Ten Commandments...."Rules" or "Continuum?" for living.

[Mark Weiser]

There are times when Killing is necessary look at Military and Law Enforcement agenices that at times are called upon to use Deadly Force to protect life and property. As Martial Artist we train in a deadly art that was designed to use lethal force when necessary that is part of the MA that you have chosen to study. That is the History of any Martial Art

 

[loki09789]

There are times when Killing is necessary look at Military and Law Enforcement agenices that at times are called upon to use Deadly Force to protect life and property. As Martial Artist we train in a deadly art that was designed to use lethal force when necessary that is part of the MA that you have chosen to study. That is the History of any Martial Art

That is the history of culture/religion/philosophy too. These have been the context that martial arts draws values/ethics and acceptable use definitions from.

Consider the Biblical OT and all the 'justified' killings that happend. Samuel was the prophet that told...the leader of a Jewish nation (can't remember the name at the moment) to obliterate an entire 'other' peoples existence down to cattle farmlands and buidings....the TC only applied to member WITHIN that group. outside of it, you were fair game.

One point that Herrie made, that I liked, was the issue of who gets to be included as "us" or excluded as "them" has had a bearing on how these codes have been applied and interpretted.

 

[heretic888]

One point that Herrie made, that I liked, was the issue of who gets to be included as "us" or excluded as "them" has had a bearing on how these codes have been applied and interpretted.

Yup.

Its really interesting to see how this dialectic played out historically. Initially, rights and dignity would only extend to those of the same kinship lineage as you (i.e., the same 'clan' or 'tribe'). Then, they were extended to those of the same 'race' or 'people'. Eventually, it became extended further to those of the same 'nation' or 'creed' or 'culture' (this was when organized religion really started to run things). And now, some of them wacky progressive types are putting forth ideas like banishing the death penalty (thus extending the right of life to all human beings, without exception).

Of course, there is considerable overlap --- even today. The same types that are concerned with the "rights" of the fetus, for example, often have no problem with capital punishment. Strange, neh?

From the martial art side of things.... this is how it was explained to me in Ninpo: killing goes against the natural law, unless deemed absolutely necessary (i.e., no other choice). Plain and simple, you don't kill unless you absolutely have to (not because you rationalize that you have to, but unless you really have no other choice).

Laterz.

 

[loki09789]

Yup.

Its really interesting to see how this dialectic played out historically. Initially, rights and dignity would only extend to those of the same kinship lineage as you (i.e., the same 'clan' or 'tribe'). Then, they were extended to those of the same 'race' or 'people'. Eventually, it became extended further to those of the same 'nation' or 'creed' or 'culture' (this was when organized religion really started to run things). And now, some of them wacky progressive types are putting forth ideas like banishing the death penalty (thus extending the right of life to all human beings, without exception).

Of course, there is considerable overlap --- even today. The same types that are concerned with the "rights" of the fetus, for example, often have no problem with capital punishment. Strange, neh?

From the martial art side of things.... this is how it was explained to me in Ninpo: killing goes against the natural law, unless deemed absolutely necessary (i.e., no other choice). Plain and simple, you don't kill unless you absolutely have to (not because you rationalize that you have to, but unless you really have no other choice).

Laterz.

Based on this view what is your take on 'pre-emptive' actions, whether national or personal? What would 'have no other choice' have to look like in order for you to make the first move righteously within this logic.

 

[heretic888]

Based on this view what is your take on 'pre-emptive' actions, whether national or personal? What would 'have no other choice' have to look like in order for you to make the first move righteously within this logic.

It really depends on the circumstances. I don't think the pre-emptive strike in Iraq was justified morally, if thats what you're referring to. Then again, I'm not altogether sure whether individual morality and national morality are really the same thing (i.e., you can't always "turn the other cheek" or "walk away from it" when you're a responsible nation)...

When it comes to personal matters, I adopt the Ninpo philosophy of simply walking away.

 

[Flatlander]

So, is it fair to say that the concensus seems to be that the 10 commandments are currently perceived or applied as more of a continuum than a cut and dried "carved in stone" set of behavioural laws?

 

[GAB]

Thanks NG, good luck on those fun exams btw...

I have yet to see any posts that address the 'continuum or rules' idea - regardless of the context/historical setting or who it did or did not apply to in the view of the followers.

Basically, if your not suppose to lie, but telling the truth is going to brutally crush a loved ones ego, do you 'sin' (in the current usage of knowingly doing something that is wrong) for the sake of "love/honoring" that person or do you tell the truth?

There are many cases on a daily basis when TC come into direct conflict with each other. Which one takes precidence in those moments for you and why?

Hi, I feel that if in doubt tell the truth, it will rise its head (lie) and then it will be worse...
I think truth is the answer. Truth to one is a lie to another.. sometimes you can't win, however, you have to be able to know you are trying the best and lieing is a not a good..

Someone say's I got to tell you something, but you can't tell anyone... I say don't tell me, talk to a Priest or Doctor. Don't drag me into this, because I will not lie to cover you up...

Many times I have been put in bad situations, for better or worse I would tell the truth, you screw up and lie and get caught you are in double trouble...

One time an officer who did something pretty bad was being covered up by a few of his buddies. He was bragging about how he was going to skate, I was senior on the watch and had to tell IAD the story, the guy was suspended for lieing but not for what he had done..

I am glad it went that way and not back on me, I was considered OK because I did not abuse persons or lie. There are enough bad guys out there without us being one...Contrary to some thoughts on this board... Regards, Gary

 

[heretic888]

So, is it fair to say that the concensus seems to be that the 10 commandments are currently perceived or applied as more of a continuum than a cut and dried "carved in stone" set of behavioural laws?

I would say that is how most modern religious adherents (in the West anyways) perceive them. There are exceptions, of course.

:asian:

 

[heretic888]

however, you have to be able to know you are trying the best and lieing is a not a good..

"Lying" is not "good", eh??

So, tell me.... when German families were lying to the Nazi soldiers about the Jewish refugees they had hiding in their cellars.... was that "bad"??

Personally, I don't think so.

 

[Tgace]

"Lying" is not "good", eh??

So, tell me.... when German families were lying to the Nazi soldiers about the Jewish refugees they had hiding in their cellars.... was that "bad"??

Personally, I don't think so.

What hasnt been mentioned (unless I missed it) is what is the persons frame of mind (mens rea: in legalize)? Is there "evil" intent behind a persons actions? Are you lying to save a Jewish family or to scam some old person out of his life savings? Are you killing in self-defense or killing to silence a witness to a crime?

mens rea definition – in most cases, an act is a crime because the person committing it intended to do something wrong. This mental state is generally referred to as Mens rea, or guilty mind. Mens rea expresses a belief that people should be punished only when they have acted in a way that makes them morally blameworthy.

 

[Tgace]

The legal exceptions to the above being criminal negligence and reckless actions. In brief, situations where a "normal" person should have "known better"......

 

[heretic888]

What hasnt been mentioned (unless I missed it) is what is the persons frame of mind (mens rea: in legalize)? Is there "evil" intent behind a persons actions? Are you lying to save a Jewish family or to scam some old person out of his life savings? Are you killing in self-defense or killing to silence a witness to a crime?

Well said.

Personally, I believe that motivation and intention (which are an undeniable part of the context of the situation) are among the major factors in determining morality of actions.

 

[Tgace]

The problem is not going off the deep end into moral relativism....in this country, killing your daughter because she was the victim of a rape is wrong regardless of your ethnic background.

 

[loki09789]

The problem is not going off the deep end into moral relativism....in this country, killing your daughter because she was the victim of a rape is wrong regardless of your ethnic background.

True on paper, but based on the legal outcomes, what message could be percieved about how sympathetic or permissive society is for such actions? They may find him guilty, but the sentencing might be so mild (depending on record, circumstances, emotional state....) that you would have to wonder if it was done just to satisfy the legal process.

Current laws discourage the 'eye for an eye' actions, but people who are applying the law as a living thing might be doing the 'continuum' thing in how they apply it.

I think the whole point of this thread for me was that people tend to stop exploring faith, religion/philosophy at a relatively 'elementary' level and then form judgements (not just opinions but full blown prejudicial stances) about them/it based on that 'elementary' level of understanding.

Children are taught (at least now, among the people I know who are active in religious education) that the TC are 'rules' that you try to live by, but at no point (even during the teen years when they are developing those abilities to discuss/discourse the grey areas) does the 'continuum' reality of how these things are going to be applied get discusses.

Much like Herrie has mentioned about Western/Judeo Christian religion before, using the pattern of responses or which TC 'rules' you tend to apply more than others can be used as a tool for self discovery is not mentioned IMO because the focus in on the community and not the personal spiritual growth.
THere are elements that touch spiritual growth, but the major focus does seem to be social order in the 'body' of the faith.

Even the lack of topical discussion responses, to me, is an indication that people don't really reflect on these fundamentals of the faith - whether they are bashers or believers.

 

[heretic888]

True on paper, but based on the legal outcomes, what message could be percieved about how sympathetic or permissive society is for such actions? They may find him guilty, but the sentencing might be so mild (depending on record, circumstances, emotional state....) that you would have to wonder if it was done just to satisfy the legal process.

Here is an excellent point where I would say that individual morality and national morality can differ. I would say that laws should be more concerned with the stability, welfare, peace, and order of the society --- not of getting people to "be good" or "avoid evil". That kinda stuff should be left to the individual (in a democracy, anyway).

The liberal State can not impose any favored version of the Good Life --- each individual is free to explore their own sense of morals as they see fit, provided they do not invade the rights of others (thus causing disorder and chaos, something the liberal State can do something about).

This is why, for example, that hate groups like the Klu Klux Klan are perfectly free to believe what they believe, gather together and discuss it, and even have parades and rallies about it --- but, they are not free to invade the rights of others through violence, theft, or destruction of property. The social State is responsible for order and peace, not ethics and morality.

That's how I see it, anyway.

Much like Herrie has mentioned about Western/Judeo Christian religion before, using the pattern of responses or which TC 'rules' you tend to apply more than others can be used as a tool for self discovery is not mentioned IMO because the focus in on the community and not the personal spiritual growth.

In my opinion, this is because of the history of "personal spirituality" in Western societies as a whole.

Jesus (if you believe he existed) and al Hallaj were both crucified for exclaiming the ultimate mystical statement that, "I and the Divine are One". Johannes Eckhart's writings were made anathema upon his death. Origen, celebrated as perhaps the greatest Christian intellectual during his lifetime, was later demonized by the literalists centuries after his death. The Gnostics were all but destroyed by the Catholic Church. Quakers have been ridiculed and persecuted for centuries. Sufis are commonly persecuted by more mainline Muslims in the Middle East. Kabbalah has a long history of needing to hide its adherents from conventional Judaism. Neoplatonism and Hermeticism have both been typically underground movements.

Generally, mature pronouncements of spiritual growth are reserved behind the doors of monasteries --- as we see with the Hesychast tradition within the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Laterz.

 

[Tgace]

One of my favorite quotes about Law by Abraham Lincoln....

I know the American People are much attached to their Government;--I know they would suffer much for its sake;--I know they would endure evils long and patiently, before they would ever think of exchanging it f or another. Yet, notwithstanding all this, if the laws be continually despised and disregarded, if their rights to be secure in their persons and property, are held by no better tenure than the caprice of a mob, the alienation of their affections from the Government is the natural consequence; and to that, sooner or later, it must come.

Here then, is one point at which danger may be expected.

The question recurs, "how shall we fortify against it?" The answer is simple. Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor;--let every man remember that to violate the law, is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the character of his own, and his children's liberty. Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap--let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in Primers, spelling books, and in Almanacs;--let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars.

While ever a state of feeling, such as this, shall universally, or even, very generally prevail throughout the nation, vain will be every effort, and fruitless every attempt, to subvert our national freedom.

When I so pressingly urge a strict observance of all the laws, let me not be understood as saying there are no bad laws, nor that grievances may not arise, for the redress of which, no legal provisions have been made.--I mean to say no such thing. But I do mean to say, that, although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still while they continue in force, for the sake of example, they should be religiously observed. So also in unprovided cases. If such arise, let proper legal provisions be made for them with the least possible delay; but, till then, let them, if not too intolerable, be borne with.

 

[PeachMonkey]

I think it is healthy to balance your respect for the law with respect for that which is right, for there are laws so unjust that they cannot be obeyed.

This balance is delicate, of course, for it can lead to "Ends Justify The Means" mentalities which I rarely, if ever, support.

I recommend the short reading of Henry David Thoreau's "On Civil Disobedience", Martin Luther King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail", and Mohandas K. Ghandi's "Satyagraha in South Africa". All are available free on the interweb.

 

[PeachMonkey]

I just stumbled on another quote that addresses the idea of law vs. action:

"Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience... Therefore [individual citizens] have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring."

This quote came from the Nuremberg Tribunal that tried European war criminals after the Second World War.

 

[heretic888]

Indeed. Which is why I differentiated between "individual" morality and "national" morality.

In my opinion, the two are directed at completely different purposes. Ideally, anyway.

 

[Tgace]

http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Politics_RuleOfLaw.html

The Rule of Law:
The Rule of Law is a concept required for a free society, where individual rights are absolute. Its basic premise is that the use of force is tightly controlled by objective, predefined laws. It is opposed to the Rule of Men, where those wielding power can use force in any way they choose. Where the whims, envy, or viciousness of the few are unchecked by any restrictions, and everyone else's lives are at the complete mercy of these thugs.

The Rule of Law is the system that subordinates the use of force to specific rules. It is based on the premise that some uses of force are wrong (the initiation of force), and some applications of force are right (retaliatory force). It is based on the understanding that the peaceful, productive interaction of men is conditional on individual rights, and the use of force can make that impossible. That all men must obey the law and respect others rights.

The Rule of Law in practice means a system of objective, predefined laws governing the use of force among people. It means the establishment of a government as a means of enforcing those laws. It means requiring the government to obey those same laws.