Talk:Morality - Revision history

Philip J. Rayment: /* Morality and Law */ Can't see that it's misleading

2008-10-23T05:47:54Z

Morality and Law: Can't see that it's misleading

Philip J. Rayment: /* Morality and Law */ According to the population's wishes.

2008-10-23T05:42:56Z

Morality and Law: According to the population's wishes.

HelpJazz: /* Morality and Law */

2008-10-23T02:35:48Z

Morality and Law

Philip J. Rayment: /* Morality and Law */ Fix Wiki link; reply.

2008-10-23T01:55:45Z

Morality and Law: Fix Wiki link; reply.

HelpJazz: /* Morality and Law */

2008-10-22T21:08:27Z

Morality and Law

Philip J. Rayment: /* Morality and Law */ Another way of saying the same thing.

2008-10-22T05:55:54Z

Morality and Law: Another way of saying the same thing.

HelpJazz: /* Morality and Law */

2008-10-22T03:57:50Z

Morality and Law

Philip J. Rayment: /* Morality and Law */ It still gets back to morals.

2008-10-22T01:56:08Z

Morality and Law: It still gets back to morals.

HelpJazz: /* Morality and Law */ new section

2008-10-21T23:48:44Z

Morality and Law: new section

Philip J. Rayment: /* The effects of Atheism */ Atheism is the basis of Marxism.

2008-06-09T13:07:19Z

The effects of Atheism: Atheism is the basis of Marxism.

@@ Line 142: / Line 142: @@
 ::::: No, the laws are not based on morality that everyone holds.  If that were the case, there would be little need for the laws!  And some ''do'' think that murder and theft is morally right (in some circumstances at least), such as murder of unborn children, murder of old people, murder of some young children (e.g. [[Peter Singer]]'s views), theft from insurance companies (false claims), theft from rich people, and so on.
 ::::: If you don't want morality legislated on the basis of the existence of disagreement, what do you do when people disagree for other reasons?  Still not legislate?  Or if you do, who gets to decide then?
-:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:55, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
+::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:55, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
-:::::::How are you affected by ''someone else'' being married (in a manner that's different from a homosexual couple living together ''as if'' they were married, which is legal)?
+::::::How are you affected by ''someone else'' being married (in a manner that's different from a homosexual couple living together ''as if'' they were married, which is legal)?
-:::::::So still, you are saying that laws are based on someone's morality, and go against someone else's. Again I ask, who gets to decide who's morality the law is based on? ''That's'' what people who don't want morality legislated are against.
+::::::So still, you are saying that laws are based on someone's morality, and go against someone else's. Again I ask, who gets to decide who's morality the law is based on? ''That's'' what people who don't want morality legislated are against.
-:::::::A discussion of rights vs. morality is interesting (though I'm a little underprepared; I need to do some more reading!), but this all started with the statement in the article. Whether we use your definition or morals/rights/laws or mine, the statement is misleading at best, and a logical fallacy at worst. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:35, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
+::::::A discussion of rights vs. morality is interesting (though I'm a little underprepared; I need to do some more reading!), but this all started with the statement in the article. Whether we use your definition or morals/rights/laws or mine, the statement is misleading at best, and a logical fallacy at worst. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:35, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
-:::::::: I may not be directly affected by a homosexual "marriage" per se, but by legalising it, you are endorsing a lifestyle that is a detriment to society, and as part of society, I am affected.  One obvious example is AIDS, which has affected society and which takes tax dollars that could have been spent on other things if AIDS was not taking it.
+::::::: I may not be directly affected by a homosexual "marriage" per se, but by legalising it, you are endorsing a lifestyle that is a detriment to society, and as part of society, I am affected.  One obvious example is AIDS, which has affected society and which takes tax dollars that could have been spent on other things if AIDS was not taking it.
-:::::::: Yes, laws based on morality ''or on anything else'' will be consistent with one person's views and inconsistent with another person's views.  So what do you do?  Not make laws?  No, you elect people to make laws for you, and you make them, in general terms, according to the wishes of the population.  But you don't exclude some of those wishes simply on the arbitrary grounds that they are "morals based".  Of course ideally you would make them according to God's standards, but if the population as a whole doesn't recognise God's standards, that's not going to happen.  So what I'm really saying is that ideally the population as a whole would recognise God's standards and make the laws accordingly, which is historically just what has happened in much of western civilisation.
+::::::: Yes, laws based on morality ''or on anything else'' will be consistent with one person's views and inconsistent with another person's views.  So what do you do?  Not make laws?  No, you elect people to make laws for you, and you make them, in general terms, according to the wishes of the population.  But you don't exclude some of those wishes simply on the arbitrary grounds that they are "morals based".  Of course ideally you would make them according to God's standards, but if the population as a whole doesn't recognise God's standards, that's not going to happen.  So what I'm really saying is that ideally the population as a whole would recognise God's standards and make the laws accordingly, which is historically just what has happened in much of western civilisation.
-:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:42, 23 October 2008 (EDT)
+::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:42, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:42, October 23, 2008
Line 146:		Line 146:
	:::::::So still, you are saying that laws are based on someone's morality, and go against someone else's. Again I ask, who gets to decide who's morality the law is based on? ''That's'' what people who don't want morality legislated are against.		:::::::So still, you are saying that laws are based on someone's morality, and go against someone else's. Again I ask, who gets to decide who's morality the law is based on? ''That's'' what people who don't want morality legislated are against.
	:::::::A discussion of rights vs. morality is interesting (though I'm a little underprepared; I need to do some more reading!), but this all started with the statement in the article. Whether we use your definition or morals/rights/laws or mine, the statement is misleading at best, and a logical fallacy at worst. [[User:HelpJazz\|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz\|Jazz]] 22:35, 22 October 2008 (EDT)		:::::::A discussion of rights vs. morality is interesting (though I'm a little underprepared; I need to do some more reading!), but this all started with the statement in the article. Whether we use your definition or morals/rights/laws or mine, the statement is misleading at best, and a logical fallacy at worst. [[User:HelpJazz\|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz\|Jazz]] 22:35, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
		+	:::::::: I may not be directly affected by a homosexual "marriage" per se, but by legalising it, you are endorsing a lifestyle that is a detriment to society, and as part of society, I am affected. One obvious example is AIDS, which has affected society and which takes tax dollars that could have been spent on other things if AIDS was not taking it.
		+	:::::::: Yes, laws based on morality ''or on anything else'' will be consistent with one person's views and inconsistent with another person's views. So what do you do? Not make laws? No, you elect people to make laws for you, and you make them, in general terms, according to the wishes of the population. But you don't exclude some of those wishes simply on the arbitrary grounds that they are "morals based". Of course ideally you would make them according to God's standards, but if the population as a whole doesn't recognise God's standards, that's not going to happen. So what I'm really saying is that ideally the population as a whole would recognise God's standards and make the laws accordingly, which is historically just what has happened in much of western civilisation.
		+	:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:42, 23 October 2008 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:35, October 23, 2008
Line 143:		Line 143:
	::::: If you don't want morality legislated on the basis of the existence of disagreement, what do you do when people disagree for other reasons? Still not legislate? Or if you do, who gets to decide then?		::::: If you don't want morality legislated on the basis of the existence of disagreement, what do you do when people disagree for other reasons? Still not legislate? Or if you do, who gets to decide then?
	:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:55, 22 October 2008 (EDT)		:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:55, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
		+	:::::::How are you affected by ''someone else'' being married (in a manner that's different from a homosexual couple living together ''as if'' they were married, which is legal)?
		+	:::::::So still, you are saying that laws are based on someone's morality, and go against someone else's. Again I ask, who gets to decide who's morality the law is based on? ''That's'' what people who don't want morality legislated are against.
		+	:::::::A discussion of rights vs. morality is interesting (though I'm a little underprepared; I need to do some more reading!), but this all started with the statement in the article. Whether we use your definition or morals/rights/laws or mine, the statement is misleading at best, and a logical fallacy at worst. [[User:HelpJazz\|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz\|Jazz]] 22:35, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

@@ Line 135: / Line 135: @@
 ::: People who say that the law should not be used to enforce morality are generally only saying so in the context of a moral that they don't agree with (e.g. homosexuality).  And I'd say that pretty much any law that is "morality-based" can be understood in terms of "rights-based".  For example, a law that forbids homosexual acts can be understood as protecting the rights of people adversely affected by homosexuality.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:55, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
 ::::That's not always true either. Some people think that immoral things that don't infringe another person's rights should not be illegal. And who's rights are being trampled with a law that allows homosexual marraige? Who's are being trampled with a law ''against'' homosexual marraige? I don't think that's a good example.
-::::I did some reading, and I figured out my general uneasiess with the statement that it is morally wrong to deprive someone of their rights: Again it doesn't have to be. It could be utilitarian. [[Objectivism|Objectivists] and some libertarians believe that protecting rights is necessary to survival, not "morally right".
+::::I did some reading, and I figured out my general uneasiess with the statement that it is morally wrong to deprive someone of their rights: Again it doesn't have to be. It could be utilitarian. [[Objectivism|Objectivists]] and some libertarians believe that protecting rights is necessary to survival, not "morally right".
 ::::Addionally, after more reflection, I determined that even if you are right with everything you are saying, Philip, the statement as written still basically comes down to a straw man. Those laws that are based on "morality" are based on morality that ''everyone'' holds. Nobody thinks that murder and theft are morally right (Ethics 101-style paradoxes notwithstanding), so it's ok to make a law based on those morals. However the people who say "We don't want morality to be legislated" (I might as well at this point say for the record that this includes myself) are saying that they don't want morality legislated ''if there is disagreement about the morality involved''. Because then who gets to decide what is ''moral''? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:08, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:08, October 22, 2008
Line 134:		Line 134:
	::Hrm in my gut that still seems wrong. Unfortunately the definition in the article isn't much help. Still, though, the statement is misleading. If, as you say, protecting rights is morally right (right? ha!) then people who argue that law should not enforce morality are actually saying the law should not be used to enforce morality ''unless'' the moral in question is depriving another person of their rights. [[User:HelpJazz\|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz\|Jazz]] 23:57, 21 October 2008 (EDT)		::Hrm in my gut that still seems wrong. Unfortunately the definition in the article isn't much help. Still, though, the statement is misleading. If, as you say, protecting rights is morally right (right? ha!) then people who argue that law should not enforce morality are actually saying the law should not be used to enforce morality ''unless'' the moral in question is depriving another person of their rights. [[User:HelpJazz\|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz\|Jazz]] 23:57, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
	::: People who say that the law should not be used to enforce morality are generally only saying so in the context of a moral that they don't agree with (e.g. homosexuality). And I'd say that pretty much any law that is "morality-based" can be understood in terms of "rights-based". For example, a law that forbids homosexual acts can be understood as protecting the rights of people adversely affected by homosexuality. [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:55, 22 October 2008 (EDT)		::: People who say that the law should not be used to enforce morality are generally only saying so in the context of a moral that they don't agree with (e.g. homosexuality). And I'd say that pretty much any law that is "morality-based" can be understood in terms of "rights-based". For example, a law that forbids homosexual acts can be understood as protecting the rights of people adversely affected by homosexuality. [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:55, 22 October 2008 (EDT)
		+	::::That's not always true either. Some people think that immoral things that don't infringe another person's rights should not be illegal. And who's rights are being trampled with a law that allows homosexual marraige? Who's are being trampled with a law ''against'' homosexual marraige? I don't think that's a good example.
		+	::::I did some reading, and I figured out my general uneasiess with the statement that it is morally wrong to deprive someone of their rights: Again it doesn't have to be. It could be utilitarian. [[Objectivism\|Objectivists] and some libertarians believe that protecting rights is necessary to survival, not "morally right".
		+	::::Addionally, after more reflection, I determined that even if you are right with everything you are saying, Philip, the statement as written still basically comes down to a straw man. Those laws that are based on "morality" are based on morality that ''everyone'' holds. Nobody thinks that murder and theft are morally right (Ethics 101-style paradoxes notwithstanding), so it's ok to make a law based on those morals. However the people who say "We don't want morality to be legislated" (I might as well at this point say for the record that this includes myself) are saying that they don't want morality legislated ''if there is disagreement about the morality involved''. Because then who gets to decide what is ''moral''? [[User:HelpJazz\|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz\|Jazz]] 17:08, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:55, October 22, 2008
Line 133:		Line 133:
	: Why should laws protect rights? Because it is considered ''morally wrong'' to deprive someone of their rights. [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:56, 21 October 2008 (EDT)		: Why should laws protect rights? Because it is considered ''morally wrong'' to deprive someone of their rights. [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:56, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
	::Hrm in my gut that still seems wrong. Unfortunately the definition in the article isn't much help. Still, though, the statement is misleading. If, as you say, protecting rights is morally right (right? ha!) then people who argue that law should not enforce morality are actually saying the law should not be used to enforce morality ''unless'' the moral in question is depriving another person of their rights. [[User:HelpJazz\|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz\|Jazz]] 23:57, 21 October 2008 (EDT)		::Hrm in my gut that still seems wrong. Unfortunately the definition in the article isn't much help. Still, though, the statement is misleading. If, as you say, protecting rights is morally right (right? ha!) then people who argue that law should not enforce morality are actually saying the law should not be used to enforce morality ''unless'' the moral in question is depriving another person of their rights. [[User:HelpJazz\|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz\|Jazz]] 23:57, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
		+	::: People who say that the law should not be used to enforce morality are generally only saying so in the context of a moral that they don't agree with (e.g. homosexuality). And I'd say that pretty much any law that is "morality-based" can be understood in terms of "rights-based". For example, a law that forbids homosexual acts can be understood as protecting the rights of people adversely affected by homosexuality. [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:55, 22 October 2008 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:57, October 22, 2008
Line 132:		Line 132:
	''Many people argue that the law should not be used to enforce morality. But morality is actually the basis for much of the law. Laws against theft, for example, are based on the idea that taking someone else's property is morally wrong.'' That doesn't have to be the case, however, and really, not verifiable since it goes to the intentions of the creators of the law. Some people believe that laws should protect ''rights'', not ''morals''. An anti-theft law would be written because stealing deprives another person to their ''right'' to property. And so on. [[User:HelpJazz\|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz\|Jazz]] 19:48, 21 October 2008 (EDT)		''Many people argue that the law should not be used to enforce morality. But morality is actually the basis for much of the law. Laws against theft, for example, are based on the idea that taking someone else's property is morally wrong.'' That doesn't have to be the case, however, and really, not verifiable since it goes to the intentions of the creators of the law. Some people believe that laws should protect ''rights'', not ''morals''. An anti-theft law would be written because stealing deprives another person to their ''right'' to property. And so on. [[User:HelpJazz\|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz\|Jazz]] 19:48, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
	: Why should laws protect rights? Because it is considered ''morally wrong'' to deprive someone of their rights. [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:56, 21 October 2008 (EDT)		: Why should laws protect rights? Because it is considered ''morally wrong'' to deprive someone of their rights. [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:56, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
		+	::Hrm in my gut that still seems wrong. Unfortunately the definition in the article isn't much help. Still, though, the statement is misleading. If, as you say, protecting rights is morally right (right? ha!) then people who argue that law should not enforce morality are actually saying the law should not be used to enforce morality ''unless'' the moral in question is depriving another person of their rights. [[User:HelpJazz\|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz\|Jazz]] 23:57, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:56, October 22, 2008
Line 131:		Line 131:

	''Many people argue that the law should not be used to enforce morality. But morality is actually the basis for much of the law. Laws against theft, for example, are based on the idea that taking someone else's property is morally wrong.'' That doesn't have to be the case, however, and really, not verifiable since it goes to the intentions of the creators of the law. Some people believe that laws should protect ''rights'', not ''morals''. An anti-theft law would be written because stealing deprives another person to their ''right'' to property. And so on. [[User:HelpJazz\|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz\|Jazz]] 19:48, 21 October 2008 (EDT)		''Many people argue that the law should not be used to enforce morality. But morality is actually the basis for much of the law. Laws against theft, for example, are based on the idea that taking someone else's property is morally wrong.'' That doesn't have to be the case, however, and really, not verifiable since it goes to the intentions of the creators of the law. Some people believe that laws should protect ''rights'', not ''morals''. An anti-theft law would be written because stealing deprives another person to their ''right'' to property. And so on. [[User:HelpJazz\|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz\|Jazz]] 19:48, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
		+	: Why should laws protect rights? Because it is considered ''morally wrong'' to deprive someone of their rights. [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:56, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:48, October 21, 2008
Line 127:		Line 127:
	::::: Please explain the point of the question in your final sentence before I answer it.		::::: Please explain the point of the question in your final sentence before I answer it.
	::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:07, 9 June 2008 (EDT)		::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:07, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
		+
		+	== Morality and Law ==
		+
		+	''Many people argue that the law should not be used to enforce morality. But morality is actually the basis for much of the law. Laws against theft, for example, are based on the idea that taking someone else's property is morally wrong.'' That doesn't have to be the case, however, and really, not verifiable since it goes to the intentions of the creators of the law. Some people believe that laws should protect ''rights'', not ''morals''. An anti-theft law would be written because stealing deprives another person to their ''right'' to property. And so on. [[User:HelpJazz\|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz\|Jazz]] 19:48, 21 October 2008 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:07, June 9, 2008
Line 123:		Line 123:
	:::: Is someone who acts in a virtuous manner only due to a fear of punishment a moral person?		:::: Is someone who acts in a virtuous manner only due to a fear of punishment a moral person?
	:::: --[[User:Rspeed\|Rspeed]] 20:41, 8 June 2008 (EDT)		:::: --[[User:Rspeed\|Rspeed]] 20:41, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
		+	::::: I'm not claiming that Marxism and atheism are exactly synonymous, but to imply that they are unrelated is incorrect. From ''The Battle for Truth'' again (p.29) (his italics):
		+	{{QuoteBox\|"We communists are atheists," declared Chou En-lai at the Bandung Conference in April, 1955. This Chinese communist leader captured the fundamental theological ingredient of Marxism/Leninism in one word: ''atheism''. Today, Marxist/Leninists prefer two words: ''scientific atheism''.<br/>From the university days of Karl Marx to the present, official spokesmen for Marxism have been consistent about the content of their theology—God, a Supreme Being, a Creator, a Ruler, does not, can not, and must not exist}}
		+	::::: Please explain the point of the question in your final sentence before I answer it.
		+	::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment\|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:07, 9 June 2008 (EDT)