Morality.

[Derekkj]

Re: Morality.

I wouldn't say that laws are moral code. Morality is subjective to individuals. Not everyone loves chocolate, for example... so not all people may agree that stealing is wrong. But the only person who's idea of morality matters is the leader. And if you live below the leader than you don't have to have their same moral code, you just have to follow their rules based on their moral code.

[Seefu Sefirosu]

Re: Morality.

I wouldn't say that laws are moral code. Morality is subjective to individuals. Not everyone loves chocolate, for example... so not all people may agree that stealing is wrong. But the only person who's idea of morality matters is the leader. And if you live below the leader than you don't have to have their same moral code, you just have to follow their rules based on their moral code.

Makes sense.... wait, what?

O hai, I c u thar, makin' no sense.

Okay, laws aren't moral code. Makes a bit of sense. Morality is subjective t individuals. True statement.

Not everyone loves chocolate, so not all people may agree that stealing is wrong?

O RLY?

I think the big problem in that statement is that at first (and still, even five minutes later) it appears that you are trying to say that people may not agree that stealing is wrong BECAUSE they don't all like chocolate. Which is wrong.

Plus, say that I say stealing is fine (which in some cases I do). Let us also say that my leader says stealing is wrong. Thus, were I to be imprisoned for said theft, would I not have to have my leader's morals? If I were to disagree, I'd be thrown in jail. After all, stealing is wrong, right?

[MDMAngel]

Re: Morality.

Makes sense.... wait, what?

O hai, I c u thar, makin' no sense.

Okay, laws aren't moral code. Makes a bit of sense. Morality is subjective t individuals. True statement.

Not everyone loves chocolate, so not all people may agree that stealing is wrong?

O RLY?

I think the big problem in that statement is that at first (and still, even five minutes later) it appears that you are trying to say that people may not agree that stealing is wrong BECAUSE they don't all like chocolate. Which is wrong.

Plus, say that I say stealing is fine (which in some cases I do). Let us also say that my leader says stealing is wrong. Thus, were I to be imprisoned for said theft, would I not have to have my leader's morals? If I were to disagree, I'd be thrown in jail. After all, stealing is wrong, right?

I know what you're trying to say, but not everyone can be happy at once.

[Afrobean]

Re: Morality.

Politics statement noted.

I like the libertarian argument, sans legalization of marijuana, but this is a completely separate discussion from drug legalization, so that ends there.

Actually, the topic is completely relevant insofar as relating morality to law. If using drugs is not immoral, why is it illegal? Is it immoral? How could it be immoral?

At the moment, there are no laws against drinking alcohol in your own residence, regardless of age. You can be like, 12, but as long as you're in your own home, your guardian condones it, and you have no one else present, you're home free to get wasted.

Actually this varies from place to place. In some places, it is ok for a parent or legal guardian to let a minor drink alcohol in the privacy of their own home. In some places, it is ok for the parent to let their child have alcohol at place like a restaurant or a bar. But in some places, a child is not allowed to drink alcohol recreationally under any condition.

I think this wikipedia article is relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol..._United_States

But I know this chart appearing in said article is relevant:


I live in Michigan, so even if my parent gave me alcohol, it wouldn't be legal.

Well, obviously, too gray, and all of those questions are up to the INDIVIDUAL'S interpretation: What is self-defense to one situation (running away) is completely stupid to do in another.

Morality is up to one's self, but the law is not. How would you feel if every person got to act as the Judge in any legal dispute they were involved in. How do you think they would pass Judgment upon the situation? This is why the Law defines things in a more objective and circumstantial manner.

so not all people may agree that stealing is wrong.

Stealing breaks the social contract I mentioned. If a person is taking something which does not belong to them, they are not respecting the other person's right to property.

Morality is not as subjective as you make it seem. It requires a subjective interpretation, but a black and white statement can be made about specific instances based only on what I said alone, assuming you are familiar with the basic individual rights a person should be afforded.

but not everyone can be happy at once.

In a perfectly run world, the only ones who would fail to be "happy" would be those who do not deserve it, those who break the social contract.

[Derekkj]

Re: Morality.

@Seefu: No no the chocolate comment was just an example of subjective opinions. Not all people agree with the same things. Not all people like chocolate, and it's just as likely that not all people agree with stealing. Yeah?

And you're thrown in jail because of the laws, not because it's "wrong". For a long long time there have been people with power and they're opinions are honestly the only ones that matter. So if big boy presidenté thinks that stealing is wrong, he lets you know that and tells you that you shouldn't work against that. If you say "well, I think it's okay, but there is a rule against it" and do it anyway, that's why you'd go to jail.

[devonin]

Re: Morality.

But doesn't that make the laws of the land generate at least indirectly from the people?

After all, you elect your president democratically, you elect your house and senate representatives democratically, and your local politicians are answerable to the desires of their consituancy. If the vast majority of Americans thought stealing was A-Ok it woudln't take long for laws against it to be repealed, since that same majority could and supposedly would fail to re-elect people who didn't accede to their wishes.

[Derekkj]

Re: Morality.

If the majority of the people who democratically voted for senators who had ideas about stealing being okay, because they are the ones who are able to propose laws, then yes stealing could be omitted as being against the law.
But then again, IMO, the democratic system is crumbling. Politics is a foggy field of marketing and liars.

[devonin]

Re: Morality.

You aren't supposed to vote for people who have ideas about things that you don't agree with. if you elect such a person, you are indicating that you support their ideas, so it's you saying it too.

[Derekkj]

Re: Morality.

But political leaders today typically lie to get elected.

[devonin]

Re: Morality.

Well someone's disillusioned about the political process before even being able to vote.

[Specforces]

Re: Morality.

Well, maybe when you realize the inherent meaninglessness to every single thing in "existence" you'll stop having to ask questions that we've all thought about eons ago in existences before your time.

[devonin]

Re: Morality.

If every thing in existence is meaningless, then the fact that these questions have been thought about before is meaningless, so your objection is also meaningless.

[Specforces]

Re: Morality.

Obviously

[Seefu Sefirosu]

Re: Morality.

That kinda killed that question.

[devonin]

Re: Morality.

That kinda killed that question.

How so? He acknowledged that his objection was meaningless, so we discard it and continue as though he hadn't spoken at all.