NationStates Jolt Archive

Although it is commonly used as such, morality should not be a basis for law. Morality actually interferes with the law to a great extent.

Firstly, morality is extremely subjective. Finding two people who share identical moral beliefs would be like finding the proverbial needle in a haystack, only it's a needle the size of a quark in a haystack the size of twenty million universes. For example, you have the obvious differences between a fundamentalist Christian, such as Fred Phelps, and a reasonable Christian, such as most of the Christians who post on Nationstates. Even amongst those who share nigh identical beliefs, differences still exist.

Secondly, laws without a practical basis do not function well, as evidenced by a number of laws--such as laws against sodomy--which only serve to foster unrest. In many countries laws like this can even lead to serious violence and mayhem, in addition to many other oft-overlooked affects, such as the negative health effects of the stress the law might place upon society. Even laws with a potential practical basis--such as prohibiting alcohol on the basis of its effects upon the liver and inhibitions--often only serve to harm society if enacted for moral reasons.

Thirdly, a system of laws becomes more and more difficult to enforce the more complex the system becomes, especially for laws that would require gross violations of privacy to enforce, such as laws against sodomy or oral sex. Placing these additional burdens upon society--and especially upon the government forced to spend the resources to enforce these laws--only serve to negatively effect the enforcement of laws that have a practical basis,.

Fourthly, ethically speaking, it could be seen as wrong to force a specific morality onto another person. Even if the vast majority of a society believes, for example, that homosexuality is wrong, enforcing laws that prevent homosexuals from having sex or otherwise enjoying the same sort of life as heterosexuals could be seen as wrong, and leads again into the whole issue of societal unrest.

Ultimately speaking, using morality as a basis in law can only serve to undermine practical laws, foster unrest, and harm society.

Um... just about every law is based upon morality. Why is stealing illegal? Because we think it's bad. Same with murder. Hell, the whole notion of fairness and justice before the law is making some sort of moral judgment.

Um... just about every law is based upon morality. Why is stealing illegal? Because we think it's bad. Same with murder. Hell, the whole notion of fairness and justice before the law is making some sort of moral judgment.

But they also have a practical basis beyond the morality aspect. Stealing has negative economic impacts, both on the person stolen from and whomever they support, depending upon what was stolen. Killing people also has negative economic impacts, as well as harming the mental and emotional health of the person's loved ones.

Being "fair and just" is beneficial to a law system because it allows people to approve of the system.

You can see where I'm going with this. Most of our laws have a practical basis; all I'm saying is that we should ditch the concept of morality and focus on the practical, and thus we'll get rid of a lot of useless laws that don't help anyone and just hurt people.

But they also have a practical basis beyond the morality aspect. Stealing has negative economic impacts, both on the person stolen from and whomever they support, depending upon what was stolen. Killing people also has negative economic impacts, as well as harming the mental and emotional health of the person's loved ones.

Being "fair and just" is beneficial to a law system because it allows people to approve of the system.

You can see where I'm going with this. Most of our laws have a practical basis; all I'm saying is that we should ditch the concept of morality and focus on the practical, and thus we'll get rid of a lot of useless laws that don't help anyone and just hurt people.
Well, no. Because having a negative economic impact is also a value judgment, i.e. if that is good or not.

Now, I agree that religion should not be used as a legal basis, and your example of blue laws that are supposedly based upon a moral value judgment (I.e. sex is bad, therefore...), but since saying something is good or bad, or fair or not, or just or not, is indeed a value call... To take it away would in effect take away the laws themselves.

Killing people also has negative economic impacts, as well as harming the mental and emotional health of the person's loved ones.

Not to mention the physical health of the victim.

Well, no. Because having a negative economic impact is also a value judgment, i.e. if that is good or not.

Having a negative/positive economic impact is not inherently a moral judgment. Just as when I say I would rather have a $100 bill than a penny it isn't a moral judgment.

Well, no. Because having a negative economic impact is also a value judgment, i.e. if that is good or not.
It's not the same kind of value judgment, though, because it's something quite clearly physical and "real" (I hesitate to use that word but I can't think of a better one) whereas a moral value judgment isn't, because of how morality is subjective.

Now, I agree that religion should not be used as a legal basis, and your example of blue laws that are supposedly based upon a moral value judgment (I.e. sex is bad, therefore...), but since saying something is good or bad, or fair or not, or just or not, is indeed a value call... To take it away would in effect take away the laws themselves.
Again, I disagree. Admittedly it's stretching and playing around with semantics, but I honestly don't see why we can't rule on it this way. As I said before, being perceived as fair and just has a practical benefit, in that the law system would be supported by the people and therefore it would be able to work with little incident in that regard.

Besides, where do you draw the line on using morality? Sure, the vast majority of us feel that stealing is wrong, but not everyone does, or else there'd never be any theft. If you say that we should make stealing illegal on a moral basis, then what stops us from continuing on down that line for other things that the vast majority of us agree on? We'd head straight down to a tyranny of the majority.

Not to mention the physical health of the victim.

But thats making a moral judgement that harming someone's physical health is bad. Which is something clearly beyond the reasonable scope of the law.

The deal is that if any value can be considered a moral, or ethical value, then the law can make no law regarding it at all. If two people disagree about something (like morality, as the OP suggested) then the law must be silent entirely, because there is no way it can be entirely fair to both people. [/complete sarcasm]

But thats making a moral judgement that harming someone's physical health is bad. Which is something clearly beyond the reasonable scope of the law.

The deal is that if any value can be considered a moral, or ethical value, then the law can make no law regarding it at all. If two people disagree about something (like morality, as the OP suggested) then the law must be silent entirely, because there is no way it can be entirely fair to both people. [/complete sarcasm]

Ethically speaking, it's not right to try and control people's lives. What right do you or I have to dictate to someone that their specific moral choice is so wrong that we need to place a law against it and that they need to suffer criminal punishment because of it even if it's something that can't hurt other people?

For example, take euthanasia for the terminally ill. I think that's wrong not just because it creates an atmosphere that death is something to be considered as a solution to problems but also because I think people should hang in there and hold on just a little longer for that possible cure, that shining beacon that can lead them out of it and back into a good life.

But on that same token I also recognize that my personal opinion is irrelevant. It's not my life. I don't have the right to decide for them.

Rights are not a morality issue. I have the right to do many immoral things. I do not have the right to initiate violence against another person or to appropriate his property. The just application of law is in the defense of everyone's right to his own life and his justly earned property. Anything else is bad law.

*edit* Click the link in my signature to read an excellent treatise on just laws.

All laws are based on what people consider right or wrong.

Well, you need Morality in the eyes of the law....not anything complicated...like Marriage and Sex, but i dont think law should be in those either...but, basic justice, such as the aforementioned stealing...

What you dont wanna get mixed is Morality and Religion...Soon as you have preachers dictating your morals...things go wrong...

The justification of any law is based on moral judgments. The moment we say we should adopt one law or another, we are speaking ethically.

The truth in what you say is that the duties the law should impose upon us do not correspond to our moral duties: the law is external and is concerned with protecting people's freedom, while morality is internal and is concerned (in part) with our attitudes toward others. A person who fears and thus obeys the law, but cares nothing for the rights of others, is an awful person, but should not be treated as a criminal.

But all of this is rooted in ethics.

Ah, Kyronea. You have put yourself in an impossible position once again.

Lacking any "moral" basis for law, which is to say, without law reflecting some widely-held belief of what is wrong behaviour ... what basis IS there for law?

Do you propose to abolish laws altogether? Or would you abolish the moral sense which is fundamental to decent behaviour? Or do you have some rabbit in that hat of yours?

Society trumps the individual, not for any higher reason than there's simply more of them. If society deems it necessary to appropriate property then it simply can.

Rights have no basis in reality, they are a construct, certainly useful as a framework to describe how we are expected to interact but still general, they are the sum of parts.

So, for me, the importance is equality before the rule of law. The problem with law comes when, for one reason or another, one class is less subject to laws than another.

The more equal people are before the law, the more liberal a country is, I would bet that's a good rule of thumb.

What you dont wanna get mixed is Morality and Religion...Soon as you have preachers dictating your morals...things go wrong...

No, no wtf?

All laws that are made are based on peoples moral and beliefs, they don't have to be religious in nature if we are going to say your above statement then we shouldn't allow anyone to make laws, of course in saying that then we are allowing people who have the belief that no one should make laws but then that is someones belief and we aren't following that belief properly.

EDIT: That is a bit of a mess.

For example, take euthanasia for the terminally ill. I think that's wrong not just because it creates an atmosphere that death is something to be considered as a solution to problems but also because I think people should hang in there and hold on just a little longer for that possible cure, that shining beacon that can lead them out of it and back into a good life.

But on that same token I also recognize that my personal opinion is irrelevant. It's not my life. I don't have the right to decide for them.

So, you're saying it's morally wrong, but admitting that your ethics ("their life, their choice") over-rides that?

Presumably, if it was your life in the balance of euthanasia, you'd choose to live on ... why? In the hope of a cure? That's simple selfishness!

No, no wtf?

All laws that are made are based on peoples moral and beliefs, they don't have to be religious in nature if we are going to say your above statement then we shouldn't allow anyone to make laws, of course in saying that then we are allowing people who have the belief that no one should make laws but then that is someones belief and we aren't following that belief properly.

Um...what?..

I never said they had to be religious in nature...just that i dont want a preacher telling me what my morals are...

Regardless you still have to have morality in your laws...

It was more of a Separation of Church and State thing...

In fact, it probably wasnt even relevant, but i was just posting what came to mind...

Soheran and I on the same side is always bad news for the opponent. Blouman as well is worse.

I can't argue with either of them, they're usually right. Don't want to "dogpile" Kyronea.

*looks around for some other target of argument*

Um...what?..

I never said they had to be religious in nature...just that i dont want a preacher telling me what my morals are...

Regardless you still have to have morality in your laws...

It was more of a Separation of Church and State thing...

In fact, it probably wasnt even relevant, but i was just posting what came to mind...

But my point is everybody tells you what your morals should be.

You may place more weight on someone else talk over a preacher but it is still them telling you what your morals should be which as always you can dismiss or accept. When it becomes law then that changes the story.

"Morality" has a bad name, only because it has been appropriated by Christians to mean "what it says here in this book."

Certainly the New Testament contributed something to moral thinking, but at base it's worthless: it appeals to selfishness (saving one's own soul) to motivate unselfishness (doing good deeds.)

Ah, Kyronea. You have put yourself in an impossible position once again.

Lacking any "moral" basis for law, which is to say, without law reflecting some widely-held belief of what is wrong behaviour ... what basis IS there for law?

Do you propose to abolish laws altogether? Or would you abolish the moral sense which is fundamental to decent behaviour? Or do you have some rabbit in that hat of yours?

Erm...I do believe I specifically stated that laws should be considered on their practical value, not their moral value. I'm not in an impossible position at all here. You, my friend, are the one who seems to finding it difficult to separate morality from practicality.

So, you're saying it's morally wrong, but admitting that your ethics ("their life, their choice") over-rides that?

Presumably, if it was your life in the balance of euthanasia, you'd choose to live on ... why? In the hope of a cure? That's simple selfishness!

I'm not understanding how that's selfishness, nor do I fully understand your point.

But my point is everybody tells you what your morals should be.

You may place more weight on someone else talk over a preacher but it is still them telling you what your morals should be which as always you can dismiss or accept. When it becomes law then that changes the story.

Ah, okay...

Well, I would say that people influence your morals, but, that you shouldnt accept their version solely because thats what they said...

But, thats just semantics, lol...

Erm...I do believe I specifically stated that laws should be considered on their practical value, not their moral value. I'm not in an impossible position at all here. You, my friend, are the one who seems to finding it difficult to separate morality from practicality.

Can you name a law that is purely practicality and has no hint of morality in it.

Can you name a law that is purely practicality and has no hint of morality in it.

I can name reasons that are purely practical, but I probably can't name a law that's purely practical because laws generally tend to have a moral tone when they are enacted.

And since I'm talking about the REASONS for enacting the law, not the wording, it's ultimately irrelevant.

Ah, okay...

Well, I would say that people influence your morals, but, that you shouldnt accept their version solely because thats what they said...

But, thats just semantics, lol...

Well that's right.

But you did say something along the lines of we shouldn't alow a preacher to influnce the law, which is ridiculous in itself because in order to do this fairly we shouldn't allow anyone to influence the law, but then by making that law we have allowed someone to influence the law in accordance with their beliefs, which is exactly what the law wanted to prevent. As I say all laws are based on people's beliefs and morals it doesn't matter what the issue is from speed limits to zoning laws.

Can you name a law that is purely practicality and has no hint of morality in it.

Sure, I'd say many traffic laws are practical over moral - indicating before turning so as to show intent.

You might argue some moral reason for this but the law itself is based on practicality, not morals.

A well-functioning society can be based on practicality over morals as such, the problem is that one can throw morals onto anything just for the sake of argument.

Same with euthanasia for me, one could argue a practical case for it I suspect - living in pain doesn't have to be a moral issue unless one starts from an assumption that living trumps everything - it clearly doesn't, we send people to their death all the time, whether from war or throwing a noose around their neck.

Is euthanasia practical?

I'd say it is if we take moral issues out of it.

I can name reasons that are purely practical, but I probably can't name a law that's purely practical because laws generally tend to have a moral tone when they are enacted.

And since I'm talking about the REASONS for enacting the law, not the wording, it's ultimately irrelevant.

OK, but my point is that the only reasons laws are placed into effect is because people have a moral/belief on the issue and are not placed in for purely practical reasons.

There is no such thing as a purely practical law. (I could go as far as calling it an oxymoron)

Sure, I'd say many traffic laws are practical over moral - indicating before turning so as to show intent.

You might argue some moral reason for this but the law itself is based on practicality, not morals.

A well-functioning society can be based on practicality over morals as such, the problem is that one can throw morals onto anything just for the sake of argument.

Same with euthanasia for me, one could argue a practical case for it I suspect - living in pain doesn't have to be a moral issue unless one starts from an assumption that living trumps everything - it clearly doesn't, we send people to their death all the time, whether from war or throwing a noose around their neck.

Is euthanasia practical?

I'd say it is if we take moral issues out of it.

But that is because people believe that we should indicate when we are turning, just look at the amount of people who don't believe they need to indicate when and where they are turning.

Can you take the moral issues out of it?

I would say not, after all it is your morals stating in your post that living doesn't trump everything.

OK, but my point is that the only reasons laws are placed into effect is because people have a moral/belief on the issue and are not placed in for purely practical reasons.

Unless one considers all of society a creature of (created by and serving) Lawmakers.
But yeah.

There is no such thing as a purely practical law. (I could go as far as calling it an oxymoron)

I propose a Law Against Swimming To Mars.

Entirely practical, and trivial to enforce unless someone manages to create a LOT of ocean. In which case, they will fall foul of our new Law Against Great Floods and our Law Against Putting Out The Sun.

attempting to legislate morality is itself an immoral act. there is exactly one natural morality, and that is the avoidance of causing suffering. (which i'll warant virtually every attempt to legislate morality is doomed to violate)

now well thought out law making, that reduces the likelyhood of causing suffering, without imposing or causing more itself, is on the right side of it.

over regulating the private life of the individual is not.

I propose a Law Against Swimming To Mars.

Entirely practical, and trivial to enforce unless someone manages to create a LOT of ocean. In which case, they will fall foul of our new Law Against Great Floods and our Law Against Putting Out The Sun.

Ahh but what is your reasoning behind this law?

The same goes for the other two laws.

over regulating the private life of the individual is not.

Would you propose that we make a law for this?

In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations constitute the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness.

Karl Marx, Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, 521.

Your ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for all, a will, whose essential character and direction are determined by the economical conditions of existence in your class.

Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto, 24.

You can't understand an argument against law until you understand that law is just a part of the base and superstructure of the social system, just as morality and ethics reflect the economic interests of the ruling class.

You can't understand an argument against law until you understand that law is just a part of the base and superstructure of the social system, just as morality and ethics reflect the economic interests of the ruling class.

Has AP gone on a recruiting mission?

This is the second new guy today I have seen spouting Communist doctrine.

But that is because people believe that we should indicate when we are turning, just look at the amount of people who don't believe they need to indicate when and where they are turning.

Can you take the moral issues out of it?

I would say not, after all it is your morals stating in your post that living doesn't trump everything.

Come on dude :)

It's an issue of convenience and practicality not a moral issue. When two people are walking towards each other, they take steps to avoid each other, since a car has more serious consequences in terms of a collision, it's practical to ask everyone to indicate. Just because people forget, or haven't properly learned has no bearing on this.

Find me one person who doesn't indicate due to their moral beliefs, even Amish stick out their hands. We indicate with eyes and movement pattern when walking, it's really not a moral issue.

Come on dude :)

It's an issue of convenience and practicality not a moral issue. When two people are walking towards each other, they take steps to avoid each other, since a car has more serious consequences in terms of a collision, it's practical to ask everyone to indicate. Just because people forget, or haven't properly learned has no bearing on this.

Find me one person who doesn't indicate due to their moral beliefs, even Amish stick out their hands. We indicate with eyes and movement pattern when walking, it's really not a moral issue.

Come on, just because we all accept something doesn't mean it isn't moral. I would say that moral reasons behind it is to be courteous to other people (because we believe we should be) or to ensure our vehicle isn't wrecked again moral beliefs it maybe for selfish reasons but still our beliefs.

And regardless, it is the law which was put in effect because somebody had the belief that everyone should indicate when they are going to turn.

Come on, just because we all accept something doesn't mean it isn't moral. I would say that moral reasons behind it is to be courteous to other people (because we believe we should be) or to ensure our vehicle isn't wrecked again moral beliefs it maybe for selfish reasons but still our beliefs.

And regardless, it is the law which was put in effect because somebody had the belief that everyone should indicate when they are going to turn.

I don't know, I'd say it's a question of convenience. Whereas it's relatively easy to see what someone's doing when walking towards you, it's harder when they're in a vehicle. So it's convenient that they have indicators.

Some people may not realise that others cannot read their minds when in a car, it's still as much benefit to them as it is to you to have indicators.

Like I said, you can extend the meaning of morals to take in everything but, in the case of most traffic laws, I'd say it's practicality not morals.

Now speeding is a different case and again, there seems to be an irrational dislike of speeding in ALL circumstances whereas I would say it's practical to drive slowly when in a populated area and not so much on a highway - we can look to the autobahn for this.

People forget, so it's practical to put up a sign saying 'Careful, people around, drive slowly' and enforce it for those who put their own, and others to inconvenience through disregard - no one wants to crash hence crashing is inconvenient, not necessarily moral situation.

The point is that we're pretty ditzy, you can see that ditziness in the animal world, the fact that we can make life more convenient through laws doesn't mean it has a moral basis.

Ahh but what is your reasoning behind this law?

Practicality. It prevents the impractical.

You can't understand an argument against law until you understand that law is just a part of the base and superstructure of the social system, just as morality and ethics reflect the economic interests of the ruling class.

If you're going to condemn law because it is "part of" the social system, and then condemn the "the social system" because it serves the interests of "the ruling class" ... I think you abandon any claim to be a Socialist. A Socialist would hold the people to be the origin of the Law, the Social System and in fact the Ruling Class.

We, the People, are not an Elephant ridden by a Horse ridden by a Sheep. We, the People, made mistakes and will rectify them without calling apon you Dogs to ride us.

Thanks anyway.

(The "AP" thing which was thrown at you was a reference to another poster, Andaras Prime, aka Andaras ... who also quoted Marx, and Stalin, in support of his ill-understood Marxism. I was a Marxist once, or so I called myself, but in retrospect the attraction was the internal consistency and utter irrelevance of Marxist doctrine to the real world. Simply, what I was saying was so ridiculous that I had time to strike poses and recite quotes before anyone had the faintest idea what I was on about, and more time before they actually tried to engage my points. Oh, yes, I got to play the Revolutionary Vanguard to my heart's content. In retrospect, I should have got busy in the pants department.)

I don't know, I'd say it's a question of convenience. Whereas it's relatively easy to see what someone's doing when walking towards you, it's harder when they're in a vehicle. So it's convenient that they have indicators.

Some people may not realise that others cannot read their minds when in a car, it's still as much benefit to them as it is to you to have indicators.

Like I said, you can extend the meaning of morals to take in everything but, in the case of most traffic laws, I'd say it's practicality not morals.

Now speeding is a different case and again, there seems to be an irrational dislike of speeding in ALL circumstances whereas I would say it's practical to drive slowly when in a populated area and not so much on a highway - we can look to the autobahn for this.

People forget, so it's practical to put up a sign saying 'Careful, people around, drive slowly' and enforce it for those who put their own, and others to inconvenience through disregard - no one wants to crash hence crashing is inconvenient, not necessarily moral situation.

The point is that we're pretty ditzy, you can see that ditziness in the animal world, the fact that we can make life more convenient through laws doesn't mean it has a moral basis.

Yes it may be convenient, but it is a law, somebody had a belief that it must be law.

I do, however, see your point, some laws may not be based on morality but I think that is in reality the exception rather than the rule.

And more laws are based on peoples morals rather than for convenience, which includes speed limits.

What I also did was interchange morals and beliefs are they the same thing? I would say no, so while I shouldn't have said all laws are dictated by morals but rather all laws are dictated by beliefs, even if the belief is that it should be law that people should indicate when turning.

Practicality. It prevents the impractical.

Well, what do I say to this? So you don't believe it is wrong for someone to swim to Mars?

NH I never knew you were once a Marxist, must have been before my time.

BunnySaurus you are a joke, no serious individual is ever an 'ex-Marxist', you have ALWAYS been counter-revolutionary, I think that's obvious enough. Just more of that ridiculous 'hai guys yeah revolution sucks, give it up please' bourgeois propaganda.

The truth in what you say is that the duties the law should impose upon us do not correspond to our moral duties: the law is external and is concerned with protecting people's freedom, while morality is internal and is concerned (in part) with our attitudes toward others. A person who fears and thus obeys the law, but cares nothing for the rights of others, is an awful person, but should not be treated as a criminal.
That.

And this is coming from someone who tentatively supports the notion of law based on economics, and a fan of some of the research put forth by Richard Posner and others.

But that research hinges on a first assumption, which is still a value judgement - that is, wasting resources is bad, and being able to consume resources is good. Once we accept that (and I do, since to me it seems to be a rather central part of life on earth), we can say that a law that seeks to promote the optimal use of resources is a good one. But just because we can use scientific and largely objective methods to work out such law, our fundamental assumption still exists and means that our law still isn't completely amoral.

Of course, feel free to join my club of people who think that there are some value judgements which are required by our existence of earth. That makes them no less value judgements and no less a matter of personal inquiry, but it also makes not sharing them an existential problem for you or the ones who end up tasked with ensuring your existence for whatever reason.

BunnySaurus you are a joke, no serious individual is ever an 'ex-Marxist', you have ALWAYS been counter-revolutionary, I think that's obvious enough. Just more of that ridiculous 'hai guys yeah revolution sucks, give it up please' bourgeois propaganda.

I am a joke now. When I considered myself a Marxist I was far more gravely in error.

You really do read very much like Andaras. If you are he, let me give YOU advice. To be an ineffective revolutionary is worse than to be a counter-revolutionary. And to spout "revolutionary" maxims when they do not lead to revolution ... is to be an ineffective revolutionary. A poseur.

"I am the only true revolutionary here" ... can't you see how vain and pointless that is? How can you possibly lead when your first priority is to separate yourself from others?

Why is everyone against me being the basis for our laws?:( :tongue:

BunnySaurus you are a joke, no serious individual is ever an 'ex-Marxist', you have ALWAYS been counter-revolutionary, I think that's obvious enough. Just more of that ridiculous 'hai guys yeah revolution sucks, give it up please' bourgeois propaganda.

Hey, AP! I'm glad you're back!

...

You know, a vacation is always good... Especially when it's two in a row...

All law, in fact pretty much all politics is ethics. Every time you implement a policy or create a law, you say "the government SHOULD do this" or the people "Should/should not do this" etc... All statements concerning what you ought to do are ethical statements. There is no such thing as a scientific ought statement.

Morality and religion, as much as they vary from culture to culture, from person to person, both have very practical purposes. Many geniuses have shunned both personally, yet known how important such institutions were for society. Alexander "the Great" was very superstitious, but hardly religious (he changed religions wherever he went, and tried unsuccessfully to merge the various beliefs for statecraft reasons).

Other examples: Machiavelli, Cicero, Julius and Augustus Cæsar, Napoléon, Will Durant, Akbar the Great (who, like Alexander, tried to merge religions to benefit the state)...the list goes on, and includes a number of Popes and Greek Philosophers.

I don't know, I'd say it's a question of convenience. Whereas it's relatively easy to see what someone's doing when walking towards you, it's harder when they're in a vehicle. So it's convenient that they have indicators.

That's an argument of "natural law" I think.

Because we do this while walking, we should do it while driving.

Let's examine why people "indicate" (by body language I guess) in the original case. It's so they don't get hurt by walking right into someone, right? And to avoid conflict, what we would call -- from our priveleged position as subjects of law -- assault.

Some people do not indicate, on foot. Or else (on foot) they indicate their intention not to swerve one way or the other, to walk where they want to and (it's implied) punish anyone who invades the space they have claimed ahead of them. Generally, these people get their Way ... until they meet an equally stubborn individual, in which case one of them backs down or there is violence.

So, by not indicating while turning in a car, a person is making the same statement as the bully on the sidewalk: "I do what I like, and you make allowances for that or get hurt. I don't care." They are essentially trying to be the law.


Some people may not realise that others cannot read their minds when in a car, it's still as much benefit to them as it is to you to have indicators.

Objectively, yes. But the "I don't care if my car collides with yours" attitude is unfortunately effective ... others swerve to avoid them.

Like I said, you can extend the meaning of morals to take in everything but, in the case of most traffic laws, I'd say it's practicality not morals.

No-one has satisfactorily defined "practicality" yet.

Does it mean "utility"? The sum of Good done to all people, minus the sum of Harm done to all people?

Perhaps you see now why I mocked "practicality" in Law. A "practical" law would be one which was trivial to enforce, by the dictionary meaning of "practical."

Now speeding is a different case and again, there seems to be an irrational dislike of speeding in ALL circumstances whereas I would say it's practical to drive slowly when in a populated area and not so much on a highway - we can look to the autobahn for this.

Pah. That road has a different name, and huge signs along it defining a different set of rules.

People forget, so it's practical to put up a sign saying 'Careful, people around, drive slowly' and enforce it for those who put their own, and others to inconvenience through disregard - no one wants to crash hence crashing is inconvenient, not necessarily moral situation.

"Hit and Run" is a more serious crime than "Culpable Driving" and for good reason. People have a selfish incentive to drive away from the pedestrian they hit, instead of stopping and rendering them aid. The incentive? Avoiding a charge of Culpable (or Dangerous) Driving. Thus, we need a further penalty for "running" from the crime.

Even within the relatively mutual situation of road rules, your principle that "people follow laws for their own benefit" does not stand up well.

The point is that we're pretty ditzy, you can see that ditziness in the animal world, the fact that we can make life more convenient through laws doesn't mean it has a moral basis.

Speak for yourself. I am not "ditzy."

The rules I impose on myself are FAR MORE ONEROUS than the laws of my land.

Now speak for yourself. Without the law to punish you, would you go all "ditzy" and murder someone? Steal? Speed, in situations you yourself judged dangerous?

Why is everyone against me being the basis for our laws?:( :tongue:

Your Law won't preent iolence between indiiduals.

Your Law won't preent iolence between indiiduals.

I think your V key is broken.

I think your V key is broken.

*nudge nudge*

All law, in fact pretty much all politics is ethics.

Kyronea tried to do this earlier. It's rubbish, really.

Tell me why "Morals" are bad, but "Ethics" are good.

I say this:

"Morality" has a bad name, only because it has been appropriated by Christians to mean "what it says here in this book."

Every time you implement a policy or create a law, you say "the government SHOULD do this" or the people "Should/should not do this" etc... All statements concerning what you ought to do are ethical statements. There is no such thing as a scientific ought statement.

There is no such thing as a "collective ethical statement" either.

Let's be blunt about it, in the teeth of the Individualists, and say "every time GOVERNMENT implements a policy or create a law, THEY say "the government SHOULD do this" or the people "Should/should not do this" etc"

Now, the question is framed as it always should have been: does Government do the People's will ?

If not, why not ?

Let's kick their ass!

Kyronea tried to do this earlier. It's rubbish, really.

Tell me why "Morals" are bad, but "Ethics" are good.


Ethics and morals are exactly the same, I'm completely disagreeing with Kyronea.


Now, the question is framed as it always should have been: does Government do the People's will ?


Why is that relevant? Whether they should or not is still an ethical/moral judgement.

Maybe first we should define what we mean with morality and the difference from ethics. As i understand it....

Morality is the guideline that determines whats right and wrong according to REVEALED concepts, like divinely revealed scriptures.

Ethics is the guideline that determiners whats right and wrong according to reason.

Morality depends on the revealed concepts accepted. Thus is subjective.

Ethics depend on reason. Thus is objective.

Maybe first we should define what we mean with morality and the difference from ethics. As i understand it....

Morality is the guideline that determines whats right and wrong according to REVEALED concepts, like divinely revealed scriptures.

Ethics is the guideline that determiners whats right and wrong according to reason.

Morality depends on the revealed concepts accepted. Thus is subjective.

Ethics depend on reason. Thus is objective.

Well those are weird definitions. Regardless, just because an ethical judgement is based on reason does NOT make it objective.

Well those are weird definitions. Regardless, just because an ethical judgement is based on reason does NOT make it objective.

They are hardly weird. They are from a philosophy textbook.

I assume then that you don´t consider reason to be objective?

They are hardly weird. They are from a philosophy textbook.


Well I don't think it's a particularly good book but whatever.


I assume then that you don´t consider reason to be objective?

No, I argue that there is no such thing as an ethical statement deduced from pure reason alone, because of the naturalistic fallacy.

Well I don't think it's a particularly good book but whatever.



No, I argue that there is no such thing as an ethical statement deduced from pure reason alone, because of the naturalistic fallacy.

You mean the impossibility of objectively define whats good?

I don't see any practical reason why I can't harm someone, provided they are still able to function in society.

You mean the impossibility of objectively define whats good?

Pretty much.

Ethics and morals are exactly the same, I'm completely disagreeing with Kyronea.

Indeed, it was Kyronea who first pulled the "bait and switch" with those terms.

We should use a common term throughout the thread. For the newbs.

Why is that relevant? Whether they should or not is still an ethical/moral judgement.

I think it's quite relevant. If "Law" was meant in some wider sense than "Law administered by government" -- eg, scientific "laws" or individual, self-imposed "law" I haven't seen any sign of it.

So it's either:

Does a collective law oppress the individual with collective "morality" -- well duh, yes.
Does a government law reflect the collective morality -- worth arguing.


... or, of course, Kyronea trolling with a negative proposition, the antithesis of which is a statement of rational and infallible law (which centuries, aye millennia, of jurists have strived for and plainly failed to achieve) ...

Hmm, maybe there's something in that. Kyronea. The Navy. His education. Forgoing some of his freedom, for future possibilities. He wants us to reassure him that law is completely amoral, and that therefore he can follow any orders given to him (by the Navy, duly empowered by Law) without concern for whether they are right or wrong, only on the basis of the education, the experience and the future reputation as a serviceperson, and/or military pension. No moral issues there at all ...

They are hardly weird. They are from a philosophy textbook.

Cite please. (Name the book, or preferably link to full text.)

We should use a common term throughout the thread. For the newbs.


I can't think of one.


Hmm, maybe there's something in that. Kyronea. The Navy. His education. Forgoing some of his freedom, for future possibilities (and free bumsex, of course.) He wants us to reassure him that law is completely amoral, and that therefore he can follow any orders given to him (by the Navy, duly empowered by Law) without concern for whether they are right or wrong, only on the basis of the education, the experience (including bumsex, of course) and the future reputation as a serviceperson, and/or military pension. No moral issues there at all (and free bumsex, of course.)

:D

Nah, I doubt it's to do with bumsex. I believe it's more to do with the fact that he's so use to the way Christians and social conservatives define morals that he doesn't believe morals could be transcendent of religion.

Hmm, maybe there's something in that. Kyronea. The Navy. His education. Forgoing some of his freedom, for future possibilities (and free bumsex, of course.) He wants us to reassure him that law is completely amoral, and that therefore he can follow any orders given to him (by the Navy, duly empowered by Law) without concern for whether they are right or wrong, only on the basis of the education, the experience (including bumsex, of course) and the future reputation as a serviceperson, and/or military pension. No moral issues there at all (and free bumsex, of course.)

One problem, the Navy haven't indoctrinated him yet.

Actually, I'm not saying laws should be based on ethics either(although I DID use an appeal to ethics, that's all it was, an appeal.) Furthermore, I also see ethics and morality as being a little different, seeing as how morality is generally a personal set of beliefs while ethics tend to be somewhat more of a set of beliefs that a number of people can all agree on. Or something.

...

It made a lot more sense in my head.

Pretty much.

OK. This would lead to a complete different debate. We can define good as Having the qualities that are desirable or distinguishing in a particular thing.

But back to my previous post. i think we can make a distintion between morals and ethics based on the fact that morals are based on revealed principles (religion) while ethics are based on reason.

I don't see any practical reason why I can't harm someone, provided they are still able to function in society.

Dammit, you are using some arcane meaning of "practical" too.

If there is some legal or philosophical meaning, which differs from the common-sense meaning "easy to implement" ... why the hell hasn't anyone given a definition yet?

Indeed, it was Kyronea who first pulled the "bait and switch" with those terms.

We should use a common term throughout the thread. For the newbs.



I think it's quite relevant. If "Law" was meant in some wider sense than "Law administered by government" -- eg, scientific "laws" or individual, self-imposed "law" I haven't seen any sign of it.

So it's either:

Does a collective law oppress the individual with collective "morality" -- well duh, yes.
Does a government law reflect the collective morality -- worth arguing.


... or, of course, Kyronea trolling with a negative proposition, the antithesis of which is a statement of rational and infallible law (which centuries, aye millennia, of jurists have strived for and plainly failed to achieve) ...

Hmm, maybe there's something in that. Kyronea. The Navy. His education. Forgoing some of his freedom, for future possibilities (and free bumsex, of course.) He wants us to reassure him that law is completely amoral, and that therefore he can follow any orders given to him (by the Navy, duly empowered by Law) without concern for whether they are right or wrong, only on the basis of the education, the experience (including bumsex, of course) and the future reputation as a serviceperson, and/or military pension. No moral issues there at all (and free bumsex, of course.)
Oh please. Now you're just insulting me.

My general point of view is that we shouldn't use what one person believes to enact laws against someone else who doesn't believe the same way when it would have no practical use otherwise. So, I repeat my example of anti-sodomy laws targeting homosexuals, for instance.

But back to my previous post. i think we can make a distintion between morals and ethics based on the fact that morals are based on revealed principles (religion) while ethics are based on reason.

Well can you cite an actual definition that supports this?

Now, the question is framed as it always should have been: does Government do the People's will ?

That isn't enough, though. If the majority of people want to kill all the [insert ethnic group here], the action doesn't suddenly become an appropriate use of government.

In my mind - particularly in criminal law - the question comes down to harm. By performing a certain action, does the person demonstrably do harm to others? If so, a law against such action is appropriate. If not, the government (and all the people who would vote for such a law) need to butt the hell out.

I can't think of one.

I just meant, we should use "ethics" or "morality" without just switching them depending on whether we mean "good, reasoned" or "bad, arbitrary."

Right down at the level of my firm beliefs (my epistemology in fact) I don't believe there IS a clear distinction between reason and superstition.

Anyway, why don't we all just stick to the original term of the Original Post (you too, Kyro) and talk about Morality and Law ...? Anyone who wants to bring Ethics into it, carries the burden of proving their Morality to be Reasonable. And we pwn them, for the fun.

Dammit, you are using some arcane meaning of "practical" too.

If there is some legal or philosophical meaning, which differs from the common-sense meaning "easy to implement" ... why the hell hasn't anyone given a definition yet?
8 results for: practical Browse Nearby Entries
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
prac·ti·cal Audio Help /ˈpræktɪkəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[prak-ti-kuhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. of or pertaining to practice or action: practical mathematics.
2. consisting of, involving, or resulting from practice or action: a practical application of a rule.
3. of, pertaining to, or concerned with ordinary activities, business, or work: practical affairs.
4. adapted or designed for actual use; useful: practical instructions.
5. engaged or experienced in actual practice or work: a practical politician.
6. inclined toward or fitted for actual work or useful activities: a practical person.
7. mindful of the results, usefulness, advantages or disadvantages, etc., of action or procedure.
8. matter-of-fact; prosaic.
9. being such in practice or effect; virtual: a practical certainty.
10. Theater. practicable (def. 3).
[Origin: 1375–1425; late ME. See practic, -al1]

—Related forms
prac·ti·cal·i·ty, prac·ti·cal·ness, noun

—Synonyms 1. pragmatic. 7. Practical, judicious, sensible refer to good judgment in action, conduct, and the handling of everyday matters. Practical suggests the ability to adopt means to an end or to turn what is at hand to account: to adopt practical measures for settling problems. Judicious implies the possession and use of discreet judgment, discrimination, and balance: a judicious use of one's time. Sensible implies the possession and use of sound reason and shrewd common sense: a sensible suggestion.
—Antonyms 7. ill-advised, unwise, foolish.

This may be more complicated than I originally thought.

Anyway, why don't we all just stick to the original term of the Original Post (you too, Kyro) and talk about Morality and Law ...? Anyone who wants to bring Ethics into it, carries the burden of proving their Morality to be Reasonable. And we pwn them, for the fun.

But I prefer the term ethics! It sounds nicer.

Oh please. Now you're just insulting me.

My general point of view is that we shouldn't use what one person believes to enact laws against someone else who doesn't believe the same way when it would have no practical use otherwise. So, I repeat my example of anti-sodomy laws targeting homosexuals, for instance.

Do you concede then, that laws are based on at the very least basic ethical assumptions?

Do you concede then, that laws are based on at the very least basic ethical assumptions?

I never said they weren't. All I'm arguing is that morality should not be used as a basis for law, not that it isn't used as one currently, or that ethics isn't, etc etc.

I never said they weren't. All I'm arguing is that morality should not be used as a basis for law, not that it isn't used as one currently, or that ethics isn't, etc etc.

Ok by ethics I mean exactly the same thing as morals. And I'm also saying that it's absolutely impossible for a law not to be ethical, since a law is an ought statement, and an ought statement is by definition a moral statement.

Ok by ethics I mean exactly the same thing as morals. And I'm also saying that it's absolutely impossible for a law not to be ethical, since a law is an ought statement, and an ought statement is by definition a moral statement.

Then apparently we're both using a different definition of morality, and thus the confusion erupts.

Then apparently we're both using a different definition of morality, and thus the confusion erupts.

What is your definition of a moral statement?

Oh please. Now you're just insulting me.

Not really. I took out the more joking parts with an edit ... and if it's still too personal, I'll take those out as well.

Surely going into military service has some implications for your own freedom, though? And is not military service a more strict legal regime which you have volunteered for?

Is it completely out of line for me to reference them ... or is the only valid response to your proclamations of real life career "hooray, I support the troops, I support Kyronea, kill the anti-American scum!" ...?

Frankly, I won't respect your military service until you actually do it, and more frankly yet: I doubt you'll serve out a term. I think you are too strong-willed to follow orders.

My general point of view is that we shouldn't use what one person believes to enact laws against someone else who doesn't believe the same way when it would have no practical use otherwise. So, I repeat my example of anti-sodomy laws targeting homosexuals, for instance.

Sure, I agree about the anti-sodomy laws.

I've put THAT principle very simply before: "no victim, no crime." And any law which identifies the Victim as the Perpetrator (eg, consensual sex, drug use, suicide) is directly interfering in individual freedom, for the protection of nobody.

No victim, no crime.

Not you (nor any other) have yet defined "practical." Define it, or I will mock you to death, no matter how wrong I may be by WikiPedia. Simply, I am not wrong until proven wrong.

Your Law won't preent iolence between indiiduals.
*Sniff* So mean...:D
I think your V key is broken.

ConserVative Morality /=/ Conserative morality

ConserVative Morality /=/ Conserative morality

What the hell!? I didn't notice that was your name until just now. Weird.

What the hell!? I didn't notice that was your name until just now. Weird.

You're what, the fifth person this month that just realized that? I feel like everyone just assumes...:(:tongue:

You're what, the fifth person this month that just realized that? I feel like everyone just assumes...:(:tongue:

Well you're not the first person this happened to. I didn't realise that Philosopy was not Philosophy with a PH before the y for a long time until he actually said so.

Then apparently we're both using a different definition of morality, and thus the confusion erupts.

To be perfectly honest, and a bit blunt, I don't think you have a clear definition of "morality."

I think you're making an argument based upon a culturally loaded notion of "morality", a sense "morality" acquires in the context of a society where a conservative Christian political movement that cares nothing for individual rights is the primary invoker of the word.

Certainly, you speak in terms that, ultimately, are moral: you suggest that we ought to prevent certain things ("negative economic implications"). You suggest that this is "pragmatic" rather than ethical or moral... but this argument really depends on your hiding of the "ought" premise that underlies your policy proposal, namely that "negative economic implications" are inherently bad and ought to be prevented.

Indeed, I'd suggest that you are operating within the framework of your own moral system, but merely do not call it such--and your insistence that others not "impose their morality" is simply your rejection of their moral systems.

But go ahead, prove me wrong. Provide a reasonable, clear, and consistent definition of "morality" that effectively and substantively supports the distinction you have drawn between "moral" and "pragmatic" laws.

To be perfectly honest, and a bit blunt, I don't think you have a clear definition of "morality."

I think you're making an argument based upon a culturally loaded notion of "morality", a sense "morality" acquires in the context of a society where a conservative Christian political movement that cares nothing for individual rights is the primary invoker of the word.

Certainly, you speak in terms that, ultimately, are moral: you suggest that we ought to prevent certain things ("negative economic implications"). You suggest that this is "pragmatic" rather than ethical or moral... but this argument really depends on your hiding of the "ought" premise that underlies your policy proposal, namely that "negative economic implications" are inherently bad and ought to be prevented.

Indeed, I'd suggest that you are operating within the framework of your own moral system, but merely do not call it such--and your insistence that others not "impose their morality" is simply your rejection of their moral systems.

But go ahead, prove me wrong. Provide a reasonable, clear, and consistent definition of "morality" that effectively and substantively supports the distinction you have drawn between "moral" and "pragmatic" laws.
I've been thinking about this and I'm not sure I can. I find myself wanting to simply repeat what I said before about the subjectivity of morality.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that we should evaluate a law completely free of moral values and look at it from what would be a practical basis. I know, I know, I'm repeating myself but I don't see how I can make this clearer than I already am.

Not really. I took out the more joking parts with an edit ... and if it's still too personal, I'll take those out as well.

Surely going into military service has some implications for your own freedom, though? And is not military service a more strict legal regime which you have volunteered for?

Is it completely out of line for me to reference them ... or is the only valid response to your proclamations of real life career "hooray, I support the troops, I support Kyronea, kill the anti-American scum!" ...?

Frankly, I won't respect your military service until you actually do it, and more frankly yet: I doubt you'll serve out a term. I think you are too strong-willed to follow orders.
I was taking offense at the implication that I joined for the sake of giving up my command over my own thinking and opinions. Just because I'll be required ot be rather silent on them a lot of the time does not mean I will not continue to have them.

That isn't enough, though. If the majority of people want to kill all the [insert ethnic group here], the action doesn't suddenly become an appropriate use of government.

Hmm. I disagree.

I've seen this debate a few times, and it comes down to "the framers of the Constitution were right, we need to put some limitations on the power of the People."

And the limitations they choose are essentially roadblocks. They're impediments, not prohibitions.

I see the sense in that. When a country is inflamed by the passion of war, for instance, the majority could easily vote to execute innocent nationals of the enemy nation.

But I think the People should have that power. The may do ill with it, surely, but really they need to have the power of the majority, to learn the responsibilities of that power.

In my mind - particularly in criminal law - the question comes down to harm. By performing a certain action, does the person demonstrably do harm to others? If so, a law against such action is appropriate. If not, the government (and all the people who would vote for such a law) need to butt the hell out.

We agree on that. Along with a half dozen other strong posters. Dammit, I think Hotwife would probably agree to that. No victim, no crime.

I've been thinking about this and I'm not sure I can. I find myself wanting to simply repeat what I said before about the subjectivity of morality.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that we should evaluate a law completely free of moral values and look at it from what would be a practical basis. I know, I know, I'm repeating myself but I don't see how I can make this clearer than I already am.


It's impossible to be pragmatic with law without using moral assumptions. Even basic ones like 'pleasure is good' and 'pain is bad' is a moral assumption.

It's impossible to be pragmatic with law without using moral assumptions. Even basic ones like 'pleasure is good' and 'pain is bad' is a moral assumption.

...wait, what? How? Why?

...wait, what? How? Why?

Because morals are about distinguishing what is good from what is bad, what you should do/strive for, and what you shouldn't do/avoid. So saying 'you should avoid pain, or you should prevent people from suffering' is a moral statement, regardless of how obvious it sounds.

I've been thinking about this and I'm not sure I can.

That's never a good sign.

I find myself wanting to simply repeat what I said before about the subjectivity of morality.

You haven't credibly established that morality is subjective, but more to the point, your "practical" considerations are at least as subjective as morality is.

Why should we care if some people lose their stuff from theft? Why should the law try to prevent such things?

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that we should evaluate a law completely free of moral values and look at it from what would be a practical basis.

What is a "practical basis"? Specifically, what standard should we use? What's the justification for this standard? How does it evade the problems you attribute to morality?

That's never a good sign.

No, it's not.


You haven't credibly established that morality is subjective, but more to the point, your "practical" considerations are at least as subjective as morality is.

What would you consider credibly establishing that morality is subjective? How much more do you need than the obvious differences a lot of us have in moral beliefs?

Why should we care if some people lose their stuff from theft? Why should the law try to prevent such things?

Because society can't truly function without some sort of cooperative effort on the part of everyone, and stealing goes against this fundamental aspect.


What is a "practical basis"? Specifically, what standard should we use? What's the justification for this standard? How does it evade the problems you attribute to morality?
That's a damned good question, and one I'm finding difficult to word a good answer to.

I suppose the standard should be that which has been demonstrably shown throughout history as something that allows society to continue functioning effectively, such as a working economy(in whatever form it takes).

Hmm. I disagree.

Ok, but this is such a fundamental disagreement that I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree.

We agree on that. Along with a half dozen other strong posters. Dammit, I think Hotwife would probably agree to that. No victim, no crime.

This is incompatible with the "whatever the majority wants" is ok idea. If the majority thinks that a victimless act should be a crime, by what you said about, it both is and should be.

I suppose the standard should be that which has been demonstrably shown throughout history as something that allows society to continue functioning effectively, such as a working economy(in whatever form it takes).
But what exactly does "function effectively" mean? North Korea hasn't fallen apart into civil war. Nazi Germany was able to mobilise huge numbers of very committed people to achieve a range of objectives under very trying circumstances. Stalin turned Russia from an agricultural wasteland into a superpower.

And in all of these individual rights were trampled under foot, people were suffering from unnecessary hardship at the expense of this "functioning society" and so on.

That's the problem when you talk about society. People get carried away and look at the whole, rather than the only thing that I can see as being able to make judgements on what is good and bad: the individuals within it. Any society in which the people individually aren't the ones who decide how interactions with others are governed (collectively, if need be, but still being able to make the decision by themselves based on their own preferences) has no standard I can see by which we can objectively judge it superior. Hell, even if it does, there are people who would argue that even the value we place on individualism and personal freedom are simply subjective differences.

I was in a similar position to yours, where I basically thought morality was a bad idea, a waste of time and breath at best. But it doesn't matter what you do, when you keep tracking it to the end, there are always assumptions which are essentially moral ones. The sooner you can name yours, the sooner you can look at whether or not they're good ones, whether there are any contradictions and whether they stand up to scrutiny by others (if indeed that matters).

Okay, let's break this down bit by bit.

What is law for?
Law is intended to protect the well-being and safety of a nation and its inhabitants. This well-being can be defined as economic, social, etc.

What are morals?
Morals are elements of deep-rooted human values expressed through actions. For example, we empathize with fellow humans, and thusly extend our own services to aid them so long as it isn't detrimental.

Therefore, law is inherently moral.

What would you consider credibly establishing that morality is subjective?

An effective refutation of Kant would do nicely in driving my opinion in that direction.

More generally speaking, you need to not only show that moral beliefs differ (because beliefs differ very widely about a variety of objective things), but that these differences are unresolvable--that there is no standard we can use to decide among different moral beliefs that doesn't itself depend upon moral beliefs.

Because society can't truly function without some sort of cooperative effort on the part of everyone, and stealing goes against this fundamental aspect.

So what?

Even granting to you all the assumptions you're making there (is the role of law really so narrow as to only prohibit behavior that would prevent society from functioning, and does stealing really meet so high a standard?), why should we be concerned for society functioning?

Why shouldn't society commit suicide?

What would you consider credibly establishing that morality is subjective? How much more do you need than the obvious differences a lot of us have in moral beliefs?
Laws, even traffic laws (since those are were the example given) differ greatly from place to place as well. In Japan, it is illegal to make a left turn on a red light (This would be a right turn on red in the US before you get confused), in Nevada this is a given. Therefor your practicality is subjective as well.

What is practical changes from place to place and culture to culture for a wide range of reasons, but like morality, it too is decided by the culture you're in.

I suppose the standard should be that which has been demonstrably shown throughout history as something that allows society to continue functioning effectively, such as a working economy(in whatever form it takes).
Then some murder should be ok then. Many countries have had sanctioned killings and have had juggernauts of economies.

What is practical changes from place to place and culture to culture for a wide range of reasons, but like morality, it too is decided by the culture you're in.
Maybe morality isn't decided by the culture you're in at all. Maybe it's a function of your biological traits, in which case your cultural background wouldn't change a thing. Or maybe it's something else and there is no connection between material circumstances (and thus culture) and moral imperative at all.

Anyways, traffic laws aren't directly moral issues. It's not morally wrong to cross a red light because it is axiomatically so, but because it violates certain rules people have agreed upon in order to avoid a series of events which at its end has material injury to people. And that injury is what's wrong, which is no different whether you're in Japan, the US or India.

And that injury is what's wrong, which is no different whether you're in Japan, the US or India.
On the contrary, injury being right or wrong is also subjective.

Ok, but this is such a fundamental disagreement that I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Well that's nice. If you'd dropped it there, I would too. But you don't ...

This is incompatible with the "whatever the majority wants is ok" idea. If the majority thinks that a victimless act should be a crime, by what you said about, it both is and should be.

Well, yes it is incompatible, but that's really a rather personal problem of mine, isn't it? If my views conflict with the majority all I can do is argue what I believe is right, while those who agree with the majority can state "not only am I right, but the law says the same thing."

Laws are inherently hard to change! I don't see any need for a further, constitutional limit on how quickly or by what super-majority certain laws (the most basic) can be changed.

If the majority wants to pass "moralizing" laws against victimless crimes, I obviously can't stop them. And I wouldn't stop them, except by democratic means: having my say, campaigning, voting. I certainly wouldn't call for the return of a Bill of Rights, to allow me to defend my beliefs before a constitutional court.

Given that laws against victimless crimes exist already, and that the law proceeds both ways -- law forms morality, perhaps more strongly than morality forms the law -- I hardly see a Constitution as protecting my principle (EDIT: "no victim, no crime") against a whimsical Majority. Anything which makes law harder to change is an enemy of "rationalizing" Law ... i.e, making its purpose more explicit, directing its effect to those who actually do break laws instead of placating the majority who don't.

On the contrary, it is only by passing bad laws, seeing them fail in their supposed intention (yes, at cost to individuals -- but such is the law anyway) and trying again, that we will ever get an informed, empowered and effective electorate. It's far too easy for people to vote for a policy, then blame the politicians or the institutions for the failure to achieve the supposed purpose of the law. The "institutionalization" of principles (eg Bill of Rights) takes power out of the hands of the people, and places it in the past -- an inherently conservative idea which only becomes more conservative the more mature and tested the body of law becomes.

So, absolutely bring back the noose, or the Star Chamber. Making mistakes, as a society, and perpetrating injustices against individuals, is necessary to educate ourselves as a majority! To take responsibility for what is supposedly OUR government, OUR Law.

Western democracies need a shake-up, they need some populist barbarism to impress apon the People that in fact they DO have the power to make law ... it isn't just old men in wigs who are responsible for the barbarism of jails, and the awesome technicality of legal processes! It's us, the people, who choose the system we have.

Linking up for a moment with the thread subject: is not a less-moralizing law one which makes fewer assumptions about a common basis of morals in all its subjects? And one which is more specific about WHO is protected from certain actions? It would be necessary to define what harm is done by an action, to a person or to a class of people ... and to quantify that harm ... before specifying a suitable punishment. Any steps to reframe the law according to it's purpose (to lessen the occurrence of immoral acts? To lessen their effect?) would surely include a closer examination of who is harmed ... leading I believe to a far greater leniency towards victimless "crimes."

So let's put the principle into practice. Let's change laws (for the hell of it, even) and see the consequences, let's have some populist barbarism -- because until we do, we're just kidding ourselves that the Law proceeds from popular morals. In truth, it's probably more the other way around! And that can't be good: if we believe in progress, if we believe that human effort has overall a positive effect, how can we accept being ruled by laws which, if they were ever made at all, were made to enforce the morality of last century's majority, or the century before, or bloody-handed Hammurabi?

On the contrary, injury being right or wrong is also subjective.

Yes. Most law-abiding citizens consider it RIGHT that law-breakers be punished.

Punishment = deliberate injury.

Why is everyone against me being the basis for our laws?:( :tongue:

Because your a 14 year old kid and us old folk wont have some whipper snapper tell us what to do, now get back to school punk. :wink:

You're what, the fifth person this month that just realized that? I feel like everyone just assumes...:(:tongue:

Make that six.

I never said they weren't. All I'm arguing is that morality should not be used as a basis for law, not that it isn't used as one currently, or that ethics isn't, etc etc.

But then how do we do this? To ensure all laws do not have an moral/ethical/belief base to them?

And even if we did this some how then this is just your morals saying this and we have the exact same problem as what you described. As Hydesland said:

And I'm also saying that it's absolutely impossible for a law not to be ethical, since a law is an ought statement, and an ought statement is by definition a moral statement.

Maybe morality isn't decided by the culture you're in at all. Maybe it's a function of your biological traits, in which case your cultural background wouldn't change a thing. Or maybe it's something else and there is no connection between material circumstances (and thus culture) and moral imperative at all.

Well you have just brought up the whole nature vs. nurture debate. I would say that the culture that you are brought up effects what your morals are. After all if I was brought up in a culture where the elite is above the law then I would see nothing wrong with it (especially if I was apart of the elite), but as I was brought up in a culture where the rule of law is paramount then I do see something wrong with some people being above the law.

This may be more complicated than I originally thought.

I say we go with definition 7 from your dictionary list of meanings for "practical":

7. mindful of the results, usefulness, advantages or disadvantages, etc., of action or procedure.

until such time as some other poster gives us a better definition of "practical law."

On the contrary, injury being right or wrong is also subjective.
To the extent that our inviolated existence is required for us to be able to make decisions, including moral ones, it is required for anything good to exist. Even if we said that me injuring or killing you isn't evil, it would still prevent you from doing anything good. A society in which people can injure each other at will can at best hope for moral neutrality in that case, which is similar to what Ayn Rand called the "Cult of the Zero".

Punishment = deliberate injury.
I think you know what I mean. In terms of a society based upon the ability of its members to act as moral agents, it is protection from the initiation of violence that's important. Whether or not violence in response to such initiation is wrong is another issue.

Well you have just brought up the whole nature vs. nurture debate. I would say that the culture that you are brought up effects what your morals are.
That's true.

After all if I was brought up in a culture where the elite is above the law then I would see nothing wrong with it (especially if I was apart of the elite), but as I was brought up in a culture where the rule of law is paramount then I do see something wrong with some people being above the law.
That's also true.

It's not really what I'm talking about though. By morality dictated by physical necessity, I mean that it can't be morally wrong for something to do what it has to do in order to live its life. It can't be morally wrong for a lion to kill a zebra, and similarly it can't be right (in fact, things would tend towards it being wrong) for a human to kill another human being. Humans survive by using their brains to grasp their environment and modify it to improve their conditions, and as such this can't be wrong, and you can't visit them with any punishment if they do so, or do anything to prevent them from doing it.

A few basic rules would follow from looking at it in this way, and those rules wouldn't change according to how you grew up or what religion you claim. Philosophers are quite hesitant these days to make connections like this (from material truth to moral prescription), but there are those who think that moral philosophy must ultimately apply to life on earth, and that a philosophy that seeks to divide the material from the ethical is not just pointless, but potentially harmful.

To the extent that our inviolated existence is required for us to be able to make decisions, including moral ones, it is required for anything good to exist. Even if we said that me injuring or killing you isn't evil, it would still prevent you from doing anything good. A society in which people can injure each other at will can at best hope for moral neutrality in that case, which is similar to what Ayn Rand called the "Cult of the Zero".
Then let us put this to the test.

A slave can still serve and create 'good' things even though I may injure that slave. In fact, let us say I treat my slave very well, see to all his needs, medical wants, physical wants, material wants, and so on to make sure he keeps producing, but he is still my property. I could harm my property in such a way that he is still capable of working at full efficiency. Good or bad?

Getting kinky now, what if I am in a relationship where my girlfriend likes it rough, and while playing, I get a little carried away and she pulls a muscle, keeping her from work a few days. Is that ok, or not? I did cause her injury after all.

It's not really what I'm talking about though. By morality dictated by physical necessity, I mean that it can't be morally wrong for something to do what it has to do in order to live its life. It can't be morally wrong for a lion to kill a zebra, and similarly it can't be right (in fact, things would tend towards it being wrong) for a human to kill another human being. Humans survive by using their brains to grasp their environment and modify it to improve their conditions, and as such this can't be wrong, and you can't visit them with any punishment if they do so, or do anything to prevent them from doing it.
So... what happens if you have to kill someone else to survive?

A few basic rules would follow from looking at it in this way, and those rules wouldn't change according to how you grew up or what religion you claim.
Actually I think that it would very much. Your moral grounding puts the individual ahead of the group, that's fine and dandy for a culture based upon those ideals, but I can see it heading into a train wreck here in Japan where the individual is expected to be subservient to the group.

A slave can still serve and create 'good' things even though I may injure that slave. In fact, let us say I treat my slave very well, see to all his needs, medical wants, physical wants, material wants, and so on to make sure he keeps producing, but he is still my property. I could harm my property in such a way that he is still capable of working at full efficiency. Good or bad?
A slave doesn't have free will though. His inability to make choices makes all the difference.

Getting kinky now, what if I am in a relationship where my girlfriend likes it rough, and while playing, I get a little carried away and she pulls a muscle, keeping her from work a few days. Is that ok, or not? I did cause her injury after all.
With consent. Again, it's about the ability to make choices, in this case the choice to expose oneself to a potentially dangerous activity.

So... what happens if you have to kill someone else to survive?
That never actually happens. At best it's the easy way out (the non-thinking, and therefore non-human way), usually it wouldn't change a thing. Any thought experiment you can come up with must either involve an initial wrong being done by a third person (for example by locking you into a cell with limited oxygen) or the question is actually easily answerable (for example when the other person has the organ I need to survive).

A Randian character by the way would probably say they wouldn't compromise their principles and die if necessary. They tend not to want to continue existing if they feel their ability to actually make choices and be human will be compromised.

Actually I think that it would very much. Your moral grounding puts the individual ahead of the group, that's fine and dandy for a culture based upon those ideals, but I can see it heading into a train wreck here in Japan where the individual is expected to be subservient to the group.
And they can all believe whatever they want. But that wouldn't change the fact that they'd all be wrong. And if they're wrong enough, and persist for long enough, their morality would be their undoing, as it continuously demands them to do things which are against their interest.

Unless the Japanese are somehow actually biologically different to such an extent as to make these basic rules not apply to them, the fact that they are human brings with it certain implications, such as "don't initiate violence against each other".

A slave doesn't have free will though. His inability to make choices makes all the difference.
They don't? Damn, what WERE all those escaped slaves doing then?

With consent. Again, it's about the ability to make choices, in this case the choice to expose oneself to a potentially dangerous activity.
What about injury to her co-workers though? She did miss a day of work and that DID cause economic injury.

That never actually happens. At best it's the easy way out (the non-thinking, and therefore non-human way), usually it wouldn't change a thing. Any thought experiment you can come up with must either involve an initial wrong being done by a third person (for example by locking you into a cell with limited oxygen) or the question is actually easily answerable (for example when the other person has the organ I need to survive).

A Randian character by the way would probably say they wouldn't compromise their principles and die if necessary. They tend not to want to continue existing if they feel their ability to actually make choices and be human will be compromised.
Alright, we'll put that on hold for a second and ask then how a Randian character would handle the famous train choice.

And they can all believe whatever they want. But that wouldn't change the fact that they'd all be wrong. And if they're wrong enough, and persist for long enough, their morality would be their undoing, as it continuously demands them to do things which are against their interest.
Japanese culture has been around a whole hell of a lot longer than ours, nor does it seem to be dying out any time soon. Your 'wrong' judgment is just that, a judgment.

Unless the Japanese are somehow actually biologically different to such an extent as to make these basic rules not apply to them, the fact that they are human brings with it certain implications, such as "don't initiate violence against each other".
Hate to tell you this, but there was a point in time where initiating violence was a way of life for many Japanese. Again, the culture survived.

morality in law is a contradiction in terms. i fail to see that any other argument is neccessary.

An effective refutation of Kant would do nicely in driving my opinion in that direction.

More generally speaking, you need to not only show that moral beliefs differ (because beliefs differ very widely about a variety of objective things), but that these differences are unresolvable--that there is no standard we can use to decide among different moral beliefs that doesn't itself depend upon moral beliefs.



So what?

Even granting to you all the assumptions you're making there (is the role of law really so narrow as to only prohibit behavior that would prevent society from functioning, and does stealing really meet so high a standard?), why should we be concerned for society functioning?

Why shouldn't society commit suicide?

Soheran, I admit defeat. I can see where you're going with this--it's actually rather obvious and I don't know why I didn't see it last night.

Ah well. That's what I get for posting a thread on some early morning thought ramblings and trying to turn it into a coherant argument.

I guess ultimately what I really feel is that certain KINDS of moral beliefs shouldn't be present in law, not that morality shouldn't be present altogether, and I wasn't taking notice of the fact that my own beliefs are still ultimately moral, as you guys have shown.

But at least the thread spawned good debate.

Ah well. That's what I get for posting a thread on some early morning thought ramblings and trying to turn it into a coherant argument.
Heh, we've all done it. No worries.

I guess ultimately what I really feel is that certain KINDS of moral beliefs shouldn't be present in law, not that morality shouldn't be present altogether, and I wasn't taking notice of the fact that my own beliefs are still ultimately moral, as you guys have shown.
I said it in my first reply, I agree that religion should not be used to set up laws, and your example of blue laws are a very good reason why.

But at least the thread spawned good debate.
It did at that. :D

But they also have a practical basis beyond the morality aspect. Stealing has negative economic impacts, both on the person stolen from and whomever they support, depending upon what was stolen. Killing people also has negative economic impacts, as well as harming the mental and emotional health of the person's loved ones.

Being "fair and just" is beneficial to a law system because it allows people to approve of the system.

You can see where I'm going with this. Most of our laws have a practical basis; all I'm saying is that we should ditch the concept of morality and focus on the practical, and thus we'll get rid of a lot of useless laws that don't help anyone and just hurt people.

That practical side you're seeing to existing laws is very much based on cultural norms, and morality.

For example, you list theft as something that obviously has a negative impact. If taking what is not yours because you need to use is it theft, then yes. 'Theft' is negative. If, however, there is nothing culturally wrong with using that which one can reasonably access, regardless of who made it or who might have a prior claim to it, then what is theft to you is not theft to others. It may cause no negative impact whatsoever.

A better example would be something like this. All the women but one in a village are extremely ugly. This one beauty is the the object of desire for most of the men in the village, young and old, arried or not. This has a negative impact on the social structure of the village.

According to your theory then, the existence of a negative impact necessitates the creation of a law. Shall we outlaw beauty? Insist that this woman cover up, or perhaps leave the village?

The problem is, laws, like government, are meant to serve the people. They can not accurately reflect the needs of the people without reflecting their morality and their sense of justice. Under no circumstances should we be blind to that morality...because it is going to creep in there anyway, under different guises. Better to keep your system of morality clear, so you can hopefully be aware of circumstances where what is 'moral' is nonetheless not just.

The problem is, laws, like government, are meant to serve the people. They can not accurately reflect the needs of the people without reflecting their morality and their sense of justice. Under no circumstances should we be blind to that morality...because it is going to creep in there anyway, under different guises.
Which is why, some would say, we should try and use Rawls' original position to determine societal laws, to maximise social equality.

There are waaay too many problems with his 'veil of ignorance'...even if you ignore the extent to which that veil depends on a culturally specific understanding of the moral personality characteristic to the industrialised, democratic west.