3 ms·

There is a strong urge in democratic society, which I believe isn't wrong or incorrect in itself, to legislate the shared ethics of that society -- that is, to

There is a strong urge in democratic society, which I believe isn't wrong or incorrect in itself, to legislate the shared ethics of that society -- that is, to outlaw that which is commonly believed to be morally wrong. There are two problems that are encountered in this pursuit: 1) Not everyone shares the same philosophy, thus not everyone shares the same ethics. Where philosophical beliefs differ, there will be clashes over what ethics ought to govern legislation. 2) When writing law, what is being outlawed has to (a) not contradict the constitution(s) governing the land, and (b) be well-defined enough to be enforced. A lot of the discussion around outlawing blackmail centers on (2)(b) - defining terms. It's surprisingly difficult to do, to the point that a lot of things that are commonly believed to be morally wrong can't be legislated. (2)(a) is why personal freedoms/liberties, and to what extent government should be limited, must both be written into a constitution if they are to exist and be respected by the government/courts for a very long time to come. Regarding (1), in a democratic nation, the prevailing worldview/philosophy is ultimately what determines what the moral fabric, and consequently the legal climate, of a country will be like. Of course religion (or lack thereof) will factor into this, since it strongly informs ethics -- there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, the US constitution explicitly allows the legislation -> ethics -> philosophy causal chain to arise out of any worldview, when it states that there cannot be a "religious test" for elected officials.

ggggtez 8y ago
I can't disagree more. Legislation exists only because of ethics. To discuss legislation without ethics is to talk about nothing at all. If you want to write a full ethics-agnostic law system, I think you'll find it won't actually help solve the problems of a society that exists in the real world. Edit: For example, try to explain why "killing" is illegal in most countries, when some people believe that humans are just electro-chemical computers inside a meat-and-water-sack. Is a human really different than an ant, at the end of the day? If only we had a system to guide our laws that would help us function as a society... Maybe with some shared guidelines about why things are done... we could call it "ethics" perhaps.
- btrask 8y ago
  Killing people is illegal because it reduces the number of taxpayers. If ants paid taxes they'd be protected too. Killing people who don't pay taxes isn't okay because we'd rather make them pay than put them to death. I'm joking, obviously, but I think there needs to be a separation between law and ethics because they serve different purposes. For example, I think all personal drug use is ethical, but some drugs become a problem when used on a societal scale. Edit: And conversely, I think being pointlessly mean to people is unethical, but it's not something that can or should be legislated.
  - pretendscholar 8y ago
    >Killing people is illegal because it reduces the number of taxpayers. Hacker News intellectuals. Despite old people being a net drain on the system we don't kill them.
    - btrask 8y ago
      I didn't downvote you, but you clearly didn't make it to the second paragraph. I was (partially) trying to poke fun at those people.
      - pretendscholar 8y ago
        Oops, your impression was pretty good because I swear I've seen people say that on HN before and rage quit after the first paragraph.
- TimTheTinker 8y ago
  > I can't disagree more. Legislation exists only because of ethics. To discuss legislation without ethics is to talk about nothing at all. I think you misread. Your point agrees with mine.

ggggtez 8y ago

I can't disagree more. Legislation exists only because of ethics. To discuss legislation without ethics is to talk about nothing at all. If you want to write a full ethics-agnostic law system, I think you'll find it won't actually help solve the problems of a society that exists in the real world. Edit: For example, try to explain why "killing" is illegal in most countries, when some people believe that humans are just electro-chemical computers inside a meat-and-water-sack. Is a human really different than an ant, at the end of the day? If only we had a system to guide our laws that would help us function as a society... Maybe with some shared guidelines about why things are done... we could call it "ethics" perhaps.

btrask 8y ago
Killing people is illegal because it reduces the number of taxpayers. If ants paid taxes they'd be protected too. Killing people who don't pay taxes isn't okay because we'd rather make them pay than put them to death. I'm joking, obviously, but I think there needs to be a separation between law and ethics because they serve different purposes. For example, I think all personal drug use is ethical, but some drugs become a problem when used on a societal scale. Edit: And conversely, I think being pointlessly mean to people is unethical, but it's not something that can or should be legislated.
- pretendscholar 8y ago
  >Killing people is illegal because it reduces the number of taxpayers. Hacker News intellectuals. Despite old people being a net drain on the system we don't kill them.
  - btrask 8y ago
    I didn't downvote you, but you clearly didn't make it to the second paragraph. I was (partially) trying to poke fun at those people.
    - pretendscholar 8y ago
      Oops, your impression was pretty good because I swear I've seen people say that on HN before and rage quit after the first paragraph.
TimTheTinker 8y ago
> I can't disagree more. Legislation exists only because of ethics. To discuss legislation without ethics is to talk about nothing at all. I think you misread. Your point agrees with mine.