same decision, is not similarly aware?

Ah, but exactly what is he aware of, I hear you ask, since it is not God who is instructing him?

He will have self-assessed that what he is doing is evil, because he is in tune with the concept of right and wrong. That is the reason why the acts are performed in secret.

If the perpetrator can indeed "declare that it is not wrong for he himself to abuse children", there would be no need for secrecy, would there? It would be full speed ahead, and damn the torpedoes.

There is a difference, you see, between doing something and knowing something.

Except when it comes to punishment. As a priest, when you offend, you move to a new diocese. As a layperson, you go to jail.

Prima facie, it would apear to be less wicked to abuse God's law, than to contravene secular moral standards.

Eh, GP?