Jump to content

Arab guilty of rape after consensual sex with Jew


Eurytus

Recommended Posts

I see your arguments, folks, and I reject them out of hand. Laws exist entirely as amoral entities.

A ridiculous and even petulant position unless you can supply a reason for having laws that doesn't have it's basis planted firmly in a desire to enforce morality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stego,

Profit. Fear.

All that means is that in your system of morality, you placed profit or power at the top of the hierarchy. I fail to see how this is not still a decision of morality.

I guess what I mean is that morality is simply the order of one's values -- you place something at the top of the list, it becomes your number one value, the focus of your morality. Other people who order things differently will probably say you're immoral -- but if you're sufficiently dedicated to your own moral order, that won't matter to you.

I don't know how much it explains, but it describes everything perfectly.

Morality hardly ever comes into consideration for anyone.

This is only true where morality is by definition in opposition to one's own best interests, which, admittedly, describes many systems of morality, but certainly not all, and possibly not even most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A ridiculous and even petulant position unless you can supply a reason for having laws that doesn't have it's basis planted firmly in a desire to enforce morality.

Laws are designed to create a functional society. As one can have a perfectly functional society without going into what is moral, morality doesn't dictate laws.

There are things (e.g. murder) that is both against the law and morality, things (e.g. adultery) that are against morality but not the law, and there are things (e.g. parking for five minutes too long when no other cars are around) that are against the law but not morality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RBPL,

There are things (e.g. murder) that is both against the law and morality, things (e.g. adultery) that are against morality but not the law, and there are things (e.g. parking for five minutes too long when no other cars are around) that are against the law but not morality.

Emphasis mine.

That's all very well, but surely with how often you employ this word, and how significantly, this statement can only be true for certain definitions of morality, yes? Which definition are you employing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A ridiculous and even petulant position unless you can supply a reason for having laws that doesn't have it's basis planted firmly in a desire to enforce morality.

Money. Profit. Morality does not come into play in a capitalist society. It is something to be worked around, not instituted into law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's all very well, but surely with how often you employ this word, and how significantly, this statement can only be true for certain definitions of morality, yes? Which definition are you employing?

By "morality" I was referring to "accordance with the set of values that most people in modern society hold".

I think I'm safe in suggesting that most people have moral issues with murder and adultery, but don't regard brief over-parking in a non-inconveniencing way as being a breach of their value system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laws are designed to create a functional society.

And why would anyone care to create a functional society? Farcical whim, maybe? Boredom?

Money. Profit. Morality does not come into play in a capitalist society. It is something to be worked around, not instituted into law.

Sorry, are you still arguing that laws are amoral entities or have you switched to should be amoral entities?

I think I'm safe in suggesting that most people have moral issues with murder and adultery, but don't regard brief over-parking in a non-inconveniencing way as being a breach of their value system.

Well, ideally laws aren't created for instances when they aren't needed, only for when they are. But the fact that we are still required by law to stop at red lights in the middle of the night when we are the only vehicle within miles of the intersection doesn't mean that the law that requires us to stop wasn't created for the purposes of protecting motorists at the height of rush hour. And it's the same with your parking example. That there are times when there are tedious spillover effects of common laws that may be objectively ridiculous in certain circumstances doesn't refute the idea that laws are universally enacted to protect something or someone from something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, are you still arguing that laws are amoral entities or have you switched to should be amoral entities?

All human interaction is not based on morality, as so many of you would have us believe. Morality is a personal set of judgments that decide whether something is right or wrong. That is all it is. You can continue to try to make it an all-encompassing religious like entity if you want, but that does not make it so.

Laws exist for many reasons, but never to differentiate what is 'right' and what is 'wrong.' They differentiate what is 'legal' and what is 'illegal,' and it is the purest folly to confuse the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are just talking past each other here. This is why it's so important to agree on terminology before having an abstract discussion like this. Regarding a well-functioning society as desirable is surely a moral stance? Likewise for valuing profit.

It seems like half the people here are equating morality with a) what they think is good, or B) what they think society at large thinks is good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like half the people here are equating morality with a) what they think is good, or B) what they think society at large thinks is good.

Morality is just that. The judgment as to whether something is good or bad. Nothing else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morality is just that. The judgment as to whether something is good or bad. Nothing else.

Yes, and by that definition any law is based on morality, since it is based on some kind of judgement of what is good and bad. (if only "What gives me the most money=good.")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the dictator who knows full well what he is doing is wrong, but continues passing barbaric legislation? In this case he knows what he is doing is morally reprehensible. What does this fit as?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the dictator who knows full well what he is doing is wrong, but continues passing barbaric legislation? In this case he knows what he is doing is morally reprehensible. What does this fit as?

Then hes just a hypocrite. Basically, for my definition of morality, I don't give a fuck about what he thinks he thinks is right or wrong. Thats between him and whatever supernatural entity he expects to read his mind. If this crazy dictator passes a law requiring everyone to worship watermelons (Turkmenistan, IIRC) then that is what he actually believes. He may very well think he believes in something else, but this is what he actually does, so thats what his moral system actually is.

Its like lkjeanes example from pages back with the murder of an innocent person to spare his own life. He says he believes that is wrong (presumably becuase he believes all peoples lives have equal value, etc, and he - especially if hes guilty - does not deserve to be alive more than someone else - especially if that person is innocent) but also that he would murder said person. Therefore, his belief becomes so much self serving imaginary bullshit, and what his actual moral code is saying is that this isn't wrong. (ie, his moral system is that he is inherently more deserving of being alive than someone else.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He may very well think he believes in something else, but this is what he actually does, so thats what his moral system actually is.

Then a moral code is just a list of every decision anyone ever makes and any talk of it being to do with morality is irrelevant. If people can't ever by their own moral code make a decision that is 'immoral' then what's the point of morality as a concept? I don't think this reflects what most people consider to be the definition of a moral code.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LJ - becuase you can approve or disapprove of something. I have my ideal moral system, but merely having it does not make me a moral person - I have to live it. (I can also think - in fact, often do, becuase i'm a judgmental freak like that - that someone else is immoral even if they're living up to their own code, becuase it dosen't match mine, but thats really semantics.)

Anyway, the point in this threadjack was simply to say that laws express what people value more and what less.

I'm pretty dissapointed that my tasteless and contextually innapropriate attempt to hit on Datepalm passed without comment.

The thing is, Australia is so far away the whole continent might as well be hypothetical. But the attempt was appreciated. :blush:

(And hopefully, now the thread ends.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have my ideal moral system, but merely having it does not make me a moral person - I have to live it.

But the point of your definition would be that you can't ever not live according to your moral code no matter what you did, so from a personal perspective you would always be a moral person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the point of your definition would be that you can't ever not live according to your moral code no matter what you did, so from a personal perspective you would always be a moral person.

Sure, in the sense that you are always consistent with yourself. Basically, if some politician comes along and say, bans minarets, then that is more indicative of his moral code than the campaign message about religeous tolerance, even though he maybe really, really thought he meant it when he wrote it. If he really believed in religeous tolerance, he wouldn't have banned the minarets, hence he dosen't believe in it. End of story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...