6 ms·

I'll quote the first sentence from your post, "I think tax avoidance is morally justified." But more broadly, laws are not always moral. If you equate laws wit

I'll quote the first sentence from your post, "I think tax avoidance is morally justified." But more broadly, laws are not always moral. If you equate laws with being moral (or equitable which is hopefully a subjunct matter), then personally I think your view of the world is far more black and white than reality. In my view morality (and part of which is equality) should lead to legality not the other way around.

fastball 9y ago
I don't think laws are moral. I think that, in a functioning democracy, laws are dictated by whatever views are currently held to be moral by the largest portion of participants in the democracy. Laws are what the largest proportion of people in a pure democracy have agreed is moral. If you think laws are consistently being put into place that don't reflect the morality of the populace, then you have an issue with your democracy, and that needs to be sorted out first. I personally do not believe in objective morality. I'm not religious and without believing in a prime mover I think that's a very hard claim to make.
- tankenmate 9y ago
  To not believe in objective morality, I'm assuming because you are not religious or maybe because it is too difficult to "pin down", to me seems to lack intellectual rigour and displays a lack of social empathy. Morality, even aside from the religious back and forth, is a difficult and nuanced subject but that is not to say that it lacks a strong core that most reasonable people believe in (even apart from religious beliefs). Organised social empathy, along with advanced intellect (the ability to conceptualise the subjective and objective aspects of morality), are probably the biggest fundamentals of human nature that separates us from other species on this planet. In my opinion giving those fundamentals short shrift only denigrates yourself.
  - fastball 9y ago
    Without a higher power you're left with diads that are impossible to resolve logically. For example, "the ends justify the means" vs "the ends do not justify the means". Two people can believe in some ultimate social good (your version of "objective morality"). That doesn't mean they'll get there in the same way (my version of "objective morality").
- zentiggr 9y ago
  > I think that, in a functioning democracy, laws are dictated by whatever views are currently held to be moral by the largest portion of participants in the democracy. Unfortunately, "participants" turns out to be decided by lobbying influence, not votes. So yes, definitely an issue with this democracy.
- explainplease 9y ago
  > I personally do not believe in objective morality. Then why is murder wrong?
  - fastball 9y ago
    Who says it's wrong?
    - tankenmate 9y ago
      If you truly question the morality of murder then it might not be far wrong to say that you are a sociopath.
      - fastball 9y ago
        If you don't question the morality of everything you haven't looked hard enough.
    - explainplease 9y ago
      Most people who aren't murderers, and a few who are. Are you saying that murder is not wrong? BTW, please don't troll. If you're just asking, "Who says murder is wrong?" to be rhetorical or make a point, don't. Instead, make your point explicitly in the first place, so that we can move forward in the discussion. I'm not interested in playing games, but I am interested in seriously discussing the topic. So, either you think murder is wrong, or you don't--or you think that sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't, which boils down to isn't. So which is it?
      - fastball 9y ago
        Is killing in war murder? If not, why not? Is killing in self-defense murder? If not why not? If yes, how are they "objectively" wrong? If you're a pacifist that believes all killing is wrong, fair enough. But that doesn't make your standards "objective". There are shades of grey to all morality, you pretending otherwise does you no service. The same applies in this case. Having popular opinion on your side does not make your morality "objective". That's not how this works.

fastball 9y ago

I don't think laws are moral. I think that, in a functioning democracy, laws are dictated by whatever views are currently held to be moral by the largest portion of participants in the democracy. Laws are what the largest proportion of people in a pure democracy have agreed is moral. If you think laws are consistently being put into place that don't reflect the morality of the populace, then you have an issue with your democracy, and that needs to be sorted out first. I personally do not believe in objective morality. I'm not religious and without believing in a prime mover I think that's a very hard claim to make.

tankenmate 9y ago
To not believe in objective morality, I'm assuming because you are not religious or maybe because it is too difficult to "pin down", to me seems to lack intellectual rigour and displays a lack of social empathy. Morality, even aside from the religious back and forth, is a difficult and nuanced subject but that is not to say that it lacks a strong core that most reasonable people believe in (even apart from religious beliefs). Organised social empathy, along with advanced intellect (the ability to conceptualise the subjective and objective aspects of morality), are probably the biggest fundamentals of human nature that separates us from other species on this planet. In my opinion giving those fundamentals short shrift only denigrates yourself.
- fastball 9y ago
  Without a higher power you're left with diads that are impossible to resolve logically. For example, "the ends justify the means" vs "the ends do not justify the means". Two people can believe in some ultimate social good (your version of "objective morality"). That doesn't mean they'll get there in the same way (my version of "objective morality").
zentiggr 9y ago
> I think that, in a functioning democracy, laws are dictated by whatever views are currently held to be moral by the largest portion of participants in the democracy. Unfortunately, "participants" turns out to be decided by lobbying influence, not votes. So yes, definitely an issue with this democracy.
explainplease 9y ago
> I personally do not believe in objective morality. Then why is murder wrong?
- fastball 9y ago
  Who says it's wrong?
  - tankenmate 9y ago
    If you truly question the morality of murder then it might not be far wrong to say that you are a sociopath.
    - fastball 9y ago
      If you don't question the morality of everything you haven't looked hard enough.
  - explainplease 9y ago
    Most people who aren't murderers, and a few who are. Are you saying that murder is not wrong? BTW, please don't troll. If you're just asking, "Who says murder is wrong?" to be rhetorical or make a point, don't. Instead, make your point explicitly in the first place, so that we can move forward in the discussion. I'm not interested in playing games, but I am interested in seriously discussing the topic. So, either you think murder is wrong, or you don't--or you think that sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't, which boils down to isn't. So which is it?
    - fastball 9y ago
      Is killing in war murder? If not, why not? Is killing in self-defense murder? If not why not? If yes, how are they "objectively" wrong? If you're a pacifist that believes all killing is wrong, fair enough. But that doesn't make your standards "objective". There are shades of grey to all morality, you pretending otherwise does you no service. The same applies in this case. Having popular opinion on your side does not make your morality "objective". That's not how this works.