morality and the law

[dairygirl4u2c]

Something regarding morality and the law. Conservatives often get off by insisting that law and morality have never been separate when talking with people who say that morality should not be imposed in the law. I think conservatives are missing the main point and those who argue with the conservatives usually don't argue their point well.

A little tangent first. I wonder if this is the case when a society is only becoming enlightened to a new idea against an orthodox notion that has been engrained well into the masses. I wouldn't be surprised if there were conservatives that said during the days of slavery, if we give rights to blacks, should we give rights to cows? Their thoughts were constricted by their language and previous thoughts until something more clear emerged. But anyway.

I would say that we should not impose our morality in the law, but that's for only specific things, and that's implying that we are indeed imposing the morality that we should not impose specific moralities. We shouldn't stop people from doing things that aren't hurting anyone else because we just don't like the idea.

Kind of like the idea that we shouldn't impose big government, with lots of moral points conseuently inherently imposed. Like many of you I think would agree. These advocates might say that we shouldn't impose the moralities of big government. These advocates would be irritated at those who would say, "law is meant for imposing morality!" Those who advoate that we shouldn't impose government moralities are simply saying, that that specfic notion of big government moralities should not be imposed. These people I think we'd all agree would duly be irritated at those who simply say "law is meant for imposing morality!" because they're missing the point of the anti big government people saying we shouldn't impose moralities (big government). If all the big government people say is we shouldn't impose moality, it's in a way no wonder people might retort "law's are meant for moralit!". It's a poor arguement. They should simply state that that morality should not be imposed and maybe moralities as a rule should not be imposed.

Just like many conservatives miss the point with many moral issues. We shouldn't impose moralities, but that's for things that are between consentual pepole and aren't huring anyone. Not that morality shouldn't be imposed, per se.

For example, when we say that we shouldn't impose our morality that fornication should be banned, we're saying that this specific thing shouldn't be banned, based on the notion that most things shouldn't be imposed, similar to those wanting big government moralities out of people's lives. To start saying "moralities are meant to be imposed!" is simply missing the point. Most advocates of allowing fornication are indeed willing to impose other moralities. Maybe like imposing socialistic constraints on an unfettered capitalism to not allow people to be unjustly taken advantage of etc.

-----------------------
Most people who want fornication allowed, moreover, want it allowed not just to not ban it, but in a positive sense. It's moral to these people to allow others to fornicate, even if it's wrong to do the act. In a more proactive sense than not banning something, they'd say gay marriage should be allowed. It's a moral good to allow other pepole's reasonable ways of life that's consentual to those involved.

Edited November 19, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[photosynthesis]

you seem to be under the impression that "orthodox notions" are "ingrained well into the masses." Have you watched television or paid attention to pop culture lately? People have gotten so relativistic that they don't even know what orthodoxy is anymore.

[quote]I would say that we should not impose our morality in the law, but that's for only specific things, and that's implying that we are indeed imposing the morality that we should not impose specific moralities. We shouldn't stop people from doing things that aren't hurting anyone else because we just don't like the idea.[/quote]

do you believe suicide is wrong? If a person commits suicide, they aren't hurting anyone else. They're hurting themselves, but the damage they cause to others is intangible.

[Fidei Defensor]

You leave out the factor of mis-formed consciences. Morality is from God, meaning it is true for everyone. Some people choose to disreguard it though, but this is not a license to be a hypocrite.

[dairygirl4u2c]

So you two gave the typical responses:
1. You have objective truth that includes it immoral to not allow allowing others to do their own thing, even if it's reasonable to think contrary to truth.

2. The reason this is okay is because we are our brother's keeper, they are objectively hurting themselves.

We have a difference of basic values.

Actually, those aren't that bad of responses. The hurting themselves thing helps clarify brother's keeper argument. Makes you think of things like, should we require seatbelt use (a lotta conservatives would say no) or should all sins be banned? Taken to that extreme I would think the initial response at least would be tosay no. But then maybe they should. I honestly don't know.

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Nov 19 2005, 04:43 PM']So you two gave the typical responses:
1. You have objective truth that includes it immoral to not allow allowing others to do their own thing, even if it's reasonable to think contrary to truth.

2. The reason this is okay is because we are our brother's keeper, they are objectively hurting themselves.

We have a difference of basic values.

Actually, those aren't that bad of responses. The hurting themselves thing helps clarify brother's keeper argument. Makes you think of things like, should we require seatbelt use (a lotta conservatives would say no) or should all sins be banned? Taken to that extreme I would think the initial response at least would be tosay no. But then maybe they should. I honestly don't know.
[right][snapback]795296[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
ok, first of all... DOUBLE NEGATIVES ARE BAD. they make written language unclear and unreadable.

now then, I don't know what this "brother's keeper argument" thing you're talking about is. I don't think anyone has used that for an argument, but I guess one could pose that God has given us a responsibility to look out for the welfare of our fellow man. But that responsibility is different than that of the state's responsibility to citizens.

There is a truth, reality is absolute, and morality doesn't depend on cultural conditions.

[Anastasia13]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Nov 19 2005, 03:43 PM']So you two gave the typical responses:
1. You have objective truth that includes it immoral to not allow allowing others to do their own thing, even if it's reasonable to think contrary to truth.
[right][snapback]795296[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
When a religious morality shapes a nations laws, then whatever the religion or the laws, it takes away some of argument against other countries doing the same with some other religion, even if it then opposes Christianity or the free expression thereof.