Lawful but Immoral

[Naeo]

EDIT: Actually, nevermind, I'm not getting involved in this topic.

 

[Brandon237]

Drug prohibition.

What moral right does the state have to tell me what I can and can't ingest into my own body?

The flipside of this being the fact cigarettes are legal. Considering the harm they do compared to other drugs which are illegal but far less harmful.

Seems at very least hypocritical that the government doesnt mind me getting cancer but wont let me take ecstacy on a night out.

Yea, have you considered that the government might be trying to save MY life by not allowing YOU to take a hallucinogen? For some reason, I'm ok with this. They are trying to negate the possibility of second hand smoke inhalation as well by forcing smokers to smoke in designated places. So don't start with the "it's not fair" argument. If you want to get into this PM me.

OT- I would have to say any law that punishes a citizen for protecting themselves or another person in distress.

"Imminent danger



As previously stated, before you can prevail under a self-defense theory, you must prove that another was about to kill, seriously injure, or unlawfully touch you.5 A threat of future harm (regardless of how significant the harm may be) will not suffice, as the danger must be immediate.6

Likewise, prior threats are not sufficient to give rise to this defense if they are not coupled with an overt act demonstrating an immediate intention of executing the threat.7 And on that note, the threat must be of an unlawful nature...a threat of a lawful arrest, for example, will not excuse an attack as self-defense.8"


If I shot someone that was in my house without my permission, but they did not pose an "imminent danger" to me I would be convicted of murder. The person was in my house without my permission, or even my knowledge, and I am supposed to assume they are not going to hurt me? Hope it never comes down to that, because I would need a damn good lawyer to fight that murder charge.

Yikes, I knew laws on said subject were dodgy in many countries... but that unfair?! It almost renders the concept of self-defence useless, because if you have to give the bastard time to attack you to "prove imminent danger", then you are likely dead anyway. That needs changing, NAOW! I've always thought that being able to defend yourself from a trespasser was important, regardless of whether they even knew you were there or not. Any person in your home who has not been given permission to be there, who has made a conscious effort to get though your security, you should legally be allowed to assume has malicious intent. Criminals should not be given lee-way, if someone is already committing the crime of trespassing, then the home-owner should be given the benefit of the doubt, those laws on imminent danger are frankly useless and borderline criminal in themselves.

 

[rossatdi]

I am continuing the discussion with someone with a little less aggressive behaviour. That is, a little less aggressive and a little less biased. It makes a difference.

Aw, can't defend your arguments so you refuse the need to? You must be really sure of your own arguments! It's okay to call someone close minded and a closest conservative but when you're actually called out on contradictions in your own logic that's "aggressive"?

 

[Trillovinum]

Drug prohibition.

What moral right does the state have to tell me what I can and can't ingest into my own body?

that's to keep drug-dealers from causing trouble as well as drug users from causing disturbaces.

I back Sgt. Dante on this one as well

 

[Trillovinum]

Drug prohibition.

What moral right does the state have to tell me what I can and can't ingest into my own body?

that's to keep drug-dealers from causing trouble as well as drug users from causing disturbaces.

I back Sgt. Dante on this one as well

 

[Odbarc]

Recently, I've been assigned to write an article on what is lawful but immoral by today's standards. Problem is, I've got squat; I just don't know where to start.

So, my fellow Escapists, would you be kind enough to help a fellow, and post the laws that you think aren't moral by your standards?

In Canada, I think, if you perform a rolling stop (ie, not stopping at a street sign) and you hit and kill someone with your car, it's a two week sentence or a $500 fine. Vehicular manslaughter in this regard is a $500 fine. Stuff like that. Find an obscure law.

What about that one law where if you cheat on your wife, she can sue your mistress even if she didn't know he was married. Legal.

 

[Macgyvercas]

And here I was under the impression this thread would be about how things that are legal but immoral would make a Lawful Good person's head explode. Ahh well.

 

[The Dark Umbra]

Laws around the world prohibiting homosexuality, or any other sex act.

What moral right does the state have to tell people what they can and can't do in private between consenting adults?

So raping a 3 month old child is okay, or newborn puppy. Or what if the consenting adult is mentally retarded? just asking

 

[Trillovinum]

Recently, I've been assigned to write an article on what is lawful but immoral by today's standards. Problem is, I've got squat; I just don't know where to start.

So, my fellow Escapists, would you be kind enough to help a fellow, and post the laws that you think aren't moral by your standards?

I'm going to give you this to chew on;

"morals" is a very unclear and ill-defined subject.Morality is merely a manner of perception of certain events. These can be personal, societal, religious, etc. and depend on the manner with which an individual regards the world.

you were asked to find laws that aren't necessarily moral to our standards. I assume that by this they mean mainstream western points of view (as far as this concept even exists)this naturally includes a high degree of individualism and states that every individual should be able to make his own decisions and do with his life whatever he or she wishes. therefore, imposing rules on how to live and behave directly contradicts with this ideal of total freedom.

So plainly, aren't all laws immoral as they impede on our personal liberties?


mind you, I am in favor of laws and regulations to keep our society from sliding into total anarchy but i thought this was an interesting philosophical point.

 

[Biosophilogical]

I do not believe in the death penalty. No person has the right to take another person's life unless there is more then 1 life at stake. If somebody needs to die so a family can be saved then I have no problems with that, but killing somebody as a punishment is just wrong in my opinion.

Killing someone when there is an alternative is also wrong (like life-time imprisonment). Also, the purpose of the justice system should be to minimise harm, so it should try and rehabilitate criminals and keep them from society if they cannot be rehabilitated. It shouldn't go around deciding who lives and who dies, or working as a tool for public vengeance.

I'm not trying to dismiss what you said, I'm trying to add further points in your favour.

OT: Death penalty, tax exempt status for religion (possibly, I'm not entirely up to speed with the reasons for that law, but it sounds ridiculous), prohibiting gay marriage, having legalised cigarettes for people under 25-30.

 

[flamingjimmy]

Laws around the world prohibiting homosexuality, or any other sex act.

What moral right does the state have to tell people what they can and can't do in private between consenting adults?

So raping a 3 month old child is okay

wtf? I said 'between consenting adults' and you come out with this?

Just in case you really are that dense, I'll spell it out for you. Rape, by definition, is without consent, and 3 month old children are not adults.

or newborn puppy

Puppies cannot give consent, and nor are they adults.

Or what if the consenting adult is mentally retarded?

It depends how retarded, if they are capable of understanding what they are doing then yeah. If they aren't capable of understanding it, then they are not able to give informed consent.

 

[Nieroshai]

It depends on your source of morality. If you're religious, it is likely that something isn't illegal but goes against your moral standard. Like premarital sex to an Abrahamic religion, or eating meat to a Hindu.

 

[Ambi]

Spoiler: Factory farms; legal in many places, arguably immoral and cruel

ha! morals. i personally don't care about morals, i care about logic.

and when it comes to threads about morals there's always someone who has other morals and instead of politely disagreeing will tell you that your a monster.

Do you believe in using logic to figure out methods of making the world a less painful place?

no. call me a monster if you like but i`m not one usually swayed by emotions or pictures of the brutality of the world. you can`t ignore that this stuff happens and act shocked every time you see something bad in the world. I plan on using logic to make the world better not less painful.

So you don't believe in ethics? What is a better world? Could more subtle feelings have swayed your intellectual outlook on life towards something sub-par? By judging that something can be better, you are bringing subjectivity into it. Morals and logic are both intended as means to an end; an end to which the only justification is feelings of satisfaction.

What I mean is, the subtle egoistic feelings and desires that drive your will to reason cannot be reasoned to be more objectively worthwhile than those with emotion-derived and/or culturally-derived values that form the basis of ethical reasoning. A blubbering ball of angst protesting the moral decay of his government or some hippy who bursts into tears at pictures of animal testing can be just as logically sound as you.

Don't get me wrong, plenty of moral standards are illogical because they're based solely on religion, and some knee-jerk instinctual emotions go against our interests, but emotions don't necessarily cloud reasoning. They invigorate people to use reason for a noble cause; morals and logic can go hand in hand.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that "ha! morals. I prefer logic" comment led me to believe you have the impression that your mind is an oasis of objective clear thinking and strength, while those that have unselfish goals and convictions are somehow tainted, weak, and illogical. Are you proud of yourself?

 

[Grospoliner]

Recently, I've been assigned to write an article on what is lawful but immoral by today's standards. Problem is, I've got squat; I just don't know where to start.

So, my fellow Escapists, would you be kind enough to help a fellow, and post the laws that you think aren't moral by your standards?

Take no offense, but this assignment is stupid. You should say as much to the one who assigned it. Law is at it's very essence, the set of actions which are acceptable by citizens subject to that law. Morals are little better than subjective ideals put forth by individuals, with every point of view varying within any subset of ideal. There is no such thing as moral right and wrong as the concept of morality is inherently flawed.

 

[Ambi]

Recently, I've been assigned to write an article on what is lawful but immoral by today's standards. Problem is, I've got squat; I just don't know where to start.

So, my fellow Escapists, would you be kind enough to help a fellow, and post the laws that you think aren't moral by your standards?

Take no offense, but this assignment is stupid. You should say as much to the one who assigned it. Law is at it's very essence, the set of actions which are acceptable by citizens subject to that law. Morals are little better than subjective ideals put forth by individuals, with every point of view varying within any subset of ideal. There is no such thing as moral right and wrong as the concept of morality is inherently flawed.

Most people know morals are subjective, but anyone who's not a sociopath nonetheless exercises at least somewhat of a judgement between right and wrong. What's wrong with saying, "in my opinion, this is wrong"?

Are they no longer morals if one recognises their subjective nature?

 

[Canid117]

Drug prohibition.

What moral right does the state have to tell me what I can and can't ingest into my own body?

Because it can kill you.

 

[Grospoliner]

Recently, I've been assigned to write an article on what is lawful but immoral by today's standards. Problem is, I've got squat; I just don't know where to start.

So, my fellow Escapists, would you be kind enough to help a fellow, and post the laws that you think aren't moral by your standards?

Take no offense, but this assignment is stupid. You should say as much to the one who assigned it. Law is at it's very essence, the set of actions which are acceptable by citizens subject to that law. Morals are little better than subjective ideals put forth by individuals, with every point of view varying within any subset of ideal. There is no such thing as moral right and wrong as the concept of morality is inherently flawed.

Most people know morals are subjective, but anyone who's not a sociopath nonetheless exercises at least somewhat of a judgement between right and wrong. What's wrong with saying, "in my opinion, this is wrong"?

Are they no longer morals if one recognises their subjective nature?

No, but we should understand them for what they are rather than applying arbitrary value to something when none exists.

 

[Kair]

I am continuing the discussion with someone with a little less aggressive behaviour. That is, a little less aggressive and a little less biased. It makes a difference.

Aw, can't defend your arguments so you refuse the need to? You must be really sure of your own arguments! It's okay to call someone close minded and a closest conservative but when you're actually called out on contradictions in your own logic that's "aggressive"?

I already explained what I said to another person. The explanations were just below the reply I sent to you. You must be angry to miss 8/10th of a post like that.

And you never called out any contradictions, you just misunderstood everything I said and dismissed how I said it as arrogant. There is no need for me to explain to you, because I have explained it to you 30 times before. You are almost the same person as every other who has attacked me instead of wishing to learn. You say the same things and learn just as little, the only distinction is that I choose not to bother with you this time.

 

[McMullen]

Recently, I've been assigned to write an article on what is lawful but immoral by today's standards. Problem is, I've got squat; I just don't know where to start.

So, my fellow Escapists, would you be kind enough to help a fellow, and post the laws that you think aren't moral by your standards?

For actions that are lawful but immoral:

Patent trolling, suing for libel even though the defendant used completely objective and factual claims, exploiting loopholes to avoid paying workers overtime or avoid giving benefits to full-time workers, denying insurance coverage for preexisting conditions, suing a person for anything over $10 per pirated music track, knowingly releasing and charging $200 or more for cripplingly bug-ridden software or hardware without supporting or patching it, etc. Aside from the first two, can basically be summarized as "popular business practices with regards to employees and/or consumers".

For laws that are immoral:

S.978 (misdemeanor to steal a physical copy of a copyrighted work, felony to stream a digital copy online), Any law that bans same-sex marriage, the Oregon law that makes it a crime to talk dirty in bed (seriously), the DMCA, zero-tolerance policies, and... that's what I got right now.

 

[rossatdi]

I am continuing the discussion with someone with a little less aggressive behaviour. That is, a little less aggressive and a little less biased. It makes a difference.

Aw, can't defend your arguments so you refuse the need to? You must be really sure of your own arguments! It's okay to call someone close minded and a closest conservative but when you're actually called out on contradictions in your own logic that's "aggressive"?

I already explained what I said to another person. The explanations were just below the reply I sent to you. You must be angry to miss 8/10th of a post like that.

And you never called out any contradictions, you just misunderstood everything I said and dismissed how I said it as arrogant. There is no need for me to explain to you, because I have explained it to you 30 times before. You are almost the same person as every other who has attacked me instead of wishing to learn. You say the same things and learn just as little, the only distinction is that I choose not to bother with you this time.

That's funny I didn't see you address the fact that your model is just Freud's Ig, Ego, Super Ego without the delicacy and with a huge host of arrogance injected into it.

I didn't see anything in your replies to the other poster as to the logical contradiction regarding gay marriage and your animal/human divide. Simply put, homophobia has to be a socially constructed repression (or misfiring) of instinct - after all, why hate someone who increases your chances of successful mating? The moral animal a person is the less they should care about someone else's sexuality.

Thirdly, you didn't answer me on how you think its okay to accuse people of being closed minded and conservative. I could call you arrogant and deluded but unless I was to provide evidence then its just random hurling of insults - which as you didn't respond is what I can only assume you're doing.

I love your 'wise sage' persona, you think anyone buys it?

But then I read your suggestion of moving to a gift economy and laughed.