4 ms·
@1, It's not because there is one reason for something, that that is the only reason. Law is an amalgamation of practical and moral considerations. It would be
by roel_v 16y ago
@1, It's not because there is one reason for something, that that is the only reason. Law is an amalgamation of practical and moral considerations. It would be much more utilitarian if we'd neuter or euthanize everybody with an iq under 90 at age 18 or 25, yet we don't. Is it because of some other utilitarian reason? No we don't because it's a violation of a moral right to self-determination.
@2, I shouldn't say this but I'm getting downvoted left and right today anyway: why aren't you posting from North Korea if it's so great?
@4, this is in the margin. This discussion started with you claiming that "America's (presumable, most of the West's, or even most of the world's) set of rules don't even come anywhere close to representing your ethics", but the only thing you disagree with is some implementation detail (an implementation detail, oh irony, where the tradeoff between morality and utilitarianism was made more in the direction of utilitarianism - statutory rape serves to make prosecution easier).
- steveklabnik 16y agoThis really isn't the place or the time to debate most of these things, but I'll leave you with one last reply before this goes even further offtopic: I'm not saying that I'm utilitarian. Its just that morality can be used as a tool to produce policy that has nothing to do with morals: see the invasion of Iraq, for example. I think we're actually agreeing here. North Korea is nothing like an anarchist society, and "if you don't like it, move" is not an argument anyway. In this case, I brought up something that's an implementation detail, because it's an easier segue into the topic. There are other things that are larger, such as the mentioned private property issue.