View Poll Results: which laws?

Voters
38. You may not vote on this poll
  • abortion laws

    7 18.42%
  • animal cruelty laws

    1 2.63%
  • both

    7 18.42%
  • neither

    4 10.53%
  • all laws

    17 44.74%
  • no laws

    2 5.26%
Page 3 of 23 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 224

Thread: legislating morality

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    06-30-16 @ 07:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,309
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: legislating morality

    Quote Originally Posted by John Hancock View Post
    You've argued that it's human nature. Prove it. You are the one claiming that moral objectivity is indeed a real thing, but haven't provided anything aside from 'sufficient cause' which is subjective. Obviously, someone must have believed there was sufficient enough reasoning or the event would not have taken place.
    I did. It's against man's social nature, since if one human had the right to intentionally kill another, then the other would also have the right to intentionally kill him, yet this is a contradiction, since by exercising this "right" a person would deprive another of the same right.

    Claiming that sufficient cause exist is an affirmative claim. I cannot be expected to refute an argument that has not been made, so you must provide a Devil's Advocate argument for their being sufficient cause in order to make the point.

  2. #22
    Dungeon Master
    anti socialist

    X Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Texas Proud
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:24 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    44,721

    Re: legislating morality

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    True, but there is a difference between legislating morality that maximizes freedom without causing harm to others and legislating morality that maximizes harm to others and minimizes freedom.

    Generally when the morality comes from extremist sides of religion, we get the later. See Iran. Or Saudi Arabia.
    And when you get it from the left, you get things like bans on Happy Meals and sodas over 16 ounces and incandescent light bulbs, as well as regulation of baby formula and e-cigs (as if they're the same as regular cigs) or you might be legally forced into buying something like health insurance (that most people had anyway).

    The point is that all laws are a certain amount of coersion and all attempts at passing legislation are an attempt to force others who may not agree to adhere to your brand of morality so it does become a little funny to see the constant railing against religion in this country as if they're doing something worse or just more nefarious than any other special interest group.
    The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.
    Mahatma Gandhi


  3. #23
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: legislating morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleocon View Post
    I've already established that the general norm is that intentional killings are immoral.
    No you haven't established any such thing.


    Quote Originally Posted by Paleocon View Post
    You're starting with the premise that morality is a matter of subjective opinion. This is circular reasoning. And the immorality of the Holocaust can be proved:
    Neither statement can be proven true outside of a personal opinion.

    All there is are actions, and interpretations of those actions. Those interpretations are all subjective.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  4. #24
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,937

    Re: legislating morality

    Quote Originally Posted by mpg View Post
    Which laws are examples of people forcing their morals onto others?
    The vast majority of laws have a moral compontent. But in terms of the notion of "legislating morality", I consider such laws to be ones where the law primary purpose is not clearly a constitutionally assigned duty of government OR the protection of a person's rights.

    Abortion Laws definitely have a moral factor. However, in the minds of those that are pushing for them, there is a clear purpose to those laws in regadrs to protecting the rights of a person.

    SOME Animal Cruelty laws would fall into the realm of legislating morality, some would not. Laws that prohibit cruelty against animals owned by another person is actually protecting that persons right to property. However, laws keeping you from harming animals in general is one primarily based around legislating morality.

  5. #25
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,937

    Re: legislating morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleocon View Post
    I did. It's against man's social nature, since if one human had the right to intentionally kill another, then the other would also have the right to intentionally kill him, yet this is a contradiction, since by exercising this "right" a person would deprive another of the same right.
    Both people have that right.

    NEITHER persons has the right to not have their rights reduced, nor does either person have a natural "right" not to be killed...they only have the natural right to live, which is different. To not be killed requires action on another persons part, the right to live requires only action on your own part.

    In a state of nature, there is no protection of your rights being respected.

  6. #26
    Sage
    faithful_servant's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Beautiful Central Oregon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,672

    Re: legislating morality

    Quote Originally Posted by rathi View Post
    While all laws are based on arbitrary morality, that doesn't mean that you can't create frameworks based around somewhat more objective standards. The rational basis test used in U.S. law is hardly perfect, but its certainly better than absolute monarchs or theocracies.
    Not arbitrary morality, but a reasoned common morality. The idea that laws are arbitrary is simple denial of the fact that they almost always have good reasons behind them. If you look at almost any list of dumb laws and do a little research into why they were passed, you'll find that at some time there was very good reason for passing them. There are the occasional bits of stupidity, but laws are almost never "arbitrary".
    Our nation has not always lived up to its ideals, yet those ideals have never ceased to guide us. They expose our flaws, and lead us to mend them. We are the beneficiaries of the work of the generations before us and it is each generation's responsibility to continue that work. - Laura Bush

  7. #27
    free market communist
    Gardener's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    09-30-17 @ 12:27 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    26,661

    Re: legislating morality

    Morality is a rational concept and the very purpose of legislation is to determine degrees of such.

    Take the following occurances,all of which end up with the same result.

    A man has an epileptic seizure while driving, and he kills a pedestrian with his car.

    A man falls asleep while driving and kills a pedestrian.

    A man is drunk,and kills a pedestrian with his car.

    Two men who know one another get involved in a verbal altercation and the second man strikes first,upon which the first strikes back, knocking him to the ground, whereupon the knock to his head results in death when hitting the concrete.

    Same two men, but fists cause the death rather than concrete.

    Ditto, but with knife.

    Two men get into a verbal altercation where upon one man strikes first with a knife, killing the other.

    One man hunts down another with whom he has a long standing beef,and kills him.

    One man kills a complete stranger fornoapparantreason.

    Same,but man is selected because he is gay or Jewish or anything else specific.

    A man kidnaps and tortures a child to death.


    Now,all of these actions involve differing degrees of culpability, intent, premeditation and severity,even though the results are the same. Unless a person is a completely amoral nihilist supporting anarchy (which is the net result of any claim that morality is completely subjective) , it should be apparant that these are all very much moral determinations that must be made as to consequences, and the basis for such determinations uses moral reasoning by very nature.That is the entire point of creating laws -- to apply reason within the perview of morality.
    "you're better off on Stormfront discussing how evil brown men are taking innocent white flowers." Infinite Chaos

  8. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    06-30-16 @ 07:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,309
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: legislating morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    No you haven't established any such thing.


    Neither statement can be proven true outside of a personal opinion.

    All there is are actions, and interpretations of those actions. Those interpretations are all subjective.
    Yes, I have. See above. If you wish to refute my argument, please actually do so, rather than simply ignore it.

    Yes it can, as demonstrated previously.

    The only "interpretation" was that the killings were intentional, which is disputed only by holocaust deniers and minimalists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Both people have that right.

    NEITHER persons has the right to not have their rights reduced, nor does either person have a natural "right" not to be killed...they only have the natural right to live, which is different. To not be killed requires action on another persons part, the right to live requires only action on your own part.

    In a state of nature, there is no protection of your rights being respected.
    How can both have the right to intentionally kill each other, when it is practically impossible for them both to do so?

    A right entails an obligation. You have a right to life, so I have an obligation not to kill you. You have a right to property, so I have an obligation not to steal from you. And so forth. If rights do not entail obligations, then they are pointless.

    How do you understand human nature?

  9. #29
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,937

    Re: legislating morality

    Quote Originally Posted by Paleocon View Post
    How can both have the right to intentionally kill each other, when it is practically impossible for them both to do so?
    It's not so much that they have a "right" to kill each other. They have a right to survive, they have a right to pleasure, they have a right to food, they have a right to space, they have a right to movement, etc.

    Pretty much, in nature...any reason someone would kill another person is just fulfilling a right that someone naturally has.

    In the state of nature, humans have the natural right to persue anything they wish on their own. They can say whatever they want, believe whatever they want, do whatever they want, experience whatever htey want, eat whatever they want, etc to such a degree that they can do those things themselves.

    They have no NATURAL right to have their rights protected from violation, because that requires something from another person. They have no NATURAL right for their rights to not be infringed upon, as that requires something from another person.

    In the state of nature, ones natural rights are protected only to the degree that you can protect them yourselves...and that's it.

    It's only through a social contract, and thus agreement amongst multiple poeple, that the artificial concept of ones rights being protected comes into creation.

    A right entails absolutely ZERO obligation upon someone else. Indeed, if there is an obligation to another for you to exercise your right then it wouldn't be a right imho, or at least not a "natural right". A natural right is innate within ones self.

    That is one of the primary benefits of the social contract; the agreed upon protection of some of your rights through the agreed upon limitation of other of your own rights.

    A right to life doesn't mean simply that you have a right to live and no one can take it from you. It means you have a right to strive and take any action you need to in order to remain alive. If that means killing someone else to take their food so you don't starve, that's absolutely fine within the state of nature. It's only through a social contract that your "right to life" must be respected by others within that contract, in exchange for you being required to respect theirs as well.

    A right entails an obligation. You have a right to life, so I have an obligation not to kill you. You have a right to property, so I have an obligation not to steal from you. And so forth. If rights do not entail obligations, then they are pointless.

    As it was famously said, life within the state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. It is a war of all against all.

  10. #30
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,749

    Re: legislating morality

    Quote Originally Posted by rathi View Post
    Morality may be subjective, but not some morals are more subjective than others. Certain concepts, like prohibitions against killing other people are shared by such an overwhelming majority that you can build a society around them even with the outliers. You can use root concepts as a foundation upon which you can create meta-rules that promote said concept in reality. Thus, you get things like laws against building a fireworks factory under an apartment, which is based on objective calculations that it would violate the core concept of not killing other people. Such a system is still not truly objective, but its certainly considerably more so than banning wearing a certain type of fabric of Thursdays because your deity said so.
    That's only because humans tend to need the same things, therefore they develop similar morals. That doesn't mean it's objective, it just means it's commonplace.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

Page 3 of 23 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •