• 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
Paleocon said:
By "sufficient cause" I meant sufficient cause to justify it.
Click to expand...

Then that would be "sufficient just cause" or "Sufficient cause to justify it". That's not what you said.

And it's obvious why you didn't say it...because that's a subjective thing.

Whether or not something is "justified" is subjective in nature.

Again, you're erroniously demanind people to prove a negative.

You claim that it's "objective", so it's incumbant upon you to prove that it's objective.

If someone else claims that it's subjective, they have to prove that it's subjective.

It's not ones responsability or "burden" to disprove your claim. The burden of proof for YOUR claim is on you. They only have to prove their claim.

As already pointed out by other posters, there are individuals who believe that the Holocaust was absolutely justified. There are others who believe it wasn't justified. That inherently proves that there's a subjective view of "justification" regarding the holocaust.

If you want to claim that there's an OBJECTIVE view of "justification" regarding the holocaust, that's on you. Either you need to somehow prove how it's "objectively" good or how it's "Objectively" bad. But the burden of proof is on you for that.

Justify means to prove it's a "good" reason. What is "good" is an entirely subjective notion, as demonstrated by the fact that different people view different actions as "Good" or "Bad. If you want to suggest that it's "objective", then you need to provide proof of that.

How do you test whether something is just or not?

How do you prove something is just or not?

How do you measure if something is just or not?
 
Excon said:
1. Demonstrate what?
2. Demonstrate what?
3. Demonstrate what?
4. And they did. The simple fact of being the hated Jew was enough.
5. Oy Vey! You just don't get it. It is not on me to show any such thing.
It is not my argument, it is what they believed about the Jew. Do you really not understand that?

This is what they though of the Jews.
Nazi Party Pamphlet
Those Damned Nazis (1932)

[...]

Why Do We Oppose the Jews?


We oppose the Jews because we are defending the freedom of the German people. The Jew is the cause and beneficiary of our slavery He has misused the social misery of the broad masses to deepen the dreadful split between the right and left of our people, to divide Germany into two halves thereby concealing the true reason for the loss of the Great War and falsifying the nature of the revolution.

The Jew has no interest in solving the German question. He cannot have such an interest. He depends on it remaining unsolved. If the German people formed a united community and won back its freedom, there would be no place any longer for the Jew. His hand is strongest when a people lives in domestic and international slavery, not when it is free, industrious, self-aware and determined. The Jew caused our problems, and lives from them.

That is why we oppose the Jew as nationalists and as socialists. He has ruined our race, corrupted our morals, hollowed out our customs and broken our strength. We owe it to him that we today are the Pariah of the world. He was the leper among as long as we were German. When we forgot our German nature, he triumphed over us and our future.

The Jew is the plastic demon of decomposition. Where he finds filth and decay, he surfaces and begins his butcher’s work among the nations. He hides behind a mask and presents himself as a friend to his victims, and before they know it he has broken their neck.

The Jew is uncreative. He produces nothing, he only haggles with products. With rags, clothing, pictures, jewels, grain, stocks, cures, peoples and states. He has somehow stolen everything he deals in. When he attacks a state he is a revolutionary. As soon as he holds power, he preaches peace and order so that he can devour his conquests in comfort.

What does anti-Semitism have to do with socialism? I would put the question this way: What does the Jew have to do with socialism? Socialism has to do with labor. When did one ever see him working instead of plundering, stealing and living from the sweat of others? As socialists we are opponents of the Jews because we see in the Hebrews the incarnation of capitalism, of the misuse of the nation’s goods.

What does anti-Semitism have to do with nationalism? I would put the question this way: What does the Jew have to do with nationalism? Nationalism has to do with blood and race. The Jew is the enemy and destroyer of the purity of blood, the conscious destroyer of our race. As nationalists we oppose the Jews because we see the Hebrews as the eternal enemy of our national honor and of our national freedom.

But the Jew, after all, is also a human being. Certainly, none of us doubts that. We only doubt that he is a decent human being. He does not get along with us. He lives by other laws than we do. The fact that he is a human being is not sufficient reason for us to allow him to subject us in inhumane ways. He may be a human being — but what kind of a human being is he! If someone slaps your mother in the face, do you say: “Thank you! He is after all a human being!” That is not a human being, it is a monster. Yet how much worse has the Jew done to our mother Germany, and is still doing today!

There are also white Jews. True, there are scoundrels among us, even though they are Germans, who act in immoral ways against their own racial and blood comrades. But why do we call them white Jews? You use the term to describe something inferior and contemptible. Just as we do. Why do you ask us why we oppose the Jews when you without knowing it are one too?

Anti-Semitism is not Christian. That means that it is Christian to allow the Jews to go on as they are, stripping the skin from our bodies and mocking us. To be a Christian means to love one’s neighbor as oneself! My neighbor is my racial and blood brother. If I love him, I have to hate his enemies. He who thinks German must despise the Jews. The one requires the other.

Christ himself saw that love did not always work. When he found the moneychangers in the temple, he did not say: “Children, love one another!” He took up a whip and drove them out.

We oppose the Jews because we affirm the German people. The Jew is our greatest misfortune.

[...]

​


[...]

​
Click to expand...

1. Demonstrate the correctness of your claim.
2. Demonstrate the correctness of your claim.
3. Demonstrate the correctness of your claim.
4. The burden is on them to show that that is a sufficient cause.
5. None of that is an argument for the holocaust being morally acceptable.

mpg said:
What's the # of the post?
Click to expand...

#17

Zyphlin said:
Then that would be "sufficient just cause" or "Sufficient cause to justify it". That's not what you said.

And it's obvious why you didn't say it...because that's a subjective thing.

Whether or not something is "justified" is subjective in nature.

Again, you're erroniously demanind people to prove a negative.

You claim that it's "objective", so it's incumbant upon you to prove that it's objective.

If someone else claims that it's subjective, they have to prove that it's subjective.

It's not ones responsability or "burden" to disprove your claim. The burden of proof for YOUR claim is on you. They only have to prove their claim.

As already pointed out by other posters, there are individuals who believe that the Holocaust was absolutely justified. There are others who believe it wasn't justified. That inherently proves that there's a subjective view of "justification" regarding the holocaust.

If you want to claim that there's an OBJECTIVE view of "justification" regarding the holocaust, that's on you. Either you need to somehow prove how it's "objectively" good or how it's "Objectively" bad. But the burden of proof is on you for that.

Justify means to prove it's a "good" reason. What is "good" is an entirely subjective notion, as demonstrated by the fact that different people view different actions as "Good" or "Bad. If you want to suggest that it's "objective", then you need to provide proof of that.

How do you test whether something is just or not?

How do you prove something is just or not?

How do you measure if something is just or not?
Click to expand...

Justification is not subjective, if it were subjective then it could not be proven or disproven in court, yet it can.

The burden of demonstrating justification is on those arguing for justification.
 
Paleocon said:
1. Demonstrate the correctness of your claim.
2. Demonstrate the correctness of your claim.
3. Demonstrate the correctness of your claim.
4. The burden is on them to show that that is a sufficient cause.
5. None of that is an argument for the holocaust being morally acceptable.
Click to expand...

1. And again. Demonstrate what?
Stop playing games. You have not provided any reference to what you want addressed.

2. And again. Demonstrate what?
Stop playing games. You have not provided any reference to what you want addressed.

3. And again. Demonstrate what?
Stop playing games. You have not provided any reference to what you want addressed.

4. And again. They did. It is their Country and they demonstrated it far more then sufficiently.
In their country, they are the arbiters of what they do. Not you.

5. Wtf? They are their own arbiter of what is right and wrong. Not you.



Paleocon said:
Justification is not subjective, if it were subjective then it could not be proven or disproven in court, yet it can.

The burden of demonstrating justification is on those arguing for justification.
Click to expand...
Ahhh hello!
Laws are artificial and subjective creations.
Only within that artificially created and subjective framework can then the objectivity of proven or disproved happen.
 
Last edited:
Paleocon said:
Justification is not subjective, if it were subjective then it could not be proven or disproven in court, yet it can.
Click to expand...

Justice and Lawful are two different things. "Justice" can't be proven in court. Whether or not something is LEGAL can be objectively proven in court.

Now you're right, you can determine if something objectively has "justification"...but only by measuring it against subjective standard.

IE...

Our SUBJECTIVE legal system says it's okay to kill someone in self defense.

So you can OBJECTIVELY show that you were justified in killing someone by showing it was done in self defense. So it would be objectively justified as it relate sto our SUBJECTIVE legal system. But it would not be OBJECTIVELY justified in some kind of innate, objective fashion.

The holocaust was absolutely not justified as it relates to international law. That's objectively correct. However, that's again moving the goal posts. International law is subjective. You didn't make a statement regarding LAW though, you made a statement of absolutes.

The holocaust is objectively not justified under international law.

The holocaust is subjectively not justified ethically, morally, or in some kind of "absolute" notion of right and wrong.

You can PROVE something is not justified under a specific set of laws, because those laws are a concrete indisputable thing. US Law, for example, is US law.

You can't PROVE something is not justified morally in a universal sense, because morality is in and of itself subjective. There's is not clear way to PROVE what is or isn't moral.

You can PROVE something is not justified morally as it relates to YOUR moral code, because then like the law example you're speaking of a SPECIFIC set of morals. But your morals are not the absolute truth of the universe.
 
Last edited:
There are nearly universal morals, such as the prohibitions against murder, assault, rape , theft, fraud etc.

There are also religious/superstitious/cultural morals that are not universal, such as restrictions on working on certain days, rules about when to wear a hat, sexual restrictions, recreational drug use rules, rules about appropriate clothing, taboo words and images, and various religious/superstitious rules, taboos and restrictions.

Religious/superstitious/cultural morals should not be regulated by government.

Abortion and animal treatment restrictions are somewhere in between.
 
Hard Truth said:
There are nearly universal morals, such as the prohibitions against murder, assault, rape , theft, fraud etc.
Click to expand...
Not even.
Those things can be justified in many ways. Which means the prohibitions are subjective standards.


The only almost universal moral is that most try to do what they view as right. Which means it is all subjective.
 
Excon said:
Not even.
Those things can be justified in many ways. Which means the prohibitions are subjective standards.


The only almost universal moral is that most try to do what they view as right. Which means it is all subjective.
Click to expand...

I don't think the fact that people carve out exceptions to certain morals means that they are not nearly universal. For example, murder may be excused for self defense, to punish a criminal, to send a message to one's opponents in a war etc, but that doesn't mean that people still don't believe that murder without a good reason is wrong.
 
Hard Truth said:
I don't think the fact that people carve out exceptions to certain morals means that they are not nearly universal. For example, murder may be excused for self defense, to punish a criminal, to send a message to one's opponents in a war etc, but that doesn't mean that people still don't believe that murder without a good reason is wrong.
Click to expand...
I would suggest you look at the requirements for the death penalty in some foreign countries to get a better grip on the reality that it is all subjective.
And then on the other hand, some folks do not even accept justified killings, so no, it is not universal. It is all subjective.

And then there are the folks who just don't give a damn about another's death.
There is nothing universal about it.


Like I said the closet you can come is that most folks do what they believe is right. Which means it is all subjective.
 
Paleocon said:
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.
Click to expand...
1 and 2 are opinions. Since 3, 4 and 5 are based on 1 and 2, they're also opinions. Proofs don't rely on opinions.
 
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 death row inmates, we should ask their permission to kill them?
 
pogomutt said:
So death row inmates, we should ask their permission to kill them?
Click to expand...

That was more of a generalization. I believe you should defend yourself if necessary. Capital punishment is an entirely different debate.
 
John Hancock said:
That was more of a generalization. I believe you should defend yourself if necessary. Capital punishment is an entirely different debate.
Click to expand...

If necessary, the assailant has effectively given permission.
 
A politician writing a morality law is like a beautician writing an airline regulation law...they both are generally clueless on the subject.
 
Zyphlin said:
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.
Click to expand...

The very idea of rights at all is a moral idea though. Even some concept like natural rights or some other basis to assign rights is in the end a moral argument. If someone doesn't believe in the philosophy the results in this or that set of rights, than they don't. Because even that is based on opinion, its subjective as well.

That's my take. I see morality as an evolved code of behavior which maximizes our survival potential as a species and there are a good number of scientific studies which appear to back this up. Its the primary reason we cannot come up with a workable logic based morality, because our moral concepts are based off the same sort of cognitive mechanisms which tell us when its time to eat or sleep.
 
Last edited:
mpg said:
1 and 2 are opinions. Since 3, 4 and 5 are based on 1 and 2, they're also opinions. Proofs don't rely on opinions.
Click to expand...

With respect to 1, is it not true? Is a thing not considered good when it does what it's supposed to? Is there any contrary usage?

With respect to 2, then what does morality relate to, if not free human acts?
 
tacomancer said:
Even some concept like natural rights or some other basis to assign rights is in the end a moral argument.
Click to expand...

Have you actually read my argument as it relate sto natural rights? Because if so, I'm unsure how you can suggest it's subjective.

To me, a natural right is anything an individual can attempt to do on their own volition within the state of nature.

A person has a right to speak whatever they wish.

A person has a right to survive by any means necessary.

A person has a right to travel wherever they can go.

These are not subjective things. It's objectively true that within a state of nature a living person can say anything they want. They can do anything they want to attempt to live. They can travel anywhere they can feasibly go on their own power. These aren't subjective things, they're objective. There's nothing inherently stopping an individual from being able to do those things.

Where "morality" typically comes into play with regards to rights is a notion that BECAUSE they're a right they can't be infringed upon. However, in my view, there is no expectation within the state of nature that a natural right will be infringed upon. Indeed, there is absolutely NO natural right to have your rights respected. That requires an action (or inaction) on another person or things part, and as such can't possibly be a natural right. A natural right is only that which the individual can do.

It is only through the social contract that the notion of morality enters into play with rights. It's only through the social contract, and the muturally agreed upon limiting and protecting of various rights, that we form the moral belief that some natural rights deserve protections and/or respect to various degrees.

This is why I said that, in general, there's an underlining moral notion as it relates to all of our laws.
 
Zyphlin said:
Have you actually read my argument as it relate sto natural rights? Because if so, I'm unsure how you can suggest it's subjective.

To me, a natural right is anything an individual can attempt to do on their own volition within the state of nature.

A person has a right to speak whatever they wish.

A person has a right to survive by any means necessary.

A person has a right to travel wherever they can go.

These are not subjective things. It's objectively true that within a state of nature a living person can say anything they want. They can do anything they want to attempt to live. They can travel anywhere they can feasibly go on their own power. These aren't subjective things, they're objective. There's nothing inherently stopping an individual from being able to do those things.

Where "morality" typically comes into play with regards to rights is a notion that BECAUSE they're a right they can't be infringed upon. However, in my view, there is no expectation within the state of nature that a natural right will be infringed upon. Indeed, there is absolutely NO natural right to have your rights respected. That requires an action (or inaction) on another person or things part, and as such can't possibly be a natural right. A natural right is only that which the individual can do.

It is only through the social contract that the notion of morality enters into play with rights. It's only through the social contract, and the muturally agreed upon limiting and protecting of various rights, that we form the moral belief that some natural rights deserve protections and/or respect to various degrees.

This is why I said that, in general, there's an underlining moral notion as it relates to all of our laws.
Click to expand...

I have read your argument but I pretty much disagree with it's basis. Nature gives nobody any rights other than what someone can win for themselves. We simply see the default position oppositely. Rights are won by force and force alone.

For exams in your travel example. If I do not have functioning legs or other means of mobility, I have no right to go anywhere unless I can get someone to help me.

Also it's a moral argument as while we may have the ability to do this or that, the assumption that it is good and proper is a huge unfounded logical leap. I think it's called the is ought problem.
 
Last edited:
tacomancer said:
Nature gives nobody any rights other than what someone can win for themselves.
Click to expand...

That doesn't conflict with what I said.

You have the right to survive. That doesn't mean you GET to survive. If you want food you're going to have to take food. If someone else already has that food, then you're going to need to take that food from them. If you can't, too bad, so sad.

So you suggest a person, in a state of nature, cannot say anything they wish abscent an exterior force stopping them from saying it?

Are you suggesting a person, in a state of nature, cannot attempt to survive unless an exterior force is phsyically stopping them from doing so?

Is it your assertion that a person, in a state of nature, cannot travel wherever they physically are able to travel unless an exterior force is physically sotpping them from doing so?

A person has the right in nature to do all those things. That doesn't mean they have the right to successfully do it or the right to be free from being stopped from doing it.
 
Zyphlin said:
That doesn't conflict with what I said.

You have the right to survive. That doesn't mean you GET to survive. If you want food you're going to have to take food. If someone else already has that food, then you're going to need to take that food from them. If you can't, too bad, so sad.

So you suggest a person, in a state of nature, cannot say anything they wish abscent an exterior force stopping them from saying it?

Are you suggesting a person, in a state of nature, cannot attempt to survive unless an exterior force is phsyically stopping them from doing so?

Is it your assertion that a person, in a state of nature, cannot travel wherever they physically are able to travel unless an exterior force is physically sotpping them from doing so?

A person has the right in nature to do all those things. That doesn't mean they have the right to successfully do it or the right to be free from being stopped from doing it.
Click to expand...

If no ability is attached then rights are meaningless and of no use. Why care then?

What am I getting out of it if it in no way alters my life?
 
tacomancer said:
If no ability is attached then rights are meaningless and of no use.
Click to expand...

I never suggested there is use, or that you should care. Though I would say there is a use. There's a use that you're able to do try and do those things I speak of. There's use in the understanding that, save for death (or a few extreme phyiscal maiming), those "natural rights" can never be forcefully REMOVED....only limited.

A society could pass every law imaginable to limit what, when, and how someone may express themselves. But that would be all it is, a LIMIT. Take that individual out of that society and place them back within a state of nature and they would still have the ability to express themselves. That right isn't remove, it's simply limited.

But yes...outside of a social contract...the "value" of ones rights largely rest on the ability one has to actively persue them, and no more.

Nothing about a right requires that you "get something out of it" or htat it "alters your life" outside of the fact that you're able to attempt to employ said rights.

That's the whole appeal of a social contract. Without it, natural rights are valuable only to the level that you personally are able to protect them and execute them.
 
ecofarm said:
Killing harmless helpless captives is disgusting.
Click to expand...

And what of all those "harmless helpless captives" who themselves have murdered countless "harmless helpless victims"? Where does your morality play open its curtain on that reality? Or do you have zero empathy with murdered victims?
 
Zyphlin said:
I never suggested there is use, or that you should care. Though I would say there is a use. There's a use that you're able to do try and do those things I speak of. There's use in the understanding that, save for death (or a few extreme phyiscal maiming), those "natural rights" can never be forcefully REMOVED....only limited.

A society could pass every law imaginable to limit what, when, and how someone may express themselves. But that would be all it is, a LIMIT. Take that individual out of that society and place them back within a state of nature and they would still have the ability to express themselves. That right isn't remove, it's simply limited.

But yes...outside of a social contract...the "value" of ones rights largely rest on the ability one has to actively persue them, and no more.

Nothing about a right requires that you "get something out of it" or htat it "alters your life" outside of the fact that you're able to attempt to employ said rights.

That's the whole appeal of a social contract. Without it, natural rights are valuable only to the level that you personally are able to protect them and execute them.
Click to expand...

So these supposed rights don't actually exist any more than a mythical perfect red balloon. It never goes beyond the imagination then. Thus is not real as there is no actual manifestation.

I just don't buy your argument. I can believe any social convention or any idea I want but it's just an idea as it has no effect on my life unless I take action.

Natural rights are not verifiable by science, not testable, and cannot be found in nature by any known method of discovery or data gathering.

To be fair thus is true for any social construct. I will never get why people insist that these things are real when they are beyond verification. It's irrational
 
Last edited:
tacomancer said:
So these supposed rights don't actually exist any more than a mythical perfect red balloon.
Click to expand...

Not at all.

They clearly exist. In a state of nature, abscent any external forces, said red balloon would not exist.

But a persons ability to speak and express themselves would.

This is absolutely testable and verifiable...albiet not a test that would be likely to occur.

Take a person and find a way to instill memory loss. Put them in nature....say the appalachian mountains. Can that person express himself? Yes. Could that person start to believe the sun is a god? Absolutely. Is he able to eat anything he's able to procure? Sure thing. Can he travel wherever he wants. Yes. Those are his natural rights based on his simple existance...he has the natural rights, the ability, to do anything he's physically capable of doing in order to survive and/or please himself.

No society is needed to allow him to do those things. No social construct is needed to allow him to do those things. If he finds fruit on a tree and is able to pull it down, then he can eat it. There is nothing, at all, that says he can't. It's his natural right to do such.

If you put down a second person into the same situation and he also saw that fruit and he killed the first person and took the fruit, that's perfectly within his rights as well because they both have the right to survive and to food...it just happens that one person was able to exercise that right successfully, and the other wasn't.

A natural right is anything an individual can attempt to do within the state of nature. People have a natural right to eat, to travel, to speak, to believe as they wish, to survive. These things are ingrain. Nothing short of death or something akin to it (ie: brain dead) can permanently take them away from you. There is no conceivable way to PERMANENTLY remove a persons ability to express themselves short of what I just stated. It's literally impossible. You can restrict it to SIGNIFICANT degrees, you can make it almost impossible...but no matter what you did, if you put them back into a state of nature abscent any external forces they'd still be able to express themselves. This is an innate, natural right that is present and available to people simply by the nature of existing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom