Dave, I'm a little confused about your statement:
When you start to view punishment as a tool of morality (he is evil so we must hurt him), then I take issue. I think morality should be outside the scope of government. Even though I find the use of force to be morally wrong, I don't want people who use force to be punished for moral failure.
In these very interesting discussions I see a lot of false dichotomies, and non sequitur arguments. That's not an accusation, just a feeling I wish to express.
The recent posts are about morality as well as legality. Your arguments about what you feel are the proper domain of “the government” are moral in nature. Mostly I agree, but I'm confused about your statement.
<I think morality should be outside the scope of government.>
Bad law can't be struck because it's illegal (OK rarely), but because it's immoral!
If it's illegal that just means it is superseded by a superior code, (more moral?).
I don't wish everything that I feel to be immoral to become illegal. I think adultery is immoral, but I don't want it to become illegal. I don't think it's a victimless activity, but I'm glad it's not a crime.
I certainly want all laws to have a moral basis.
I retreat to my primitive position.
If we are not spiritual beings who's human rights come from his creator, then eating shrimp is murder, or killing humans is utilitarian, depending upon your opinion.
Our founding fathers didn't agree on religion, but they signed on for high stakes proclaiming the source of our unalienable rights.
Ricardo |
