3 ms·

> ... universal moral rulings, think of them as organizational rules Sure. Slavery was moral, or if I disagree with it, I'll accept it as an organisational rul

> ... universal moral rulings, think of them as organizational rules Sure. Slavery was moral, or if I disagree with it, I'll accept it as an organisational rule instead. Ditto apartheid, ditto the way many mid-eastern countries treat women.

pron 7y ago
Society must come to some decision, at any given point in time, about what to do if X does Y; are they punished? if so, how? Morality is a more complex subject, that, of course, heavily interacts with the decision I mentioned. My point was merely that while the two are intertwined, they are not necessarily the same, and regardless of where one stands on some moral question, there necessarily must be (and there is) some rule about what to do when X does Y. You can equivocate on some moral question, but you cannot equivocate on a law (although a judicial system can infuse it with some nuance). So when a particular society legislates a law, you don't necessarily have to take it as if that particular society has settled a universal moral question.
- tempguy9999 7y ago
  I see what you're saying, but - and I mean this constructively - you can take a rather roundabout way of saying it which fogs your meaning. Anyway... > So when a particular society legislates a law, you don't necessarily have to take it as if that particular society has settled a universal moral question Point taken, but laws can be plain immoral, even evil. Laws should be as moral as possible. Laws without a moral backing would seem to be meaningless. But lets put that aside, let's take your intended point that laws are an attempt to formalise morality, and lets also assume morality is what we'd call moral (not oppressing women/minorities/certain religions/etc). You say > but you cannot equivocate on a law but you damn well can! In the UK the definition of theft involves intent. From wiki "[...] if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it" It's all about intent. It's the crux of it IIRC (and I did a short course in law). A lot of law is about intent. I hit a person in the face. Deliberate? I get spanked. Genuine unavoidable accident? I get let off. Intent is central. It is very equivocable. In our case, which of 8chan's members are in it for pure lulz, and which because they really want to start a race war. Hard to tell intent. Still sounds like the world is a cleaner place without them lot.
  - pron 7y ago
    > but you damn well can! That's not equivocation, it's what I called nuance, and mentioned the judiciary's role in managing it. With ethics you can say, "this is a hard question," and leave it at that; with the law, you must decide. The judge or jury must ultimately decide whether to punish the possible thief or not, and if so, how -- say, by making a decision on intent, perhaps taking degrees into account. Either society decides to shut 8chan down or not; "it's complicated" isn't an option (I mean, it may well be, but a decision must be reached). So whatever ethics is at play, and however complicated it is, a decision on action must be and is made. And BTW, not every offense must have criminal intent. Traffic violations, for example, do not (in the jurisdictions I know). Murder, as it is defined in many jurisdictions, requires intent, but even without it killing is often a very serious offense (e.g. you can kill through an intent to endanger, and you can kill through negligence, and you'll end up in prison for both).
jnbiche 7y ago
> Sure. Slavery was moral, or if I disagree with it, I think you mean that slavery was legal. Most people would hold that it was never moral. Some people hold these same beliefs now about some of our current behaviors toward other animals: they're legal but not moral.
- matz1 7y ago
  Well, for me our current behavior towards animal is moral. Moral is subjective after all. Just like slavery it ultimately decided by who can force the other (physically or persuasively) to follow their morality.
  - jnbiche 7y ago
    > Moral is subjective after all This statement is not as self-evident as you seem to believe. Philosophers and ethicists have been debating it for millennia.
    - matz1 7y ago
      Then what is your argument againts it? I provided attitude towards animal as an example. >Philosophers and ethicists have been debating it for millennia Thats even more strengthen my position that morality is subjective.
      - jnbiche 7y ago
        You provided your opinion. That's it. So OK, I'll do the same: I disagree that morality is subjective. Edit: so if I disagree that the world is round, that shows that it's flat?
        matz1 7y ago
        Right, that show that it is subjective. >so if I disagree that the world is round, that shows that it's flat? No, it just show that you disagree that the world is round

pron 7y ago

Society must come to some decision, at any given point in time, about what to do if X does Y; are they punished? if so, how? Morality is a more complex subject, that, of course, heavily interacts with the decision I mentioned. My point was merely that while the two are intertwined, they are not necessarily the same, and regardless of where one stands on some moral question, there necessarily must be (and there is) some rule about what to do when X does Y. You can equivocate on some moral question, but you cannot equivocate on a law (although a judicial system can infuse it with some nuance). So when a particular society legislates a law, you don't necessarily have to take it as if that particular society has settled a universal moral question.

tempguy9999 7y ago
I see what you're saying, but - and I mean this constructively - you can take a rather roundabout way of saying it which fogs your meaning. Anyway... > So when a particular society legislates a law, you don't necessarily have to take it as if that particular society has settled a universal moral question Point taken, but laws can be plain immoral, even evil. Laws should be as moral as possible. Laws without a moral backing would seem to be meaningless. But lets put that aside, let's take your intended point that laws are an attempt to formalise morality, and lets also assume morality is what we'd call moral (not oppressing women/minorities/certain religions/etc). You say > but you cannot equivocate on a law but you damn well can! In the UK the definition of theft involves intent. From wiki "[...] if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it" It's all about intent. It's the crux of it IIRC (and I did a short course in law). A lot of law is about intent. I hit a person in the face. Deliberate? I get spanked. Genuine unavoidable accident? I get let off. Intent is central. It is very equivocable. In our case, which of 8chan's members are in it for pure lulz, and which because they really want to start a race war. Hard to tell intent. Still sounds like the world is a cleaner place without them lot.
- pron 7y ago
  > but you damn well can! That's not equivocation, it's what I called nuance, and mentioned the judiciary's role in managing it. With ethics you can say, "this is a hard question," and leave it at that; with the law, you must decide. The judge or jury must ultimately decide whether to punish the possible thief or not, and if so, how -- say, by making a decision on intent, perhaps taking degrees into account. Either society decides to shut 8chan down or not; "it's complicated" isn't an option (I mean, it may well be, but a decision must be reached). So whatever ethics is at play, and however complicated it is, a decision on action must be and is made. And BTW, not every offense must have criminal intent. Traffic violations, for example, do not (in the jurisdictions I know). Murder, as it is defined in many jurisdictions, requires intent, but even without it killing is often a very serious offense (e.g. you can kill through an intent to endanger, and you can kill through negligence, and you'll end up in prison for both).

jnbiche 7y ago

> Sure. Slavery was moral, or if I disagree with it, I think you mean that slavery was legal. Most people would hold that it was never moral. Some people hold these same beliefs now about some of our current behaviors toward other animals: they're legal but not moral.

matz1 7y ago
Well, for me our current behavior towards animal is moral. Moral is subjective after all. Just like slavery it ultimately decided by who can force the other (physically or persuasively) to follow their morality.
- jnbiche 7y ago
  > Moral is subjective after all This statement is not as self-evident as you seem to believe. Philosophers and ethicists have been debating it for millennia.
  - matz1 7y ago
    Then what is your argument againts it? I provided attitude towards animal as an example. >Philosophers and ethicists have been debating it for millennia Thats even more strengthen my position that morality is subjective.
    - jnbiche 7y ago
      You provided your opinion. That's it. So OK, I'll do the same: I disagree that morality is subjective. Edit: so if I disagree that the world is round, that shows that it's flat?
      - matz1 7y ago
        Right, that show that it is subjective. >so if I disagree that the world is round, that shows that it's flat? No, it just show that you disagree that the world is round