 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
srriv345
Velociraptor
Joined: Jul 19, 2006
Age: 21
Posts: 415
|
 Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 9:37 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| slowmutant wrote: | | Real life has many shades of gray, but any rules we make ought to have no room for ambivalence. Murder, theft, adultery, etc. all these are prohibited acts. Not for a few, but for all. Not some of the time, but all of the time. Not just here, but everywhere. |
Theft and murder are givens, but do you seriously propose to legally ban adultery? How would that work, exactly? That's just asking for a legalistic nightmare, and I'll pass on that one. The state has quite enough to deal with without having to get into the sordid details of who slept with whom. Is the distinction between morality (personal or otherwise) and legality that difficult to grasp? |
|
| Back to top |
|
oscuria
Verbal Guerrilla
Joined: Feb 01, 2008
Posts: 1966
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| srriv345 wrote: | | Theft and murder are givens, but do you seriously propose to legally ban adultery? How would that work, exactly? That's just asking for a legalistic nightmare, and I'll pass on that one. The state has quite enough to deal with without having to get into the sordid details of who slept with whom. Is the distinction between morality (personal or otherwise) and legality that difficult to grasp? |
I would like to see this argument.
_________________
The above view subject to change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
skafather84
Platypus God
Joined: Mar 21, 2006
Age: 23
Posts: 4478
Location: Los Angeles, CA
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| oscuria wrote: | | srriv345 wrote: | | Theft and murder are givens, but do you seriously propose to legally ban adultery? How would that work, exactly? That's just asking for a legalistic nightmare, and I'll pass on that one. The state has quite enough to deal with without having to get into the sordid details of who slept with whom. Is the distinction between morality (personal or otherwise) and legality that difficult to grasp? |
I would like to see this argument. |
i jerk off to porn. the morals of christianity say that's wrong but i harm no one, i am a tax-paying, productive member of society, i vote, i give money to charity, and jerking off is not a crime.
pretty easy distinction between morality (which is a sliding scale based more on taste) and legality (laws set up for the protection of society as a whole). |
|
| Back to top |
|
slowmutant
Templar Knight
Joined: Feb 14, 2008
Posts: 5121
Location: Ontario Canada
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Adultery should not have to be policed by the state.
What we hope for is that people refrain from cheating on their spouses and families due to their conscience.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
srriv345
Velociraptor
Joined: Jul 19, 2006
Age: 21
Posts: 415
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 10:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| oscuria wrote: | | srriv345 wrote: | | Theft and murder are givens, but do you seriously propose to legally ban adultery? How would that work, exactly? That's just asking for a legalistic nightmare, and I'll pass on that one. The state has quite enough to deal with without having to get into the sordid details of who slept with whom. Is the distinction between morality (personal or otherwise) and legality that difficult to grasp? |
I would like to see this argument. |
I would like to see how you would suggest legislating morality, especially when no two people feel exactly the same way about everything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
oscuria
Verbal Guerrilla
Joined: Feb 01, 2008
Posts: 1966
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| srriv345 wrote: |
I would like to see how you would suggest legislating morality, especially when no two people feel exactly the same way about everything. |
Name a law that wasnt written with morality in mind.
_________________
The above view subject to change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 5545
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with oscuria, there is no real distinction between laws and morality(the only case where the distinction might not exist, is if a law was created for an openly egoistic aim). All laws are based upon moral judgments. The law is based upon choices, specifically choices on what people think other people ought not do.
| skafather84 wrote: | | pretty easy distinction between morality (which is a sliding scale based more on taste) and legality (laws set up for the protection of society as a whole). |
Well, the issue is that from morals/tastes, come the laws. I mean, heck, the protection of society as a whole if defined in a legal matter would end up being based upon some tastes/morals, as to all of the details of the punishments, of the actual rules put in place, and in the enforcement mechanisms for these rules.
| srriv345 wrote: | | I would like to see how you would suggest legislating morality, especially when no two people feel exactly the same way about everything. |
A good counter-argument to this, as even though laws may be morality, how do we really come to the right choice on laws? |
|
| Back to top |
|
skafather84
Platypus God
Joined: Mar 21, 2006
Age: 23
Posts: 4478
Location: Los Angeles, CA
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 12:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Awesomelyglorious wrote: | I agree with oscuria, there is no real distinction between laws and morality(the only case where the distinction might not exist, is if a law was created for an openly egoistic aim). All laws are based upon moral judgments. The law is based upon choices, specifically choices on what people think other people ought not do.
| skafather84 wrote: | | pretty easy distinction between morality (which is a sliding scale based more on taste) and legality (laws set up for the protection of society as a whole). |
Well, the issue is that from morals/tastes, come the laws. I mean, heck, the protection of society as a whole if defined in a legal matter would end up being based upon some tastes/morals, as to all of the details of the punishments, of the actual rules put in place, and in the enforcement mechanisms for these rules. |
a. would it be possible for one's morality to reflect one's egoism rather than a function best for society?
b. could you also let me know to what extent you're refering to the law? are we talking simply criminalized offenses or any thing you can get a ticket/fine for or just criminalized offenses that aren't victimless? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Awesomelyglorious
Destroyer of worlds, reaver of souls
Joined: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 5545
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 12:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| skafather84 wrote: |
a. would it be possible for one's morality to reflect one's egoism rather than a function best for society? |
It could be. Egoism is a possibility for getting around the issue of morality as well, but then there is the issue of legislating for one's personal gain, but really, can you argue against an egoist?
| Quote: |
b. could you also let me know to what extent you're refering to the law? are we talking simply criminalized offenses or any thing you can get a ticket/fine for or just criminalized offenses that aren't victimless? |
Well, I am talking about the entire legal system, from the police who we send out, to the courts we use to deal with these laws, the punishments for the laws that are broken, and the actual laws that exist to be enforced. |
|
| Back to top |
|
srriv345
Velociraptor
Joined: Jul 19, 2006
Age: 21
Posts: 415
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 1:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| oscuria wrote: | | srriv345 wrote: |
I would like to see how you would suggest legislating morality, especially when no two people feel exactly the same way about everything. |
Name a law that wasnt written with morality in mind. |
Okay, perhaps I should have been more clear. How do you suggest legislating sexual morality in a pluralistic society--i.e. pretty much all societies? And the issue which follows this is, how do you enforce legislation of sexual morality? I don't believe this is possible without a serious invasion of privacy rights, and the right to free expression. Please do show me why I'm wrong. The most basic laws are to protect life, safety, and (sometimes) property. That is not at all the same thing as the government trying to outlaw "immoral" sexual practices. |
|
| Back to top |
|
oscuria
Verbal Guerrilla
Joined: Feb 01, 2008
Posts: 1966
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 3:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| srriv345 wrote: |
Okay, perhaps I should have been more clear. How do you suggest legislating sexual morality in a pluralistic society--i.e. pretty much all societies? And the issue which follows this is, how do you enforce legislation of sexual morality? I don't believe this is possible without a serious invasion of privacy rights, and the right to free expression. Please do show me why I'm wrong. The most basic laws are to protect life, safety, and (sometimes) property. That is not at all the same thing as the government trying to outlaw "immoral" sexual practices. |
1) You cant, and it is a reason why we still have nothing in all states that actually penalizes bestiality which a majority can agree is a sexual perversion/deviance. Statutory rape laws are hybrid, in my opinion.
2) Like above, how private should a person be? After all our interpretation today on the "right to privacy" only came about with Griswold v Connecticut. Obviously it was assumed before.
3) My belief is there should be some form of penalty to things generally understood to be "wrong". I think we today have interpreted our rights and freedoms to something that were not intentioned. I am not suggesting anything, but something I feel must be done.
And to be honest, I would not be so against homosexual "marriage" if marriage became something that was difficult to attain. That is, if marriage became something strict it would limit the amounts of people getting married, and by doing so limit the amounts of divorce (as it would be difficult to divorce without justification).
_________________
The above view subject to change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ragtime
Legal Eagle Eye
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Age: 29
Posts: 7392
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 10:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| srriv345 wrote: | | Ragtime wrote: |
A red herring -- from what? "Red herring" have to distract from something.
But the subject of this thread is singular -- namely, addressing the question
of whether or not marriage is changing.
I said that in the opening post, that such was the only question I was asking.
To determine whether or not your car is rolling slowly or standing still,
you look out the window. This thread is only about looking out the window. |
No, actually, that was the subject of the other thread. This thread's OP announces a single change in legal marriage in the state of California.
|
Oops! My bad. We all began talking about the subject of my thread in this one, which confused me.
_________________
Anyone who is interested in philosophy, the of meaning of life, and answers to our hardest questions, I suggest you check out the free, online mp3 archive of Ravi Zacharias at www.rzim.org. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ragtime
Legal Eagle Eye
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Age: 29
Posts: 7392
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 10:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| srriv345 wrote: | | slowmutant wrote: | | Real life has many shades of gray, but any rules we make ought to have no room for ambivalence. Murder, theft, adultery, etc. all these are prohibited acts. Not for a few, but for all. Not some of the time, but all of the time. Not just here, but everywhere. |
Theft and murder are givens, but do you seriously propose to legally ban adultery? How would that work, exactly? That's just asking for a legalistic nightmare, and I'll pass on that one. The state has quite enough to deal with without having to get into the sordid details of who slept with whom. Is the distinction between morality (personal or otherwise) and legality that difficult to grasp? |
The distinction is not absolute, nor should it be.
Having only laws based purely on perceived practicalities would be insufficient to govern a society fairly.
_________________
Anyone who is interested in philosophy, the of meaning of life, and answers to our hardest questions, I suggest you check out the free, online mp3 archive of Ravi Zacharias at www.rzim.org.
Last edited by Ragtime on Wed May 21, 2008 10:35 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
Ragtime
Legal Eagle Eye
Joined: Nov 03, 2006
Age: 29
Posts: 7392
Location: Dallas, Texas
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| srriv345 wrote: | | oscuria wrote: | | srriv345 wrote: | | Theft and murder are givens, but do you seriously propose to legally ban adultery? How would that work, exactly? That's just asking for a legalistic nightmare, and I'll pass on that one. The state has quite enough to deal with without having to get into the sordid details of who slept with whom. Is the distinction between morality (personal or otherwise) and legality that difficult to grasp? |
I would like to see this argument. |
I would like to see how you would suggest legislating morality, especially when no two people feel exactly the same way about everything. |
Extreme example for the sake of argument:
Do you believe child porn should be illegal to be possessed? If you do, then you're for legislating morality.
We're all for legislating morality to one extent or another.
That people are against legislating morality is a pipe dream; the law is based on right and wrong,
and hinges upon whether or not one can instinctively tell the difference.
_________________
Anyone who is interested in philosophy, the of meaning of life, and answers to our hardest questions, I suggest you check out the free, online mp3 archive of Ravi Zacharias at www.rzim.org. |
|
| Back to top |
|
skafather84
Platypus God
Joined: Mar 21, 2006
Age: 23
Posts: 4478
Location: Los Angeles, CA
|
| Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| oscuria wrote: | | srriv345 wrote: |
I would like to see how you would suggest legislating morality, especially when no two people feel exactly the same way about everything. |
Name a law that wasnt written with morality in mind. |
i realize the failed logic here...you take it as all of YOUR morals should be legislated whereas you don't have any consideration for others. law is obviously morality in the sense of a basic code of conduct...it's inseparable. however, the separation is functionless morality like many of the arbitrary laws found within religious texts that may have been applicable and useful back in BC or even so far as 1500AD or later but many of the needs for those laws have disappeared as technology has gotten better and people have been able to operate more freely without the troubles previously caused by breaking those laws (take the muslim and jewish dietary laws regarding pork and shellfish for example).
laws are also in place to keep a semblance of order within society and again, this is constantly redrawn as better understanding is achieved on how society operates and how the individual operates.
you're still wrong..but it's mostly just because you're dismissive of scientific, technological, and medical progress. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
