3 ms·

To be fair, there is no such thing as the morals of society. Morality is individual to everyone and is developed throughout everyone's whole lives. So the law c

To be fair, there is no such thing as the morals of society. Morality is individual to everyone and is developed throughout everyone's whole lives. So the law cannot possibly be a stable version of morality. For example, in my morals it is not acceptable to imprison people for non-violent crimes, but most people are somehow convinced that it's ok. We can never agree on a stable version of morality on this.

close04 7y ago
> there is no such thing as the morals of society Isn't it like saying "there's no image, only individual photons or pixels"? > For example, in my morals But if you take a few steps back you notice individual morals blending into something that could be called society morals. Society overall considers something (un)acceptable or (im)moral regardless of whether you disagree. Look at interracial or same sex marriages. Decades ago society saw them as immoral even if some individuals disagreed. Today society sees them as moral even if some individuals disagreed
- zzzcpan 7y ago
  Some people at the top of the hierarchy push it and promote it, doesn't mean other people agree with any of it, they are just powerless against it. Why do you take it as society agrees I don't know, but I can understand why those at the top of the hierarchy would like you to think there's the morals of society.
  - close04 7y ago
    Ok, this seems like a different argument from the one you made above, that morality is purely individual. If the overall morals of society (as represented by the majority) don't get transposed into law then we go back to my original comment: > in a functioning systems the law should be adapted to the morals of society In a democracy the top of the hierarchy is chosen to represent the views of individuals that elected them. Edit: Whether the morals of society are dictated by the few (rulers) or by the many (people) it doesn't change the conclusion. At some point the balance regarding society's view on the morality of certain things tips. And as an individual you are still very much the product of society. Can we agree that there are things now where there is a societal consensus regarding their morality? There are actually very few things where societies over time consistently agreed on their morality (like theft).
- soulofmischief 7y ago
  This misses the point I was trying to make. We were further away from the Grand Unified Law back then. But not all of us. Some people even millenia ago were ahead of the curve and promoted progressivism even in the face of a government which did not recognize individual freedom. Just ask my patron saint, Joan of Arc. The morals of society are a useless tool for measuring objective morality.
soulofmischief 7y ago
Like a parent angrily spanking his young for making a mess, the typical human has not been taught to separate justice from revenge, and so we settle for spiteful punishment.

close04 7y ago

> there is no such thing as the morals of society Isn't it like saying "there's no image, only individual photons or pixels"? > For example, in my morals But if you take a few steps back you notice individual morals blending into something that could be called society morals. Society overall considers something (un)acceptable or (im)moral regardless of whether you disagree. Look at interracial or same sex marriages. Decades ago society saw them as immoral even if some individuals disagreed. Today society sees them as moral even if some individuals disagreed

zzzcpan 7y ago
Some people at the top of the hierarchy push it and promote it, doesn't mean other people agree with any of it, they are just powerless against it. Why do you take it as society agrees I don't know, but I can understand why those at the top of the hierarchy would like you to think there's the morals of society.
- close04 7y ago
  Ok, this seems like a different argument from the one you made above, that morality is purely individual. If the overall morals of society (as represented by the majority) don't get transposed into law then we go back to my original comment: > in a functioning systems the law should be adapted to the morals of society In a democracy the top of the hierarchy is chosen to represent the views of individuals that elected them. Edit: Whether the morals of society are dictated by the few (rulers) or by the many (people) it doesn't change the conclusion. At some point the balance regarding society's view on the morality of certain things tips. And as an individual you are still very much the product of society. Can we agree that there are things now where there is a societal consensus regarding their morality? There are actually very few things where societies over time consistently agreed on their morality (like theft).
soulofmischief 7y ago
This misses the point I was trying to make. We were further away from the Grand Unified Law back then. But not all of us. Some people even millenia ago were ahead of the curve and promoted progressivism even in the face of a government which did not recognize individual freedom. Just ask my patron saint, Joan of Arc. The morals of society are a useless tool for measuring objective morality.

soulofmischief 7y ago

Like a parent angrily spanking his young for making a mess, the typical human has not been taught to separate justice from revenge, and so we settle for spiteful punishment.