No, they are not. They are not derived from a principle, they are rather utilitarian in that they are designed to avoid a bad outcome.
Actually they are concrete manifestations of a general moral principle.
Unless you are contending that people being killed or injured in car accidents is not a bad (in the moral sense of the word) thing ?
You don't need a law to avoid endangering others, you could just use one-way streets, or robot cars, or something
The law is the means of protecting people. It is the practical outworking of the principle. The legally mandated use of any of those things you suggested would be the same.
There is no moral principle which dictates this law must exist, it simply addresses a utilitarian concern
No you are mistaken. Clearly they do exist for a moral purpose even if that moral purpose is indirectly related.
Although the choice of the side of the road to drive upon is entirely arbitrary, either side will do, the moral principle related to the safety of those in the community is not arbitrary or amoral.
After all, saying that people ought not to be harmed by other drivers carelessness if a moral proposition that road rules are designed to enforce.
Your saying a drug addict is competent to make decisions about their own well being ?
You don't think it is explotitive to take advantage of an addict by offering them money, when you know they are strung out will do just about anything for a fix ?
Seriously ?
Feel free to suggest a couple. But even traffic laws are a codified moral principle in action.
You drive on a particular side of the road and this is enforced as a law because to do otherwise would be to violate the moral principle of recklessly endangering others.
Even bad laws like the DMCA reflect a moral principle, even if it is badly implemented and ill informed, it does not change what it is. An imposition of some understanding of right and wrong behavior.
In light of that feel free to suggest counter examples. I am all ears.
Who said I was a christian and when did I make any reference to God or biblical law ?
You must be a raving looney as you seem to think you can read minds.
People don't make laws against murder and theft because they believe it is wrong to murder and steal, they make these laws because they are affraid of being murdered or stolen from.
That is very obvious.
Are you sure you want to follow such a line of reasoning consistently ?
After all, if I am afraid of, say of I don't know, blacks, that would legitimate a campaign to wipe them out. Such laws would even be legitimate because laws are made by fearful people to protect them from boogeymen. Not because they reflect some proper standard of behavior.
But do we really think law is based on such a principle ?
How do you know the difference ?
Many many of them are drug addicts that work in the porn business because it supports a drug habit ?
Are they being forced ?
Jerking off to obscene porn infringes on other peoples' right to... Uhhh... Hmmm... Right..
Implicit in your argument is the idea that pornography use is harmless. Which is false.
But more than that, given that the production of such material is harmful to the men and women involved, the demand for such material does harm others.
So peoples rights are being infringed by the demand created by some one using pornography.
You are using moral language in your discussion. Implicit in your argument is the idea that it is right (a moral term) to protect the rights of individuals. But you cannot justify the need to protect the rights of individuals in anything but moral language.
However the law is not concerned with its morality as much as with the fact that it adversely affects another person
Are you saying that is is wrong to adversly affect others ?
That would be a moral principle you are espousing there. Which would mean that law is concerened with morality after all.
Please if you are going to claim I am being illogical then it is important to make sure that you do not contradict yourself.
If you are going to argue that laws are not concerned with morality then you must agree that it is a little inconsistent to invoke a moral princple to justify a law.
If laws are nothing more than the personal preference of legislators then there is no such thing as a bad law or a good law.
Bad and good are moral terminology. You can only complain about a bad law if the practice of law is a moral enterprise.
Then you should have no problem with an obscentity law like this.
If a majority of people decide it is a good idea then they can legitimately create such a law and over time it becomes a moral principle.
Although such reasoning means that if we decide that killing black people is to the advanatge of everybody then we can create corresponding laws and over time it becomes a moral principle.
Are you really willing to follow this line of reasoning consistently ?
You can legislate that one may not infringe on the freedoms of another. That covers theft, murder, etc. Religious morality is a crutch for the week willed.
So you can legislate morality now ?
At least be consistent.
And who said that regulation of pornography is a religious issue ? Are you saying that the exploitation of women and demeaning of them into mere objects to slake the lusts of others is only a religious concern ? It is proper for those with no religious affiliation to exploit and use women ?
Protect morality ? Do you even understand the concept of law and legislation ?
Are you saying that murder is not an immoral act ? That theft is not an immoral act ?
Are you really claiming that they are not wrong or bad or some other morally significant word ?
The fact that you turn around and use the words right and infinging upon them indicates that you do have some idea that laws set moral precedents and impose moral rules upon people so just finish connecting the dots.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no point, but it is those arguing that you cannot legislate morality are doing.
No, they are not. They are not derived from a principle, they are rather utilitarian in that they are designed to avoid a bad outcome. Actually they are concrete manifestations of a general moral principle. Unless you are contending that people being killed or injured in car accidents is not a bad (in the moral sense of the word) thing ? You don't need a law to avoid endangering others, you could just use one-way streets, or robot cars, or something The law is the means of protecting people. It is the practical outworking of the principle. The legally mandated use of any of those things you suggested would be the same. There is no moral principle which dictates this law must exist, it simply addresses a utilitarian concern No you are mistaken. Clearly they do exist for a moral purpose even if that moral purpose is indirectly related. Although the choice of the side of the road to drive upon is entirely arbitrary, either side will do, the moral principle related to the safety of those in the community is not arbitrary or amoral. After all, saying that people ought not to be harmed by other drivers carelessness if a moral proposition that road rules are designed to enforce.
Your saying a drug addict is competent to make decisions about their own well being ? You don't think it is explotitive to take advantage of an addict by offering them money, when you know they are strung out will do just about anything for a fix ? Seriously ?
Feel free to suggest a couple. But even traffic laws are a codified moral principle in action. You drive on a particular side of the road and this is enforced as a law because to do otherwise would be to violate the moral principle of recklessly endangering others. Even bad laws like the DMCA reflect a moral principle, even if it is badly implemented and ill informed, it does not change what it is. An imposition of some understanding of right and wrong behavior. In light of that feel free to suggest counter examples. I am all ears.
Who said I was a christian and when did I make any reference to God or biblical law ? You must be a raving looney as you seem to think you can read minds.
People don't make laws against murder and theft because they believe it is wrong to murder and steal, they make these laws because they are affraid of being murdered or stolen from. That is very obvious. Are you sure you want to follow such a line of reasoning consistently ? After all, if I am afraid of, say of I don't know, blacks, that would legitimate a campaign to wipe them out. Such laws would even be legitimate because laws are made by fearful people to protect them from boogeymen. Not because they reflect some proper standard of behavior. But do we really think law is based on such a principle ?
How do you know the difference ? Many many of them are drug addicts that work in the porn business because it supports a drug habit ? Are they being forced ?
I don't know why you are assuming that I think they are ? Are you really so mad as to think you can read minds ?
Jerking off to obscene porn infringes on other peoples' right to... Uhhh... Hmmm... Right.. Implicit in your argument is the idea that pornography use is harmless. Which is false. But more than that, given that the production of such material is harmful to the men and women involved, the demand for such material does harm others. So peoples rights are being infringed by the demand created by some one using pornography.
You are using moral language in your discussion. Implicit in your argument is the idea that it is right (a moral term) to protect the rights of individuals. But you cannot justify the need to protect the rights of individuals in anything but moral language.
However the law is not concerned with its morality as much as with the fact that it adversely affects another person Are you saying that is is wrong to adversly affect others ? That would be a moral principle you are espousing there. Which would mean that law is concerened with morality after all. Please if you are going to claim I am being illogical then it is important to make sure that you do not contradict yourself. If you are going to argue that laws are not concerned with morality then you must agree that it is a little inconsistent to invoke a moral princple to justify a law.
If laws are nothing more than the personal preference of legislators then there is no such thing as a bad law or a good law. Bad and good are moral terminology. You can only complain about a bad law if the practice of law is a moral enterprise.
Your not saying that it is actually objectivly wrong to harm another person are you ? That would be contradicting the entire thrust of your argument
Then you should have no problem with an obscentity law like this. If a majority of people decide it is a good idea then they can legitimately create such a law and over time it becomes a moral principle. Although such reasoning means that if we decide that killing black people is to the advanatge of everybody then we can create corresponding laws and over time it becomes a moral principle. Are you really willing to follow this line of reasoning consistently ?
You can legislate that one may not infringe on the freedoms of another. That covers theft, murder, etc. Religious morality is a crutch for the week willed. So you can legislate morality now ? At least be consistent. And who said that regulation of pornography is a religious issue ? Are you saying that the exploitation of women and demeaning of them into mere objects to slake the lusts of others is only a religious concern ? It is proper for those with no religious affiliation to exploit and use women ?
Protect morality ? Do you even understand the concept of law and legislation ? Are you saying that murder is not an immoral act ? That theft is not an immoral act ? Are you really claiming that they are not wrong or bad or some other morally significant word ? The fact that you turn around and use the words right and infinging upon them indicates that you do have some idea that laws set moral precedents and impose moral rules upon people so just finish connecting the dots.
Are all of you people so stupid that you do not realise that all laws are codified morality ?
You cannot legislate anything but morality.
Unless you think laws against murder and theft are not moral laws ?
What are they then ? Are they simply based on the personal preferences of judges and politicians ?
If that is the case then why would you bitch like little kids when they legislate in a way you don't like ?
Why is it that supposedly intelligent people have such incredibly poor reasoning skills ?