How do you justify moral-based laws?

[Konkurrent]

I'm not sure what that statement is even trying to imply.

Anarchism is (theoretically, as it doesn't actually work) essentially order enforced by threat of punishment.

 

[quatona]

That's because you're a hippy....lol, I'm kidding man.

No, you got the causality reversed, you...you...you materialist, you!!
Peace and love to you, brother! Hare Krishna, Krishna, Kri- his-hna, Hare Rama, Rama, Ra-ha-ma: Hare Krishna,...

I disagree with you, though.

 

[quatona]

Anarchism is (theoretically, as it doesn't actually work) essentially order enforced by threat of punishment.

My anarchism isn´t enforced by threat of punishment.
Well, I´m leaning to it in practice rather than in theory, anyways.

 

[MoonlessNight]

I'm not sure what that statement is even trying to imply.

Anarchism is (theoretically, as it doesn't actually work) essentially order enforced by threat of punishment.

And other forms of governemnt are not?

 

[MoonlessNight]

Neither of those laws are irrevocably rooted in morality. Logic alone justifies both admirably.

Logic alone? At least admit that you are using a combination of logic and observation.

 

[elman]

Neither of those laws are irrevocably rooted in morality. Logic alone justifies both admirably.

How do you determine what laws are logical and what are moral? And why cannot they not be both?

 

[quatona]

How do you determine what laws are logical and what are moral? And why cannot they not be both?

I find myself in agreement with you here, elman (a historical moment, don´t you agree).
I don´t see how a law does not have a moral axiom for a basis (except when it´s random). The logical part would be that the law is a logical conclusion from this axiom.

 

[gwenmead]

If morality is concerned, most basically, with defining right and wrong, then any laws are, by definition, based on morals.

What that set of morals might be varies depending on the culture or society creating the laws; the justifications (or reasons, or excuses) for any given law would also depend on what a given culture decides is moral.

Law is definitely about imposing a particular moral code onto people, and compelling them to follow it with threat of force or penalty. I can't say whether that's a good or a bad thing, it's just the way it is. I do think it a good thing to allow law to be up for debate, because cultures change, and I think that a law can be unjust, and if it is it should be challenged.

Food for thought, while I'm hopped up on cold meds. *atchoo!*

 

[Inviolable]

From the "imposing morals on others" thread, it seems like the majority of people here oppose forcing others to conform to their moral beliefs. But this contradicts my personal experience with law. It seems to me that most people try to force others to do what they think is moral through the rule of law, at least to a point.

For those of you who feel that it's wrong to force others to conform to your morality outside of free will, how would you justify laws against things like gambling, prostitution, abortion, and pornography, which do not have a direct society-disabling effect on those who do not participate?

Or in other words, when do you have the right to remove someone's free will and replace it with force?

Trickster

When they'er hurting other people?

I would guess. I am sure cops get a ton of domestic violence calls.

 

[Asimov]

How do you determine what laws are logical and what are moral? And why cannot they not be both?

They better be both as far as I'm concerned.

 

[MercyBurst]

From the "imposing morals on others" thread, it seems like the majority of people here oppose forcing others to conform to their moral beliefs. But this contradicts my personal experience with law. It seems to me that most people try to force others to do what they think is moral through the rule of law, at least to a point.

For those of you who feel that it's wrong to force others to conform to your morality outside of free will, how would you justify laws against things like gambling, prostitution, abortion, and pornography, which do not have a direct society-disabling effect on those who do not participate?

Or in other words, when do you have the right to remove someone's free will and replace it with force?

Trickster

I dunno. It ain't my problem. I got better things to do with my life.

arggh... AIDS we luv ya!!!

 

[ReverendDG]

From the "imposing morals on others" thread, it seems like the majority of people here oppose forcing others to conform to their moral beliefs. But this contradicts my personal experience with law. It seems to me that most people try to force others to do what they think is moral through the rule of law, at least to a point.

For those of you who feel that it's wrong to force others to conform to your morality outside of free will, how would you justify laws against things like gambling, prostitution, abortion, and pornography, which do not have a direct society-disabling effect on those who do not participate?

Or in other words, when do you have the right to remove someone's free will and replace it with force?

Trickster

well they arn't really "moral" laws, they are ethical laws that have a secular meaning
gambling is regulated to keep it from getting out of control and for the goverment to tax
prostitution is also regulated for safty, for the people doing it and the people paying for it
abortion is regulated for safty and for freedom to preform it and to get one
pornography isn't unlawful unless you violate the laws aganst people under 18, this is wrong because they arn't considered old enough or mature enough by law
all laws are based on something but this country bases them on how best they fit with safty control and freedoms in mind

 

[TricksterWolf]

How about the law against murder? Are you for enforcing that moral law? Or the law against child moslestation? Do you think the parents of a child have a right to prevent the freedom of the criminal to molest their child?

Again, I was speaking only of so-called victimless crimes. Crimes that involve a specific victim are illegal for multiple independent reasons, most of them utilitarian.

For example, if there is no law in place to protect direct victims of crime (murder, theft, violence, abuse) then acts of retribution would occur and escalate. Like the Hatfields and McCoys, only on a grander scale. Justice for the victims of crime helps prevent that cycle of retribution.

Trickster

 

[elman]

Again, I was speaking only of so-called victimless crimes. Crimes that involve a specific victim are illegal for multiple independent reasons, most of them utilitarian.

For example, if there is no law in place to protect direct victims of crime (murder, theft, violence, abuse) then acts of retribution would occur and escalate. Like the Hatfields and McCoys, only on a grander scale. Justice for the victims of crime helps prevent that cycle of retribution.

Trickster

How is one to know that when you talk about moral laws you are only talking about victimless crimes?

 

[TricksterWolf]

How is one to know that when you talk about moral laws you are only talking about victimless crimes?

The examples I gave in the first post were all crimes of that sort, and I've provided a few responses to clarify what I meant where I used the term "victimless". I'd mistakenly thought that the original post was clearer than it was. In retrospect I'd have made it longer and more carefully-worded.

Trickster

 

[TheMissus]

I dunno. It ain't my problem. I got better things to do with my life.

They why are over 90% of your posts about homosexuals?

arggh... AIDS we luv ya!!!

Why would you love AIDS?

 

[Ave Maria]

As I said in the other thread, I have no problem with imposing morals on others so long as the morals that are being imposed are correct morals. Morality is absolute and is not relative and therefore it would not be a problem to impose correct morals on another person.

 

[quatona]

As I said in the other thread, I have no problem with imposing morals on others so long as the morals that are being imposed are correct morals. Morality is absolute and is not relative and therefore it would not be a problem to impose correct morals on another person.

There is a little problem, though: All persons who try to impose their various morals upon others are convinced that these morals are the "correct" ones. It´s where holy wars come from.

 

[TricksterWolf]

As I said in the other thread, I have no problem with imposing morals on others so long as the morals that are being imposed are correct morals. Morality is absolute and is not relative and therefore it would not be a problem to impose correct morals on another person.

Then do you believe that the world should essentially be a dictatorship run by the Pope, with condoms and all non-Catholic religions made illegal?

A lot of people (particularly those with much religiosity) seem to think "if only everyone were just like me the world would be a perfect place". I think just the opposite--if the world didn't have different kinds of people in it with different moral values, it'd be far worse off than it is. Diversity is a strength, and it's also a fact of life that can't be erased by mortal men. If anyone tried to impose their moral values on the world, the result would either be suffering, or revolution en masse.

Trickster

 

[TricksterWolf]

As I said in the other thread, I have no problem with imposing morals on others so long as the morals that are being imposed are correct morals. Morality is absolute and is not relative and therefore it would not be a problem to impose correct morals on another person.

Also, another question: Do you think that God wants people to be forced to make the right choices, or does God want people to be tempted and make the right choices anyway? Or perhaps God doesn't care as long as the right choices are made?

Why does temptation exist if it isn't important for people to exercise free will and make moral choices without being forced?

Trickster