Started By
Message

re: Not basing laws on morality

Posted on 9/16/21 at 9:24 am to
Posted by BayouBengal23
BR
Member since Mar 2019
567 posts
Posted on 9/16/21 at 9:24 am to
quote:

If it does harm to other people or yourself it's morally wrong.


What about harming an unborn baby? At what age is it acceptable and how do you justify the belief?
Posted by Scruffy
Kansas City
Member since Jul 2011
71947 posts
Posted on 9/16/21 at 9:24 am to
The concept of laws being based on morality begins and ends with who decides when and what morals can be applied.

When people say that they want to keep morality out of legislation, it is merely a ploy to keep a person’s religious morality out of legislation, or the views of an opposing force’s morality.

The ones who make these statements usually have no issue basing legislation around their morality.
This post was edited on 9/16/21 at 9:32 am
Posted by Gings5
HTX
Member since Jul 2016
7954 posts
Posted on 9/16/21 at 9:27 am to
quote:

There is no morality. Never has been, never will be.


We actually have very distinct set of guidelines on what is right and wrong. Humanity and their "elected" politicians can try to determine in their minds what they believe is right and wrong, but ultimately, there is one absolute truth.
Posted by BayouBengal23
BR
Member since Mar 2019
567 posts
Posted on 9/16/21 at 9:27 am to
For people claiming that there is a universal sense of right and wrong. What about all the people stealing hundreds of dollars worth of goods and are allowed to get away with it. It literally not illegal to steal anymore in some parts of the country.
Once again, is there even a universal sense of law anymore?
Posted by JumpingTheShark
America
Member since Nov 2012
22877 posts
Posted on 9/16/21 at 9:28 am to
quote:

Keep CHRIST in CHRISTmas!


Actually should happen, but ok
Posted by Toroballistic
Tallahassee
Member since Dec 2017
1886 posts
Posted on 9/16/21 at 9:28 am to
quote:

The line is pretty easy to draw. It's illegal when it causes damage to another person.


So person A pulls a knife and threatens person B. B draws a pistol and shoots A. According to your statement person B has committed a crime by damaging person A. The rest of us say it is self-defense and not a crime.

Maybe it isn't a easy as you claim.
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
259248 posts
Posted on 9/16/21 at 9:30 am to
quote:

. If this is the case, what do you base laws on?


We shouldn't base laws on pure subjective morality. Things like theft and murder, yes those I agree.

But we have WAY too many laws and regulations and 99% are based on pure morality, or someones personal values.


Strip the justice and regulatory system down to basics and rebuild, with 90% fewer bullshite morality laws and regulations
Posted by extremetigerfanatic
Denham Springs
Member since Oct 2003
5362 posts
Posted on 9/16/21 at 9:31 am to
quote:

Maybe it isn't a easy as you claim.

Or even beginning to start down the plight of a soldier.
Posted by Scruffy
Kansas City
Member since Jul 2011
71947 posts
Posted on 9/16/21 at 9:31 am to
quote:

For people claiming that there is a universal sense of right and wrong. What about all the people stealing hundreds of dollars worth of goods and are allowed to get away with it. It literally not illegal to steal anymore in some parts of the country.
Once again, is there even a universal sense of law anymore?
You are referencing two separate things.

People know that theft is inherently wrong, but the thieves and politicians don’t care.

Universal understanding of “right and wrong” and application of laws are separate issues.
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
259248 posts
Posted on 9/16/21 at 9:33 am to
quote:


So person A pulls a knife and threatens person B. B draws a pistol and shoots A. According to your statement person B has committed a crime by damaging person


Wrong

A initiated the violence. Not B.
Posted by extremetigerfanatic
Denham Springs
Member since Oct 2003
5362 posts
Posted on 9/16/21 at 9:34 am to
quote:

But we have WAY too many laws and regulations and 99% are based on pure morality, or someones personal values.

You are arguing two different things.

Laws will only ever be the implementation of someone’s morality.
Even murder. Even rape.
There are countries in our world that allow men to mutilate a woman’s vagina In order to keep them from cheating. They don’t even have to cheat.

Whether or not we have too many laws is a separate issue.
Posted by extremetigerfanatic
Denham Springs
Member since Oct 2003
5362 posts
Posted on 9/16/21 at 9:36 am to
quote:

A initiated the violence.


So you are adding in qualifiers to your statement now?
You said it was easy to determine.
Posted by Bullfrog
Institutionalized but Unevaluated
Member since Jul 2010
56068 posts
Posted on 9/16/21 at 9:37 am to
Sound law is based on ownership of property.

In order of importance:

Property is your life, first off followed by your intellectual property followed by your tangible property.

Public property is/was just theft and plunder.

If you don’t own something, you don’t mess with it.

If you accidentally mess something up, you fix it with restitution.

If you commit a crime, you are ostracized and no one will deal with you until you have cleared up your mess and made restitution to the owner or heirs.
Posted by Korkstand
Member since Nov 2003
28671 posts
Posted on 9/16/21 at 9:38 am to
quote:

ultimately, there is one absolute truth.
...well? What is it?
Posted by Odysseus32
Member since Dec 2009
7294 posts
Posted on 9/16/21 at 9:39 am to
quote:

We actually have very distinct set of guidelines on what is right and wrong. Humanity and their "elected" politicians can try to determine in their minds what they believe is right and wrong, but ultimately, there is one absolute truth.



You're certainly entitled to believe that.
Posted by SammyTiger
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Feb 2009
66231 posts
Posted on 9/16/21 at 9:41 am to
quote:

Pedophilia is trying to be passed right now... Thats just how they feel right? You cant stop them from liking little kids right? Where do we draw the line.


I think The line is pretty clear. fricking kids, trying to frick kids, making and/or possessing pornography of kids is all across the line, because it’s not about the pedophile it’s about the victim. The Pedophile can be attracted to kids but acting on it crosses a line because as a society we decided you can be too you to consent to a sexual relationship.

Sec is legal, rape is not. Laws against pedophilia are essentially just rape laws specified to children because legally we don’t think they’re old enough to consent.

Gay marriage doesn’t have a victim (anymore than straight marriage. amiright)
Posted by Slagathor
Makin' jokes about your teeny tiny
Member since Jul 2007
37791 posts
Posted on 9/16/21 at 9:43 am to
if morality indeed dictated the law, the law would be such that if the nachos stick together it counts as only one nacho

Posted by extremetigerfanatic
Denham Springs
Member since Oct 2003
5362 posts
Posted on 9/16/21 at 9:44 am to
For all the people that say there is not universal sense of right and wrong (what a Christian would call God) or that applying a sense of communal morality is wrong, you really need to go read about Ted Bundy, if you’ve never read about him.

It’s a fascinating look into to mind of someone who realized he enjoyed the thought of killing and then applied modern humanism to his world view and then killed without remorse because “my morals are equal to yours based on the philosophy you expound”.

It’s an interesting story of how someone rationalized this thought out to the utter end.
This post was edited on 9/16/21 at 9:45 am
Posted by Korkstand
Member since Nov 2003
28671 posts
Posted on 9/16/21 at 9:45 am to
quote:

So person A pulls a knife and threatens person B. B draws a pistol and shoots A. According to your statement person B has committed a crime by damaging person A. The rest of us say it is self-defense and not a crime.

Maybe it isn't a easy as you claim.

Pulling a knife is a clear threat to life. Even animals recognize malicious intent or aggression and respond with deadly force if necessary. That's a base instinct, morality doesn't play much of a role.
Posted by kingbob
Sorrento, LA
Member since Nov 2010
66952 posts
Posted on 9/16/21 at 9:48 am to
I want to believe that people are realizing that government solutions aren’t the best mechanism for enforcing social mores.

There’s a lot of room between “you shouldn’t do this” and “you should pay fines or go to prison for doing this”.
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 8Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram