Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

What do you think ?

Originally posted by Cyber Ninja
What do you think ?

No.

..........................however whats the baseline for this "morality" that you are speaking of?

Yeah...who's morality is it?

People who needlessly connect a fake moral definition to a factual law should be divorced from discussion.

Beyond that, laws will always be decided on morality somehow.

-AC

Its human nature for people to think that a crime is 10x worse as it happens to them... These quick to point out how its bad, and even quicker to point out a short term solution... (generally longer prison sentences or death...)

Where as they should trace these crimes history... I find it hard to believe people are born wanting to be criminals, there upbringing has brought about there crimes...

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
I find it hard to believe people are born wanting to be criminals, there upbringing has brought about there crimes...

It would be foolish to say that people are born wanting to be criminals but I think that blaming their crimes completely on their upbringing denies the fact that no matter how bad things are humans still have choices in what they do.

Its impossible... laws exist because of morality. Why is illegal to kill people, or to lie, or to steal.... because that is is against the moral of many.

Law is decided via morality.

It's no use trying to define laws according to "morality," because nobody can decide what's moral and what isn't. Why is it illegal to kill people? Because society would collapse otherwise. Morality never enters into it.

Odd thing to say, Gregory.

What else are laws in democratic society, if not an attempt to define what is moral or not?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Odd thing to say, Gregory.

What else are laws in democratic society, if not an attempt to define what is moral or not?

A way to make sure a groups preferences are met?

That are far more efficient ways of doing THAT.

All Western and most modern countries base their law around a moral structure.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
That are far more efficient ways of doing THAT.

All Western and most modern countries base their law around a moral structure.

Did you consider that these Moral Standards are just another way to make sure the groups preferences are met?

Here's a point- laws may try to reflect the moral reason of the majority or deciding party in a nation, but this does not mean the ideas are dependant on each other. The law of zoning and housing regulations or the laws of gaining citizenship aren't dependant on morality at all. Of course, laws for the most part are made to grease the wheels of society so that society exists and operates. To "divorce" the notion of morality (Whether yours, mine, or another's) from laws 100% is like saying I want to watch a football game where the goal is not to touch the ball.

Also something to keep in mind- just because many different views on morality exist doesn't validate them all. I've noticed a lot of people embracing subjectivism in ethics, and it's rather amusing; if you truly believe that all things are relative, why argue?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Odd thing to say, Gregory.

What else are laws in democratic society, if not an attempt to define what is moral or not?

A way to protect society. For example, most people wouldn't say that speed limits are a moral question, but they are governed by law because if people felt they could go at whatever speed they pleased along the road, it would be a disaster; the roads would no longer be safe.

Likewise, murder must be illegal not because it's immoral, but because if people were allowed to murder anyone who annoyed them, the streets would not be safe, and society couldn't function.

What about slavery ? Society will not collapse with it. It is even good for society since it gives workers for free. It is not a problem for society.

What about democracy, and freedom of speech? It is not needed for a society to work, you can get a powerful society with a very centralized state. Freedom of speech can cause problems for society since there is to many impediments, to many opinions to consider. This weakens the power to take action.

Why should law grants us any rights if they are really not needed to protect society. Why should we have the right to vote, or to be payed for our jobs. It even weakens society, powerful states ascended by not following these moral principles.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
What about slavery ? Society will not collapse with it. It is even good for society since it gives workers for free. It is not a problem for society.

What about democracy, and freedom of speech? It is not needed for a society to work, you can get a powerful society with a very centralized state. Freedom of speech can cause problems for society since there is to many impediments, to many opinions to consider. This weakens the power to take action.

Why should law grants us any rights if they are really not needed to protect society. Why should we have the right to vote, or to be payed for our jobs. It even weakens society, powerful states ascended by not following these moral principles.

Laws are not their to protect Society but to protect the members of Society.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Laws are not their to protect Society but to protect the members of Society.


one would hope so However in my experience the 2 go hand in hand so rules are meant to protect society.

What about them? Freedom from slavery, and of speach, and to vote, aren't guarranteed by our laws, but by our Constitution.

You mentioned freedom of speach as something that is morally derived. As a matter of fact, though, freedom of speach constantly comes under attack--by people who think that laws should be based on morality. Ban immoral video games, movies, books, and music!

Nothing good comes from a bunch of self-rightous people getting together and deciding to enforce their rightous will on others.

Laws and morality should not be seperated because it is, in all honesty, not possible. Any just law is based upon morality, and is created for the embetterment of human kind. Many of them should be common sense because every person has a conscience.

When you attempt to seperate laws and the morality behind them you end up with stupid, idiotic, and useless laws such as "It's illegal to tie a giraffe to a lamp post in Atlanta, GA." It is not possible, and I don't see how you think that it could be.

Originally posted by Dawson
Laws and morality should not be seperated because it is, in all honesty, not possible. Any just law is based upon morality, and is created for the embetterment of human kind. Many of them should be common sense because every person has a conscience.

When you attempt to seperate laws and the morality behind them you end up with stupid, idiotic, and useless laws such as "It's illegal to tie a giraffe to a lamp post in Atlanta, GA." It is not possible, and I don't see how you think that it could be.

It's illegal for a woman to walk down a highway in Tennessee wearing a bikini unless she's either holding a club or being escorted by no less than two police officers.

Originally posted by Gregory
It's no use trying to define laws according to "morality," because nobody can decide what's moral and what isn't. Why is it illegal to kill people? Because society would collapse otherwise. Morality never enters into it.
Your post has actually given me pause. I have never considered this topic with your statement in mind. While I disagree that morality never enters into the legal equation, it is still an interesting point my friend.

From murder, stealing, and rape to intoxication in public, trespassing, and petty larceny, most laws seem to be justifiable by how well they assist the functionality of society. Is this merely a coincidental observation or do laws serve to maintain a society? Maybe "assisting the functionality of a society" is simply an extra effect of laws that were originally based on morality.

What does everyone else think?

Laws govern society, and look after the members of that society. This process arrives at the same destination as what we would call morality.

So basically, determining the reason behind these laws is impossible?

Originally posted by StyleTime
So basically, determining the reason behind these laws is impossible?

Not really, most laws are relatively easy to explain. TThey are based on human needs (or needs of a society as a whole).

Yes, but as Victor Von Doom pointed out,
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
This process arrives at the same destination as what we would call morality.
we could probably make an argument for laws being based off of morals or societal needs. How are we to know where it actually began?

Originally posted by StyleTime
Yes, but as Victor Von Doom pointed out,

we could probably make an argument for laws being based off of morals or societal needs. How are we to know where it actually began?

Well. I think that VVD meant the same process that creates our laws (which can be determined rather easy in my opinion) also creates morals that are similar to the laws.

I understand what you mean, but it looks like a "chicken or the egg" scenario to me.

How can we know the morals did not come first and the societal upkeep was an afterthought and side-effect?

"Should morality be divorced from law 100% of the time and vice versa?"

Morality is the basis of law altogether.

^ Have you not read the last 7 or so posts?

You must be able to acknowledge that your point is debatable at best.

Fine then debate it.

That is what we have been doing........
Originally posted by StyleTime
Your post has actually given me pause. I have never considered this topic with your statement in mind. While I disagree that morality never enters into the legal equation, it is still an interesting point my friend.

From murder, stealing, and rape to intoxication in public, trespassing, and petty larceny, most laws seem to be justifiable by how well they assist the functionality of society. Is this merely a coincidental observation or do laws serve to maintain a society? Maybe "assisting the functionality of a society" is simply an extra effect of laws that were originally based on morality.

What does everyone else think?

Would you care to join in The Black Ghost?

I apologize if I 'butted in' in the middle of this. I was only stating my beleif.

You didn't butt in lol. I am just asking you to at least say WHY you believe this.

Because that is true. If morality had nothing to do with law then there wouldnt be laws in the first place. It is only "morally" wrong to kill someone until someone makes a law to enforce it off of that beleif.

Originally posted by StyleTime
I understand what you mean, but it looks like a "chicken or the egg" scenario to me.

How can we know the morals did not come first and the societal upkeep was an afterthought and side-effect?

From where did they come, though?

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
It is only "morally" wrong to kill someone until someone makes a law to enforce it off of that beleif.

Very illogical thing to say.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Because that is true. If morality had nothing to do with law then there wouldnt be laws in the first place. It is only "morally" wrong to kill someone until someone makes a law to enforce it off of that beleif.

The purpose of laws is to establish and enforce social order.

Whether or not murder is wrong is an issue of ethics, not necessarily morals.

But if no one cared if people was murdered there could be social order- it would just be a very strange soicety.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
But if no one cared if people was murdered there could be social order- it would just be a very strange soicety.

- Hey, you die!!! Oh Hellow Mrs. Johnson, sorry about the mess.

"And just make sure you mop all that blood up... See you tommorow Larry"

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
From where did they come, though?

Hmm....interesting.

Society would have began from some wild people who decided to band together. The wild men would surely be accustomed to killing, but the bands needed to function and accordingly made rules. The rules, such as no killing, would indeed serve to maintain order. Overtime, these rules would be deemed essential to the survival of a society and would turn into what many refer to as "morals".

Victor Von Doom is right.
Originally posted by The Black Ghost
But if no one cared if people was murdered there could be social order- it would just be a very strange soicety.
No. The society could never function because societies would never actually form. The everlooming threat of murder would never allow the first band of "society...makers" to create a society.

Originally posted by StyleTime
I understand what you mean, but it looks like a "chicken or the egg" scenario to me.

How can we know the morals did not come first and the societal upkeep was an afterthought and side-effect?

I think it's not like that, since either can exist without the other, so one might have been first and the other at some point split from it but they are not necessarily and closely connected.

Law is supposed to protect the values of society. Every society has some kind of morality.