50:04 I think in this and few minutes following we see how confused Kevin Vallier is on what is theoretical proposition and what is state of reality today. He said that "from evidence" we know that various forms of establishment religion is know to be bad. And at the same time he try to answer problem "in practice we don't have separation of Church and State, but competing integralisms" using strange mix of theoretical reasoning ("it is incompatible with human dignity") and empirical data. And he said that various countries that he put as positives examples have something like "moderate establishment of religion or ideology", which seems to be rejection of his own position. At least this is how I see this right now. It is quite hard to grasp what Mr. Vallier position really is.
I had a question to Kevin Vallier: are you Sir speaking about theoretical construct or about reality of some modern states? It is not clear at all from this discussion. I specifically want to know, is Church and the State separated in the USA? Because if you answer "Yes", we need to explained, why USA is plagued by problems that he described as bad results of union of this two institutions.
1) the 45k number is overblown and comes from counting churches that cross geographical borders as separate churches. 2) there is one Christianity, the Catholic Church
they didnt allow to Mel Gibson to make movie on third secret of fatima but third secret of Fatima can be understood through reading all four parts of "Night in Zagreb" series by Adam Medvidović.
1:07:40 It seems that Mr. Vallier believes that abortion is murdering of babies. I want to him to ask, what is a value of human dignity in the state, that allow babies to be murdered "on demand"? He seems to be very uneasy with abortion and at the same time, speak about great value that human dignity has in human society. I just want to know how he is squaring this out.
I suppose he might square this the way people do with alcohol. With the freedom to drink comes an acceptance of a certain level of violence and avoidable death. One can then say a woman’s freedom to control her own body comes with…. People accept tragedies all the time. We can prevent tons of needless deaths, but we prefer to have large TVs and a second car, etc. Living with unsquared positions, or we might say trade-offs, seems the norm.
@@peterg418 Alcohol can be used for good but also abused. Abortion cannot be use for good more than police killing of unarmed civilian that behave peaceful. The rest is quite empty talk.
@@kamilziemian995 I suspect when women get abortions, they do so because they think their lives would be better without the child than with. You would agree with that? So, there is a good in play that is material to the choice. And I think the rest really obtains in the world: people choose where they apply their moral indignation and ignore inconsistences. Other examples: secondhand smoke really does kill innocent people, but we still sell cigarettes. Speeding really does kill innocent people, but we still make cars that can go beyond the speed limit. Me, I know a woman who got an abortion, and I even offered to adopt the child, but she would say, I'm sure, a good was served.
What about for protection of the mother who would die if not for the abortion? What is the mother does not have the means to care for the future baby and the state does not either? @@kamilziemian995
Unfortunately, Dr. Vallier fails to provide any specific support for his controversial claim that natural law is universal across religions. To cite one example, Buddhism ethics presupposes a metaphysics of the self based on the notion of sunyata or emptiness. According to the Buddhist philosopher Jay Garfield this means that persons have no essence and are merely conventional. This is contrary to the natural law view that not only affirms essentialism, but also identifies our essence with rational nature. I could cite other examples from other world religions. The point is that it is a mistake to assert without detailed argument that Buddhist ethics, Hindu ethics, Confucianism, Daoism, and even Judaism and Islam really all presuppose, in any interesting sense, natural law.
What natural law or consequence could possibly be derived out of the essential vs conventional (what?) nature of human beings? So, say humans are essentially, whatever.... Are you attempting to go from a metaphysical IS to an OUGHT?
@bfarzady5212 My point can be boiled down to a simple modus tollens argument: 1) If an ethics is based on natural law, it is based on an essentialist view of human nature. 2) Buddhist ethics is not based on essentialist view of human nature (it rejects essences). 3)Therefore, Buddhist ethics is not based on natural law. This means that Vallier's claim that natural law is common across world religions is false. No argument should be needed. This simple point can be found in any introductory text on comparative ethics. Also, Hume's is/ought distinction is completely irrelevant here. I am NOT trying to defend natural law, essentialism, or even Buddhism. I am merely offering a simple counterexample to Vallier's false claim that natural law can be found across all world religions. Such a silly claim was originally made by C.S. Lewis in his book The Abolition of Man.
@@bfarzady5212 Are you dense? First, you are obviously unaware of the attempts, such as John Searle's famous paper, to derive an ought from an is. But most importantly I am NOT even trying to defend natural law ethics and the claim that we can can derive an ought from an is (essence). I HAVE NO HORSE IN THAT RACE! I am SIMPLY saying Vallier is wrong to say that natural law can be found in all world religions. Why? Because natural law ethics (Aristotle and Aquinas) PRESUPPOSE that we have an essential human nature and religions such as Buddhism and Daoism REJECT the claim that we have an essential human nature. Simple as that. Now please stop being obtuse by attributing to me further claims that I am not making!
@Musonius231 I refuted the main premise of an argument you explicitly made. I am well aware of those attempts. Vallier did not make that claim. His point is that we all, under all religious systems, have within us, an innate sense of right and wrong (i.e. the basic claim of natural law). The claim about whether buddhism accepts we have an essential human nature or not is not relevant. What it does accept is that people have a sense of what is good. So what if there is a different metaphysics behind it. We are not essentially like X or Y. It really does not matter. I know from a religious perspective you go from metaphysics to ethics. But this does not make such a jump valid. Whether due to our conditional humanity or essential humanity, all major religious systems accept we have an innate sense of good and evil. Indeed, most secular philosophies do as well.
Oh yeah devil worship should be outlawed because it disagrees with you and all other religions would probably blindly agree thats why you stuttered when saying that you were gonna say another common religion but you caught yourself im onto you
![[SFM] Risky Recital](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RzNkY1_Nk3o/mqdefault.jpg)
Some important clarifications at episode 15 @reformedlibertarians "Can Christian Civil Government Be 'Theocratic'?"
50:04 I think in this and few minutes following we see how confused Kevin Vallier is on what is theoretical proposition and what is state of reality today. He said that "from evidence" we know that various forms of establishment religion is know to be bad. And at the same time he try to answer problem "in practice we don't have separation of Church and State, but competing integralisms" using strange mix of theoretical reasoning ("it is incompatible with human dignity") and empirical data. And he said that various countries that he put as positives examples have something like "moderate establishment of religion or ideology", which seems to be rejection of his own position.
At least this is how I see this right now. It is quite hard to grasp what Mr. Vallier position really is.
Sebastian's reaction to being introduced as a wine critic is too funny.
I had a question to Kevin Vallier: are you Sir speaking about theoretical construct or about reality of some modern states? It is not clear at all from this discussion. I specifically want to know, is Church and the State separated in the USA? Because if you answer "Yes", we need to explained, why USA is plagued by problems that he described as bad results of union of this two institutions.
The big problem is there's not ONE Christianity. There's something on the order of 45,000 flavors and 2 new flavors appear every year.
1) the 45k number is overblown and comes from counting churches that cross geographical borders as separate churches.
2) there is one Christianity, the Catholic Church
ONE, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church.
they didnt allow to Mel Gibson to make movie on third secret of fatima but third secret of Fatima can be understood through reading all four parts of "Night in Zagreb" series by Adam Medvidović.
1:07:40 It seems that Mr. Vallier believes that abortion is murdering of babies. I want to him to ask, what is a value of human dignity in the state, that allow babies to be murdered "on demand"? He seems to be very uneasy with abortion and at the same time, speak about great value that human dignity has in human society. I just want to know how he is squaring this out.
I suppose he might square this the way people do with alcohol. With the freedom to drink comes an acceptance of a certain level of violence and avoidable death. One can then say a woman’s freedom to control her own body comes with…. People accept tragedies all the time. We can prevent tons of needless deaths, but we prefer to have large TVs and a second car, etc. Living with unsquared positions, or we might say trade-offs, seems the norm.
@@peterg418 Alcohol can be used for good but also abused. Abortion cannot be use for good more than police killing of unarmed civilian that behave peaceful. The rest is quite empty talk.
@@kamilziemian995 I suspect when women get abortions, they do so because they think their lives would be better without the child than with. You would agree with that? So, there is a good in play that is material to the choice. And I think the rest really obtains in the world: people choose where they apply their moral indignation and ignore inconsistences. Other examples: secondhand smoke really does kill innocent people, but we still sell cigarettes. Speeding really does kill innocent people, but we still make cars that can go beyond the speed limit. Me, I know a woman who got an abortion, and I even offered to adopt the child, but she would say, I'm sure, a good was served.
What about for protection of the mother who would die if not for the abortion? What is the mother does not have the means to care for the future baby and the state does not either? @@kamilziemian995
Unfortunately, Dr. Vallier fails to provide any specific support for his controversial claim that natural law is universal across religions. To cite one example, Buddhism ethics presupposes a metaphysics of the self based on the notion of sunyata or emptiness. According to the Buddhist philosopher Jay Garfield this means that persons have no essence and are merely conventional. This is contrary to the natural law view that not only affirms essentialism, but also identifies our essence with rational nature. I could cite other examples from other world religions. The point is that it is a mistake to assert without detailed argument that Buddhist ethics, Hindu ethics, Confucianism, Daoism, and even Judaism and Islam really all presuppose, in any interesting sense, natural law.
What natural law or consequence could possibly be derived out of the essential vs conventional (what?) nature of human beings?
So, say humans are essentially, whatever....
Are you attempting to go from a metaphysical IS to an OUGHT?
@bfarzady5212 My point can be boiled down to a simple modus tollens argument: 1) If an ethics is based on natural law, it is based on an essentialist view of human nature. 2) Buddhist ethics is not based on essentialist view of human nature (it rejects essences). 3)Therefore, Buddhist ethics is not based on natural law. This means that Vallier's claim that natural law is common across world religions is false. No argument should be needed. This simple point can be found in any introductory text on comparative ethics. Also, Hume's is/ought distinction is completely irrelevant here. I am NOT trying to defend natural law, essentialism, or even Buddhism. I am merely offering a simple counterexample to Vallier's false claim that natural law can be found across all world religions. Such a silly claim was originally made by C.S. Lewis in his book The Abolition of Man.
@Musonius231 The antecedent to the consequent in your first premise is false as I have explained.
@@bfarzady5212 Are you dense? First, you are obviously unaware of the attempts, such as John Searle's famous paper, to derive an ought from an is. But most importantly I am NOT even trying to defend natural law ethics and the claim that we can can derive an ought from an is (essence). I HAVE NO HORSE IN THAT RACE! I am SIMPLY saying Vallier is wrong to say that natural law can be found in all world religions. Why? Because natural law ethics (Aristotle and Aquinas) PRESUPPOSE that we have an essential human nature and religions such as Buddhism and Daoism REJECT the claim that we have an essential human nature. Simple as that. Now please stop being obtuse by attributing to me further claims that I am not making!
@Musonius231 I refuted the main premise of an argument you explicitly made. I am well aware of those attempts.
Vallier did not make that claim. His point is that we all, under all religious systems, have within us, an innate sense of right and wrong (i.e. the basic claim of natural law). The claim about whether buddhism accepts we have an essential human nature or not is not relevant.
What it does accept is that people have a sense of what is good.
So what if there is a different metaphysics behind it. We are not essentially like X or Y. It really does not matter. I know from a religious perspective you go from metaphysics to ethics. But this does not make such a jump valid.
Whether due to our conditional humanity or essential humanity, all major religious systems accept we have an innate sense of good and evil. Indeed, most secular philosophies do as well.
Government IS A religion.
All the best
Oh yeah devil worship should be outlawed because it disagrees with you and all other religions would probably blindly agree thats why you stuttered when saying that you were gonna say another common religion but you caught yourself im onto you
Who are you talking to?