• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

legislating morality

which laws?

  • Total voters
    33
mpg

mpg

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
7,795
Reaction score
1,784
Location
Milford, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Which laws are examples of people forcing their morals onto others?
 
All of them.
 
mpg said:
Which laws are examples of people forcing their morals onto others?
Click to expand...

The prisons are full of people who didn't like the laws that were imposed upon them.
 
ecofarm said:
All of them.
Click to expand...

DING! DING! DING! WE HAVE A WINNAH!!!
The very definition of laws is forcing the common morality of the society in which you live upon the members of that society. That's what a law is. The idea that some people have in thier heads that they're having someone else's morality forced on them and that that's a bad thing is gross immaturity.
 
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.
 
rathi said:
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.
Click to expand...

There are no objective standards, all morality is subjective.
 
Cephus said:
There are no objective standards, all morality is subjective.
Click to expand...

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.
 
faithful_servant said:
DING! DING! DING! WE HAVE A WINNAH!!!
The very definition of laws is forcing the common morality of the society in which you live upon the members of that society. That's what a law is. The idea that some people have in thier heads that they're having someone else's morality forced on them and that that's a bad thing is gross immaturity.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Both of them, as that's what a law is. Sort of like how we force our morality on people who want to murder born children.

Cephus said:
There are no objective standards, all morality is subjective.
Click to expand...

Was the Holocaust objectively immoral? Yes or no?
 
Paleocon said:
Was the Holocaust objectively immoral? Yes or no?
Click to expand...

You're asking his opinion on it.

That's subjective.

---

People will have different opinions towards everything. While some think abortion is immoral, others do not. While some think homosexuality is immoral, others do not. If you were to pass any law, there would always be some opposition to it on a moral basis, regardless of whether or not the opposition was large or small.

Laws are moral enforcement. Some laws just have more or less opposition than others.
 
Last edited:
John Hancock said:
You're asking his opinion on it.

That's subjective.

---

People will have different opinions towards everything. While some think abortion is immoral, others do not. While some think homosexuality is immoral, others do not. If you were to pass any law, there would always be some opposition to it on a moral basis, regardless of whether or not the opposition was large or small.
Click to expand...

I asked him a question, what is your answer to it?
 
Paleocon said:
I asked him a question, what is your answer to it?
Click to expand...

I believe the Holocaust was immoral, yes, because I believe you shouldn't take something from someone else without their permission. That includes life.
 
John Hancock said:
I believe the Holocaust was immoral, yes, because I believe you shouldn't take something from someone else without their permission. That includes life.
Click to expand...

So you then believe in objective morality.
 
Paleocon said:
So you then believe in objective morality.
Click to expand...

No. If it were objective, it wouldn't be able to be challenged. Since that's my personal viewpoint, it is subjective. It would need to be a universal truth. 'x amount' of the population of the world may view the Holocaust as bad or immoral, but what about the others? What about people who supported the Holocaust? Neo-Nazis, anti-Semites?
 
John Hancock said:
No. If it were objective, it wouldn't be able to be challenged. Since that's my personal viewpoint, it is subjective. It would need to be a universal truth. 'x amount' of the population of the world may view the Holocaust as bad or immoral, but what about the others? What about people who supported the Holocaust? Neo-Nazis, anti-Semites?
Click to expand...

Is it objectively true that the Earth is round?
 
Paleocon said:
Is it objectively true that the Earth is round?
Click to expand...

No, the earth resembles an oblate spheroid and isn't perfectly round.

You're confusing two things, fact and opinion. Morality cannot be factual, much like 1+1=2 cannot be an opinion. Again, for something to be objective, it needs to be a universal truth. The earth is 'round' and that can be proven. The Holocaust being immoral cannot be proven.
 
John Hancock said:
No, the earth resembles an oblate spheroid and isn't perfectly round.

You're confusing two things, fact and opinion. Morality cannot be factual, much like 1+1=2 cannot be an opinion. Again, for something to be objective, it needs to be a universal truth. The earth is 'round' and that can be proven. The Holocaust being immoral cannot be proven.
Click to expand...

You know what I meant.

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:

1. A thing is good insofar as it is in accordance with its nature (thus a good car is one which works properly, or a good pencil is one which writes well).

2. Free human acts are matters of morality.

3. Therefore an act which is against human nature is morally wrong.

4. It is against man's social nature to intentionally kill others without sufficient cause (since if it were, there would be a contradiction, as if such were right, then by doing this right thing a man would deprive others of their ability to do it to him, which would violate the fundamental equality of humans).

5. The holocaust was intentional killings committed without sufficient cause.

Thus it is proved that the holocaust was immoral.
 
Paleocon said:
You know what I meant.
Click to expand...

I did, the comment about the roundness of the Earth was me being a wise-ass.

5. The holocaust was intentional killings committed without sufficient cause.

Thus it is proved that the holocaust was immoral.
Click to expand...

This is the problem with your argument. Who decides what cause is sufficient? In your opinion, the reason was not sufficient, but to those who planned and executed the acts, there was sufficient cause/reasoning.
 
John Hancock said:
I did, the comment about the roundness of the Earth was me being a wise-ass.



This is the problem with your argument. Who decides what cause is sufficient? In your opinion, the reason was not sufficient, but to those who planned and executed the acts, there was sufficient cause/reasoning.
Click to expand...

I've already established that the general norm is that intentional killings are immoral. If a person wishes to argue (whether they believe it or whether they're trying, as you are, to demonstrate a point regarding the nature of morality) that there was sufficient cause for the holocaust, then they have the burden of providing an argument for this position, and I will then provide a refutation, however I can't provide a refutation of an argument that hasn't been made.
 
Paleocon said:
I've already established that the general norm is that intentional killings are immoral. If a person wishes to argue (whether they believe it or whether they're trying, as you are, to demonstrate a point regarding the nature of morality) that there was sufficient cause for the holocaust, then they have the burden of providing an argument for this position, and I will then provide a refutation, however I can't provide a refutation of an argument that hasn't been made.
Click to expand...

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.
 
John Hancock said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
obvious Child said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Paleocon said:
I've already established that the general norm is that intentional killings are immoral.
Click to expand...
No you haven't established any such thing.


Paleocon said:
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:
Click to expand...
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.
 
mpg said:
Which laws are examples of people forcing their morals onto others?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Paleocon said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom