Very open question (wonder where it will lead)

[Fritz]

Should laws reflect morality?

[vtbub]

Yup that's an open question.

[vtbub]

Dola,

Since no two peoples moral values are the same, it would nearly impossible to legislate solely based on certain peoples morals.

[sachmo71]

I don't even understand the question. :(

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by sachmo71
I don't even understand the question. :(
:D :D :D

Tarkus

[Qwikshot]

Some morals can be agreed upon...I mean people shouldn't kill other people, or steal from other people, am I right on that?

[McSweeny]

well what if you had to steal to survive?

[McSweeny]

dola

or kill in self defense

[wade moore]

Or kill for food..


errrr....

[Qwikshot]

Kill other people, kill in self defense is justified, because your life is threatened, you wouldn't eat other people, you wouldn't steal to survive, if there was services available so you wouldn't starve...

[McSweeny]

sure i understand, i was just trying to show that even the morals that some people strongly feel can never be questions, can indeed be questioned

[Qwikshot]

well if you were starving yes...but laws don't reflect that, but you could make a moral law to prevent the starving of your people...I think most people would be in agreement on that one too...

[Qwikshot]

dola..

the real challenge is a child brought up by morally questonable parents...let's say he's never been brought up to respect life or others...is he really doing wrong?

[Ksyrup]

That's not an open question. It can be answered with a "yes" or "no".


Maybe.

[Fritz]

The marijuana thread got me thinking about moral positions on drugs. This in turn led me to think about the reasons for various laws. Certainly we have regulation of commerce and public safety, but a number of laws appear to based solely (or at least primarily) on morality.

The question I asked myself is "should we legislate morality?"

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
That's not an open question. It can be answered with a "yes" or "no".


Maybe.

I think mine is a yes or no...if he was brought up with parents who have murdered and stolen, without any outside influence to teach him otherwise, is he really doing wrong?

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Qwikshot
I think mine is a yes or no...if he was brought up with parents who have murdered and stolen, without any outside influence to teach him otherwise, is he really doing wrong?

That in itself is an interesting (and often asked) question. Is morality relative, or is there an ultimate morality.

I lean towards ultimate morality, with relative morality being an illusion of ignorance.

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by Fritz
That in itself is an interesting (and often asked) question. Is morality relative, or is there an ultimate morality.

I lean towards ultimate morality, with relative morality being an illusion of ignorance.

True, but didn't tribes of old, hunt down and kill other tribes, and sometimes eat them...when did someone figure out that this was wrong to do?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Fritz
That in itself is an interesting (and often asked) question. Is morality relative, or is there an ultimate morality.

I lean towards ultimate morality, with relative morality being an illusion of ignorance. Well, I of course believe morality is ultimate....


As far as governing/laws are concerned though, I tend to believe that the fairest way of making laws in a free society is to legislate based on the following principle:

An individual has the right to govern his or her own life, so long as he or she does not participate in any acts that infridge, either by force or by fraud, upon another's right to life, liberty and property.

Basically that sums it up for me.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by SkyDog

An individual has the right to govern his or her own life, so long as he or she does not participate in any acts that infridge, either by force or by fraud, upon another's right to life, liberty and property.


So it should be legal for people to have "farm" sex in a public place?

What about if it is not in public?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by Fritz
So it should be legal for people to have "farm" sex in a public place?

What about if it is not in public? True. At some point there need to be standards of community decency established as well. THAT is something that can/should be left up to the states imho.

[clintl]

Originally posted by Fritz
So it should be legal for people to have "farm" sex in a public place?

What about if it is not in public?

1) Could be considered infringing on the rights of those who don't want to watch that sort of thing.

2) Only if the animal consents.

[Anrhydeddu]

Man's laws will not be the same as God's laws. While there have and still continue to be some noble attempts at legislating morality (or God's laws), as long as you have us writing them and applying to the general population, while they may vaguely reflect morality, they won't be acted upon accordingly.

[rkmsuf]

Society determines moral decency and the government they elect(at least here) reflects it in general in the laws.

[Anrhydeddu]

Originally posted by rkmsuf
Society determines moral decency and the government they elect(at least here) reflects it in general in the laws.

And that is the most practical solution.

Let me give you an example of the differences. In Proverbs, it says that no words from your mouth shall be crooked or perverse. So how does that square with the First Amendment? I think it was George Washington that said that these amendments assume a godly or a righteous people following them. Because that was never the case, you have the contradiction that the First Amendment can (and should) protect Larry Flynt but it was not conceived among godly people that anyone would ever do that in that first place! In other words, the First Amendment, in its noble attempt, was framed for good (like protesting against tyranny). But since we have to have laws, we must allow the bad in order to allow the good.

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
And that is the most practical solution.

Let me give you an example of the differences. In Proverbs, it says that no words from your mouth shall be crooked or perverse. So how does that square with the First Amendment? I think it was George Washington that said that these amendments assume a godly or a righteous people following them. Because that was never the case, you have the contradiction that the First Amendment can (and should) protect Larry Flynt but it was not conceived among godly people that anyone would ever do that in that first place! In other words, the First Amendment, in its noble attempt, was framed for good (like protesting against tyranny). But since we have to have laws, we must allow the bad in order to allow the good.

Freedom of Speech for everybody, including the hate groups sadly...but that is what makes our country great...

[Craptacular]

Originally posted by Fritz
So it should be legal for people to have "farm" sex in a public place?


Just remember, in Florida it is now unconstitutional to put your pregnant pig in a small cage after you rock her world.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by clintl
1) Could be considered infringing on the rights of those who don't want to watch that sort of thing.

2) Only if the animal consents.

What about consensual sex between a parent and child?

What about consensual marriage between a parent and child?

[Fritz]

Originally posted by rkmsuf
Society determines moral decency and the government they elect(at least here) reflects it in general in the laws.

So then it is okay for laws to reflect morality? Is okay to legislate morality?

[rkmsuf]

So then it is okay for laws to reflect morality? Is okay to legislate morality

In a general sense yes since we elect the folks that make the laws.