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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (17414)	6/26/2001 5:07:54 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 82486

I have contended that all, or maybe only virtually all, substantive laws constitute the action by one segment of society to inflict their moral beliefs on all of society including those who have a different moral belief. I didn't take your invitation because I was not disagreeing with that contention. I was disagreeing with your later claim that "the category of purely individual morality is really a null class." Tim

To: The Philosopher who wrote (17414)	6/27/2001 1:25:45 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 82486

Distinctions are sometimes simpler than they seem. Morality is concerned with what is right and what is wrong. Legality is concerned with what is acceptable to society. Morality is absolute, but unknowable: different individuals have different views of morality, and it is impossible to know which is, in the absolute sense, "right". Social acceptability, and thus legality, are malleable, but knowable. What is socially acceptable depends in part on the prevailing view of what is moral, and in part on the prevailing view of what is expedient. We allow our conduct to be governed by social acceptability rather than abstract "right" for very good reasons. Nobody knows - or can know - what abstract "right" is. It is impossible to govern conduct by a standard of behaviour that cannot be known. Equally important, social acceptability changes, and the capacity for change is a necessary element in any functional code of conduct. It would be lovely if we could be governed by a moral code. We cannot be. We have, therefore, no choice but to govern ourselves by a legal code. Bringing this back to the issue under discussion, it's pretty clear that the prevailing sentiment in our society is that a fertilized egg is not a human being with rights, and that a fetus ready for birth is. The prevailing sentiment is also that the state should not force a woman to bear a child that she does not want. As long as those sentiments prevail - which seems likely to be a fair while - early term abortion will be legal, and late term abortion will be illegal. The line between them will be drawn arbitrarily, according to the judgment of society, which is something that can and will change. Will this solution make everyone happy? No. Is it perfect, or "right"? Probably not. Is it the best we can do with what is known at this time? I think it probably is.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (17414)	6/27/2001 9:04:00 AM
From: dave rose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

<<<I have contended that all, or maybe only virtually all, substantive laws constitute the action by one segment of society to inflict their moral beliefs on all of society including those who have a different moral belief.>>> If you believe that murder, rape, and robbery is a moral issue you are correct.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (17414)	6/27/2001 9:34:39 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Morality references principles of behaviour or conduct. These behavioural principles may derive from all sources capable of being tapped and analyzed by the human intellect: philosophy, religion, literature, reason, courts, Mafia dinner meetings, or whatever. The principles that are considered to be related to right conduct, vary from culture to culture, from society to society, from individual to individual. It is quite correct to state that principles of conduct mandated by social authority are often synonymous with principles derived from religion or philosophy, or elsewhere. On the other hand, rightful conduct or action, as legislated by the social arm of justice, will never show perfect congruency with all the myriad moral principles that individuals internalize from other sources--such as were previously mentioned. It is true that law may be considered as an attempt to codify "right" conduct. However, I would personally consider that the pragmatic nature of the institution of law, when coupled with the omnipresent inequality that always exists in society--would not serve to recommend it as the most "moral" source of behavioral principles... (edit): ultimately, ALL principles may only be properly evaluated by reason. But in the practical world there are many "principles" held by people which have little to do with rationality...