On Morality and Law

Let's start with a simple question; should laws be moral?

I'll submit my own views and reasoning in time, but I feel a minimal OP here will lead to a better overall discussion.

a reply to: VP740

And another simple question, are morals absolute or relative. Or a combination. Opps, not so simple after all.

a reply to: VP740

Laws should, ideally, be made by the people to whom they will mostly apply and be made to serve the best interest of the all the people of that society.

a reply to: windword
Count me in on that one wind.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Exactly the point. And on that point, does moral relativism mean morals are subjective? Does anyone dare say laws should be free of morals. Can you imagine an American politician arguing that point? I would be very disturbed by that and I'm sure I'm not alone.


Is it possible, even necessary to create an objective moral standard, does one arise inherent from the laws of nature?

a reply to: windword

When you say should and ideally, do mean in your opinion they should, and according to your ideals alone? If someone disagrees is their opinion as valid as yours?

a reply to: VP740

I would submit that any law that doesn't address an issue of crime against person or property is unjust and should be repealed. Any law that restricts freedom that doesn't infringe on the direct rights of others is immoral.

a reply to: VP740

Is it possible, even necessary to create an objective moral standard, does one arise inherent from the laws of nature?

I would suggest that this is exactly how we should create our morals and hence our laws. But this entails a 'study' of the laws of nature to find out who we are in the first place. The laws that dictate the needs for our survival. I think laws and hence morals are basic to survival and may vary as the needs to survival change over time.
But another very simple question is, just who are we talking about here when we say "us" or 'we'? Only a few of us, or all of us?

a reply to: VP740

If someone disagrees is their opinion as valid as yours?

I'm open to discussion. Society needs to be in agreement, somewhat, to the laws that it adopts.

a reply to: Metallicus

I would submit that any law that doesn't address an issue of crime against person or property is unjust and should be repealed. Any law that restricts freedom that doesn't infringe on the direct rights of others is immoral

Are traffic laws immoral?

a reply to: Metallicus

The basis of our reasoning is very similar, but where do these individual rights come from? Generally I'd say someone should be protected from infliction of pain, but some people are tormented by hearing apposing opinions. If the majority were Christian (or any other religion) and a minority agitated the majority by using satanist slogans, wearing satanist T-shirts etc... Why should we require the majority to endure that emotional pain if deliberately inflicted by their opposition? Do you say physical suffering is to be addressed by law, and emotional suffering to be ignored by law?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Metallicus

I would submit that any law that doesn't address an issue of crime against person or property is unjust and should be repealed. Any law that restricts freedom that doesn't infringe on the direct rights of others is immoral

Are traffic laws immoral?

Yes.

Speeding laws are BS. It is crashing that is the problem.

a reply to: VP740

As soon as you start talking about someone's emotions then that doesn't count. Only physical damage or pain. If people can't toughen up a little that is THEIR problem not ours.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I think laws and hence morals are basic to survival and may vary as the needs to survival change over time. But another very simple question is, just who are we talking about here when we say "us" or 'we'? Only a few of us, or all of us?

Indeed, and who's survival is important? I favor the death penalty, I would generally prioritize the survival of people who don't bother others. Also, what role should we play in the survival of other species? Animals die in the wild all the time, as do entire species. Should we protect endangered species? Should hunting for sport be illegal in any circumstances? How do we justify stealing honey from a colony of bees? Should we outlaw the harvesting of honey? Should we care about causing the extinction of 'lessor' species in favor of our own needs? Why and where does one draw the line between crushing bugs that get in your way as you drive to work, and destroying entire ecosystems for personal gain?

And should we be more concerned with long-term survival of the masses than short-term survival of the individual? Should people be allowed to pass down defective genes (genes leading to terminal illness or criminal insanity)?

a reply to: Metallicus

If speeding restrictions are immoral, how about requiring people to drive on the right side of the road?

a reply to: Metallicus

So a parent emotionally abusing their child is OK?

originally posted by: Metallicus

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Metallicus

I would submit that any law that doesn't address an issue of crime against person or property is unjust and should be repealed. Any law that restricts freedom that doesn't infringe on the direct rights of others is immoral

Are traffic laws immoral?

Yes.

Speeding laws are BS. It is crashing that is the problem.

It's not just speed limits. It's driving on the correct side of the road, stopping at red lights and stop signs. Making sure an auto is safe, that the driver is not impaired, etc.,

These are things that society agrees on in order to maintain civil structure and thrive.

a reply to: windword

All of what you just mentioned is pre-crime. None of those things are crimes in and of themselves as there is no victim of person or property.

a reply to: Metallicus

Law aren't only about crime and crime prevention. They're about a well regulated society that benefits its members.

originally posted by: VP740
Let's start with a simple question; should laws be moral?

I'll submit my own views and reasoning in time, but I feel a minimal OP here will lead to a better overall discussion.

Well yes laws are suppose to answer a higher good, protect the innocent ect. Is real f'in popular these days and has been for a while, as if the whole of western civilization was going to be knocked off its foundation by folks trying to sound real intellectual by calling morality in law a subjective thing ect, ect.