The United States

[Pure]

said one philosopher,

"The United States was the first moral society in history .... All previous systems had held that man's life belongs to society, that society can dispose of him in any way it pleases, and that any freedom he enjoys is his only by favor, by the permission of society, which may be revoked at any time. The United States held that man's life is his by right (which means: by moral principle and by his nature) ..." -- Man's Rights

 

[SesameStreet]

Hence our Bill of Rights.

 

[rgraham666]

Unfortunately, rights must be balanced by obligations and duties. We have obligations to each other and duties to society.

The Framers understood this. Too many of us these days do not.

 

[Guest]

.....

 

[Pure]

i do find it a strong claim "the first 'moral' nation in human history."

while there are small novelties in the Bill of Rights, one must remember it did not apply to nonpropertied whites, blacks, or women. nor did the "inalienable" right to liberty count against what the constitution delicately called, being "bound to servitude." (enslaved for life, *along with one's kids, their kids, etc.*)

on the other side, a "right of free speech," is rather too broadly phrased, and the courts have had trouble putting the most obvious limitations into effect because of the wording. and there are no guidelines as to the limits (compare the Canadian Charter--"such limits as may be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society"). this means that when, Bush, say, in an emergency situation, limits a right, he may do so as much as he pleases. IOW, it's an 'all or nothing' conceptual framework.

 

[Liar]

i do find it a strong claim "the first 'moral' nation in human history."

while there are small novelties in the Bill of Rights, one must remember it did not apply to nonpropertied whites, blacks, or women. nor did the "inalienable" right to liberty count against what the constitution delicately called, being "bound to servitude." (enslaved for life, *along with one's kids, their kids, etc.*)

on the other side, a "right of free speech," is rather too broadly phrased, and the courts have had trouble putting the most obvious limitations into effect because of the wording. and there are no guidelines as to the limits (compare the Canadian Charter--"such limits as may be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society"). this means that when, Bush, say, in an emergency situation, limits a right, he may do so as much as he pleases. IOW, it's an 'all or nothing' conceptual framework.

The "first moral" and "All previous systems had held that man's life belongs to society" is something I question. I thought that legislation on different form protecting the individual from state power play was present at least in theory if not in realpolitik as far back as antique days.

Isn't the Bill of Rights itself based on older European documents of similar legislation like the Magna Carta, for instance?

Maybe the US constitution with amendments takes this further past some definition line in the sand that this philosopher fancies?

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

"Moral" Nation? That's just silly. If you want a moral nation, the country has to be lead by a moral leader. That's certainly not what we have now. We have lies, misrepresentations, wars against innocents and a continuing restraint and degredation of the "Bill of Rights". The only thing that "trickle down" means in this country is the immorality that trickles down from the White House.

Great Leadership makes a great country. Immoral leadership degrades the country into immorality.

 

[Pure]

refreshing my 'history' a bit last night: 1) there are 17th century rights documents in England, concerning due process:
the Petition of Right (1628) and Bill of Rights (1689)

2) religious toleration was first implemented in Holland in the late 16th century and solidified early in the 17th century.

it's also worth noting that some colonies had excellent founding documents and later constitutions containing 'rights' sections, e.g. Pennsylvania and Virginia. Massachusetts had neither freedom of religion nor speech *and this was NOT affected by passage of the Bill of Rights.*

none of the 'classic' democracies fit our definitions, since Athens being run by a coterie of rich guys is not that democratic. AND the US started off being run the same way--right white Christian males in charge.

==
here is a basic reference
http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=a2002810-h&templatename=/article/artic...

The Origins of the Bill of Rights

The Virginia Bill of Rights (proclaimed in 1776, only days before the Declaration of Independence) was the first of ten such declarations by the states during the Revolutionary War period (1775-83). All of these declarations contained provisions that eventually found their way into the national Bill of Rights. Major portions of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth amendments, for example, can be traced directly to the Virginia Bill of Rights.

The origins of many of the other rights and liberties contained in the Bill of Rights can be found in the English tradition, dating as far back as Magna Carta (1215), a document that marked the first step toward constitutional law in England. For example, the clause in the Fifth Amendment, which declares that individuals cannot be deprived of their "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" is rooted in Chapter 39 of Magna Carta.

England's Petition of Right (1628) and Bill of Rights (1689) further expanded individual liberties and placed increased limitations on the ruler's powers and authority. English liberties and rights, such as trial by jury and protection against self-incrimination and unreasonable search and seizure, were, in fact, included in the charters establishing the American colonies. They were considered to be the "rights of Englishmen." […]


George Carey
Author, The Federalist: Design for a Constitutional Republic

 

[NoJo]

Pure

I think the Hebrews were the first moral society.

Of course, the founders of the U.S. had a Lutheran and Wesleyan background, so it was created in that tradition.

The odd thing about the U.S. is how strong that tradition still is in the 21st century, when in Europe it has evolved considerably, for example the Anglican church.

A point has been made by Eric Hobspawm that the U.S. empire is a cultural prosletizing one, like the Napoleonic empire, and unlike both the British and Roman empires, which were primarily about acquiring power. There was a relative laxity about cultural imposition in the these latter empires during their heydays. In fact they did very well out of importing not only physical goods from their conquests, but culture too.

As China accedes to world economic domination this century, I guess that the chief importance of the U.S. will be as the cultural centre of the world, through its language and its peculiar, but very succesful form of democracy.

 

[Pure]

sj,

what makes you disqualify the ancient Egyptians, Akkadians, etc?

 

[3113]

what makes you disqualify the ancient Egyptians, Akkadians, etc?

Valid point, as the Hebrews were only moral among themselves. That commandment "Thou shalt not kill" really means, "Thou shalt not kill another member of our tribe." Anyone else is fair game, as the slaughter of the Cannanites--women and babies included--so aply shows. Likewise, "Thou shalt not steal" means, don't steal from other tribe members--stealing land, etc. from other people, however, is perfectly fine.

A truely moral society should apply most or all of its laws justly and fairly to all people, not just to its own club members.

 

[3113]

said one philosopher,

"The United States was the first moral society in history .... All previous systems had held that man's life belongs to society, that society can dispose of him in any way it pleases, and that any freedom he enjoys is his only by favor, by the permission of society, which may be revoked at any time. The United States held that man's life is his by right (which means: by moral principle and by his nature) ..." -- Man's Rights

We do have to separate the ideal from the reality. As you point out, this ideal did not apply to women or non-whites in the U.S. originally. But rather like a religion, it's the idea not the fan club that has to be examined. The fan club is going to be flawed, the ideal might not be.

Certainly, historically in the West at least, the U.S. was the one system breaking from the rule of kings and nobles who really did have almost carte blanche control over the individual, their life, property and, yes, sacred honor.

The writer, however, is a bit too enthuiastic. He forgets both Greek democracy and the Roman republic, both of which were models for the U.S. and certainly afforded their free citizens their lives by their right.

 

[Aurora Black]

The writer, however, is a bit too enthuiastic. He forgets both Greek democracy and the Roman republic, both of which were models for the U.S. and certainly afforded their free citizens their lives by their right.

The Founding Fathers borrowed a great deal from Ancient Greek society, and that fact is not to be so easily dismissed.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

The Founding Fathers borrowed a great deal from Ancient Greek society, and that fact is not to be so easily dismissed.

Agreed, many of the ideas came from the Greek philosophers. But in reality, the Greek City States had a ruling, rich, patrician group and wasn't a free moral society in the same sense.

 

[Pure]

!

//He forgets both Greek democracy and the Roman republic,//

It's 'she', you sexist!

(ps; my daughter did the 'nanas.)

 

[CharleyH]

said one philosopher,

"The United States was the first moral society in history .... All previous systems had held that man's life belongs to society, that society can dispose of him in any way it pleases, and that any freedom he enjoys is his only by favor, by the permission of society, which may be revoked at any time. The United States held that man's life is his by right (which means: by moral principle and by his nature) ..." -- Man's Rights

LOL - good find, Pure. How do these previous systems really diverge from now - current history? What is the definition of "moral"?

 

[CharleyH]

Pure

I think the Hebrews were the first moral society.

Of course, the founders of the U.S. had a Lutheran and Wesleyan background, so it was created in that tradition.

I might argue this.

The odd thing about the U.S. is how strong that tradition still is in the 21st century, when in Europe it has evolved considerably, for example the Anglican church.

A point has been made by Eric Hobspawm that the U.S. empire is a cultural prosletizing one, like the Napoleonic empire, and unlike both the British and Roman empires, which were primarily about acquiring power. There was a relative laxity about cultural imposition in the these latter empires during their heydays. In fact they did very well out of importing not only physical goods from their conquests, but culture too.

nods

As China accedes to world economic domination this century, I guess that the chief importance of the U.S. will be as the cultural centre of the world, through its language and its peculiar, but very succesful form of democracy.

LOL! BIG

 

[NoJo]

what makes you disqualify the ancient Egyptians, Akkadians, etc?

Pure, 3113,

I think you're confusing morality with social and ethical laws.

The reason that the ancient Hebrews are considered to have "invented" morality is because their nomadic lifestyle caused them to internalize the laws (just as they internalized their god). This is one of the characteristics of morality. It's internal.

 

[Pure]

3113 Valid point, as the Hebrews were only moral among themselves.

P: you have read about Amnon's rape of Tamar, David's getting Uriah killed so he could have U's wife, Bathsheba, etc.

i'd guess every society has its share of evil deeds. every society places some limits on wanton murder, theft, and probably lying.

indeed one reason i like, even prefer the OT is the frankness about such. reality is not airbrushed.

3113 That commandment "Thou shalt not kill" really means, "Thou shalt not kill another member of our tribe."

P: That's pretty standard, I'd say. Greeks didn't mind killing "barbarians" (i.e., non Greeks), and even those in a different city-state. Better translation: 'You shall not commit murder.'

 

[Pure]

Pure: //what makes you disqualify the ancient Egyptians, Akkadians, etc? //



SJ Pure, 3113,

I think you're confusing morality with social and ethical laws.

P: How does asking a question indicate I'm confused

SJ The reason that the ancient Hebrews are considered to have "invented" morality is because their nomadic lifestyle caused them to internalize the laws (just as they internalized their god). This is one of the characteristics of morality. It's internal.

P: If "internalizing" is a mark of morality, I don't see why it's said to be lacking in several earlier civilizations. every adult in every society has 'internalized' its basic prohibitions, e.g. against killing: meaning she or he is not restrained by someone saying 'don't do it, it's against the law' but by her or his own conscience saying 'dont do it; it's wrong/forbidden/sinful'.

The historian Breasted wrote a book called "The Dawn of Conscience," and from what I've read about it, placed that dawn in ancient Egypt.

Example from about 1000 BCE, the Instruction of Amenemope,

[several injunctions including]
Covet not the poor farmer's property nor hunger after his bread; the peasant's morsel will surely gag in the throat and revolt the gullet

 

[CharleyH]

This is one of the characteristics of morality. It's internal.

Is it? We seem to think morality a more objective attribute on a day to day basis? I GAVE - I DID - I DO. Lets get back to WW2? Did the Germans not think they were moral? Objective?

Now... do we think we are as objective? Maybe we need subjectivity in our lives? Lets not make the same objective mistakes.

 

[3113]

//He forgets both Greek democracy and the Roman republic,//

It's 'she', you sexist!

Given the wording:

"The United States was the first moral society in history .... All previous systems had held that man's life belongs to society, that society can dispose of him in any way it pleases, and that any freedom he enjoys is his only by favor, by the permission of society, which may be revoked at any time. The United States held that man's life is his by right (which means: by moral principle and by his nature) ..." -- Man's Rights

I think you can see why I made such a sexist assumption. But I will cop to it. Mea culpa

 

[3113]

I think you're confusing morality with social and ethical laws.

First of all, I'm not sure what the difference is between morality and ethics. Let's see what the dictionary says:

Morality refers to the concept of human ethics which pertain to matters of good and evil —also referred to as "right or wrong", used within three contexts: individual conscience, systems of principles and judgments — sometimes called moral values —shared within a cultural, religious, secular, Humanist, or philosophical community; and codes of behavior or conduct derived from these systems.Personal morality defines and distinguishes among right and wrong intentions, motivations or actions, as these have been learned, engendered, or otherwise developed within each individual.

Dear, dear. Ethics and Morals seem to be...synonomous. Or nearly so. Please explain to me how I've confused morals and ethics in regards to Hebrews vs. Egyptians given that the two pretty much mean the same thing.

The reason that the ancient Hebrews are considered to have "invented" morality is because their nomadic lifestyle caused them to internalize the laws (just as they internalized their god). This is one of the characteristics of morality. It's internal.

I'm sorry, but That really makes no sense at all. First, you have to prove that the Egyptians didn't internalize their morality (I assume what you mean there is that they nad no conscience?)--and I'm really afraid you can't do that. You can't even prove they didn't internalize their gods. Evidence that they did both is pretty clear from a rather famous Egyptian prayer to the gods that goes (praphrasing here): "I have done no wrong. I have not killed. I have not spoken lies. I have not stolen. I am blameless of sin."

Versions of this vary in length and number of things the person avows that they've not done, but take note of the three mentioned here: Killed, lied, stolen. Let's see:

Thou shalt not Kill
Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not bear false witness

That's three out of the five MORAL rules of the 10 Commandments (the side that deals with man-to-man reather than man-to-god). Could the Hebrews have plagerized their morals/ethics from the Egyptians? A good deal of evidence shows that, yes, indeed, they plagerized not only morals and social laws, but also certain, er. stories from the Egyptians (there's a famous story about an Egyptian magician parting the sea....).

You really can't count the Hebrews as the first moral society unless you want to define yourself to victory by establishing that a moral society has elements that only the Hebrews had...and even there, you run into trouble given that they plagerized from past civilizations as Egypt, itself, did.

But I think this argument misses the point of U.S. morality which isn't, according to the quote, about killing or stealing, but about certain rights that a man is given. That is, the government shows morality towards it's citizens rather than just requiring its citizens to show morality for the governement and each other.

Putting it another way, the governement respects its people and their rights, it doesn't treat them as slaves and servants to the government.

 

[NoJo]

First of all, I'm not sure what the difference is between morality and ethics. Let's see what the dictionary says:


Dear, dear. Ethics and Morals seem to be...synonomous. Or nearly so. Please explain to me how I've confused morals and ethics in regards to Hebrews vs. Egyptians given that the two pretty much mean the same thing.


I'm sorry, but That really makes no sense at all. First, you have to prove that the Egyptians didn't internalize their morality (I assume what you mean there is that they nad no conscience?)--and I'm really afraid you can't do that. You can't even prove they didn't internalize their gods. Evidence that they did both is pretty clear from a rather famous Egyptian prayer to the gods that goes (praphrasing here): "I have done no wrong. I have not killed. I have not spoken lies. I have not stolen. I am blameless of sin."

Versions of this vary in length and number of things the person avows that they've not done, but take note of the three mentioned here: Killed, lied, stolen. Let's see:

Thou shalt not Kill
Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not bear false witness

That's three out of the five MORAL rules of the 10 Commandments (the side that deals with man-to-man reather than man-to-god). Could the Hebrews have plagerized their morals/ethics from the Egyptians? A good deal of evidence shows that, yes, indeed, they plagerized not only morals and social laws, but also certain, er. stories from the Egyptians (there's a famous story about an Egyptian magician parting the sea....).

You really can't count the Hebrews as the first moral society unless you want to define yourself to victory by establishing that a moral society has elements that only the Hebrews had...and even there, you run into trouble given that they plagerized from past civilizations as Egypt, itself, did.

But I think this argument misses the point of U.S. morality which isn't, according to the quote, about killing or stealing, but about certain rights that a man is given. That is, the government shows morality towards it's citizens rather than just requiring its citizens to show morality for the governement and each other.

Putting it another way, the governement respects its people and their rights, it doesn't treat them as slaves and servants to the government.

Yes, conscience is at the heart of it. Your talk about "victory" is a bit silly, as though morality is something to be prized. Personally, I think the invention of morality has led to rather horrible behaviour, and if anything, I'd rather wish people stopped thinking about it and concentrated on practical things.

 

[rgraham666]

When someone spouts about their morality, nation or person, I make sure I keep a hand on my wallet.