• 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
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".
 
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.
 
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.

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?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Was the Holocaust objectively immoral? Yes or no?

Nope. There's no such thing as objective immorality any more than there's any such thing as objective morality. However, a majority of people agree that it was a bad thing and make laws based on that.
 
Nope. There's no such thing as objective immorality any more than there's any such thing as objective morality. However, a majority of people agree that it was a bad thing and make laws based on that.

Of course there is objective morality, it's just not absolute. Objective morality is the moral position arrived at through the inclusion of the greatest number of perspectives.
 
Of course there is objective morality, it's just not absolute. Objective morality is the moral position arrived at through the inclusion of the greatest number of perspectives.

No, objective doesn't take into account people's personal emotional perspectives, it is something that is true regardless of feelings. Gravity is objectively true. Evolution is objectively true. Opinions are not objectively true, they are subjective.
 
No, objective doesn't take into account people's personal emotional perspectives, it is something that is true regardless of feelings. Gravity is objectively true. Evolution is objectively true. Opinions are not objectively true, they are subjective.

Emotions aside (not necessarily present), objective morality is that which is arrived at by the greatest number of perspectives. Objectivity, regarding sociological issues, can only be decided as such. That does not make it absolute.
 
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.

But authentic rights cannot be in conflict, else they would not both be rights.

You need to demonstrate this.

How do you understand human nature?

This does not exclude a natural right, since humans are by nature social creatures.

Again, how do you understand human nature?

This rests on the assumption that natural rights can authentically conflict.

You need to demonstrate this.

Nope. There's no such thing as objective immorality any more than there's any such thing as objective morality. However, a majority of people agree that it was a bad thing and make laws based on that.

Is that objectively true?
 
The easiest way to answer the question is that morals are more about personal conduct, whereas laws are more about social conduct. Though they can often overlap the law is more interested in equity and rights, than personal values and ethics.
 
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.


That is not proof and alot of that is not fact.
 
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.

Where are you getting this stuff from? It's not correct.
 
But authentic rights cannot be in conflict, else they would not both be rights.

You need to demonstrate this.

How do you understand human nature?

This does not exclude a natural right, since humans are by nature social creatures.

Again, how do you understand human nature?

This rests on the assumption that natural rights can authentically conflict.

You need to demonstrate this.

Is that objectively true?


In nature, in biology, there are no rights at all. Including not for humans. Morality and rights are human constructs.
 
In nature, in biology, there are no rights at all. Including not for humans. Morality and rights are human constructs.

Why do you equate human nature with biology?
 
But authentic rights cannot be in conflict, else they would not both be rights.

Not at all. You don't get to declare something is so and then demand people "demonstrate" it in line with your suggestion.

I don't need to "demonstrate" how a right can be a right if there's conflict, because I've made no claim that a right can not exist outside of conflict.

You're misconstruing the notion of a right being protected and/or respected by others as being REQUIRED for a right to exist. I disagree entirely.

A Natural Right is simply something that an individual, in the state of nature, is free to attempt and do as they see fit.

There is no protection against having those rights infringed upon. There is no "right" for your rights to not be interfered with.

I do not believe a natural right can be something that requires an action (or inaction) on the part of another person.

How do you understand human nature?

I understand human nature is that an individual will try their best to survive in a fashion that most pleases them.

In a state of nature, absent a social contract, this is essentially survival of the fittest.
 
Please provide evidence for this claim.



Scholastic realism.

None of these things is fact, only opinion.

Palecon said:
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.
 
Why do you equate human nature with biology?

Because that is where human nature is derived from. Just like any other animal's.

Man's morals and rights are constructs based on the need to survive and reproduce.
 
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.
:doh:doh
More absurdity. You have not demonstrated such.


There are actions. Period. Then there are interpretations of those actions. Period
Those interpretations are subjective. Period.
Your interpretations come from your subjective view on what is right and wrong. Which only makes them objective within that framework.
But in reality, because it is only based on a personal belief, it is therefore subjective.
There is no universal morality.
 
Because that is where human nature is derived from. Just like any other animal's.

Man's morals and rights are constructs based on the need to survive and reproduce.

I'd dispute that, but even if it is accepted, that does not make them equivalent. Just as writing is not the same thing as a pencil, even though it is derived from a pencil.

And as demonstrated, these morals show aggressive homicide to be wrong.

:doh:doh
More absurdity. You have not demonstrated such.


There are actions. Period. Then there are interpretations of those actions. Period
Those interpretations are subjective. Period.
Your interpretations come from your subjective view on what is right and wrong. Which only makes them objective within that framework.
But in reality, because it is only based on a personal belief, it is therefore subjective.
There is no universal morality.

Your failure to actually address my argument is noted.
 

Most or all are assumptions, opinions, on 'human nature.' And the assumption is that the Holocaust was wrong.

Not everyone agreed or even agrees now. My opinion on those that think that is subjective as well.
 
I'd dispute that, but even if it is accepted, that does not make them equivalent. Just as writing is not the same thing as a pencil, even though it is derived from a pencil.

And as demonstrated, these morals show aggressive homicide to be wrong.


.

How do you dispute it?

And you didnt demonstrate anything....that's why you need to explain it.
 
Most or all are assumptions, opinions, on 'human nature.' And the assumption is that the Holocaust was wrong.

Not everyone agreed or even agrees now. My opinion on those that think that is subjective as well.

I didn't start with the assumption that the holocaust was wrong. What specific false assumption did I make?

Not everyone agrees on the shape of the Earth.
 
Back
Top Bottom