moral versus legal

[cacian]

which has more credibility??

[PeterL]

They are quite different things. Morality cannot be legislated, and laws relate to social necessities, rather than to morality. Which id more credible? It depends on facet of which. Both are credible, but they related to different matters.

[cacian]

They are quite different things. Morality cannot be legislated, and laws relate to social necessities, rather than to morality. Which id more credible? It depends on facet of which. Both are credible, but they related to different matters.

I thought the whole point of legislation is that it is moral
by moral I mean correct.
necessity sounds rather greedy if one needs more the other because of circumstances it is almost biblical.
without basic morals there is no laws.
don't you agree??

[PeterL]

It has been popular for a very long time to regard morality as the basis for laws, but laws are based on self-interest, as are many moral positions. For example, it is illegal to kill someone, because it is harmful to society for people to run around killing each other. It may be immoral to kill people, but that is irrelevant. On the flip side, using opium is not immoral, but it is illegal.

[cacian]

It has been popular for a very long time to regard morality as the basis for laws, but laws are based on self-interest, as are many moral positions. For example, it is illegal to kill someone, because it is harmful to society for people to run around killing each other. It may be immoral to kill people, but that is irrelevant. On the flip side, using opium is not immoral, but it is illegal.

interesting point
if it not immoral why is it illegal?

[PeterL]

interesting point
if it not immoral why is it illegal?

Because it came to be seen as destructive to society, and that's what interests the law.

The law has problems with this matter also. Consider laws with respect to prostitution. Prostitution has been legal in some times and places and illegal at other times and in other places. That is because the lawmakers are trying to deal with the balance between personal morality and legality also.

[cacian]

Because it came to be seen as destructive to society, and that's what interests the law.

do you mean:
destructive to oneself for
when there is not one there is no law?!


The law has problems with this matter also. Consider laws with respect to prostitution
prostitution is not a problem it is dilemma.


Prostitution has been legal in some times and places and illegal at other times and in other places.
prostitution has never been legal
it has been absconded yes and for legal matters.


That is because the lawmakers are trying to deal with the balance between personal morality and legality also.
lawyers are the product of law they are because the law says they have to. without them law is not.
morality is a law converter when someone runs out of a reason one turns to morality.

[Delta40]

Another example would be same sex marriage. Legal in some countries not in others. Both a seemingly moral and legal dilemma.

[PeterL]

do you mean:
destructive to oneself for
when there is not one there is no law?!

No, when something is destructive of society, the group or governed people or the government, then it is worthy of being made illegal. Laws are to prop up government and society, not to make life nice for individuals.


prostitution is not a problem it is dilemma.

prostitution has never been legal
it has been absconded yes and for legal matters.

There have been and are places where prostitution is recognised as a legal business. Whether you or I like that is a different matter.


lawyers are the product of law they are because the law says they have to. without them law is not.
morality is a law converter when someone runs out of a reason one turns to morality.

That is true, and I have mixed feelings about it.

[cacian]

Another example would be same sex marriage. Legal in some countries not in others. Both a seemingly moral and legal dilemma.

marriage is a dilemma at the best of times. without a law marriage is flawed because when marriage fails laws put it up. therefore marriage is justified
same sex gets in the way because whilst a couple fall out they get different values for their failure
same sex means they get the same
law does not accommodate sameness
it accommodate differences
moral has nothing to do with it since we know morality is only imposing whilst it imposes on others
same sex does not impose on anyone but the law itself
in other words the law did not foresee same sex marriage being a long term possibility and therefore punishes as being immoral
same sex marriage was not in planning with the law
it unsettled the laws's own morals

[PeterL]

I'm glad you went for that one. I strongly agree that "marriage is a dilemma at the best of times." And there are many points related to that.

[cacian]

QUOTE=PeterL;1266490]No, when something is destructive of society, the group or governed people or the government, then it is worthy of being made illegal. Laws are to prop up government ad society, bot to make life nice for individuals
I am not sure
if one is wasted one is forgotten about
but then there is no contribution towards the law
one is to be active if the law is to be practiced



There have been and are places where prostitution is recognised as a legal business. Whether you or I like that is a different matter.
prostitutions is as a result of law making
when laws becomes its own jurisdiction it produces illegality of its own.
in other words prostitution is the love child of a law that is two sided.
there is good and bad
prostitution is the bad side of the law or as the result of it.

That is true, and I have mixed feelings about it.
mixed?
why?

[cacian]

I'm glad you went for that one. I strongly agree that "marriage is a dilemma at the best of times." And there are many points related to that.

what other points if I may ask?

[PeterL]

I am not sure
if one is wasted one is forgotten about
but then there is no contribution towards the law
one is to be active if the law is to be practiced

I think that you may have your own definition of law. I am simply referring to laws that are enacted by governments.


prostitutions is as a result of law making
when laws becomes its own jurisdiction it produces illegality of its own.
in other words prostitution is the love child of a law that is two sided.
there is good and bad
prostitution is the bad side of the law or as the result of it.
why?

That's one way to put it. Prostitution exists only because it has been defined by law.
mixed?

And marriage and prostitution are closely related. If marriage didn't exist, then it would be extremely difficult to have prostitution.

[Gnostic Bishop]

which has more credibility??

Are not all laws based on the morality of protecting the public from itself and others?

All the laws I can think of are motivated by that same morality.

For instance, we put speeding laws in place not because we dislike speed, it is because we might kill someone else.
That law forces us to focus our morality on others instead or ourselves and most think that that is the moral way to go. To be centered on others and not self-centered.

The Christian God doe the opposite and immoral thing and is quite self-centered and thus immoral.

Regards
DL

[Ecurb]

All laws are enforced by violence and coersion. If we agree that violent coersion is a bad thing, then laws are bad things. Therefore, laws must be justified by arguing that, although they are bad ipso facto, they are better than the alternative.

This being the case, utopia must be an anarchy. Any society that must justify vilent coersion cannot be utopian.

I suggest that laws can be divided into several categories:

1) Laws that protect people against violence from other people. Justifying these laws morally is relatively simple: laws against murder or assault are justified because the legal violence and coersion necessary to enforce them is less harmful than the violence and coersion they prevent.

2) Laws that protect people from themselves. This is trickier. Are we as a society justified in clapping someone in irons and dragging him off to prison for jay walking, or not wearing a seat belt, or taking illegal drugs? It cold be argued that we simply fine people for not wearing their seat belts -- we don't clap them in irons. But that's a specious argument. Nobody would pay the fine were it not for the gaols, billy clubs and handcuffs, and the indigent can't pay the fines in any event. I don't know the answer here, but its worth thinking about in these terms.

3) Property laws. This is trickier yet. Should we practice violent coersion against someone for, say, walking across a field (tresspassing)? How about plagiarism (which might be of interest on these boards)? Is it reasonable to practice violent coersion against people for writing something, or saying something? Aren't intellectual property laws contrary to the principle of free speech? Other property laws are subject to the same inquiries. Again, I don't have the answers, but it's worth thinking about, considering that laws are by their nature violent and coersive. My own opinion on intellectual property -- it's important to provide artists and inventors some means of making money from their art or inventions, but we should be very careful not to overdo it. For example, JK Rowling's suits against "fan fiction" authors were ludicrous. Why should she "own" her characters in that way? It's reasonable, I think, to prevent others from making money off her characters, but not to prevent them from writing and publishing about them.

[mona amon]

For example, JK Rowling's suits against "fan fiction" authors were ludicrous. Why should she "own" her characters in that way? It's reasonable, I think, to prevent others from making money off her characters, but not to prevent them from writing and publishing about them.

J K Rowling has nothing against fan fiction, and has always encouraged fan fic writers. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3753001.stm The law suits were for something else altogether.

[Ecurb]

J K Rowling has nothing against fan fiction, and has always encouraged fan fic writers. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3753001.stm The law suits were for something else altogether.

Fair enough. I had simply heard rumors, and, perhaps, should have avoided repeating them, especially when they are about a rich person who is rumored to be overly litiguous. My general point about intellectual property holds -- because all property rights restrict the freedom of others, they should be limited to the sphere of business. Karl Marx properly wrote that Property can never be seen as the relationship between a person and an inanimate object -- instead, it is the relationship (and a violent one at that) between two people. If you own a car, your ownership has no affect whatsoever on the car -- it simply allows you to enlist the police to handcuff and jail another person who uses the car without your permission. All "rights" can never be anything more than "obligations" on the part of other people. The right to life is simply an obligation on the part of others not to kill you.

p.s. In general, I dislike fan fiction. It's the principle of the thing.