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
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 145
Breaking the law: A morality issue?Page 8 of 9    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)

Whose morality? Yours? Mine? Rupert Murdoch's?

Any act which deliberately causes harm to another is fundamentally immoral, and therefore a crime.


From whence does this 'law' spring forth?

From the implied social contract wherein we agree not to (for instance) kill others in with the expectation that others will agree not to kill us. Put in terms of rights & obligations, it may be said that it is a universal agreement among reasonable people that we have the right to not be harmed by another and the corresponding obligation to grant that right to others. Failure to do so may be considered a breach of the contract in which your right may be forfeit.

I would suggest that this evolved naturally as the optimal adaptive behaviour for intelligent communal animals such as human beings,as it probably promoted the survival and even thriving of human communities.


One need look no further than the approval ratings for the Iraq War in 2003 to see that this is fallacy


This only proves that most people don't think. They were programmed to believe the usual politically motivated lies that always precede a war. The fools probably thought they were doing the right thing; who really thinks of himself as a bad guy that would kill & dismember innocent women and children 10,000 miles away? I suspect that the approval ratings would have dropped drastically if the people in favour of the war had to go there themselves and murder innocents.


it is ludicrous to suggest that one has committed a crime until at least one law 'has been passed' in one form or another. By this I mean to say that laws, at their most basic, are agreements made concerning conduct between individuals, and this does in fact qualify as a codification of sorts.


Setting aside the mythical nature of the story for a moment, are you suggesting that what Cain did to Abel wasn't murder and should not have been punished because a law against murder hadn't been codified yet? Sorry; I have to disagree.


who is it that is qualified to say that one is incompetent to govern themselves?


That comes under another concept you probably never heard of, the obligation to care. An infant is unable to live more than a day or two without the loving care of his parent(s). In such a case, I suppose you could say that rightly or wrongly, they consider themselves qualified to say when the child is able to look after himself. What if the child is born severely retarded and is never able to "function" in our miserable excuse for a society? Should he be left on a rock to die when he turns "of legal age"? I'll admit that there is a slippery slope here, as many people are "borderline functional." I would suggest in those cases that they be given as much independence to govern themselves as is reasonably possible.


As for a system governed by 'justice'? Well, we have known for more than 2000 years that this is would be an utmost folly. As I have stated in another thread, one cannot rationalize essentially emotive concepts such as justice into a codified system without destroying many of the things that we as humans hold dear.


Why would it be folly? Justice isn't an emotive concept; it is ingrained into our very being. Fairness is learned very young. You can hear it in playgrounds for God's sake! "Hey…No fair!" If little kids know what's fair & what isn't, why shouldn't reasoning adults? Is the problem a codified system? In that case i have to agree with you in many respects. Justice should be reasoned, not codified. That's why I stand against the miserable legal system we have today. I refuse to let what some slob wrote on a piece of paper somewhere stand in the way of the things I hold most dear.
 DomG79
Joined: 3/12/2011
Msg: 146
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 12/25/2011 3:36:45 AM

You also kept a drug dealer in business.



The drug dealer was created by the legal system when drugs were made illegal. The drug dealer wouldn't exist if the illegality of drugs did'nt create the opportunity for large profits from selling drugs which would otherwise be dirt cheap. (Also, the black markets are actually probably the only examples of true free enterprise in existence.)




You cannot call what we have in the US a "free market".
 Gertrude13
Joined: 7/31/2011
Msg: 148
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 12/25/2011 11:05:14 AM
Fascinating evolution within this thread - So many facets to the relationship between law and morality...

I have to highlight one statement:

Any act which deliberately causes harm to another is fundamentally immoral, and therefore a crime.


This statement appears inarguable on the surface, but it doesn't take too much pondering to see where it can become problematic, especially when we move from the realm of personal morality into codified law.

I used to deliberately infuse poison into patients' veins. They would vomit, lose their hair, break out into hideous rashes, experience life threatening infections or hypersensitivity reactions to these poisons. I caused them harm, no doubt about it. However, the patients knew this, and also knew (or at least, had been informed) that the poison very likely would not put them into remission - that all of that could be futile suffering. Yet I did it, and I don't believe it was immoral to do so. Examples of this gray area abound - The parent who swats the toddler who runs into traffic is striking a child, but if that is the only way the child can understand, then the harm may be outweighed by the benefit. Which causes heartburn, because with so many shades of gray, how could one possibly hope to codify all this into law?

Our country was supposed to be this great experiment. Even though we are a representative republic and not a democracy, the system absolutely requires a voting population with critical thinking skills. We are supposed to be self-governing. Self-government, BTW, is definitely NOT the same thing as anarchy...

This is the real reason why we started this public education system. The kids in those schools will be responsible for electing lawmakers, for shaping the culture and law, and in order to keep us from descending into rank chaos, those kids need to learn to think. How do you think we're doing on that one?

Far too few citizens want to think,to take responsibility for what moral standards become law and which ones need to remain up to the individual's own personal code. Citizens have grown complacent with the idea of government as a nanny, protecting them from themselves...Sorry, just watched Idiocracy again. Always makes me cranky after I stop laughing...

So we wind up with a legal system that is really designed to keep sheep penned up, and although I am a Liberal, I do not believe any Government, no matter how good, is capable of determining morality for an entire population.

It's a vicious cycle, IMO. People do stupid things, and we rush to make a law about it without seriously considering the ramifications. We allow corporations to shape the uneducated opinion, and the public will becomes a reflection of corporate goals. And the legal system becomes one that, because it attempted to legislate morality, has become something inherently immoral. And the average citizen, barely able to comprehend this bewildering forest of legal jargon well enough to avoid incarceration, assumes that any "legal" activity is moral enough, and stops trying to weigh the effect of his own actions. And the idea of self-government dies.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 149
view profile
History
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 12/25/2011 12:41:47 PM

I used to deliberately infuse poison into patients' veins.


You are misclassifying, “deliberate harm," in this case. There was no malice. Even if you didn't like the person and laughed hysterically while injecting them for medical reasons. Injecting them when they were not sick would be "deliberate harm."


Even though we are a representative republic and not a democracy
Thank whatever lucky stars or icons for that. Democracy is fatal.


{public education}How do you think we're doing on that one?
Look up the origin of the Department of Education for this reason. It is doing what it was designed to do... Indoctrinate and blind.
 Gertrude13
Joined: 7/31/2011
Msg: 150
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 12/25/2011 12:58:57 PM
^^^sigh. I understand that the chemo analogy was more semantic in nature. However, I knowingly and deliberately caused harm. If all law could be boiled down to that question, that would be a start, but the grey areas like that would pose a problem.

I must agree with the current design/aim of the current us educational system. It's one that caters to the teachers, students, and administrators who will passively go with whatever sewage flow skims by.

However. I had to take "foundations in education" in my past life, and the instructor laid out the rationale for providing this classical education for all. She drew in everything from the Greeks to the founding fathers to today. All of her lovelyogic pointed to this picture of public education not as a "level playing field," but as insurance against assured destruction.

I believe we blew it. The students want to be passively spoon-fed, and it is in the best interest of corporations that those children grow up not thinking at all. Even more depressing if you look at this trajectory from the framework of what the earliest Americans wanted for the US.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 151
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 12/25/2011 2:43:42 PM
@ Gertrude13

I knowingly and deliberately caused harm.


The area is not quite as "grey" as you paint it. Your INTENT was to give hope to someone who knowingly consented. An act done without malicious intent is not immoral, nor is it a crime. One might just as easily say that a dentist who pulls a tooth causes harm (it's painful), yet the intent isn't pulling teeth for laughs (that IS a crime); the intent is to try to ease the client's suffering from a bad tooth.

Don't even get me started on modern "education"...Let's just say that we agree on it.

 Gertrude13
Joined: 7/31/2011
Msg: 152
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 12/25/2011 4:50:18 PM
^^^Absolutely - My "intent" was not malicious, even though the act itself was harmful.

I clumsily missed my entire point with that one. Sugar coma, LOL...

While motive/intent is an integral piece of moral structure - God knows, I agonize over my own motivations to a ridiculous degree - It becomes a hot mess when it's incorporated into a legal system.

It has to be, of course. A person who coolly and deliberately targets and kills a child has killed a person, but so has the person who did so in self-defense, or the person whose brakes went out at a crosswalk filled with pedestrians. Intent is inseparable from the act and outcome, but so difficult to codify in the black-and-white of law...

Which makes morality and law uneasy bedfellows. In order for the two to work together instead of against each other, the population MUST have critical thinking skills, as well as a well-developed personal moral code. We don't. Hence our current fustercluck.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 153
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 12/25/2011 7:18:43 PM

Which makes morality and law uneasy bedfellows. In order for the two to work together instead of against each other, the population MUST have critical thinking skills, as well as a well-developed personal moral code. We don't. Hence our current fustercluck.


I think what makes them uneasy bedfellows is the fact that statutes are not laws; some are consistent with law and some are not. Before I wnd up in another argument with a bunch of people here, let me first prove that statutes are not laws:

Between the nation, the province/state and the city/township, there must be thousands of statutes/by-laws. Consider also that some of them (like Canada's Income tax Act) are in themselves thousands of pages long, all written in "legalese" and as often as not, changing every year. The grand total must be about a half million pages of legalese gobbledegook. Now consider a couple of maxims of law; "the law must be reasonable" and "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." If these are to be true, it must be within reason that any law-abiding man or woman should read, understand and stay current on all of them. I submit that even The Supreme Court itself isn't ignorant of that mess; and if they are ignorant of the law, what chance do we have? Obviously then, if it is to be true that ignorance of the law is no excuse (and that is what any judge will tell you), then statutes CAN'T be real law; it just wouldn't be reasonable.

Part of our current-day problem lies in the fact that people think if it isn't on paper, it isn't law…poppycock! Unfortunately, I'm inclined to agree with you that a huge segment of our population has at best, questionable morals; not that I blame them too much; our corporatist/consumerist/amoral system raised them to be self serving. There IS hope, however; everyone isn't like that.
 Gertrude13
Joined: 7/31/2011
Msg: 154
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 12/25/2011 7:41:59 PM

Part of our current-day problem lies in the fact that people think if it isn't on paper, it isn't law…poppycock! Unfortunately, I'm inclined to agree with you that a huge segment of our population has at best, questionable morals; not that I blame them too much; our corporatist/consumerist/amoral system raised them to be self serving. There IS hope, however; everyone isn't like that.


MUCH more elegantly and succinctly stated than my attempt.

I have long felt that the over-abundance of legislation has contributed to this lack of moral fiber so frequently seen. But it could be the total opposite - The bewildering legal system the result of a basic amorality already rampant.

I know everyone isn't like that. I suspect all non-sociopaths have some moral underpinning, but it appears to be the societal norm to suppress this. That's depressing.
 Jan Sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 156
view profile
History
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 12/28/2011 9:51:48 AM

Any act which deliberately causes harm to another is fundamentally immoral, and therefore a crime.


In the first instance, all you have really done here is to define your version of 'morality', and I would say that many people would find it highly questionable. Does the passing lawful sentence of criminal acts always imply a certain amount of 'harm' to an individual? I would say yes, and as such your definition would also imply that ANY passing of lawful sentence was immoral. To suggest that rights are 'forfeit' in breach of an "...implied social contract..." is also to say that there should be no basic human rights, to which everyone is entitled, and this is something that I find problematic.


From the implied social contract wherein we agree not to (for instance) kill others in with the expectation that others will agree not to kill us. Put in terms of rights & obligations, it may be said that it is a universal agreement among reasonable people that we have the right to not be harmed by another and the corresponding obligation to grant that right to others. Failure to do so may be considered a breach of the contract in which your right may be forfeit.


As soon as you even start speaking of an implied social contract, your argument is very close to becoming self-refuting. For on the one hand, you admit of an implied social contract: and on the other, seem to be suggesting that the social contract of which you are currently party is neither valid, nor implied. You can't have it both ways. What makes your contract 'valid' where the other is not? Nothing other than your own dissatisfaction, which I share. However there is nothing to be gained by pretending universal authority where there is none.


This only proves that most people don't think. They were programmed to believe the usual politically motivated lies that always precede a war. The fools probably thought they were doing the right thing; who really thinks of himself as a bad guy that would kill & dismember innocent women and children 10,000 miles away? I suspect that the approval ratings would have dropped drastically if the people in favour of the war had to go there themselves and murder innocents.


Be that as it may, your original proposition is successfully refuted. Of course people are 'pliable', this way or that. But... which way is best? Of course, YOUR way.


That comes under another concept you probably never heard of, the obligation to care. An infant is unable to live more than a day or two without the loving care of his parent(s). In such a case, I suppose you could say that rightly or wrongly, they consider themselves qualified to say when the child is able to look after himself. What if the child is born severely retarded and is never able to "function" in our miserable excuse for a society? Should he be left on a rock to die when he turns "of legal age"? I'll admit that there is a slippery slope here, as many people are "borderline functional." I would suggest in those cases that they be given as much independence to govern themselves as is reasonably possible.


Putting aside for the moment the rather blatant appeal to emotion (another glaring inconsistency), I would say that the instance you describe would be more consistent with a libertarian position, not mine.

Setting aside the mythical nature of the story for a moment, are you suggesting that what Cain did to Abel wasn't murder and should not have been punished because a law against murder hadn't been codified yet? Sorry; I have to disagree.


That would be conflating 'justice' with 'legality'.


Why would it be folly? Justice isn't an emotive concept; it is ingrained into our very being. Fairness is learned very young. You can hear it in playgrounds for God's sake! "Hey…No fair!" If little kids know what's fair & what isn't, why shouldn't reasoning adults? Is the problem a codified system? In that case i have to agree with you in many respects. Justice should be reasoned, not codified. That's why I stand against the miserable legal system we have today.


So, in support of your proposition that "justice is not an emotive concept", you offer instances of children in the playground who are upset with one particular act or another? Yes, and when I deprived a six year old of a second helping of ice cream last week, it was an "innate sense of justice" that caused her to protest that "... it's not fair...".

Of course justice is emotive concept, this is what makes it so slippery. We should never become a completely 'rational' society, which is the way we are heading. Rationality has nothing to do with justice, kin, and love for our fellow man. The universe is not mathematical, and there is no human being on Earth who is driven by a 'rational' will.
 debbi101358
Joined: 9/29/2010
Msg: 157
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 12/28/2011 2:01:33 PM
first, it is only against the law if you get caught...or have enough money to break them....
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 158
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 12/28/2011 7:58:36 PM

all you have really done here is to define your version of 'morality', and I would say that many people would find it highly questionable.


Definition: immoral - Contrary to established moral principles.
Definition: moral principle - the principles of right and wrong that are accepted by an individual or a social group.

What percentage of our social group would consider "my" version of morality "questionable", and why?

Does the passing lawful sentence of criminal acts always imply a certain amount of 'harm' to an individual?


That depends on the sentence does it not? It all boils down to a question of intent. Killing someone machine-gunning patrons in a department store necessarily implies harm to that individual, but that is justified because less overall harm is done by killing him than by letting him "go to town." There is no doubt that confining someone to a cell infringes on his right to travel freely, but if this right is abused for criminal purposes how can we allow the situation to continue? If the intent of a sentence is to prevent or deter him from causing further harm, then the sentence imposed is justified and therefore, lawful.

there is nothing to be gained by pretending universal authority where there is none.


Who is pretending there is a universal authority?

your original proposition is successfully refuted.


How? Please explain.

I would say that the instance you describe would be more consistent with a libertarian position, not mine.


I don't think anyone would deny you the right to not be compassionate or to care about your fellow man. The obligation to care may not be implicit in all societies, but I'll be damned if I can think of one.

That would be conflating 'justice' with 'legality'


Only because you implied that lawful justice cannot exist in the absence of "legal" codification.

when I deprived a six year old of a second helping of ice cream last week, it was an "innate sense of justice" that caused her to protest that "... it's not fair…".


It probably was…Did you have a second helping yourself, or was she just wondering out loud who died and made you God?

Of course justice is emotive concept


The PASSION for justice is a very emotional concept, but if justice is to be achieved, it must be based on sound rational reasoning. Otherwise there is a very real danger of horribly unjust results. Lynch mobs are a good example.

The universe is not mathematical


An assumption, and one which if discussed or debated could probably fill volumes all on its own.

there is no human being on Earth who is driven by a 'rational' will.


Another assumption. Put simply, you can't know that.
 Gertrude13
Joined: 7/31/2011
Msg: 159
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 12/28/2011 9:26:23 PM

Of course justice is emotive concept, this is what makes it so slippery. We should never become a completely 'rational' society, which is the way we are heading. Rationality has nothing to do with justice, kin, and love for our fellow man. The universe is not mathematical, and there is no human being on Earth who is driven by a 'rational' will.


This is an incredibly thought-provoking statement. "Law" would seem to require absolute cold rationality - "Justice is blind," etc, but of course it can't be. How could someone sentence someone to death, or even life in prison, without being appalled, horrified by the act that brought the plaintiff there?

But the part that puzzles me a little is the statement that we are moving toward a more rational society. It doesn't seem that way to me. Instead, it seems that it's becoming ever more acceptable to act on "gut instinct" or "intuition."

But perhaps I'm thinking of just the apparent declining interest in critical thought on an individual level. We elect politicians based on their hair or cup size, someone we'd like to have a beer with, or who provides us with an illusion of safety.

So this move toward "rationality." Does this refer more to issues like declining strength of family, or a lack of romanticism in relationships?
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 160
view profile
History
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 12/28/2011 10:03:43 PM

But the part that puzzles me a little is the statement that we are moving toward a more rational society. It doesn't seem that way to me. Instead, it seems that it's becoming ever more acceptable to act on "gut instinct" or "intuition."


This is true. I do believe that this is a result of there being just too many people. The problem is that the 'rational' thing to do is to centralize. That way we are more efficient. That means that people in Washington will decide what is best for people in Kentucky.

It is a rational attempt at efficiency. It doesn't stop here. Global warming is the next logical step. It is more rational to decide global concerns from a global point of view. This means that an international body will then have authority over how someone in Kentucky lives. It is more efficient. It is more rational.

The declining strength of family, the lack of romanticism, also the ever decreasing sense of education, the ever present judgment that "I" is a bad thing. All of these things are the natural order of progression to a more rational and efficient single government. There is no "I" in "TEAM!" Why does that spell meat backwards? :)
 Ubiquitous.
Joined: 11/7/2009
Msg: 161
view profile
History
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 12/28/2011 11:26:02 PM
dukky
Definition: immoral - Contrary to established moral principles.
Definition: moral principle - the principles of right and wrong that are accepted by an individual or a social group.


So you'd accept racial lynching in 17th century America as moral? Or at the very least, not immoral? Or the forceful removal of daughters clitoris' by their parents in 13th century Europe and Asia? Both were considered "right" by the majority of the respected social groups.

...Interesting.
 pappy009
Joined: 2/3/2008
Msg: 162
view profile
History
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 12/29/2011 8:58:05 AM
A Moral Issue?

There is only one law in the universe and every creature with intelligence knows this law...the law is simple....DO NO HARM...I don't care what planet or species of being you are, if your civilized or achieve some sort of civilized behavior you will understand this.

The Question about law is that all legal law is deceiving, thats a fact. Legalese is a language other than English, words are given new meanings by law.

There are two types of law one legal one lawful, its illegal to drive your car without a license, yet its lawful to travel by any means you wish....freedom of movement. So whats the difference, legal is commercial law, lawful is commonlaw the law of the land. Legal is de-facto law created by Corporations such as Canada and the US which are corporate de-facto commercial systems of business.

A person in legal de-facto law is a corporation, a person in lawful is an imitation of a live human being...personify or personification. Actors.

In Common law there are no statues, codes or policy created by a de-facto corporate entity. Its based on Doing Harm, no mercy. In legal de-facto law there is always a remedy, commercial of course....fines and so forth. To be corrected ...Corrections...

The thing with me is this, there are to many people in prison over de-facto ...against your human rights...for victimless crimes....who got hurt and so forth....Oh I didn't pay my income tax...slammer....there is no income tax in Common Law.

I can grow acres of pot....if I don't sell it..(trafficing...commerce) and I give it to people who need it (medical) what law was broken.....all law is based on Presumption. Assuming someone will break the law. If you have ever been arrested and on the charge they put down "Without Lawful Excuse"....they the legal system is asking you your Common Law rights....Human Rights....A human Being cannot be taken to court by a dead CORPse..Corporation. A dead entity cannot take a live human to court...so why is it happening?

Wow there is so much more I could write.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 163
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 12/29/2011 9:54:42 AM

So you'd accept racial lynching in 17th century America as moral? Or at the very least, not immoral? Or the forceful removal of daughters clitoris' by their parents in 13th century Europe and Asia? Both were considered "right" by the majority of the respected social groups.

…Interesting.


Racial lynching and clitoral removal are "democratic" customs (and you know I abhor democracy). As such they may be the established "moral principles" of a screwed-up social group. If they could adhere to one simple moral principle, one simple law, "Do no harm" (as Pappy mentioned) we might not kill & torture one another to extinction. We never seem to learn that lesson; I suppose the collective suicide of our species is just evolution's way of burning the stubble to allow for growth of a new (presumably more moral) species, evolved enough to live by natural law.

BTW…Nice shot. (I wasn't happy with the definitions, but I couldn't refute the dictionary without implying that I was a demagogue morality-wise. Hey, I can't help it if I'm more moral than most people can I?)
 FortunateFoool
Joined: 12/2/2011
Msg: 164
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 1/1/2012 9:28:08 PM
Whether 'breaking the law is a morality issue' IS a slippery slope...b/c 'morality' itself is a slippery slope!

BUT, the legality of pot is governed by politics. And politics are not as concerned with morally ethical implications of law than it is making money.

'Morals' are based socially as opposed to politically.
AND the FACT is, only 35% of Americans 18+ years of age HAVE NOT tried pot in some form once in their life.
With the majority rule of 65%, the social standard would be that pot is acceptable. If we lived in a true democracy where EVERY INDIVIDUAL voted on EVERY SOCIAL ISSUE, odds are pot would be legal!

Smoking pot does not make you 'immoral', it does not mean you arent 'virtuous', and it does not make you a 'bad person'.


clitoral removal are "democratic" customs

Clitoral removals are patriarchal customs, not democratic!
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 165
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 1/2/2012 9:37:30 PM

morality' itself is a slippery slope!

Not as slippery as you might imagine. Any social group that is to function without excessive harm or damage to its members must operate with a consensus morality to determine what is and isn't acceptable behaviour within that social context. Behaviours falling outside that range are usually outlawed.

Obviously a system of law that is more complex is less likely to be fully understood and therefore less likely to be observed, so simplification ought to be the order of the day. What could be a simpler moral rule than "Don't intentionally hurt anybody"? What's slippery about that? Obviously anyone not willing to live in a social group adhering to that one rule has the freedom to leave it, and in the case of my own, would be encouraged to; I don't want someone like that near me.


Clitoral removals are patriarchal customs, not democratic!

That may be, but if most of the men in those societies were against the custom, it would die. If you want to argue that a patriarchal society is undemocratic because women can't vote, be reminded that women can vote (and quite effectively) with more than ballots:

(from Wikipedia): In 2003, Leymah Gbowee and the Women of Liberia Mass Action for Peace organized nonviolence protests that included a sex strike. As a result, the women were able to achieve peace in Liberia after a 14-year civil war and helped bring to power the country's first female head of state, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 166
view profile
History
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 1/2/2012 11:14:17 PM

That may be, but if most of the men in those societies were against the custom, it would die.


Ok you lost me here... it is a patriarchal custom resolved by democracy.. it is not caused by democratic means...

An old system corrected by another. Now don't get me wrong saying that democracy is the best solution. It is a good one in moderation.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 167
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 1/3/2012 12:51:47 AM

don't get me wrong saying that democracy is the best solution. It is a good one in moderation.


Sorry for the confusion; I was mixing more than one point in the comment. I agree with you that democracy has its place, for instance (as I've said before) deciding what colour to paint the Town Hall. Democracy has NO PLACE in deciding matters of law. Some laws, often as not amount to cruel customs (such as witch burning or genital mutilation). The problem through time has been making "laws" around what amount to unjust traditional customs because they were "popular" (and often profitable); for instance slavery was quite "legal" under what was called the common law and many so-called "laws" were passed to regulate the slave trade. Involuntary slavery, while an ancient custom, was always wrong from a moral standpoint, so any law that supported it was unjust and therefore really no law at all.

There have always been and will probably always be cruel/unjust customs that will be considered lawful by the majority of a society. As time goes on, hopefully there will always be fewer of them, but that won't happen unless some brave minority fights for justice by swimming against the current of "democracy."
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 169
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 1/3/2012 9:26:36 AM

Was the use of the word "hurt" over "harm" intentional?

No; it was unintentional really. There are many things that don't "hurt" at all by the common definition, but are no less harmful; fraud is one. I really meant to say "harm."


Richard Nixon described Leary as "the most dangerous man in America" because of his attitude to drugs and authority.

What Nixon probably meant was that HE was the authority that Leary didn't respect and that made Leary dangerous TO NIXON.



putting forward beliefs that contradict how society works makes you dangerous.

It not only makes you dangerous (to the status quo), but puts you in danger. (witness the persecutions throughout history of men & women who disagreed with the established order)


convincing people that killing is the right thing to do (cult leaders and religious fanatics) should be against the law, yes?

It is.


trying to make people see that while drugs can cause harm, they are not the cause for such occasions should IMO never be considered "dangerous"

Drugs are like cars, computers, or most anything else; they can help or harm, depending on how they are used. While you might be able to make the case for not having a 10 megaton warhead in your basement owing to its lack of positive utility and potential for causing harm if you pop your top (or miscalculate) one day, it is difficult to make a similar case for drugs, as research and experience has shown that the most harmful things generally attributed to drugs are largely a function of their illegality to begin with.
 Damienevil
Joined: 2/22/2008
Msg: 171
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 1/5/2012 8:20:13 PM
is it racist to protect your country from people you do not want there? If the answer is no then why did people support anti colonial efforts of driving white men from the African continent.
 Secondhand_Lion
Joined: 11/10/2008
Msg: 173
view profile
History
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 1/5/2012 9:52:53 PM
^^^{quote} Well.... my knowlege is lacking to give a truly informed reply..... but that wont stop me lol

Never has before. Son, you mean to tell us that you are from the UK and can't spell "British"? you aught to be ashamed of yourself. All the other misspellings I overlook....but I couldn't let that one slide......Us Amaricuns R reel fussie bout spellin
 Secondhand_Lion
Joined: 11/10/2008
Msg: 175
view profile
History
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 1/5/2012 10:30:40 PM
Now Mr. Happy, I wouldn't make that argument....you need an opposing point of view for an argument. But while I'm here correcting the future writer...look down on your keyboard and notice that big long key in the middle bottom....that's a spacebar. You know where it is, because I see you use it sometimes.

Young man, you have no respect for your elders. LOL

Some misspelling should be illegal and is down right immoral. LOL
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >