Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zakrosian who wrote (1455)	10/6/2000 10:30:21 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

I've enjoyed your debate with Ron I've been enjoying it as well.. I appreciate people who force me to think about and defend my beliefs.. And it's nice to see another individual point out what laws exist to enforce those moral values that society, as a whole, has deemed necessary for social order.

To: Zakrosian who wrote (1455)	10/7/2000 12:25:32 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 10042

Laws exist to prevent things that impede society. If you think that is all morality means then I don't agree with you. Laws are expedient ways of settling common disputes before they arise. It is rule making. Morality, as I conceive it, is "a system of ideas of right and wrong conduct" NOT what will be punished (laws) but what is "right" and what is "wrong". These are not judgments the law makes well. These are highly personal things. Every religious or philosophical person will have their own system. Take marijuana- what's wrong with that? Especially compared to alcohol (fwiw I don't drink or smoke). But our society decided to make one criminal and not the other. Of course we TRIED criminalizing alcohol too. Because it was criminal does it mean alcohol was "immoral" once, but isn't now? No it doesn't. Law and morality are different. Society made a judgment that "z" benefits would accrue to society if alcohol was banned. Of course some of the people who wanted those benefits were on a moral crusade- but lots just though it was a way to stop the effects of drink from ravaging the population. I think there is an enormous difference between personal morality and law. The law SHOULD be a low standard- because personal moralities vary so greatly in this free country- we need the latitude to express ourselves robustly. If the law were set as high as morality- whose morality would you pick? that was the problem with the "moral majority" who were no majority, and had a questionable morality (imo). They would have liked to force their morality on everyone, with the power of the government to enforce it. Be very careful when you mix up law and morality. Look around you and see if you can find any man whose morality you would like to have to live by, or have forced upon you. I like the low standard of the law, myself. And even that can be silly at times. I am an agnostic, utilitarian, humanist.