Morality vs. Logic in Law Making - Page 3

Dudeguy - Well, admittedly that is not the sole purpose of it, however yes, that is one of its purposes. That can be seen fairly clearly in the bill of rights, and is made clear in the writings of the founding fathers.

As fair as that all is, it still does not change the fact, that the original intent of our framers, was to avoid giving power to a majority body.

quote Dudeguy

I've protested in public about Prop 8's passing. I'm all for gay marriage.

quote Dudeguy

I secretly want to marry Barmy

I think you're still kind of not seeing the point, faithhandler. You asked "What sort of government lets a majority deny rights to a minority?", and the answer is "America's government". The original intent of your forefathers has little - if anything - to do with it.

quote Faithhandler

As my example of premarital sex, extramarital affairs, and oral sex well pointed out. It's ludicrous to attempt and legislate morality. Whether or not it happens is irrelevant. The fact is, it shouldn't, and it is in complete contradiction of the bill of rights and the constitution.

You're using some very one-sided examples. Sure, creating laws against oral sex based on morality is a bit silly, but that doesn't do anything to prove that the act of creating laws based on morality is a bad thing in-and-of itself; All you've done is prove that those particular laws are dumb. You can't just provide three examples of stupid, morality-based laws, and then pretend that you've proven all morality-based laws are stupid.

And I think you would find that most people would disagree with you about morality having no place in legislation. What constitutes "moral" is decided on by the society, and since laws are created to uphold that society, they almost certainly must enforce some sort of morality lest the society crumble.

Subjective morality has absolutely no place at all in government. What's logic is what's moral. Who gives a *bleep* if everybody in the world disagrees with my decisions, as long as they don't hurt anybody, then there's no problem. What if everybody in our society thought that me drawing on my hand with a marker was immoral? Does that mean I shouldn't be allowed to draw on my hand with a marker? The alternate is true. Are you suggesting that if murder was a part of our culture and the majority of America wanted to legalize all forms of it, then it should be allowed? Ludicrous.

No, i'm not. You are quite good at twisting words Barmy.

No, i am saying that unless the behavior is detrimental to the well being of society, it should be permitted. Which is completely different than "don't let people do bad things"

For instance, Abortion is immoral, but it has absolutely no bearing on the rest of society. it only effects the consenting parties involved.

Murder however, is the willful and malicious taking of another individuals life. It's detrimental to society, if we allow people to kill those they dislike.

quote Faithhandler

i am saying that unless the behavior is detrimental to the well being of society

Using longer, fancier words doesn't make the meaning of this sentence any different to the meaning of "Unless the actions are bad."

What constitutes being "detrimental to society"? It sounds as though we've first got to decide what we want our society to be like, and then enforce laws that shape society that way. Which, lo-and-behold, is no different to just legislating morality. All you're doing is calling it something different.

quote Pyroguy

Are you sure about that?

If you knew nothing but murder, then yes, I'm sure you'd be gobsmacked at the mere notion of someone creating laws to ban it.

Just look at Americans and their guns; Everyone in America is allowed to own firearms, and the idea of legislation infringing upon that right is outright blasphemous. Meanwhile, the rest of the world (Australia, at the very least) are absolutely amazed that you guys don't adopt tighter gun control. It makes literally no sense to us.

You can't just say "murder is wrong you can't take someone's life!" and assume that you would think the same way if you were brought up in a radically different culture with radically different values.

quote Barmy Brat

quote Pyroguy

Are you sure about that?

If you knew nothing but murder, then yes, I'm sure you'd be gobsmacked at the mere notion of someone creating laws to ban it.

Just look at Americans and their guns; Everyone in America is allowed to own firearms, and the idea of legislation infringing upon that right is outright blasphemous. Meanwhile, the rest of the world (Australia, at the very least) are absolutely amazed that you guys don't adopt tighter gun control. It makes literally no sense to us.

You can't just say "murder is wrong you can't take someone's life!" and assume that you would think the same way if you were brought up in a radically different culture with radically different values.

Jesus *bleep*, did you read my post at all? I was brought up in a culture where gays shouldn't marry and drugs should stay illegal, and I changed my views on both of those. I was raised in a culture where taxes are important things that everyone must pay, and I hate the thought of them and think they should be done away with. I was raised in a culture where prostitution was looked as dirty and degrading to women, and I think it should be allowed. And if murder were legal, I sure as *bleep* would think it should be done away with. By your logic, two people raised in the same culture/society are going to have perfectly identical views.