NationStates Jolt Archive

I recently read an article by Falwell from Newsweek about twenty years ago. Most of the article was typical Falwell; however, there was a paragraph that caused me to pause:
Let's remember that all law is the imposition of someone's morality to the exclusion of someone else's morality. We have laws against murder, rape, incest, cannibalism and stealing. No doubt, there are murderers, rapists, practitioners of incest, cannibals and thieves who are upset that their "rights" have been denied. But in order to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare, it was deemed necessary to pass such laws.
Falwellian "morals" aside, do you think this is true? Are all laws the imposition of someone's morality?

Yes, the majority and/or the Founder's morality in our case

Falwellian "morals" aside, do you think this is true? Are all laws the imposition of someone's morality?

Duh?


But leave it to Falwell to subtly imply that gays are just as bad as murders and rapists.

Im so glad he's dead.

of course it is.

but that doesnt mean that its OK for unpopular and unnecessary moral laws to be enacted.

Or, "Even a blind pig finds an acorn sometimes."

Not morality as much as it is protection from each other. Murder affects me, especially if I'm the one who is murdered, likewise rape, cannibalism, etc.

To pass a law you don't argue its moral value but its value as an effect it has on those who choose not to participate. I choose not to be murdered or eaten, and you don't get to make that choice for me. You might say that saying you shouldn't be able to fuck with other people is a moral stance, but semantics aside the measuring stick isn't what's morally right but what the effect on the population at large, especially those who do not want to participate. There is no outside affect of homosexuality, if it is 'tolerated' (ridiculous as that condition might be, that it is up to me to 'tolerate' or not how two consenting adults love...honestly I shouldn't enter into the equation in the slightest) it does not require participation. I don't like that there are Celine Dion fans, that doesn't give me the right to forbid them going to her concerts.

A broken clock is right twice a day.

A broken clock is right twice a day.

This is more like a clock with a missing hour hand. Technically it's partially correct 24 times a day, but without context or even a notion of whether it's AM or PM, it's ultimately meaningless.

I recently read an article by Falwell from Newsweek about twenty years ago. Most of the article was typical Falwell; however, there was a paragraph that caused me to pause:

Falwellian "morals" aside, do you think this is true? Are all laws the imposition of someone's morality?

No: I fail to see how a law mandating driving on the right side of the road crosses anyone's moral boundary, because which side of the road one drives on is not a moral issue.

Law and morality are distinct concepts and must be understood in those terms, something Falwell apparently fails to appreciate. A law generally is a rule by which society agrees to abide as part of living under the social contract (however that contract may have been formed). Morality, however, is generally speaking a set of coherent principles dictating how a person ought to act in all circumstances. Now one could well argue (I would generally agree) that the best possible laws are those that also allow complete agreement between lawful action and moral action, but there a fairly large bit of distinction between the two of them.

What Falwell should have pointed out is that having someone impose their principles of action on you isn't always a bad thing: a man who takes a gun away from a potential suicide is more of a friend by his imposition than a man who lets a potential suicide autonomously act to his own detriment. It seems to me that the left forgot this in the course of the civil rights movement: they mistakenly took from the fact that sometimes moral action is illegal when it should not be that legality should never attempt to trump anyone's moral principles, no matter how absurdly-founded or antisocial they might be. But of course, Falwell never would have said such a thing back then, because many of his followers were leery of the very concept of a civil rights movement. Providing a partial justification for it then didn't enter his calculations.

To pass a law you don't argue its moral value but its value as an effect it has on those who choose not to participate.
Wrong.
Laws against heroine use and minors buying pornography are in place for the protection of people from themselves based upon a moral standard held by the voting public.

Ironically, most of the "moral decency" laws are immoral and indecent.

Not quite.

Laws are passed to protect society from something that's viewed as actively harmful by the society in question, not based on what makes a given group or even the majority squirm. A post-enlightenment society will pass laws based on logic and reason. Falwell is right in that SOME societies pass laws based on moralistic or religious views. These are called theocracies, however, and it has been proven time and again that they are not a valid government system by any measure.

So, Falwell is applying a true premise (some societies pass laws based on morals) in reverse (by claiming that such a thing would be desirable). Ergo, he is wrong.

Sure. But that doesn't mean we should impose yours.

Not quite.

Laws are passed to protect society from something that's viewed as actively harmful by the society in question, not based on what makes a given group or even the majority squirm. A post-enlightenment society will pass laws based on logic and reason. Falwell is right in that SOME societies pass laws based on moralistic or religious views. These are called theocracies, however, and it has been proven time and again that they are not a valid government system by any measure.

So, Falwell is applying a true premise (some societies pass laws based on morals) in reverse (by claiming that such a thing would be desirable). Ergo, he is wrong.

Will it? If this post-enlightenment society is democratic, it will pass laws that reflect the wishes of the voting public. I'm not sure those are always logical and reasonable, or even if they should be.

Sure. But that doesn't mean we should impose yours.
Who's "you?" Me, Falwell, or an individual in general?

Who's "you?" Me, Falwell, or an individual in general?

An individual in general, with particular strength with respect to Falwell.

Will it? If this post-enlightenment society is democratic, it will pass laws that reflect the wishes of the voting public. I'm not sure those are always logical and reasonable, or even if they should be.


Who's "you?" Me, Falwell, or an individual in general?

It will pass laws reflecting the will of the public, yes, but within reason: The public didn't want the civil rights act to be passed back then, but they passed it nonetheless because it was the right thing to do. Thus is born the difference between democracy and tyranny by majority.

Wrong.
Laws against heroine use and minors buying pornography are in place for the protection of people from themselves based upon a moral standard held by the voting public.
The weight of the damage to society is a large factor in those decisions. While some people will use their morality to make those judgments, but those judgments are still made by a different measure.

Those effects are arguable, and is in fact why those laws are constantly argued.

Guys, lets all just hold hands, and sing praises that Jerry Falwell is dead rather than bicker...

Wrong.
Laws against heroine use and minors buying pornography are in place for the protection of people from themselves based upon a moral standard held by the voting public.

I dunno. A kid driving around doped up on heroine has a pretty huge effect on me, especially if I happen to be right behind him.

Falwellian "morals" aside, do you think this is true? Are all laws the imposition of someone's morality?
If by "imposition of" you mean "driven by" in your sentence, perhaps you and he might have a point. Lawmakers always have their own ideas of right and wrong, and the law at any given time will be influenced in part by the moral perspectives of its writers. But the point Falwell was making wasn't just that people legislate according to what they think is "the right thing"; he was making the assertion that they do so in such a way as to criminalise people who disagree with that judgement. And I'm afraid I can't agree with that. People do not write laws to exclude and restrain people whose ideas of ethics or morality differ from our own - we write laws according to, rather than in tribute to, our current understanding of what is right.

Falwell and his lot, of course, wouldn't know the difference, would they?

Falwellian "morals" aside, do you think this is true? Are all laws the imposition of someone's morality?

They are the imposition of the morals of the majority, which, much like wikipedia, can only improve with time.

- Did he just compare law-passing/reviewing with wikipedia??!
- Yes Monica, I think he just did...

Duh?


But leave it to Falwell to subtly imply that gays are just as bad as murders and rapists.

Im so glad he's dead.

gays are not as bad murderers, but they are freaks of nature, the law of nature is to reproduce male with female, gays are sick twisted minds, you know there is such a thing as perversion, and homosexuality is perversion of sex, weather you like it or not

of course it is.

but that doesnt mean that its OK for unpopular and unnecessary moral laws to be enacted.

So, every "moral law" should be put to the vote of all the people to determine if it is "popular" or not? Would you be willing to accept the results of a vote of all the people on the issue of abortion, or prostitution, or the use of drugs? How else could we ever determine if it was "unpopular or unnecessary?

Most of those who criticize the state for "enforcing morality" are not, I think, in the final analysis out to deny the importance of an ethical underpinning for law and politics: indeed, their own argument presupposes a notion of what is right for government to do.

Rather, their criticism is of the idea of the state promoting moral virtue: intervening in the personal lives of its citizens to make them "better people" by some standard rather than keeping itself to providing security and general welfare.

Just because he's Jerry Falwell doesn't mean he's wrong about everything, evidently.

I recently read an article by Falwell from Newsweek about twenty years ago. Most of the article was typical Falwell; however, there was a paragraph that caused me to pause:

Falwellian "morals" aside, do you think this is true? Are all laws the imposition of someone's morality?

Yes. I think that this is incontravertable.

gays are not as bad murderers, but they are freaks of nature, the law of nature is to reproduce male with female, gays are sick twisted minds, you know there is such a thing as perversion, and homosexuality is perversion of sex, weather you like it or not

By that argument, oral and anal sex are both perversions of nature as well. If we accept the premise that sex is primarily meant for reproduction, then you'd technically be right. But unnatural doesn't necessarily mean bad.

Even still, my own view aside which I have deliberately not discussed, it is irrelevant. Whatever an individual thinks about any kind of sexuality, what other people do in their bedrooms is still one of his business.

gays are not as bad murderers, but they are freaks of nature, the law of nature is to reproduce male with female, gays are sick twisted minds, you know there is such a thing as perversion, and homosexuality is perversion of sex, weather you like it or not

If homosexuality is unnatural then why are there gay animals?

I recently read an article by Falwell from Newsweek about twenty years ago. Most of the article was typical Falwell; however, there was a paragraph that caused me to pause:

Falwellian "morals" aside, do you think this is true? Are all laws the imposition of someone's morality?All laws? Certainly not. Morals aren't the only reason why murder is illegal, so it's quite possible that certain laws have a nonmoral basis. Also, simply because one law is the imposition of someone's morality does not mean that there is no justification independent of morals for said law.

gays are not as bad murderers, but they are freaks of nature, the law of nature is to reproduce male with female, gays are sick twisted minds, you know there is such a thing as perversion, and homosexuality is perversion of sex, weather you like it or notSo is driving cars. Law of nature is that you walk.

Clearly we must start persecuting mother nature now. That dyke. Making all those poor innocent bunnies, hippos, and antelopes have gay butt secks. :(
She exposed the poor aminals to gaydiation!



No, but if a comment were to come from him, i would be 93% sure it would be wrong.
And you'd probably be right. He was never exactly a font of wisdom and common sense.

If homosexuality is unnatural then why are there gay animals?

Clearly we must start persecuting mother nature now. That dyke. Making all those poor innocent bunnies, hippos, and antelopes have gay butt secks. :(

Just because he's Jerry Falwell doesn't mean he's wrong about everything, evidently.

No, but if a comment were to come from him, i would be 93% sure it would be wrong.

gays are not as bad murderers, but they are freaks of nature, the law of nature is to reproduce male with female, gays are sick twisted minds, you know there is such a thing as perversion, and homosexuality is perversion of sex, weather you like it or not

Oh boy.:rolleyes:

I recently read an article by Falwell from Newsweek about twenty years ago. Most of the article was typical Falwell; however, there was a paragraph that caused me to pause:

Falwellian "morals" aside, do you think this is true? Are all laws the imposition of someone's morality?

No, most are an application of pragmatism and legitimate self-interest. Falwell gives the examples of:

"murder, rape, incest, cannibalism and stealing"

Murder, rape and stealing are outlawed based on legitimate self-interest (I don't want myself, or anyone I know, to be murdered, raped or robbed). Incest is restricted because of the potential power imbalance within families and the difficulty of ascertaining legitimate consent in such as situation (as such I'd support a raised age of consent for incest, 18-21 maybe) but it should still be legal. Same with cannibalism as long as the victim (should that be 'main course'?) consented prior to their demise.

Laws which are based on nothing but the imposition of personal morals should be scrapped.

gays are not as bad murderers, but they are freaks of nature, the law of nature is to reproduce male with female, gays are sick twisted minds, you know there is such a thing as perversion, and homosexuality is perversion of sex, weather you like it or not

You might want to read up on the Bonobo before you make such claims.

Note: There are other species as well.....


As to the OP:

How is "In God We Trust" an imposition of Religious morals? Is it not kind of a contradiction to have that on money?

[QUOTE=Geniasis;13508941]By that argument, oral and anal sex are both perversions of nature as well. If we accept the premise that sex is primarily meant for reproduction, then you'd technically be right. But unnatural doesn't necessarily mean bad.

Even still, my own view aside which I have deliberately not discussed, it is irrelevant. Whatever an individual thinks about any kind of sexuality, what other people do in their bedrooms is still one of his business.[/QUO see your twisted mind wont let you see, that it is bad, but it is , and that is that.

your argument makes no sense.

It does, actually. He's saying that if Nature was always the right answer then we wouldn't have cars because they are an artificial construct designed to quicken travel. The natural way, that is the way that's built into us by default, is to walk/run everywhere instead.

So is driving cars. Law of nature is that you walk.Clothing is completely against nature. So is eating with utensils.

So is driving cars. Law of nature is that you walk.
your argument makes no sense.

your argument makes no sense.

To those of us with more than two brain cells to rub together, it makes plenty.

If homosexuality is unnatural then why are there gay animals?

Just to point out: as all thing that exist, do so in our natural universe, by definition there is NOTHING unatural.

If homosexuality is unnatural then why are there gay animals?

Just to point out: as all thing that exist, do so in our natural universe, by definition there is NOTHING unnatural.

Falwellian "morals" aside, do you think this is true? Are all laws the imposition of someone's morality?

i think he was making the kind of oversimplification that fanatacisms of all flavors are generally based on.

laws are created for a great diversity of reasons, some good, some bad, some mostly harmless and some completely exploitive.

i do belive a major distinction needs to be made between laws and morality.

whatever the reason and reasoning behind any given law, morality is one thing, and one thing only and that is the avoidance of knowingly causing avoidable suffering.

something totally seperate and distinguished from either law or beliefs.

the law will do and be what it will, people will believe, for again whatever diversity of reasons, what they will, but the one and only true morality is the avoidance of causing real suffering and harm.

=^^=
.../\...

I recently read an article by Falwell from Newsweek about twenty years ago. Most of the article was typical Falwell; however, there was a paragraph that caused me to pause:

Falwellian "morals" aside, do you think this is true? Are all laws the imposition of someone's morality?

No. All of those laws have reasons for existing beyond morality, usually in terms of practicality and functioning of society.

Morality has no place in the law and the law should not contain morality. Period.

To those of us with more than two brain cells to rub together, it makes plenty.

everybody in here except me is fuckin homos, iv never seen so many cocksuckers in all my life, listen here faggots men suckin mens dicks is twisted, and all you fuckin faggots in here need took out and the shit kicked out of you, i must have offended all you fuckin queers, must have shamed yous, you fuckin misfit freaks:sniper:

To those of us with more than two brain cells to rub together, it makes plenty.

everybody in here except me is fuckin homos, iv never seen so many cocksuckers in all my life, listen here faggots men suckin mens dicks is twisted, and all you fuckin faggots in here need took out and the shit kicked out of you, i must have offended all you fuckin queers, must have shamed yous, you fuckin misfit freaks:sniper:

everybody in here except me is fuckin homos, iv never seen so many cocksuckers in all my life, listen here faggots men suckin mens dicks is twisted, and all you fuckin faggots in here need took out and the shit kicked out of you, i must have offended all you fuckin queers, must have shamed yous, you fuckin misfit freaks:sniper:

Not that I encourage your behavior or anything, but I'm actually a heterosexual. That means I'm interested in the opposite sex, women in my case. So your little theory just got shattered.

But seriously "all you fucking faggots in here need took out"? What the hell is "took out"? Seriously Cletus, calm down.

Not that I encourage your behavior or anything, but I'm actually a heterosexual. That means I'm interested in the opposite sex, women in my case. So your little theory just got shattered.

But seriously "all you fucking faggots in here need took out"? What the hell is "took out"? Seriously Cletus, calm down.

how fuckin stupid r u

how fuckin stupid r u

I dunno, why don't you try answering for me.

Just to point out: as all thing that exist, do so in our natural universe, by definition there is NOTHING unatural.

Except you Big boy!

And maybe LG.

everybody in here except me is fuckin homos, iv never seen so many cocksuckers in all my life, listen here faggots men suckin mens dicks is twisted, and all you fuckin faggots in here need took out and the shit kicked out of you, i must have offended all you fuckin queers, must have shamed yous, you fuckin misfit freaks:sniper:

You seem to be a little pent up about something. Such hostility is a sign of some latent desires.

You want to talk about it big boy?