Lawful but Immoral
- Thread starter Badong
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Alot of laws or conflict people debate about abortion laws and rights death row/penilty hell thankful they don't have may but laws about prohibiting video games ignoring the game makes right to speech (depending on where you live) and the idea a game is art and should have the same rights as other art work and before I get a bunch of flame I did say there arn't many of these now but there are still people asking for them
Actually in most countries, there's a concept (i can't remember the name this late at night) that in a terminally ill patient that still has pain you can continue giving pain relief past normal doses, even if it's going to have the secondary effect of hastening their death.KaizokuouHasu said:
OP, is this for an ethics class? If so, I can give the usual examples, but first, I'd like to clarify something.
There are different ethical theories, but subjectivism (the view that everyone has different rules and there's no way to judge others) defeats the purpose of morality, which is to guide our behavior around others and, yes, to provide judgments. Different people have different theories, and we can't always justify one over another, so we can't just assume one theory is right, but consider your teacher giving you an "F" because he doesn't like your subjectivist argument, or because he doesn't like you. If you're a subjectivist, all he has to say is that he has different rules and you can't judge him, which is clearly wrong.
Now, the hot topic issues like abortion, gay marriage, suicide, euthanasia, lying, etc, are good, but the important thing is the distinction between what the law covers and what morality covers. Something may be illegal and immoral for two completely different reasons, which is the point. Whatever you pick, say why it is not illegal, but why whichever ethical theory (or, better yet, theories) say(s) it is immoral (and because people think so is not good enough.)
There are different ethical theories, but subjectivism (the view that everyone has different rules and there's no way to judge others) defeats the purpose of morality, which is to guide our behavior around others and, yes, to provide judgments. Different people have different theories, and we can't always justify one over another, so we can't just assume one theory is right, but consider your teacher giving you an "F" because he doesn't like your subjectivist argument, or because he doesn't like you. If you're a subjectivist, all he has to say is that he has different rules and you can't judge him, which is clearly wrong.
Now, the hot topic issues like abortion, gay marriage, suicide, euthanasia, lying, etc, are good, but the important thing is the distinction between what the law covers and what morality covers. Something may be illegal and immoral for two completely different reasons, which is the point. Whatever you pick, say why it is not illegal, but why whichever ethical theory (or, better yet, theories) say(s) it is immoral (and because people think so is not good enough.)
I'm willing to contend that.flamingjimmy said:
If you look at basic Christian morality, there's plenty there that says, to effect, "don't muck up your body." Or somesuch thing.
So, there is moral justification to banning any kind of intoxicant.
Although, I pretty okay with people smoking, drinking, ect. As long as it doesn't hamper there ability to do their jobs, doesn't make them a burden to society, and doesn't hurt me or my loved ones.
And you are 100% correct that allowing cigarettes is total hypocrisy.
OT: Anything you might find in tax law. There are so many arcane loopholes, some as simple as listing certain revenues differently, some very complicated, in tax law it's hard to believe that the "adjusting" almost every corp. and obscenely wealthy person does is legal. But it is. And it's immoral because they are purposefully exploiting the law to get out of paying taxes.
Then again, I might too if I was being taxed in the ~45% income bracket.
Anarchist here, decided I'd throw in the whole "establishment of a coercive state" thing in just for fun.
Ummm . . . RIAA MPAA . . . Extorting money from single mothers ??Badong said:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/05/riaa-extortion-why-the-only-rico-they-fear-is-suave.ars
Except that, if you DO get into an accident (granted, this is just about the only time it would matter), your soon-to-be-airborne body, alive or otherwise, could easily present either a physical or mental hazard to others (read: "WTF?! *screeeeeeCRUNCH*").the spud said:
...And pretty much every other country on the planet. The US government is far, far from perfect, but that just makes it one messed-up system among many, some better, some worse.
Back OT:
I have the same basic issue as a number of others above when it comes to head shops and drugs and the like -- While I don't do any myself (not even booze/cigs -- I am allergic to the former and abhor the aroma of the latter), I don't think that it is right to prevent others from doing it via legal means. That being said, I forbid them in my own household, but someone who wants to take a drag can just step outside and close the door. Problem solved. I do, however, support the idea of having bars/shops/etc where people may imbibe in private, preferably in the company of barkeeps (etc) who are (medically) trained and fully authorized to restrict the supply of people who appear to be overdosing or who would present a danger to themselves or others if they overindulge. Doing so on private property is fine by me -- Don't like their rules? Leave. Leaving a country is a little more complex of an undertaking.
edit: re: Plagiarism, the lazy student's worst friend and best enemy. Unless the DMCA or other relevant copyright acts have all gone away, a document is automatically copyrighted once it's written and presented. That makes plagiarism a form of copyright infringement. Also, even if copyrights are not an issue, it's still theft (even if it is of a nontangible thing).
Legal standards have very explicit standards and codes, and they are a matter of "what is" than "what should be."
Moral standards and issues are entirely different. Moral standards depend on some sort of framework that you set up for yourself or for society in general, but moral standards and frameworks are NOT explicit, and morality is always a case of what should be the case.
The one similarity between the two is that lawmakers derive their laws from some presumed or agreed upon moral framework; then, to indict said law, you need to justify a different moral framework and argue against it, or argue about how the said law does not meet said moral framework.
This disjunct between what is the case and what should be the case is called the is/ought fallacy in academic philosophy, and worth looking up. For an oversimplified example, genocide might be going on right now, but it probably should not be going on right now.
The assignment is asking you to indict a law in terms of what should be the case, so there is no one answer. An easy case can be made against drug prohibition though.
Moral standards and issues are entirely different. Moral standards depend on some sort of framework that you set up for yourself or for society in general, but moral standards and frameworks are NOT explicit, and morality is always a case of what should be the case.
The one similarity between the two is that lawmakers derive their laws from some presumed or agreed upon moral framework; then, to indict said law, you need to justify a different moral framework and argue against it, or argue about how the said law does not meet said moral framework.
This disjunct between what is the case and what should be the case is called the is/ought fallacy in academic philosophy, and worth looking up. For an oversimplified example, genocide might be going on right now, but it probably should not be going on right now.
The assignment is asking you to indict a law in terms of what should be the case, so there is no one answer. An easy case can be made against drug prohibition though.
I'm sure you have never seen someone dying from a heroin overdose, or had someone try to kill you because they were high on cocaine, nor have you ever entered a booby trapped meth lab that had caught fire, or someone literally become a bipolar schizophrenic because of massive drug abuse. I have. I've seen what drugs do to people almost everyday in my job. When I was in my band I saw a lot of friends turn to criminals because of drugs. I'm not saying everyone that uses drugs will be like this, but it does have an effect on people, and more often then not, it is not a good change. I agree with the education on drugs though. People need to learn that it is not worth it.Spot1990 said:
I would disagree there is nothing inherently evil about capitalism itself. It's just certain segments who follow it to the exclusion of all else. I was going to say something like that, but it was too hard to qualify, so i will say almost anything done by a too aggressive marketing firm. I'm thinking about the 'Open Letter to EA Marketing' Extra Credits did just now.Liudeius said:
EDIT: haha my sentence is confusing. I am thinking of Extra Credits just now, I don't mean that they did the video just now. Please, people who search the forums for people to call out: it was JUST a confusing sentence, no need to yank your keyboard closer to you.
I would dismiss that out of hand though because a 2000 year old story book is not a good enough basis for morality (or pretty much anything) to me.darth gditch said:
Lest we forget that 'basic Christian morality' also does not prohibit slavery, and encourages the oppression of women and homosexuals. If those bits can be thrown out, then so can the parts about keeping your body 'pure' or whatever it says.
Would I want it? No of course not, but I will have raised my hypothetical future children well and I doubt that it would happen. In any case I certainly wouldn't want it to be illegal, if my hypothetical future child wants to do heroin once he's old enough to fully understand the issues surrounding it then he'd be well within his rights to do so imo. Libertarianism ftw.dfphetteplace said:
There is no need to assume my tone as arrogant, only confident. I have spent years contemplating the faults of the society we live in. With an objective perspective it is easy to see that the world we live in is wrong. Any laws conserving this society will then be wrong. Since most laws are made for this society, and intended to preserve it, most laws will then be wrong.rossatdi said:
Rights and wrongs are always compared to their alternatives, as long as there is no lack of basic reason (which there is in a wrong world, but that is not the point of this section). And you will just have to trust me that I have found alternatives and potential for alternatives in many cases, unless you wish for me to spend much of mine and your time explaining many of the cases where there are clear alternatives to what society today (included its laws) bind us to doing the wrong way.