Morality

[filthy tugboat]

I would also like to add the notion of "God's Law", and whoever/whatever choses to enforce it and describe it.

Is this law the subjective laws encouraged or enforced by those that believe a God gave them these laws? So all religious law or are you advocating a specific religious law?

So as you may know and have often recognized "God's Law" can found in the commandments which are the essential building blocks of "legal" and "illegal".

Which commandments? Which legal system are we refferring to?

Well the "utilitarians" can claim to use one thing and say it is more productive, but it only pertains to their own walls and not anyone else's.

What? Everyone uses the terms good and bad in a utilitarian sense, it's a different meaning of the word all together and is common. It doesn't have to be subjective like you are trying to portray it. For example, it was a bad decision made by the Germans in World War Two to invade Russia during Winter. This is a utilitarian use of the word "bad". I don't understand what your point has to do with our debate at all, I was just outlining the two different potential uses of the terms "good" and "bad" so that it was clear what we were talking about given it can be easily confused for the moral use of the words.

You are only using law and moral in ways that pertain to your argument, you even said it (again we are doing the same thing).

Am I? Perhaps you could quote me.

So I'm not really understanding the point anymore, since when it has become obvious that two people in debate are essentially cherry picking then these two people should realize that in effort to support their own argument they are in fact supporting each other's arguments.

In that definition excludes "coincidence", and when used definitively it means some completely other than what is perceived as "certain".

Definition only serves as "what is" less than half of the time, because by definition is something that has to be tied down without translation and language barriers, as well as sincere and direct trains of thought.

No one is arguing "absolute", or "more logical", just what is. That legality and morality often coincide (and are bound to coincide on touchier subjects that require judgement).

Yes, morality often coincides with legality, this is not a point I've ever denied, what I've denied is that they are one in the same, law is not a moral system, it doesn't proclaim good or bad behavior, irthas a set standard of behavior and consequences for those that break it. legal does not mean moral, illegal does not mean immoral. It can to some people but that is irrelevant to the point, a group of people, even if it's the majority, have no more determining power over this issue than one person.

This can be exemplified individually, if an individual breaks a minor law but has the mindset that there was no breaking of the rules then the judgement being cast against them becomes a subject of more personal involvement, thus leading to what is perceived as right and wrong, "just" and "injust".

According to law, it makes no difference, they govern behavior regardless of whether you knew what legal and illegal was, if you killed a person and stole their things, it wouldn't matter if you said you didn't know of the law.

"You broke the law", says who?

"You are immoral", says who?

We do :yes:

I don't understand the "immoral" point? Are you still trying to equate them together? How does that work? How does breaking the law make you immoral? The law does not determine morality. Do you think Bob marley was immoral for using drugs? Do you think Martin Luther King Jr. was immoral for fighting for African American rights? If not, why? They broke the law of the time.

Which is?

It depends on individual laws for example, the legal definition of murder vs. the legal definition of manslaughter as well as the degree's of both. The laws are written to make it clear which is which and how to determine what crime fits what definition. So while the execution of the law is subjective, the legal precedents are not.

What does this mean?

"Human law is subject to trial, interpretation. What people believe in as "right" and "wrong" behavior." This is the second part I was referring to, sorry that i did not make it clear. This part referrs to the creation and abolishment of laws, not the execution of the laws or the interpretation of the laws.

Well there is life outside of yourself, and all of it is trying to life so I don't really see what the point of this is.

The point was that there is no "correct" way to live, there are standards people make but there is no evidence(or at least, none I've seen) to determine a "correct" way to live.

It does,

Perhaps you could show me. I've never seen it before.

but then again law extends to beyond what you can comprehend,

Does it? What do you mean by this?

it even extends to some things you disagree with so I don't know what your arguing really.

I'm arguing that the law (in America and Australia) does not claim to be a moral system and does not claim to make moral judgements. Disagreeing with legal precedents and even behaving illegally does not necessarily make you a bad person.

I should ask the same though, what legal precendent doesn't suggest that people who break the law are bad people?

I suppose all of them since none of them advocate that breaking them determines immorality.

Obviously people who break the law have "bad" things done to them. So a bad person must want bad things done to them.

What? This doesn't make sense, breaking the law has (usually) unfavorable consequences. People that break the law must want these unfavorable consequences done to them? I'm at a loss for what logic you used to reach this conclusion. I also don't know why you equated law breakers with "bad people" again.

Alright how little does it support my argument?

Extremely little since popular opinion does not determine whether the law makes moral judgements. Even if popular opinion were the opposite, it still would not sway the debate. How does popular opinion support either argument? Why do you think having people agree with you on this matter is significant to this debate?

What?

I was just clarifying what you mant Earlier by "moral person", it was more for myself than anyone, that may have been why it came off as nonsensical, it wasn't really written very clearly, apologies.

More importantly, how does it not express any authority?

Could you answer my question please, you made the claim, you should be willing to and capable of supporting it

You still have to tell me how law is not subjective and not situational.

Law is not subjective because as a system it applies to everyone in the same way, it is objective in the sense that it exists outside of interpretation, we as a group have elevated it into objectivity, we have made it this way so that it does apply to everyone.

Actually yes to both, since they both require judgement and opinion and they need to be acted out, reinforced and supported by a majority of the governing body.

They don't need to be acted out though, they exist, even if unenforced. Acting them out is the subjective portion, the laws themselves however are not subjective. They exist outside of interpretation, even if someone doesn't know what the laws are, they still apply to them(if they are in the country).

Unless of course these laws we are speaking of have always existed.

I am confident that they have not.

You lack any support in terms of thinking that I am equivocating law and morality, I am simply using them interchangeably, AGAIN.

If you have not created the equivocation, how can you use them interchangeably?

And on a side note I'd like to know why you seem to be so dodgy, I'm not finding any of this to be sincere since I am the only one answering your one sided questions.

I have answered many of your questions, I don't know why you think you are the only one answering questions. Perhaps you could present some examples?

 

[Orias]

Here we go again.

My point is that law and morality coincide on many levels regardless if legal is moral and illegal is immoral. That is what you are contending but not what I'm arguing.

A person may not see murder as immoral but they may see it as illegal, but most often people see it as the same. Sure they can exist separately, like speeding but the more concerning parts are the one's that involve "juries".

The systems of laws and the governments that enforce them are all subject to the consistency of human behavior within this system and mode of correction.

Thus making law subject to behavior that is judged "good" and "bad".

Law judges good and bad (correct) behavior in a moral sense. This can be fashioned in the view that law uses morals in a utility like way.

 

[filthy tugboat]

Here we go again.

My point is that law and morality coincide on many levels regardless if legal is moral and illegal is immoral. That is what you are contending but not what I'm arguing.

Okay, so legal does not imply "moral" and illegal does not imply "immoral". We are on the same page here.

A person may not see murder as immoral but they may see it as illegal,

If it's illegal, it's most likely not up to this hypothetical person, the act would be illegal by definition. Whether someone sees it as immoral is subjective to the person and to the event.

but most often people see it as the same.

Do they?

Sure they can exist separately, like speeding but the more concerning parts are the one's that involve "juries".

So only crimes that are judged by juries are "immoral"? Why?

The systems of laws and the governments that enforce them are all subject to the consistency of human behavior within this system and mode of correction.

Indeed, laws are created by the people controlling the legal system, if those people are elected by the masses of the country then it is probable that the legal system largely reflects the moral opinions of the majority but are not bound to those moral opinions and not judged by those moral opinions.

Thus making law subject to behavior that is judged "good" and "bad".

No, the law itself makes no such judgement, some people make those judgments based on their own moral opinions and the law itself.

Law judges good and bad (correct) behavior in a moral sense.

How did you reach this from the previous points made? Yes, people's moral opinions are the source of law but those opinions do not control the law and the law does not make judgments based on moral opinions. People decided they didn't want murder to be acceptable, legal precedents evolved. Now the jury does not decide whether murder is wrong or right, good or bad, they determine whether the person in question committed murder. The laws do not determine whether certain actions are good or bad, right or wrong, they define what constitutes a crime and the crimes themselves. Morality is not controlled by the government or any of it's properties, the government has no place proclaiming what is good, bad, right or wrong.

This can be fashioned in the view that law uses morals in a utility like way.

How can morals be used in a utility like way?

 

[Orias]

Okay, so legal does not imply "moral" and illegal does not imply "immoral". We are on the same page here.

Actually it can imply "moral", its that it doesn't explicate it.

In some circumstances it can be like getting that feeling around a shady character in a bank.

Just because you don't see that he has a gun doesn't mean he doesn't have one.

If it's illegal, it's most likely not up to this hypothetical person, the act would be illegal by definition. Whether someone sees it as immoral is subjective to the person and to the event.

Yea but my point is that people think it should be regardless of whether or not it "is".

But I agree with the last bit.

Do they?

Lets ask.

So only crimes that are judged by juries are "immoral"? Why?

Not at all.

Crimes that involve juries are more concerning thus making the judgement subject to a group of people instead of one person or body of existence.

Indeed, laws are created by the people controlling the legal system, if those people are elected by the masses of the country then it is probable that the legal system largely reflects the moral opinions of the majority but are not bound to those moral opinions and not judged by those moral opinions.

You got it all right except for the last bit, they are bound to those moral opinions unless exterminating their own civilians is on the menu.

Eventually people will..."push" back.

No, the law itself makes no such judgement, some people make those judgments based on their own moral opinions and the law itself.

How does it not?

How does law exist outside of human observation? Because you see it, taste it, touch it, and smell it?

How did you reach this from the previous points made? Yes, people's moral opinions are the source of law but those opinions do not control the law and the law does not make judgments based on moral opinions. People decided they didn't want murder to be acceptable, legal precedents evolved. Now the jury does not decide whether murder is wrong or right, good or bad, they determine whether the person in question committed murder. The laws do not determine whether certain actions are good or bad, right or wrong, they define what constitutes a crime and the crimes themselves. Morality is not controlled by the government or any of it's properties, the government has no place proclaiming what is good, bad, right or wrong.

Aside from that, law was decided hence concluding my point.

They can change, and are bound to change.

It is simply human nature.

How can morals be used in a utility like way?

Are you familiar with the "Good Guy Badge"?

 

[Daviso452]

You guys ever heard of a Venn Diagram? Two different things with overlapping parts?

 

[Orias]

I believe that was part of the "utility" argument.

Though it is something that I think I have made pretty clear, "immoral" does not equate to "illegal" it merely implies it (does not explicate it).