Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Damienevil
Joined: 2/22/2008
Msg: 35
Laws - do they really represent their societies moral & ehtical values? Page 2 of 6    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
The state does not get its power from the people. The states power comes from the monopoly on force they are supposed to have. The state gets its power from the guns it owns nothing more nothing less.

The state supresses anything that will make people free and not slaves. You think you are free. LOL You are not free. A free person will not allow themselves to be told what to do.
 A_Gent
Joined: 8/18/2011
Msg: 36
Laws - do they really represent their societies moral & ehtical values?
Posted: 1/17/2012 9:02:17 AM
Generally speaking... people get the governments they deserve.
 red_fir
Joined: 11/21/2011
Msg: 37
Laws - do they really represent their societies moral & ehtical values?
Posted: 1/20/2012 5:02:22 AM
Current law has one focus, the transfer of money from the populace to the state. All statutes are designed to be open ended and subject to further consideration IF you have money remaining to defend your point of view.
Current law has no remote association with justice.... victims are rarely compensated commesurate with their loss but the State always profits in court costs, licensing fees for legal professionals, federal assistance programs, and ever increasing taxes/extortion to "keep the peace".
This trend is further accelerated by constantly making more and vaguer statutes ( hate speech, discrimination laws) and general panic institutions ( war on drugs, war on terror,) all of which are reliable cash cows for state and federal agencys.
Compounding this travesty is constant input from a weak, and fearful populace asking for protection from nameless terrors even if it means trading all of our freedoms for their security, and consistent threats that ANY defensive action could result in further loss.
 johnb1949
Joined: 1/9/2012
Msg: 38
Laws - do they really represent their societies moral & ehtical values?
Posted: 1/20/2012 5:04:58 AM

Um John... I believe you're wrong about the "thout shall not covet thy neighbor's wife" thing....It's called adultry. And yes, you can get in trouble for it should the judge decide to push it. Take me, for example, I'm in the military. If I get caught commiting adultry, I'm done...No questios asked because I broke the law.


first of all, to covet thy neighbor's wife is not an act of adultry. indeed, coveting is not an act at all. it's an emotion, a desire. the act of adultry is physically acting on that desire. put another way, you take you're clothes off and actually do the nasty.

secondly, there are no laws prohibiting adultry in america nor does the ucmj restrict the act. sure, you are discouraged from fraternizing with others within the military that is "inconcistent with military decorum" but nothing prohibits you from shagging another man's wife who is a civilian when niether of you are subject to command for instance. divorce is quite common in the military often with infidelity as a basis . ike sure wasn't disciplined for his escapades with kay sumersby which was hardly a secret. indeed he was one of few to ever wear five stars.

i've spent enough nights in officer's clubs from hawaii to vietnam to know well that i and my buddies did alot of coveting when shown a picture of another's wife with quips such as, "hell, she can eat crackers in my bed anytime." when was the last time you've seen someone subjected to article 15 much less courts marshal for making such a commetn"
 johnb1949
Joined: 1/9/2012
Msg: 39
Laws - do they really represent their societies moral & ehtical values?
Posted: 1/20/2012 5:13:18 AM

Unlawful and illegal are two differnt things.


lol. semantically i suppose, but black’s law dictionary defines unlawful as not authorized by law, illegal is defined as forbidden by law, unlawful. eemantically, there is a slight difference. it seems that something illegal is expressly proscribed by statute, and something unlawful is just not expressly authorized. both are subject to similar punishment.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 40
Laws - do they really represent their societies moral & ehtical values?
Posted: 1/20/2012 8:14:21 AM


Unlawful and illegal are two different things.
lol. semantically i suppose, but black’s law dictionary defines unlawful as not authorized by law, illegal is defined as forbidden by law, unlawful. eemantically, there is a slight difference. it seems that something illegal is expressly proscribed by statute, and something unlawful is just not expressly authorized. both are subject to similar punishment.


The difference is more than semantic. That which is illegal is simply that which is expressly forbidden without regard to the morality of the "law." That which is unlawful takes morality into account. A case in point might be Nazi Germany. everything hitler did was perfectly legal (because he was getting the "laws" passed), but many of those laws were morally repugnant and violations of natural law; they were therefore unlawful "laws."
 johnb1949
Joined: 1/9/2012
Msg: 41
Laws - do they really represent their societies moral & ehtical values?
Posted: 1/20/2012 2:05:29 PM
ah, but who defines morality? hitlers morality was different than mine or yours i'd suspect. we each for our own unique moral compass. in law the differince IS purely semantics. we'd need no law if everybody could agree on morals and ethics and adhered to them. but we don't all agree so what we have is morally and ethically correct being replaced by legal and lawful in order to standardize.
 kohavah
Joined: 12/31/2011
Msg: 42
Laws - do they really represent their societies moral & ehtical values?
Posted: 1/20/2012 2:48:31 PM
It is my opinion that the ten commandments were meant as laws to govern, those who govern. For example...thou shalt not commit adultery would mean that those who sit on any type of governing body could not have any other interest outside of justice. No special interest, no perks, no payments only pure virginal untainted justice.

Take thou shalt not steal. No body that calls itself law could collect fines, taxes, etc on behalf of the enforcers of that body of law. This would end police and militaries who are nothing more than tax collectors, on behalf of mob law governments.

Thou shalt not bear up a false witness. There has to be an actual witness, who has seen an actual crime where there is an actual victim. Police will not be witnesses on behalf of the prosecuting attornies, because they have not actually been witness to an actual crime.

Thou shalt not kill. The law will not send anyone to kill anyone. If someone wants to kill someone without just reason, that is called murder. If someone wants to join a mob, that calls itself a military in order that they may have the opportunity to plunder, ransack and kill...that is called serial killing for profit, or a hit man...on behalf of organized crime, that pretends to represent law.

Thou shalt not steal. What are taxes, fees, registration etc. but organized theft?
 kohavah
Joined: 12/31/2011
Msg: 43
Laws - do they really represent their societies moral & ehtical values?
Posted: 1/20/2012 3:00:38 PM
A Gent you said that generally speaking...people get the governments they deserve. It is my opinion that individuals are born under a certain type of governing body, much like a baby is born to a specific set of parents and family. Governments, like families are merely that which we have inherited. To say that people deserve to be mistreated, robbed and held captive by the governments they fell victim to, in my opinion is the same as saying that a girl or boy that has been abused by their parents got the parents they deserve.
 A_Gent
Joined: 8/18/2011
Msg: 44
Laws - do they really represent their societies moral & ehtical values?
Posted: 1/20/2012 3:41:28 PM
Interesting point. Intuitively, there may be some parallels... but I don't think the comparison is accurate.

A government is empowered by the cooperation, complicity ... or complacency of it's people.

People can work together to change and/or overthrow their governments... happens repeatedly through history... French revolution, American revolution... Arab spring.

When a people in a democracy become complacent ... they fail to understand the issues, make apathetic or ignorant choices in who they vote for.. fail to raise their voices in dialogue and protest.. fail to hold their governments accountable.. let special and minority interests (money) supersede the better interests of the majority.. you get England, Canada, the US.

Does the parallel hold with families?
 kohavah
Joined: 12/31/2011
Msg: 45
Laws - do they really represent their societies moral & ehtical values?
Posted: 1/20/2012 5:08:44 PM
Governing bodies in this world are empowered by plundering helpless, unarmed individuals. These lawless entities are gangs of financiers and investors, who use a few crumbs to pay mercenaries(police and militaries)bribe money to enforce their unjust gang laws.

When individuals are disempowered so completely by enemy regimes who have control of their land, water, food, fuel, transportation, health and education...they are seriously grounded. They are taught from cradle to grave to pledge their allegience and support to those who see them as nothing more than manure to enrich the next battle field.

As far as people becoming complacent, I once again disagree. The individuals in this atmosphere are under the same type of cult mind control by those who wrongly govern them, as those whose minds are held captive by a false and corrupted religion.

When an individual in this world votes for their so called representive or lord, they are merely choosing who will hold the power of attorney over their affairs.

It is the same as if the voter were deemed below natural intelligence, mentally retarded, mentally ill, deranged, not fit to manage their own personal estate. The voter/incompetant chooses/elects others to be in charge of their land, finances, food, transportation, healthcare, education, and religious instruction. The establishment/banking system/church then takes in all of the incompetants money, land and rights and does what the representative/lord deems is right for the one who voted for another to oversee his affairs. Of course I suppose that you could try to get chosen by election to be part of this terrifying fraudulent design. Then you could be called a parent of the estate as well.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 46
view profile
History
Laws - do they really represent their societies moral & ehtical values?
Posted: 1/20/2012 5:35:12 PM
I thought this was funny. Although I don't think the test was properly conducted. It led to a biased answer

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-12-10/religion-atheism/51777612/1

Study: Atheists distrusted as much as rapists
By Kimberly Winston, Religion News ServiceUpdated 12/10/2011 4:42 AM Comments
A new study finds that atheists are among society's most distrusted group, comparable even to rapists in certain circumstances



Our society’s morals and ethics have a very big root in spirituality and that really pisses people off. Maybe someone needs to conquer a small island and start a colony based on science and utilitarianism.
 A_Gent
Joined: 8/18/2011
Msg: 47
Laws - do they really represent their societies moral & ehtical values?
Posted: 1/21/2012 10:54:33 AM
Nice rambling rant, Kohavah...

But here is the thing...

... you as an individual can kick up your legs and let the overlords do it to you again and again... or you, and people who have had enough, can rise up and throw off your oppressors.

Some of you might get killed.. happens in every uprising.. except in Canada where we politely asked for our independence from Britain..

Or fortunately in a democratic country fewer people do get killed, but it does require people to do things that might be less convenient than watching television 30 hours or more week... to make the effort to get informed, get involved, engage others... be the change you want to happen.

Be passive and complain.. you get what you deserve. Take action, organize, educate, overthrow.. you get what you earn.

Perhaps I will change my initial statement to respect those who are oppressed and have a steep climb ahead of them .. especially while they continue to wallow in their victim mentality....

Generally speaking.... in a democracy, people get the governments they deserve.
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 48
Laws - do they really represent their societies moral & ehtical values?
Posted: 1/21/2012 10:56:33 AM
Generally speaking.... in a democracy, people get the governments they deserve.

I would say that:

Generally speaking.... in a democracy, the people with the money to influence the election get the governments they deserve, the rest just have to suck it up.




Our society’s morals and ethics have a very big root in spirituality and that really pisses people off. Maybe someone needs to conquer a small island and start a colony based on science and utilitarianism.

I hear that is a good idea, but ever 200 years or so you have to move to a new island.
 A_Gent
Joined: 8/18/2011
Msg: 49
Laws - do they really represent their societies moral & ehtical values?
Posted: 1/21/2012 11:05:12 AM
Aries.. msg 53

I have read that spiritual values do not make things wrong... For example, Thou shalt not steal is not wrong because it is a Biblical (religious) commandment ... it forbidden in the Bible because it is wrong.

Even pure .. if there is such a thing... Marxist countries put the welfare of state as the highest moral ideal. Much as the upholding the constitution and flag as the spiritual ideal of the Americanist faith.

What would a purely utilitarian state - not based on spiritual values - look like?

Would and could the US exist without a spiritual idealism as the basis for moral behaviour (behavior... US spelling.... sigh... ) that is supposed to guide individual and collective (government) conduct?
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 50
view profile
History
Laws - do they really represent their societies moral & ehtical values?
Posted: 1/21/2012 11:18:29 AM

Generally speaking.... in a democracy, people get the governments they deserve.


There is a very good reason why Democracy is not the best form of Government :) People suck.

Limited democratic process is a better fit for your actual point though. Just doesn't roll off the tongue very well.

It is such a huge difference to me and I think that in general most people forget or don't really know the difference. Just looking at the thread about 'women and children first' it is clear that if left to every individuals decision they will justify a reason to vote in their own self-interest and the one thing that can never work is a government based primarily on self-interest. It leads to everyone demanding equality and then eventually obtaining equality. Criminals also acquire equality and do what they are best at and begin to take advantage of their positions causing insecurity. Then in order to try to restore some level of security people end up voting for those that promise to restore their security and before anyone knows it they voted for a tyrant.

We are in the equality stages still. Obama was the first hint at voting for a savior.

We do not head directly into tyranny because we do not vote directly on national issues. I hope we don't end up voting for that right. What we are supposed to do is to vote for those that are philosophically sound and reasoned and weigh the value of what the best choice for their individual state vs what the people want vs what is best for the country.

I would say the leaders would be a reflection of the values, morals and ethics of a society as a priority over its laws.

Unfortunately, in democracy, people will get the government they deserve.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 51
view profile
History
Laws - do they really represent their societies moral & ehtical values?
Posted: 1/21/2012 11:54:10 AM
A_Gent:

I am very much not religious. I do not like religion. It is as corruptible as any institution and subject to all the same problems as business and government. It is run by men.

The problem I run into is that not liking religions does not excise a belief in God. For that matter my belief in God is generally leaning toward the Christian as that is my heritage... for lack of a better term for a modern American without much cultural heritage. It is a personal sense of belief that is natural to me and no philosophical challenges ever seem to override that base sense. I have tried.

So, what I know of Marxist is that to achieve communism a few fundamental principles are required. First, you must eliminate religion. Religion sets a morality higher than a leader, higher than a government and one that is a permanent resistance to a state’s authority over the people. Next you must eliminate the value of families. Family values are the strongest (real world) ties people can make. Allegiance to a family can be stronger to allegiance to government and leaders and religions. Although the family would typically be united under God. The third achievement is the destruction of individuality. Individuality is created out of family and is the highest achievement under God. A good man. These three things are required to be eliminated to achieve a more perfect communism where from one to many works in union.

The single problem with that entire concept is that there is no getting around the fact that man is by nature selfish. Religion accounts for this natural selfish state. God has that moral authority that defines what is good and what is not.

If left to science, science has no good or bad compass. Science is logic without conscience. Science tells us that today we have too many people living for the resources we have therefore the best course of action is to reduce the number of currently living people. What stops us from following through with that assessment? If it were up to a government that applied morality only through science we would be under population control. Very close to what China is today.

If left to humanism and other attempts at recreating the moral good of God we end up with a wide range of varying opinions and a lack of clarity with the only thing being consistent is that the government would be required to hold and grant those values. So, if the government grants you liberty and Government is the highest authority. Government has the option to decide that liberty is no longer your right.

What would a pure utilitarian state look like. I would say that it would eventually lead to what our fear of our robot overlords would realize. That man is not competent to know what is best for himself therefore the best option is absolute control. That outcome is required in a pure utilitarian state because man is by nature selfish and will always seek his desires over what is in his best interest.

I do not think the US can exist without a 'spiritual idealism.’ Not so much for the moral behavior aspect either. But just in the sense of, we were endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. IOW - Get Off My Lawn Government!

 A_Gent
Joined: 8/18/2011
Msg: 52
Laws - do they really represent their societies moral & ehtical values?
Posted: 1/22/2012 10:13:38 AM
"...we were endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights." Msg 58

But if one denies the creator as a myth, then there is no real foundation for inalienable rights.

Human Rights do not actually exist... A human being has no rights for the sake of being human... ask any hungry tiger in India.... or minority tribe in Rwanda (horrible affair).... or people sent off to re-education by Lenin and Stalin... or people lynched for being the wrong colour, religion, nationality...

The best one can say is that there are Civil Rights.

But only so long as the society upholds those rights.

In a democratic society, civil rights become enshrined by The Rule of Law... made by those who represent the people via election.

[Sloppy] people get sloppy governments ... and sloppy laws.

[Insert] ignorant, intolerant, devious.. etc...
 A_Gent
Joined: 8/18/2011
Msg: 53
Laws - do they really represent their societies moral & ehtical values?
Posted: 1/22/2012 10:18:38 AM
"Generally speaking.... in a democracy, the people with the money to influence the election get the governments they deserve, the rest just have to suck it up." Msg 55

The Occupy Movement is interesting because it may represent a grass roots movement that can change the direction of government.... Will they evaporate.. will the dissent they represent become organized and as viral as wild fire? .... time will tell.

But what is the power such people hold?

In a democracy, they hold the one currency that determines who will gain political power.

WE ARE MILLIONS OF REGISTERED VOTERS.
 kohavah
Joined: 12/31/2011
Msg: 54
Laws - do they really represent their societies moral & ehtical values?
Posted: 1/22/2012 3:21:55 PM
Perhaps you meant to say unalienable rights. Contrary to inalienable rights, unalienable rights are those rights that can not be bought, bargained or gambled away.

The right to life and all that is necessary to live. This includes property...land to grow food, land for your home,your personal and family school, your personal and family church(the home). Land for your clean(not immoral) occupation. Land for all that you acquire, and may acquire to help you, your companion, your children and their children. Land in order that your many belongings, such as vehicles, campers, boats and supplies may be properly stored on your land, for you and whomever you choose to share with.

Your physical body, your mind, your spirit...your soul. These are yours and no one has a legal and justified right to take them from you. They are not to be used as collateral where in you may lose them. They are not to be bargained. These are the things essential for families. For individuals. For a just society.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 55
view profile
History
Laws - do they really represent their societies moral & ehtical values?
Posted: 1/22/2012 4:40:50 PM
Yes I meant unalienable... feel free to knock off points for editing and proofing.

Property was not included in that list. I know some wanted them and it really would be a good marker for libery. But it would not work for everyone to have a right to property and any attempt to try to guarantee that has ridiculous outcomes.

Once you own property you have many rights. However, there is no inherent right to property.


Imagine if it would have been other words...
Life, Liberty, Health
Life, Liberty, Justice
Life, Brotherhood, Tolerance
Life, Equality, Unity

They didn't even have to mention life.
 kohavah
Joined: 12/31/2011
Msg: 56
Laws - do they really represent their societies moral & ehtical values?
Posted: 1/22/2012 5:55:01 PM
Aries, I meant no disrespect. I was wondering though why there should not be an inherent right to property? From birth. Should each babe not start out with a positive and wholesome inheritance? There is massive amounts of land that is not being properly utilized.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 57
view profile
History
Laws - do they really represent their societies moral & ehtical values?
Posted: 1/22/2012 8:36:03 PM
I believe John Locke advocated for, "Life, Liberty, and Estate"

Property rights would be great. Property owners have a commitment to the country. They also have a stronger sense of, "This is my land and my rules."
It's a good base to have to help ensure that government doesn't step out of line.


The problem is that you end up in ridiculous territory to guarantee land. How much? An acre per person? Back when this was being considered an acre probably wasn't really considered much. So, how much?

If you happen to work out some amount for "how much" next you have to deal with, "where?"

How can you possibly allocate land for every person across generations and have land for future generations... And what do you say to those people that were allocated uninhabitable land, "Make the best of it?"

It just falls apart. Even if that wasn't going to be the intention to guarantee land at the time of signing... than we get into future interpretation. If the line would have been, Life, Liberty, Welfare and it was originally intended to mean that the Government was mandated to provide the environment in which a decent human standard of 'welfare' could be achieved it would quickly turn to assured living wages.

It is just unworkable over the long haul. Just as it sits, Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, could easily extend 1000 years without change. It just requires government to let you live, keep your sense of freedom, and do what you want in life to achieve your own sense of wellbeing.
 johnb1949
Joined: 1/9/2012
Msg: 58
Laws - do they really represent their societies moral & ehtical values?
Posted: 1/27/2012 5:13:54 AM

I have read that spiritual values do not make things wrong... For example, Thou shalt not steal is not wrong because it is a Biblical (religious) commandment ... it forbidden in the Bible because it is wrong.


ah, but wrong according to whom? on who's authority was stealing made wrong before the bible was writen. is it wrongg to not allow women to drive if we allow men to drive? many muslims would argue, NO, nothing wrong about that whatsoever. the very reason we have any laws at all is simply because not everybody agrees on what is right and what is wrong. we make laws to remove any gray area questioning of right/wrong and now we have what is legal in bold black and white for everybody to comply with.

there's been alot of talk about "certain inalienable rights" here and the key word in this phrase is "certain". only CERTAIN inalienable rights are protected by our constitution, for instance, and those same CERTAIN rights are not necessarily protected by other goverments. so laws have never been about right and wrong, morals and ethics. whether the laws are inacted in a democracy, the u.s. is not that btw, or a dictatorship, all laws are legally correct within the governing body with the power to enforce them.
 A_Gent
Joined: 8/18/2011
Msg: 59
Laws - do they really represent their societies moral & ehtical values?
Posted: 1/27/2012 6:31:10 AM
John 1495.

Sure.. some laws reflect transitional values. To understand them it is important to know where they came from and what problems they answered at their time... not in our temporal arrogance impose our values on the past.

Some laws are more functional. Whether women drive or not is so fundamental to critical to a functional society as that we all agree to drive on the one side of the road instead of freestyle.

But let us play the game.

What if theft became the norm? How would your neighbourhood be different than it is now? What if theft had been the norm? How would humans be any different than a pack of dogs?

What if adultery became the norm? What would happen with pooling and sharing resources to form a stable family to raise children? What if adultery had been the norm through the vast majority of human history when survival was day to day? I see you have adult children.. you have worked long and hard to provide for them, maybe leave them a bit of inheritance? Perhaps feel just a bit of satisfaction that something of you will go on - your flesh and blood? How do you know they are yours? Would it matter if you had been cuckolded?

Perhaps these morality issues are purely a social construct.

Perhaps morality is a delusion.

"on who's authority was stealing made wrong before the bible was writen [sic]."

Let us say that someone shoots your son, kills his children, rapes his wife and takes all your son's possessions for his own children.... Is that wrong? On whose authority ... yours?

Where would we be without them?

>

And by the way.... as totally screwed up as the US politics and electoral college system may be... and while it is true that the US is not a pure democracy... (really - the more people you have involved in making the decisions the more it is likely to collapse under it's own weight - can you imagine everything came back to a public vote?) ... it is a democratically based system....You may not make the laws directly. You elect the people to make those laws.... a workable compromise between efficiency of a dictatorship and impossibility of a pure democracy. And when it comes time to make that election.. you have the same one vote as each of the other 212,702,354 eligible citizens.

What are you doing to make it better?
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >