Abortion

[columbus]

@Cephus Law has everything to do with morality and ethics.

So , are you agreeing with the 19th century US slavers when they wrote laws?
Tom

 

[McBell]

We already agree that morality and the law have nothing to do with each other.

@Cephus Law has everything to do with morality and ethics.

I disagree with you both.
It is not the false dichotomy the two of you make it out to be.

 

[Sees]

So , are you agreeing with the 19th century US slavers when they wrote laws?
Tom

Depends on the law.

 

[columbus]

Depends on the law.

What does it depend on?
Tom

 

[Sees]

I disagree with you both.
It is not the false dichotomy the two of you make it out to be.

What dichotomy? Law is codified stances on morality and ethics to regulate behavior and enforce justice.

 

[Sees]

What does it depend on?
Tom

What the law states. I don't automatically agree with something because others made it into a law.

 

[McBell]

What dichotomy? Law is codified stances on morality and ethics to regulate behavior and enforce justice.

One claimed "law has nothing to do with morals" and the other claimed "law has everything to do with morals".
False dichotomy.

 

[columbus]

What the law states. I don't automatically agree with something because others made it into a law.

How do you determine?
Tom

 

[Sees]

How do you determine?
Tom

It's easy to determine if my view agrees with the one expressed by the law. Do you mean how do I obtain my stances on what is moral and ethical?

 

[Sees]

One claimed "law has nothing to do with morals" and the other claimed "law has everything to do with morals".
False dichotomy.

I see what you're saying, still seems strange.

 

[McBell]

I see what you're saying, still seems strange.

IMO, neither will win because you are arguing polar opposite extremes.
Since neither extreme is true....

 

[Sees]

IMO, neither will win because you are arguing polar opposite extremes.
Since neither extreme is true....

I would have to see some definition of law where it is divorced from morality and ethics in any way. I don't think it can be done unless we are talking about scientific law or something else people borrowed the word for.

 

[McBell]

I would have to see some definition of law where it is divorced from morality and ethics in any way. I don't think it can be done unless we are talking about scientific law or something else people borrowed the word for.

Law is a system of rules that are enforced through social institutions to govern behaviour.
Laws can be made by a collective legislature or by a single legislator, resulting in statutes, by the executive through decrees and regulations, or by judges through binding precedent, normally in common law jurisdictions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law
​

Or how about:

The Third New International Dictionary from Merriam-Webster defines law as: "Law is a binding custom or practice of a community; a rule or mode of conduct or action that is prescribed or formally recognized as binding by a supreme controlling authority or is made obligatory by a sanction (as an edict, decree, rescript, order, ordinance, statute, resolution, rule, judicial decision, or usage) made, recognized, or enforced by the controlling authority

Third New International Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Inc., Springfield, Massachusetts.​

 

[Sees]

Law is a system of rules that are enforced through social institutions to govern behaviour.
Laws can be made by a collective legislature or by a single legislator, resulting in statutes, by the executive through decrees and regulations, or by judges through binding precedent, normally in common law jurisdictions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law
​

Or how about:

The Third New International Dictionary from Merriam-Webster defines law as: "Law is a binding custom or practice of a community; a rule or mode of conduct or action that is prescribed or formally recognized as binding by a supreme controlling authority or is made obligatory by a sanction (as an edict, decree, rescript, order, ordinance, statute, resolution, rule, judicial decision, or usage) made, recognized, or enforced by the controlling authority

Third New International Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Inc., Springfield, Massachusetts.​

You see that as divorced from morality and ethics in any way?

 

[McBell]

You see that as divorced from morality and ethics in any way?

I see that morality and or ethics are not required for law.
However, I also accept that morality and ethic can be in law.

So it is neither of the extremes as presented by yourself and Cehus

 

[Sees]

I see that morality and or ethics are not required for law.
However, I also accept that morality and ethic can be in law.

So it is neither of the extremes as presented by yourself and Cehus

We can look for a judicial law which refrains from being a stance on what is just, fair, right, good, etc. - it is what it is all about so I don't see it being easy. You can't divorce a judgement on those things from the morality and ethics of the lawmaking body. It is their moral and ethical decisions being codified. Even when we are dealing with taxation and distribution of resources it is still there.

I think the definitions we have for morality and ethics is our difference in perception here.

 

[McBell]

I think the definitions we have for morality and ethics is our difference in perception here.

Good possibility.

 

[Sees]

Good possibility.

To be fair I can see some loopholes and possible loopholes - if we take all forms of rules and regulations as a form of law, then there are cases that can bring up flaw to my position/statements without a lot of stretching going on. Things like military rules and regs, dictator mandates, etc. being some. I could stretch to make a connection but it would be pointless.

Probably the more easy to argue and get clear agreement: In "almost all" cases what we see as judicial law is intrinsically tied to morality and ethics. Practically speaking I just treat it as law and morality/ethics are inseparable.

 

[Cephus]

What dichotomy? Law is codified stances on morality and ethics to regulate behavior and enforce justice.

I don't think morality has anything to do with it. A huge portion of the law isn't about right and wrong but about keeping society functional.

 

[Forever_Catholic]

Cephus has a good point forever. There is no empirical evidence of a Divine being. I believe in God but will always freely admit that that is my belief and that I cannot prove it. It is only fair to acknowledge the truth of that. I understand that you find what you consider empirical evidence but if it truly were proven empirical evidence, the entire world would be deists. And they are not.

The world has never been and never will be a world of deists because both evidence and proof as it pertains to God and the existence the immortal soul will be rejected by many people no matter what. Jesus repeatedly proved himself as God the Son throughout his ministry. Those miracles were not sufficient for many, including some who were eye witnesses. Even raising himself from the dead was not enough for those who chose not to believe.

There is empirical evidence of the soul and its properties that line up perfectly with scripture. One example is that people who have been blind since birth have reported being able see when they left their bodies in near death experiences. They have been able to describe what they saw accurately enough to prove they saw what was around them while clinically dead, which also proves that the soul continues to live when the body dies. (There is a book available on this subject titled Mindsight: Near-Death and Out-of-Body Experiences in the Blind by Dr. Kenneth Ring.) Some people in the medical profession believe what their patients have told them about near death experiences, and some don't. Some go to great lengths to explain it away, no matter how compelling it is; no matter how impossible it is in many cases to have been made up or imagined as random brain activity.

Private revelations and miraculous experiences that prove God's existence serve as proof to the individuals who receive them, but cannot be proven to anyone else. And even some people who were moved to tears and conversions during such experiences begin later to rationalize them as something other than what they had known as reality. As time passes and the event becomes more remote in the past, they stop believing.