How do you justify moral-based laws?

[TheBellman]

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.

Who gets to decide whic morals are the correct ones, that we're going to impose on everybody?

And this, of course, is where this idea completely collapses. Morality may be absolute, but if it is, we have no reliable way of knowing which morals are correct. As certain as you are that yours are correct, there are other groups which are certain that theirs (which contradict yours) are correct. Who gets to decide?

THIS is why laws based on morals are not only a bad idea, but a terrible idea.

 

[Robinsegg]

Who gets to decide whic morals are the correct ones, that we're going to impose on everybody?

And this, of course, is where this idea completely collapses. Morality may be absolute, but if it is, we have no reliable way of knowing which morals are correct. As certain as you are that yours are correct, there are other groups which are certain that theirs (which contradict yours) are correct. Who gets to decide?

THIS is why laws based on morals are not only a bad idea, but a terrible idea.

I assume you mean this with some exceptions, like actions with victims?

Rachel

 

[TheBellman]

I assume you mean this with some exceptions, like actions with victims?

Rachel

No, I don't mean it with any exceptions - but I'm not sure what you mean by 'actions with victims'.

 

[armyman_83]

"Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people; it is wholly inadequate for any other."
--John Adams

 

[Robinsegg]

No, I don't mean it with any exceptions - but I'm not sure what you mean by 'actions with victims'.

I mean actions like murder, child molestation, spousal/child abuse, battery, theft, and the like.

Rachel

 

[kopilo]

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?

You have a right to live life your way and I have a right to live life mine. I can only know what is best for myself, so why should I impose my morals onto anyone else and visa versa.

If your actions impose on my life as well as many others then I have a say just like they do. Theft, battery and many things against the law have been a negative for society as a whole.

 

[TheBellman]

I mean actions like murder, child molestation, spousal/child abuse, battery, theft, and the like.

No, no exceptions. ANY law made purely on moral grounds is a bad law. There are ample reasons outside moral ones for the above to be illegal.

 

[Robinsegg]

No, no exceptions. ANY law made purely on moral grounds is a bad law. There are ample reasons outside moral ones for the above to be illegal.

I'm not sure what you mean by "moral", then, I suppose. I always supposed "moral" to mean this is always right, and this is always wrong . . . and no one questions it because it is just fact. Sorry, just my mistake!

Rachel

 

[TheBellman]

I'm not sure what you mean by "moral", then, I suppose. I always supposed "moral" to mean this is always right, and this is always wrong . . . and no one questions it because it is just fact. Sorry, just my mistake!

Rachel

I'm sorry, you've completely lost me here. I don't think the statement that 'this is always right and this is always wrong' is even meaningful - 'right' and 'wrong' always only mean 'approved of (or not) by the speaker'.

 

[elman]

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.

Those who inflict their morality that war is immoral and that being unloving is wrong would not be the source of the holy wars would they?

 

[quatona]

Those who inflict their morality that war is immoral and that being unloving is wrong would not be the source of the holy wars would they?

I would agree, but how, then, do they inflict their morality on others, practically speaking?

 

[elman]

I would agree, but how, then, do they inflict their morality on others, practically speaking?

I would say by proclaiming their opinions and supporting people in positions of power that agree with them and by refusing to join in with unloving and violent actions.

 

[quatona]

I would say by proclaiming their opinions and supporting people in positions of power that agree with them and by refusing to join in with unloving and violent actions.

I wouldn´t call that "inflicting their morality upon others".

 

[elman]

I wouldn´t call that "inflicting their morality upon others".

Some people do. They don't want anyone telling them what is loving or unloving or judging them in any way or even telling them about God and what God might expect from them.

 

[quatona]

Some people do. They don't want anyone telling them what is loving or unloving or judging them in any way or even telling them about God and what God might expect from them.

You don´t think it is, and I don´t think it is - so what´s the point in referring to "some people" when discussing our ideas?
Indeed, I myself find "God wants you to..." sermons boring and annoying at times (and I think it is respectless to bring them to people who have told you they don´t want to hear them), but that doesn´t mean that persons who do so "are inflicting their morality upon me." They just give me their opinion.
I mean, that would almost be like complaining about being persecuted whilst in fact merely being criticized.

 

[elman]

You don´t think it is, and I don´t think it is - so what´s the point in referring to "some people" when discussing our ideas?
Indeed, I myself find "God wants you to..." sermons boring and annoying at times (and I think it is respectless to bring them to people who have told you they don´t want to hear them), but that doesn´t mean that persons who do so "are inflicting their morality upon me." They just give me their opinion.
I mean, that would almost be like complaining about being persecuted whilst in fact merely being criticized.

I agree but ours is not the only atitude on this and I have heard many people offended by any mention of God.

 

[Robinsegg]

I agree but ours is not the only atitude on this and I have heard many people offended by any mention of God.

Does that mean I can (in a valid fashion) be offended by mention of the tooth fairy? Will people stop speaking of the tooth fairy for me?

Rachel

 

[elman]

Does that mean I can (in a valid fashion) be offended by mention of the tooth fairy? Will people stop speaking of the tooth fairy for me?

Rachel

I don't know about the valid fasion but you are able to be offended at whatever you want. I certainly agree that someone should not be offended by simply mentioning God.

 

[Konkurrent]

You don't have the right to not be offended. However, if someone continues to do something you've told them is offensive to you they are guilty of harassment.

 

[Robinsegg]

I heartily agree. No one has the right to not be offended. I think it's rude (and unconvincing) to continue telling someone about God when they've asked you to stop. But I don't think it's legally wrong, nor should it be.

Rachel