OldWorldOrder
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2012
- Messages
- 5,820
- Reaction score
- 1,438
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Because it's what works
Legal systems based on morality are failures.
"What works"? What is the definition of works?
And apparently not, because you think it "works". The idea that it's good that someone can have something of their own and laws will protect their possession is, indeed, based upon someone's morality.
I am sure that most people see the protection of property as the moral thing to do. However, such laws can be justified on the basis I described. Ockham's Law says that which is not necessary should be discarded. Justifying laws on a moral basis is not needed as the justifications I supplied are adequate. On the other hand, moral justifications are not sufficient to explain our legal system (ex what is the moral justification for zoning laws?) and therefor cannot be said to be the basis. Furthermore, using morality as a basis for law leads to silliness like making lying a crime.
No one said they were needed to justify it; just that they are indeed based upon it. No one said morality should be used as a basis, either.
No one said they were needed to justify it; just that they are indeed based upon it. No one said morality should be used as a basis, either.
By using moral opinion to set law...we justify penalty.
Thus we gather multiple opinions of said morality through vote...or through those we vote to represent us.
It is obviously imperfect....but, it is the best system humans have come up with as of yet....IMHO.
If a law is just then it is a moral law.
But whose morality? Most of us do not embrace most components of Sharia Law, for instance, but those who advocate Sharia law would describe it as not only as just and moral, but the only righteous way. Would a very rigid fundamentalist Christian define justice in the same way as a fanatical tree hugging environmentalist? Do you want either writing your laws?
Far better to adopt a principle that secures our rights and/or promotes the general welfare that all can embrace and then adopt laws and regulation that enforce that principle and leave morality out of it.
I don't see the difference between "justify" and "based"
Saying "We need this law because x is immoral" is both justifying and basing the law on morality.
By using moral opinion to set law...we justify penalty.
Thus we gather multiple opinions of said morality through vote...or through those we vote to represent us.
It is obviously imperfect....but, it is the best system humans have come up with as of yet....IMHO.
Jay walking laws fall within the category of promoting the general welfare.
What is and isn't general welfare is very much a subjective thing, depending on your moral viewpoint. So even jaywalking laws are based in morality. If you didn't care whatsoever about people getting hit by cars, you would be totally ambivalent to the idea of a law against jaywalking.
Again it is a matter of focus. If you believe that it is an immoral act to hit somebody with your car, and that is the only reason you choose not to do that, then it is a matter of morality.
But if your rationale for not allowing people to hit people with their cars is to secure an unalienable right to life, that can involve no moral considerations whatsoever.
You might think it the moral thing to run down that scumbag or person you believe to be evil, but you value recognition and security of unalienable rights more.
And the term 'general welfare' is not at all subjective if it is interpreted as the Founders intended it.
Do you think it's immoral to prevent someone from having an unalienable right to life?
Do you think they defined it and wanted it in the government because they thought it was morally right? If not, why did they include it?
I don't think you're understanding that your idea of what rights are and should be are based upon your own morals.
The northern border of Kentucky is based upon the Ohio River. It could've been 50 miles north or south either way, you don't need need the Ohio River to justify Kentucky having a northern border. Two very different things. Basketball is based upon the idea of throwing a soccer ball into a peach basket. But that has nothing to do with justifying its place as a global game. Again, two very different concepts.
Saying "I think it's a good thing that private property is protected, so let's create a law to do that" is basing it on morality. You can justify it in a multitude of other ways, but that's how it came about.
I feel like you're arguing against religion in law and I agree. I'm pretty much amoral in general, anyway, but just because I'm not a huge fan of morality doesn't mean it's not what a society (any society's) laws are based upon.
You cannot take away a persons unalienable right to anything. You can only infringe on or prevent that person from exercising that right. An unalienable right is ANYTHING that does not require participation or contribution of any other. It is something the Founders believed in and valued because recognition of and security of unalienable rights is what liberty is. Liberty is what each wanted for himself and they all understood that only by recognizing and securing everybody's unalienble rights could any enjoy the blessings of liberty.
You may consider that morality based. I see it, and I believe the Founders saw it, as basic human desire--something we naturally cherish and seek and part of what being human is.
I'm not trying to be difficult, but I don't see how that difference applies here. I do see how they can be different, just not in this case.
Saying "it's a good thing" doesn't necessarily imply morality to me. In some cases "good" can mean nothing more than beneficial.
And I do acknowledge that there is a moral component to our laws, I do not think their purpose is in any way to ensure that people behave in a moral manner. I think the preamble to the constitution does a pretty good job of describing the purpose of our legal system and nothing in there can be described as saying the purpose of the law is to ensure that people adhere to a particular moral code.
I'm not a huge fan of morality
Is morality a bad thing? :lol:
Laws that are just are based on reason and ethics. Ethics are derived from natural law and natural law is moral law. e.g. don't murder. Laws that are unjust are immoral laws. e.g.: slaveryBut whose morality?
Well, if I had to choose, I guess I'd choose the tree huggers because their ideology is more in accord with natural law. Protecting the environment that we all depend on to live is natural and moral. For example, trees are a finite resource, so protecting a forest for the common good is moral ...whereas destroying an entire forest for the short term gain of a few without regard to others or the future is immoral and unjust. See "Tragedy of the Commons".Most of us do not embrace most components of Sharia Law, for instance, but those who advocate Sharia law would describe it as not only as just and moral, but the only righteous way. Would a very rigid fundamentalist Christian define justice in the same way as a fanatical tree hugging environmentalist? Do you want either writing your laws?
Moral is good. Immoral is bad. One doesn't need to believe in God to be moral. All one needs is ethics and reason. Laws without ethics and reason are immoral.Far better to adopt a principle that secures our rights and/or promotes the general welfare that all can embrace and then adopt laws and regulation that enforce that principle and leave morality out of it.
I find it to be a crutch when it comes to debates about any type of policy, just because it's subjective.
Laws that are just are based on reason and ethics. Ethics are derived from natural law and natural law is moral law. e.g. don't murder. Laws that are unjust are immoral laws. e.g.: slavery
Well, if I had to choose, I guess I'd choose the tree huggers because their ideology is more in accord with natural law. Protecting the environment that we all depend on to live is natural and moral. For example, trees are a finite resource, so protecting a forest for the common good is moral ...whereas destroying an entire forest for the short term gain of a few without regard to others or the future is immoral and unjust. See "Tragedy of the Commons".
So in short, protecting finite resources that many depend on to live is just basic self defense and I think most people no matter what time or culture they live in can agree that self defense is natural law. Ergo...generally speaking, environmental laws fall into the category of just and moral laws.
Moral is good. Immoral is bad. One doesn't need to believe in God to be moral. All one needs is ethics and reason. Laws without ethics and reason are immoral.
Just because something was the initial reason doesn't mean the effect is perpetually dependent upon the cause.
But "beneficial" is a subjective thing. If something is "beneficial" to helping a rapist get away with is it beneficial to the victims? No.
Except that what rights are guaranteed and what aren't is very much a moral stance. If I think I should be able to infringe/negate your "right to life" is that immoral?
Is subjectivity necessarily a bad thing? There are people who argue that reality is subjective; does that mean that reality shouldn't enter into political debates?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?