• deaf_fish
    link
    fedilink
    English
    31 year ago

    No, I am not making a slippery slope argument. I am just trying to understand your moral framework, or see if you have any.

    Yes, lets talk about laws, maybe that will help. Ok, laws are not just some magic thing that happens, they are developed by society, right? In fact you can argue that laws are related to morality. In a truly democratic society laws would derivative of morality, right?

    Humans develop constructs like laws and capitatim to help us do things. So it is important for us to not derive our morality from existing structures, because if we did, we could never evolve them in a way to help us do more/better things. I know this is kind of abstract and I am sorry about that.

    So you are using existing laws and economic systems to argue for the correctness of the current laws and economic systems. Using this approach I could argue that that Feudalism is pretty awesome because it is way better than the stone age, etc…

    This is why I am wondering if you have given any thought to your moral frame work, or if you have just accepted the status quo and are trying to justify it because you don’t have a framework.

    • Jordan Lund
      link
      English
      11 year ago

      No, laws have absolutely jack all to do with morality, and when they do (prohibition for example) they inevitably fail.

      Laws exist to define which rights supercede other rights.

      So, for example, in my state there are three cases where I can use lethal force:

      1. If someone is or is about to commit a violent felony on me.
      2. If someone is breaking into my house.
      3. If someone is or is about to commit a violent felony on someone else.

      So, I see a dude walking down the street swinging a machete (I live in Portland, it’s not as crazy as you’d think.)

      I don’t have the right to just plug the guy. That would be illegal. He has the right to be in public, swinging around a machete.

      Now, if he’s swinging it AT ME or someone else, or chasing them or threatening them, then it’s a different deal and my right to be safe in a public space supercedes his right to wave his arms in the air like he just don’t care.

      Again, laws are not present to pick moral winners and losers.

      • deaf_fish
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 year ago

        I completely disagree. Why are there laws to prevent people from killing each other? Why would we as a society bother to make that a thing? It’s morality. It’s the basis of everything.

        If the most common moral framework didn’t hold that human life is valuable. Then we wouldn’t make those laws. It wouldn’t make sense for those laws to be on the books.

        And yes the laws do and should pick winners and losers. If you are a serial killer, the laws are not in your favor, your a loser.

        • Jordan Lund
          link
          English
          1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          There are laws against killing because you don’t have the right to deprive another sentient being of their right to live and potentially contribute something to society as a whole (even if that contribution is merely to serve as a bad example.)

          Again, laws are not moral or immoral, that’s not why we have laws. Cheating on your significant other is immoral, it’s not illegal. There are a whole host of things people consider to be immoral based on their own upbringing or religion that are not illegal.

          Attempting to legislate morality is a fast way to failure. See the 18th and 21st amendments to the Constitution.