4 ms·

In a discussion about morality and the health of our society it is perfectly reasonable for decent people who are exploring the question of 'what ought to be' t

In a discussion about morality and the health of our society it is perfectly reasonable for decent people who are exploring the question of 'what ought to be' to set aside the decisions of the courts and the letter of the law.

ashtonkem 6y ago
That’s an interesting thing to do, but sans a means of enforcement it seems kind of pointless to me.
- jshevek 6y ago
  This argument could have been used to discourage people from discussing the need to make any ethical improvements in our society, including, for example, ending slavery. The power of enforcement follows from policy, in a democracy policy is influenced by public opinion, public opinion is shaped by discussion. We ought to discuss moral issues for which there is currently no enforcement.
wwweston 6y ago
It's good work to ask how things could be better than they are, but setting aside the law may not be great way of approaching the issue because: * a good portion of the law as it exists is actually a result of people thinking, in legal contexts, about what ought to be, at least insofar as any portion of the law represents values and ideals. * any new "what ought to be" that turns out to be at some point in the future will need the force of law in one sense or another, which means it must be nested within a legal context, probably one enough like the present legal context that some if not all present constraints will matter.
- jshevek 6y ago
  Did you post this comment in reply to my comment in isolation, or as a reply to my comment in the context of the previous comments in the exchange, starting with "I very strongly feel that we should be very careful to avoid adopting a legalistic attitude towards freedom of speech." and ending with "What’s your point? That we should ignore how the courts and first amendment law actually works?" ?

4 ms·

In a discussion about morality and the health of our society it is perfectly reasonable for decent people who are exploring the question of 'what ought to be' t

by jshevek 6y ago

ashtonkem 6y ago
That’s an interesting thing to do, but sans a means of enforcement it seems kind of pointless to me.
- jshevek 6y ago
  This argument could have been used to discourage people from discussing the need to make any ethical improvements in our society, including, for example, ending slavery. The power of enforcement follows from policy, in a democracy policy is influenced by public opinion, public opinion is shaped by discussion. We ought to discuss moral issues for which there is currently no enforcement.
wwweston 6y ago
It's good work to ask how things could be better than they are, but setting aside the law may not be great way of approaching the issue because: * a good portion of the law as it exists is actually a result of people thinking, in legal contexts, about what ought to be, at least insofar as any portion of the law represents values and ideals. * any new "what ought to be" that turns out to be at some point in the future will need the force of law in one sense or another, which means it must be nested within a legal context, probably one enough like the present legal context that some if not all present constraints will matter.
- jshevek 6y ago
  Did you post this comment in reply to my comment in isolation, or as a reply to my comment in the context of the previous comments in the exchange, starting with "I very strongly feel that we should be very careful to avoid adopting a legalistic attitude towards freedom of speech." and ending with "What’s your point? That we should ignore how the courts and first amendment law actually works?" ?