One statement for discussion

[Tiger Al 0]

I had a similar discussion on this with a friend with more liberal beliefs back when the ten commandments was an issue. We both agreed that Roy Moore had no business doing what he did, but we started debating the foundation for our laws and morality.

I guess a lot of this depends on your definition of morality. If morality is a personal "goodness" issue or is it a set of rules that dictate appropriate and just behavior in society or some medium along that spectrum. Morality varies to all.

My whole argument was that there has to be some accepted basic laws or morality. Something has to be accepted for rules to be built if any kind of morality applies to all of society. Much like a science experiment or math proof. You can only build based on accepted laws. For example, we say, its immoral to kill. But we also say, its moral to kill in war or to defend yourself. So what we are really saying is that is its immoral to kill unless someone is innocent. I finally decided we were debating semantics and there was no good answer.

I'm a science guy, I like rules and physical and biological laws. I'm sure you legal types may be more used to these type discussions. Unfortunately if a health care issue gets to the point we are debating morality, a legal expert steps in and decides for us.

All that sounds well and good, but, if you're looking for moral guidance in any form of gov't., then, in my opinion, you're looking in the wrong place.

[aumd03 2]

I had a similar discussion on this with a friend with more liberal beliefs back when the ten commandments was an issue. We both agreed that Roy Moore had no business doing what he did, but we started debating the foundation for our laws and morality.

I guess a lot of this depends on your definition of morality. If morality is a personal "goodness" issue or is it a set of rules that dictate appropriate and just behavior in society or some medium along that spectrum. Morality varies to all.

My whole argument was that there has to be some accepted basic laws or morality. Something has to be accepted for rules to be built if any kind of morality applies to all of society. Much like a science experiment or math proof. You can only build based on accepted laws. For example, we say, its immoral to kill. But we also say, its moral to kill in war or to defend yourself. So what we are really saying is that is its immoral to kill unless someone is innocent. I finally decided we were debating semantics and there was no good answer.

I'm a science guy, I like rules and physical and biological laws. I'm sure you legal types may be more used to these type discussions. Unfortunately if a health care issue gets to the point we are debating morality, a legal expert steps in and decides for us.

All that sounds well and good, but, if you're looking for moral guidance in any form of gov't., then, in my opinion, you're looking in the wrong place.

Where did I say to look for moral guidance from the govt? I just said we were debating moral foundation and if it exists and if so, is that where our legal foundations come from.

[Tiger Al 0]

I had a similar discussion on this with a friend with more liberal beliefs back when the ten commandments was an issue. We both agreed that Roy Moore had no business doing what he did, but we started debating the foundation for our laws and morality.

I guess a lot of this depends on your definition of morality. If morality is a personal "goodness" issue or is it a set of rules that dictate appropriate and just behavior in society or some medium along that spectrum. Morality varies to all.

My whole argument was that there has to be some accepted basic laws or morality. Something has to be accepted for rules to be built if any kind of morality applies to all of society. Much like a science experiment or math proof. You can only build based on accepted laws. For example, we say, its immoral to kill. But we also say, its moral to kill in war or to defend yourself. So what we are really saying is that is its immoral to kill unless someone is innocent. I finally decided we were debating semantics and there was no good answer.

I'm a science guy, I like rules and physical and biological laws. I'm sure you legal types may be more used to these type discussions. Unfortunately if a health care issue gets to the point we are debating morality, a legal expert steps in and decides for us.

All that sounds well and good, but, if you're looking for moral guidance in any form of gov't., then, in my opinion, you're looking in the wrong place.

Where did I say to look for moral guidance from the govt? I just said we were debating moral foundation and if it exists and if so, is that where our legal foundations come from.

Our legal foundation comes from British Common Law. Morality and government has been the basis for this whole thread, I thought. Tigermike's first post:

The truth is that neither socialism nor communism nor any kind of religious fundamentalism is compatible with morality at all.

[aumd03 2]

I had a similar discussion on this with a friend with more liberal beliefs back when the ten commandments was an issue. We both agreed that Roy Moore had no business doing what he did, but we started debating the foundation for our laws and morality.

I guess a lot of this depends on your definition of morality. If morality is a personal "goodness" issue or is it a set of rules that dictate appropriate and just behavior in society or some medium along that spectrum. Morality varies to all.

My whole argument was that there has to be some accepted basic laws or morality. Something has to be accepted for rules to be built if any kind of morality applies to all of society. Much like a science experiment or math proof. You can only build based on accepted laws. For example, we say, its immoral to kill. But we also say, its moral to kill in war or to defend yourself. So what we are really saying is that is its immoral to kill unless someone is innocent. I finally decided we were debating semantics and there was no good answer.

I'm a science guy, I like rules and physical and biological laws. I'm sure you legal types may be more used to these type discussions. Unfortunately if a health care issue gets to the point we are debating morality, a legal expert steps in and decides for us.

All that sounds well and good, but, if you're looking for moral guidance in any form of gov't., then, in my opinion, you're looking in the wrong place.

Where did I say to look for moral guidance from the govt? I just said we were debating moral foundation and if it exists and if so, is that where our legal foundations come from.

Our legal foundation comes from British Common Law. Morality and government has been the basis for this whole thread, I thought. Tigermike's first post:

The truth is that neither socialism nor communism nor any kind of religious fundamentalism is compatible with morality at all.

I realize the thread topic. I thought morality just begged the question of what is morality and where does it come from. I agree its not to be directed by the govt, but it is upon morality that our govt's legal statutes are based.

Stating that it comes from British Common Law begs the question, where did British Common Law come from and what is it based upon. My point is, at some point, it has to boil down to concrete principles that are "right" and accepted by all, or otherwise, forced upon those that do not accept it. We are basically boiling it down to theories of those like John Locke and other Revolutionary era phillosophers. Social contracts and such.

[Tiger Al 0]

I realize the thread topic. I thought morality just begged the question of what is morality and where does it come from. I agree its not to be directed by the govt, but it is upon morality that our govt's legal statutes are based.

Stating that it comes from British Common Law begs the question, where did British Common Law come from and what is it based upon. My point is, at some point, it has to boil down to concrete principles that are "right" and accepted by all, or otherwise, forced upon those that do not accept it. We are basically boiling it down to theories of those like John Locke and other Revolutionary era phillosophers. Social contracts and such.

You seem to be avoiding an elephant in the living room. Where do you think our laws come from?

[aumd03 2]

I realize the thread topic. I thought morality just begged the question of what is morality and where does it come from. I agree its not to be directed by the govt, but it is upon morality that our govt's legal statutes are based.

Stating that it comes from British Common Law begs the question, where did British Common Law come from and what is it based upon. My point is, at some point, it has to boil down to concrete principles that are "right" and accepted by all, or otherwise, forced upon those that do not accept it. We are basically boiling it down to theories of those like John Locke and other Revolutionary era phillosophers. Social contracts and such.

You seem to be avoiding an elephant in the living room. Where do you think our laws come from?

What elephant am I avoiding? Acknowledging british common law? I didn't deny that. I'm saying, go a step further. Where did British common law come from. It wasn't an abstract concept that appeared on a moor one day etched into stone.

[Tiger Al 0]

I realize the thread topic. I thought morality just begged the question of what is morality and where does it come from. I agree its not to be directed by the govt, but it is upon morality that our govt's legal statutes are based.

Stating that it comes from British Common Law begs the question, where did British Common Law come from and what is it based upon. My point is, at some point, it has to boil down to concrete principles that are "right" and accepted by all, or otherwise, forced upon those that do not accept it. We are basically boiling it down to theories of those like John Locke and other Revolutionary era phillosophers. Social contracts and such.

You seem to be avoiding an elephant in the living room. Where do you think our laws come from?

What elephant am I avoiding? Acknowledging british common law? I didn't deny that. I'm saying, go a step further. Where did British common law come from. It wasn't an abstract concept that appeared on a moor one day etched into stone.

Well, where did it come from?

[otterinbham 0]

Our laws are actually a mixed bag.

Some uphold basic precepts of morality, such as prohibiting murder, theft, and the abuse and exploitation of the helpless.

Others simply uphold societal conventions such as property rights or the proper way to conduct business. The harder thing to do is decide where morality ends and social mores begin. For example, our enlightened legislature outlawed sex toys a few years back (by the way, we do not own or use the things). To me, that is a clearcut example of the state legislating social mores as opposed to morality, so the state is basically telling couples what they can and can't do in their bedrooms. Polygamy is another example.

So the question becomes, how influential should the state be in the formation of social mores? I would argue that in a truly free society, not at all.

[aumd03 2]

Our laws are actually a mixed bag.

Some uphold basic precepts of morality, such as prohibiting murder, theft, and the abuse and exploitation of the helpless.

Others simply uphold societal conventions such as property rights or the proper way to conduct business. The harder thing to do is decide where morality ends and social mores begin. For example, our enlightened legislature outlawed sex toys a few years back (by the way, we do not own or use the things). To me, that is a clearcut example of the state legislating social mores as opposed to morality, so the state is basically telling couples what they can and can't do in their bedrooms. Polygamy is another example.

So the question becomes, how influential should the state be in the formation of social mores? I would argue that in a truly free society, not at all.

I agree with you on this one otter.

[DKW 86 7,441]

Our laws are actually a mixed bag.

Some uphold basic precepts of morality, such as prohibiting murder, theft, and the abuse and exploitation of the helpless.

Others simply uphold societal conventions such as property rights or the proper way to conduct business. The harder thing to do is decide where morality ends and social mores begin. For example, our enlightened legislature outlawed sex toys a few years back (by the way, we do not own or use the things). To me, that is a clearcut example of the state legislating social mores as opposed to morality, so the state is basically telling couples what they can and can't do in their bedrooms. Polygamy is another example.

So the question becomes, how influential should the state be in the formation of social mores? I would argue that in a truly free society, not at all.

I agree with you on this one otter.

As usual, otter comes in with THE perfect example. What business it is of the state legislative fools to dictate what a married couple can do in the bedroom is just too damn silly for words. There is no defense for this law. It is intrusive, impsooible to enforce at othjer than a retail level.

I guess when you refuse to handle anything of any real import you have to do something to merit your pay.