Dallin Oak'S Remarks At Ces Fireside

[elguanteloko]

While I find that notion somewhat elitist and arrogant,

Unless you think saying that most non-physicists don't make sense of the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics is 'elitist'... then, sure. I don't find it either elitist or arrogant, though. I'm not saying those that understand philosophy and "critical thinking" are better in any way; they just know more about these issues through a more reasonable approach.

it has very little (if anything) to do with my comments regarding the nature of democratic encoding of morality into law. I as a Mormon have as much right to advocate and vote into law (directly or via elected representatives) as anyone who thinks their notion of what is good for society come from a more reasoned place.

Once again your comment shows a confusion on what "rights" are and on what "morality" is. That you have the right to advocate and vote into law a specific proposal does NOT mean that supporting such a proposal is correct. NO ONE says you can't vote, that's silly. What I'm saying is that when the distinctions I've pointed out are not made, you will be falling in a bunch of mistakes in reasoning and you are, unfortunately, going to hurt people unnecessarily in the process.

Mormons, Catholics, Baptists, Atheists, Hindus, Agnostics, Wiccins, Spaghetti Monsterists, etc. all have equal rights to democratically sway the collective enforcement of morals through the enactment of laws.

Sure.

Other may think that my reasons for voting for certain laws is silly and superstious...but so what??? That is how democracy works.

You can vote in any way you want, but we are discussing whether or not a certain principle Oaks uses is right or wrong. I think what I've said shows that he is wrong... very wrong.

[frankenstein]

Frankenstein,

Isn't it a given that when anybody posts anything it's their oppinion?

Saying something over & over again doesn't make it true. Unless you're saying "I'm obnoxious & repetitive."

The proof is in the pudding.

You & I are factual proof that a sperm from a man & an egg from a woman combine to form another human being.... Nature's way.

I have been thinking on it for a bit and I will take a gander at what I think you meant about "fact that nobody's born gay."

Do you mean that a homosexual couple does not and can not engage in a reproductive act with each other; adam and steve can engage in a reproductive act with each other?

[Molloch]

Pahoran,

Thanks for the wise words of advise in communicating with some on this forum.

Frankenstein,

Isn't it a given that when anybody posts anything it's their oppinion?

Saying something over & over again doesn't make it true. Unless you're saying "I'm obnoxious & repetitive."

The proof is in the pudding.

You & I are factual proof that a sperm from a man & an egg from a woman combine to form another human being.... Nature's way.

When people refer to a statement as a fact, it is generally viewed as more than that person's ignorant personal view on a controversial topic. Just fyi.

[Helmuth]

I'm curious as to what devout Mormons believe Elder Oaks is speaking about, beyond the one obvious example that comes to mind (referring to Prop 8 ).

As a devout Mormon, I think he is saying it's OK to be involved in politics, hold political positions for religious reasons, and make religious arguments about political issues. I agree with that.

He is also probably saying that there's nothing wrong with having laws intervening in the market for drugs, alcohol, and various other immoral things, as doubtless that is what he believes. He is certainly entitled to his political opinions, as I am to mine. My political philosophy is libertarianism. I disagree with him that such laws can be justified. Other general authorities, such as Ezra Taft Benson, have disagreed with such laws as well. Brigham Young said The Mormon Creed was this:

"Mind Your Own Business"

I like that.

Various General Authorities have held and do hold various political opinions. It would be impossible to try to reconcile all said opinions into one non-contradicting Right and True political opinion that all members of the Church must get in line with. Thus, I am comfortable saying I disagree with Dallin H. Oaks' political views if he in fact thinks it's OK to restrict alcohol or ban drugs or tax income or have a central bank, all of which he probably does, simply because those are the "mainstream" views and he is a former government employee. The gay marriage thing, who cares? That's not a libertarian issue, neither one way nor the other. It's not as if Oaks, the Church, or anyone else wants to send homosexuals to jail.

to legalize something is to make it moral

This view of StormRider's is precisely the crux of the disagreement that I would have with many of you in this thread. I absolutely think that to have sex before marriage is an immoral act, however I think it would also be an immoral act to put someone in a cage, or even just steal some of their money with a small fine, for doing that. To refrain from taking immoral actions (kidnapping and caging, or robbing) in response to an act does not affect whether the original act was moral or immoral. I can think that it's wrong to eat on fast Sunday and my failure to beat up anyone I see eating doesn't somehow make it suddenly moral to eat on fast Sunday. Likewise the gang we call government cannot make something moral or immoral simply by writing some words on a special piece of paper and then beating everyone up who disobeys. Since when is morality determined by the fiat decrees of men, and on average the worst men among us at that? I thought what made something moral was, oh I don't know, maybe immutable eternal principles, and also, wasn't there something else... oh yeah: God?

I really do not understand the reasoning that says "to legalize something is to make it moral". That city council has a whole lot more power than I ever dreamed if that's true. I guess even God can't fight city hall. ;^)

Edited September 18, 2011 by Helmuth

[TAO]

Helmuth, the difficulty is, when anybody takes an action, they effect others.

Thus, the voting is really about what our future environment and culture are going to be.

Thus, it becomes our responsibility, as it is the world our children will live in =/.

I hope this explains it a bit better... and I don't generally disagree with your point. But I think there are some things that I just cannot allow.

Best Wishes

-TAO

Edited September 18, 2011 by TAO

[Helmuth]

Helmuth, the difficulty is, when anybody takes an action, they effect others.

Thus, the voting is really about what our future environment and culture are going to be.

Thus, it becomes our responsibility, as it is the world our children will live in =/.

I hope this explains it a bit better =).

-TAO

I understand. If we were to converse with each other I think you would find we basically agree on some very important things. I, like you, do not think we need to be tolerant of all deviant behaviors. I, like you, want a successful and healthy culture, and find it tragic that we increasingly have instead a decaying and hedonistic one. I am a big believer in very old-fashioned traditional moral values, and I perhaps you are, too. I merely think these values should be enforced in moral ways, that is to say voluntary ways, that is to say non-aggressive ways, that is to say ways in which beating up people, placing them in cages, or stealing their assets is not involved.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Helmuth

[Bsix]

Once again your comment shows a confusion on what "rights" are and on what "morality" is.

Actaully, not. Rights in our society are not absolute. Individual rights derive from what we as a society deem to be in the public interest based on the the collective morality of the nation.

That you have the right to advocate and vote into law a specific proposal does NOT mean that supporting such a proposal is correct. NO ONE says you can't vote, that's silly.

Actually, the premise of this thread is based on Elder Oaks' comments defending the both the right and appropriateness of using moral positions to advocate and enact laws based on our moral beliefs. It is the critics that want to carve away morality/religion as a basis for public advocacy.

[Helmuth]

Individual rights derive from what we as a society deem to be in the public interest based on the the collective morality of the nation.

I believe that our rights come from our creator. Actually, no, not even that is entirely true. I believe our rights are inherent in our nature as beings co-eternal with God.

And yes, these rights are absolute.

[wenglund]

I believe that our rights come from our creator. Actually, no, not even that is entirely true. I believe our rights are inherent in our nature as beings co-eternal with God.

And yes, these rights are absolute.

I find it helpful to distinguish between inalienable rights and conferred rights. Governments, unavoidably, confer rights, and such rights tend not to be absolute. For example, duly appointed or elected judges have the conferred right (based on respective constitutions) to adjudicate the law and to have the adjudication be binding upon its citizens. Since I am not a judge, I don't have that right. So, in that sense the right isn't absolute.

Even inalienable rights may not be absolute in the sense that the rights of one individual may come in conflict with the right of another individual.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 20, 2011 by wenglund

[LeSellers]

the rights of one individual may come in conflict with the right of another individual.

Such a conflict is impossible. Rights do not and cannot conflict. In every case where there seems to be a conflict, one of the persons is not seeing his rights correctly.

Lehi

[wenglund]

Such a conflict is impossible. Rights do not and cannot conflict. In every case where there seems to be a conflict, one of the persons is not seeing his rights correctly.

Lehi

Could you provide a secular example?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[KevinG]

Elder Oaks was calling for the faithful to stay involved in the political process and not be embarassed about having their beliefs reflected in the public discourse. The conspiracy theories aside - we're not seeing the rise of a new theocracy at the call of the Mormon Apostles.

[Avatar4321]

Regulating alcohol consumption to the extent that we do in Utah is embarrassing to me as a Utahn. Things need to change. Other people live here too and they don't have the Church as a social outlet.

We need to decide if we are Iran (positive freedom) or Libertarian (negative freedom) in Utah. We mostly just pick and choose to force our preferences on others without evaluating whether or not we are being rational or consistent. It's an immature way of dealing with politics and people outside of the Church call us out on it (justly so).

So the only alternative to Church as a social outlet is drinking?

[LeSellers]

Could you provide a secular example [ofwhere there seems to be a conflict, one of the persons is not seeing his rights correctly]?

I can't think of one right now. It's probably because I can't imagine any case where two rights conflict.

Perhaps you could, and I will be able to demonstrate how one of the parties fails to understand the nature of his (or the other's) right(s) in that instance.

Lehi

[wenglund]

I can't think of one right now. It's probably because I can't imagine any case where two rights conflict.

Perhaps you could, and I will be able to demonstrate how one of the parties fails to understand the nature of his (or the other's) right(s) in that instance. Lehi

How about the right to life when it comes to things like war or the death penalty or abortion (in the case of preserving the life of the mother)?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[KevinG]

I can't think of one right now. It's probably because I can't imagine any case where two rights conflict.

Perhaps you could, and I will be able to demonstrate how one of the parties fails to understand the nature of his (or the other's) right(s) in that instance.

Lehi

Voddo practitioners performaing blood sacrifice in their backyard within view of the neighbors. (Not kidding - this was a real legal case).

[Facsimile 3]

So the only alternative to Church as a social outlet is drinking?

Nope, but in the same culture with constructed customs such as men being traditionally expected to show initiative and ask women out on dates, drinking is a very mainstream social activity. It's not a small niche and it's not a fad. It is what it is.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Facsimile 3

[LeSellers]

Voddo practitioners performaing blood sacrifice in their backyard within view of the neighbors. (Not kidding - this was a real legal case).

The fact that it was a real case is insignificant.

Who owns the chickens?

On whose property were the sacrifices offered?

Why should anyone who does not own the chickens and whose property was not violated care?

Is there a right not to be offended? No!

The Common Law right to peaceably enjoy one’s property does not extend to denying the same right to others.

The Voodoo practitioners win—the offended neighbors have no legitimate right (but may have the illegitimate, arrogated power, to force the “Voodooers” to stop using their property as they see fit—without harming any of those neighbors) to not see the sacrifices.

How about the right to life when it comes to things like war or the death penalty or abortion (in the case of preserving the life of the mother)?

Hard questions, all.

In war, the issue is does anyone have the right to wage war? Those who are attacked, do. Those who initiate the attack do not. The Golden Rule applies: do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

In the case of a conscripted soldier, he has the right to defend himself, even if his side is the aggressor. In the case of a volunteer, if his side is the aggressor, he has no right to do anything to advance the cause of the initiator of the war. If the volunteer is on the defending side, he can do anything he needs to to protect himself, his family and his country (assuming it is a country in defense).

The convict facing the death penalty has no right to life: he took a life, he is paying the price for his choice. I’d prefer he serve an indentured servitude to repay the heirs of the victims of his crime for many reasons, but you asked about this aspect.

An abortion to save the life of the mother comes closest to a conflict between rights. However, the baby is threatening her life, and she has the right to self-defense (as it were). There is no other justification for abortion, not even rape or incest.

These two, often touted (far more frequently than the incidence of these crimes warrants) as obviously justifying abortion, are cases that punish the wrong person. Those who perform or choose abortions here are killing one of the victims, and not punishing the perpetrator. The mother’s discomfort for nine months is hardly equal to the loss of her child’s life. What she chooses to do with her child after his birth (adoption, raising him, giving him to her parents to raise, etc.) is a separate issue, but it must be with the child’s right in mind, and not just hers.

Lehi

[Calm]

What about noise violations? Disturbing the peace?

Speaking as someone who is kept awake by the neighbours' dog barking most of the night.

Edited September 21, 2011 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Why should anyone who does not own the chickens and whose property was not violated care?

Noise and smell are among the first things that spring to mind.

The Common Law right to peaceably enjoy one’s property does not extend to denying the same right to others.

In other words, one has to decide which right has precedence, the right to enjoy peace and quiet on one's own property or the right to practice one's religion (or anything else) on one's own property.

The Voodoo practitioners win—the offended neighbors have no legitimate right (but may have the illegitimate, arrogated power, to force the “Voodooers” to stop using their property as they see fit—without harming any of those neighbors) to not see the sacrifices.

And what if the sacrifices interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of the neighbours' property?

An abortion to save the life of the mother comes closest to a conflict between rights. However, the baby is threatening her life, and she has the right to self-defense (as it were). There is no other justification for abortion, not even rape or incest.

These two, often touted (far more frequently than the incidence of these crimes warrants) as obviously justifying abortion, are cases that punish the wrong person. Those who perform or choose abortions here are killing one of the victims, and not punishing the perpetrator. The mother’s discomfort for nine months is hardly equal to the loss of her child’s life. What she chooses to do with her child after his birth (adoption, raising him, giving him to her parents to raise, etc.) is a separate issue, but it must be with the child’s right in mind, and not just hers.

In other words, to resolve conflict one simply defines rights in such a way so that one person has them and the other doesn't...thus no conflict.

Edited September 21, 2011 by calmoriah

[wenglund]

In war, the issue is does anyone have the right to wage war? Those who are attacked, do. Those who initiate the attack do not. The Golden Rule applies: do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

In the case of a conscripted soldier, he has the right to defend himself, even if his side is the aggressor. In the case of a volunteer, if his side is the aggressor, he has no right to do anything to advance the cause of the initiator of the war. If the volunteer is on the defending side, he can do anything he needs to to protect himself, his family and his country (assuming it is a country in defense).

The convict facing the death penalty has no right to life: he took a life, he is paying the price for his choice. I’d prefer he serve an indentured servitude to repay the heirs of the victims of his crime for many reasons, but you asked about this aspect.

An abortion to save the life of the mother comes closest to a conflict between rights. However, the baby is threatening her life, and she has the right to self-defense (as it were). There is no other justification for abortion, not even rape or incest.

These two, often touted (far more frequently than the incidence of these crimes warrants) as obviously justifying abortion, are cases that punish the wrong person. Those who perform or choose abortions here are killing one of the victims, and not punishing the perpetrator. The mother’s discomfort for nine months is hardly equal to the loss of her child’s life. What she chooses to do with her child after his birth (adoption, raising him, giving him to her parents to raise, etc.) is a separate issue, but it must be with the child’s right in mind, and not just hers.

Lehi

Thanks for supplying the examples. It sound like to me you define rights in a qualified way, and thus they are not, by definition, absolute.

This comports with my conclusion.

The difference between us, then, is you define the rights in such a way as to render them non-absolute, and I see the application of the rights as potentially competing at some point, and thus not absolute. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 21, 2011 by wenglund

[Helmuth]

Wade,

Thank you for your reply. The rights I was referring to were not the government-conferred privileges you mentioned which are sometimes called "rights" (right to jury trial, right to vote, etc.). Rather they are the rights which derive from our liberty and arise as a result of our nature as independent intelligences. "Negative liberty" rights, as Facsimile 3 has talked about. It is these rights which are absolute and which cannot conflict. To say that rights conflict is to make the concept of these rights meaningless. Rights cannot conflict, that's what makes them rights. Let me explain.

A right is a boundary, defining a property. These boundaries cannot overlap, or they cease to be useful. Two people cannot both own 100% of the same property. Imagine a Ven Diagram with an overlap. That overlap would be a rights conflict. The correct way is represented instead by a diagram like the cover of this book. No overlaps. No property with two claimants.

Now the boundaries of our property can be intricately complex. We might sell mineral rights to one party, water rights to another, while keeping the rights to live on the surface to ourselves. The properties we claim may be abstractions, like a radio frequency. Our properties obviously have all kinds of interaction with the properties of others.

As you've been discussing, if I create noise and smell which crosses my property line onto yours, that could be seen as an invasion of your property, just as if my fist were to cross into that property called your face. But by the same token, are photons from my porch light which come onto your property an invasion? What if it's a laser pointer? How strong must the smell be? If the smell of hot dogs grilling wafting over the fence is not a boundary violation, why is the smell of a compost heap or slaughterhouse? Take another example: open range vs. closed range. Is it the job of the rancher to fence in his cattle to keep them from trampling and destroying neighboring farms, or is it the job of the farmer to fence the cattle out? Does it matter who got there first? You can't exactly deduce the answer to these questions absolutely from a priori principles. Instead, what happens is a convention arises. People freely acting in a market informally settle on conventions that become generally understood as the acceptable boundaries of behavior and acceptable solutions to disputes.

So that may sound awfully fuzzy; you may say there's no logical or scientific reason I have no right to make 100 Db noise but I have every right to make 10 Db noise, or why in different places or situations I may even have the right to make 100 Db (or no right to make 10 Db); you may say "I thought you said rights were absolute". By absolute I did not mean there is some scientific or logically air-tight way to delineate every right. I just mean that within the boundary that's you or yours, you have absolute authority. When there appears to be an overlap, we zoom in on it, examine it, and draw a line, sometimes a complex and curvy line, defining where the boundary is. In a complex industrial society such overlaps are going to be appearing all the time. We deal with them as best we can, conventions arise as to where the lines are drawn in certain commonly-recurring overlaps, and life progresses onward and upward.

Edited September 24, 2011 by Helmuth

[wenglund]

Wade,

Thank you for your reply. The rights I was referring to were not the government-conferred privileges you mentioned which are sometimes called "rights" (right to jury trial, right to vote, etc.). Rather they are the rights which derive from our liberty and arise as a result of our nature as independent intelligences. "Negative liberty" rights, as Facsimile 3 has talked about. It is these rights which are absolute and which cannot conflict. To say that rights conflict is to make the concept of these rights meaningless. Rights cannot conflict, that's what makes them rights. Let me explain.

A right is a boundary, defining a property. These boundaries cannot overlap, or they cease to be useful. Two people cannot both own 100% of the same property. Imagine a Ven Diagram with an overlap. That overlap would be a rights conflict. The correct way is represented instead by a diagram like the cover of this book. No overlaps. No property with two claimants.

Now the boundaries of our property can be intricately complex. We might sell mineral rights to one party, water rights to another, while keeping the rights to live on the surface to ourselves. The properties we claim may be abstractions, like a radio frequency. Our properties obviously have all kinds of interaction with the properties of others.

As you've been discussing, if I create noise and smell which crosses my property line onto yours, that could be seen as an invasion of your property, just as if my fist were to cross into that property called your face. But by the same token, are photons from my porch light which come onto your property an invasion? What if it's a laser pointer? How strong must the smell be? If the smell of hot dogs grilling wafting over the fence is not a boundary violation, why is the smell of a compost heap or slaughterhouse? Take another example: open range vs. closed range. Is it the job of the rancher to fence in his cattle to keep them from trampling and destroying neighboring farms, or is it the job of the farmer to fence the cattle out? Does it matter who got there first? You can't exactly deduce the answer to these questions absolutely from a priori principles. Instead, what happens is a convention arises. People freely acting in a market informally settle on conventions that become generally understood as the acceptable boundaries of behavior and acceptable solutions to disputes.

So that may sound awfully fuzzy; you may say there's no logical or scientific reason I have no right to make 100 Db noise but I have every right to make 10 Db noise, or why in different places or situations I may even have the right to make 100 Db (or no right to make 10 Db); you may say "I thought you said rights were absolute". By absolute I did not mean there is some scientific or logically air-tight way to delineate every right. I just mean that within the boundary that's you or yours, you have absolute authority. When there appears to be an overlap, we zoom in on it, examine it, and draw a line, sometimes a complex and curvy line, defining where the boundary is. In a complex industrial society such overlaps are going to be appearing all the time. We deal with them as best we can, conventions arise as to where the lines are drawn in certain commonly-recurring overlaps, and life progresses onward and upward.

You make some interesting points similar to Lehi. However, to me, that which is fuzzy, and where lines must be drawn at the micro level, and can be redrawn, aren't, by definition, absolute. But, I can respect that you see it differently.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Helmuth]

It just means that the principles are absolute, but the details and application of those principles must be worked out and sometimes there is more than one possible correct answer.

[Loran Blood]

I don't know if this goes along with your question but last night I saw a movie called, "The Whistleblower" about a lady fighting sex trafficking. I was tearing up as I saw how it is or at least portrayed and I thought there should be something that society can do to stop all that sickness and torture, so I would be all for legislating to lock up people involved in that and getting the victims out. I guess as an extension of that whole scene is the porn business who for all I know buy and sell innocent people to participate and if we can shut down that then I am all for it

Indeed, it has been very difficult for some places, such as Amsterdam, to stop human trafficking, because of the simple fact that most of what sex slaves of this kind are made to do in clubs and on the internet are legal in such countries, including prostitution of various kinds and public sexual display. Only the coercive nature of such activity is really illegal, while utter, unbridled sexuality and an exuberant secularism that celebrates nihilism as the basis of human relations makes the kinds of moral discriminations that could dampen the market of such "goods" are disallowed.