Lawful but Immoral

[AhumbleKnight]

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?

Try looking at the legal spat going on between Apple and Samsung atm. Apple are suing Samsung for copying the 'look and feel' of the iphone and ipad with Samsungs Galaxy line of products. Everything in the complaints are lawful, nothing wrong with them. But it's immoral on Apple's part because they're trying to kill their only major competition by means of legalicide. But then again, it's business, that apparently absolves people of all moral thinking.

Didn't they try the same thing with HTC but failed? I wonder what the differences were (other than HTC doing it before apple ;D)

OT: Putting asylum seekers in prison for trying to escape their country. Hell, just about everything in the whole asylum seeker debate in Australia is Lawful but almost all of it is immoral.

 

[flamingjimmy]

Drug prohibition.

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

Every right if said drug can have a negative effect on society, eg..Imagine a country in which everyone took cocaine. Extreme example, but resonates my point well.

No, your example is ridiculous.

If the principle you're basing your justification on is harm prevention, then you're way off.

Prohibition causes much more harm to society because it puts control of the market into the hand of organised criminals. Turf wars, gang violence, all would be reduced drastically.

 

[katsumoto03]

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?

Look at the history of American politics, basically...

 

[Araksardet]

There are plenty of things that are *lawful* (i.e. legal) but also immoral. Like being a jerk.

Presumably, you mean existing laws that enforce/support/require/explicitly permit immoral behavior. I've always thought opting your child out of school or specific classes for religious reasons - or any reason that isn't meant to protect the child from immediate physical or emotional abuse taking place in the school/classroom - is pretty darn immoral.

There are immoral things that shouldn't be legislated against, though, i.e. the behavior is immoral, but a law against the behavior would be doubly so. In particular, I'm thinking of hate speech and similar. Immoral behavior, but for the State to come in and decide what counts and what doesn't would also be pretty immoral. For these things, social pressure/disapproval/sanctioning fulfills a regulatory role much better than the State.

 

[KaizokuouHasu]

immoral or amoral? because it seems people think you mean immoral.
If you mean Amoral, I guess laws to make people pay taxes etc. if you mean immoral, loli and shota. a crime without a victim is not a crime.

Err, isn't immoral and amoral just the same words with different spellings?

IIRC, the difference is whether you know/care what you are doing is wrong.

An amoral act may or may not be immoral, but you aren't interested in that.

I think.

You seem to be right.
This quickly became a discussion about definition. I like it!
After all, it is when we break things down into little pieces that we can have a truly fruitful and constructive discussion... albeit a very long one.

Spoiler

IMMORAL
[ih-mawr-uhl, ih-mor-]
-adjective
1. violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.
2. licentious or lascivious.

AMORAL
[ey-mawr-uhl, a-mawr-, ey-mor-, a-mor-]
-adjective
1. not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.
2. having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong: a completely amoral person.

I feel stupid now. TT_TT

 

[Sarge034]

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.

 

[KaizokuouHasu]

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?

Look at the history of American politics, basically...

You are my hero.

 

[SouthpawFencer]

Heck if you want examples of "lawful, but immoral", try doing a google search for "Bobby Kotick", and you should be up to your eyeballs in examples in no time!

But for more serious examples...

What comes to mind when I hear "lawful but immoral" would be marital infidelity, although this is still technically illegal in some states. I think that the majority of people in this civilization agree that you shouldn't cheat on your spouse, and that doing that is immoral (this might actually include some of the people who are cheating). You can spice up the article by including polyamory as well (where people who are married or are in a committed relationship get involved with other people with the full knowledge and consent of their spouse/primary partner), since this allows an opportunity to debate how or even IF that differs from cheating.

Lying in general is immoral, but lawful so long as you aren't lying while under oath or speaking to a law enforcement officer regarding an ongoing investigation.

Academic dishonesty (plagiarism, etc) is generally not illegal, but highly immoral. It can LEAD to illegal acts, however. For example, if you plagiarize your doctoral thesis, and then land a job because of your doctorate, you are essentially committing fraud against your employer. Usually, people caught in this situation aren't charged, although they're often either sued or agree to repay a lot of what their employer paid them for.

Racism and other types of bigotry are also often lawful, but immoral. DISCRIMINATING against people because you don't like their race, sexuality, gender, age, religion, etc is often illegal, but simply believing that those people are inferior to you is still possible even while remaining within the boundaries of the law is not illegal. Imparting those beliefs onto your children is still currently lawful, but immoral, for the most part.

EDIT: corrected a typo changed "of even IF that differs from cheating" to "or even IF that differs from cheating."

 

[SillyBear]

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?

It's lawful for me to sue the pants off a struggling businesses and wreck the owner's life because I (insert random accident here) and hurt myself in their building.

I personally think that is immoral. Food for thought maybe.

 

[ace_of_something]

i believe [a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rider_%28legislation%29]riders are a good example[/a] without getting too much in to opinion about hotbutton issues like most seem to be trying to do.
Riders are when a senator/representative add something completely unrelated to a popular bill so that it doesn't get voted down. For example let's say they are going to pass a 'flags for orphans' bill or something. (shut up i'm making a point) No one wants to deny flags for orphans, no one especially wants people to point out that they 'hate orphans' during election time.
So senator sleaze from sleazelvania will say 'i would like to add a bunch of money for my state being able to build a giant statue of something fucking irrelevant' since bills have to be accepted in their entirety or face a length process of change again. No one is going to vote down the 'flags for orphans/irreverent statue bill

 

[Sgt. Dante]

By law you have you report any one who try to commit suicide, even though their reasons for wanting to end their life is justified and understandable. This is lawful, but immoral, since you force people to live even when life itself is what is killing them... metaphorically.

In Medicine it is against the law to euthanise a terminal suffering patient (in most countries), because according to the hypocratic oath you must do no harm, and it is against the law to kill (which euthanasia counts as when done to humans). Even though a patient will die in the next 12 hours and the death will be the most painful imaginable to humans and there is nothing you can do, except death, to stop it, a doctor and nurse must do all they can to prolong the life of the patient. This is lawful, but very immoral. It's right up there with torture.

Actually if a patient refuses treatment then there is no moral or legal onus on the doctor.

They can't, however, "help them on their way". As far as i'm aware.

captcha:regichi house

 

[Malkavian]

I'd just like to point something out, OP: Morals are not universal.

The problem with the assignment you are writing, is that it assumes morals and ethics are universal things, that are the same everywhere. Lawful but immoral is not something you can ask others about, nor should you even be able to write an assignment about it, since what is right for one person, might not be for the next. So you might not even share a set of ethics with the teacher grading your paper. You can't speaek of ANYTHING as lawful but immoral, and I think this thread shows why: most of the examples people have given you, would be strongly disagreed with by other people in their own societis - hence why the laws are in place in the first place.

Of course, practically, a civilization pretty much shares ethics, at least the broad strokes of it. So while I think the subject is stupid, you could of course still write your paper. But if I may offer an alternative: why not write about the subjectivity of morals, and how they are applied to lawmaking, and how changing ethics are what makes laws "immoral" in our eyes. Might not be excactly what your teacher is looking for, but hey, it might just pay off to offer her something different to grade.

EDIT: I apologize deeply for the typos... I just got out of bed, head still groggy.

 

[Zhukov]

Lobbyists and "campaign contributions".

Need I say more?

 

[Liudeius]

Virtually anything corporations do...
It's technically lawful since they use loopholes, though I suppose it could still be considered unlawful to begin with since it's very sinister.
(Tax evasion, fraud, bribery)

 

[Sgt. Dante]

Drug prohibition.

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

Every right if said drug can have a negative effect on society, eg..Imagine a country in which everyone took cocaine. Extreme example, but resonates my point well.

No, your example is ridiculous.

If the principle you're basing your justification on is harm prevention, then you're way off.

Prohibition causes much more harm to society because it puts control of the market into the hand of organised criminals. Turf wars, gang violence, all would be reduced drastically.

While there is a (admitedly fairly strong) arguments against prohibition hard drugs will never be legalised because you become a potential danger to yourself and others while under the influence.

It's teh addictive properties that make drugs incompatable with this, if you drink you might get into a fight or crash a car (both still bad) but i've never heard of someone being robbed so the guy could buy a six-pack. Drugs are expensive, and an easy retreat from the hardships of life, accordingly lower slass areas tend to have worse drug related problems, crime etc. Making these easier to aquire and taxing the income won't stop people 'just needing a quick fix', gangs will just have to lower their prices.

 

[kayisking]

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.

 

[lukemdizzle]

two suggestions

1. citizens united supreme court case, where it was decided that corporations had the same rights as individuals which means they can anonymously contribute as much money as they want to any political campaign.

2. Illegal Immigration prevention law in arizona that says that police can randomly stop whoever they want to ask for identification proving that they are an american citizen, provided the officer have a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an illegal immigrant. proponents say that this law is an invitation for racial discrimination and police brutality.


also gay marriage should totally be legal everywhere so I consider that one almost too easy to write a compelling paper about

 

[KaizokuouHasu]

Spoiler

By law you have you report any one who try to commit suicide, even though their reasons for wanting to end their life is justified and understandable. This is lawful, but immoral, since you force people to live even when life itself is what is killing them... metaphorically.

In Medicine it is against the law to euthanise a terminal suffering patient (in most countries), because according to the hypocratic oath you must do no harm, and it is against the law to kill (which euthanasia counts as when done to humans). Even though a patient will die in the next 12 hours and the death will be the most painful imaginable to humans and there is nothing you can do, except death, to stop it, a doctor and nurse must do all they can to prolong the life of the patient. This is lawful, but very immoral. It's right up there with torture.

Actually if a patient refuses treatment then there is no moral or legal onus on the doctor.

They can't, however, "help them on their way". As far as i'm aware.

captcha:regichi house

That's kind of the point, though. A patient can say; "no, stop keeping me alive and conscious, I'm suffering and I want to die", but the only thing a doctor can do then is wait for time to expire. In some instances they can stop treating the patient, but they must still resuscitate them should they go critical (unless the patient has singed a DNR form which make that a crime).

p.s. love the gif.

 

[electric_warrior]

Adultery, without the consent of your partner I mean

No one would argue that its not immoral, but it's rightly legal.

 

[Leadfinger]

The average CEO salary is more than 531 times that of the average hourly worker.