3 ms·

> We should be governed by secular laws. Every law has a worldview and moral standards it assumes a priori. The point of our government's structure is to allow

> We should be governed by secular laws. Every law has a worldview and moral standards it assumes a priori. The point of our government's structure is to allow whatever laws people ask their representatives to pass, assuming the House and the Senate can agree and the law itself isn't unconstitutional. There's nothing unconstitutional about laws that assume particular beliefs about what is right and wrong, even if those beliefs originate in a religious worldview. If it's what "we the people" (at least a large enough subset of us) believe, there's nothing wrong with it passing from a constitutional or jurisprudential standpoint. We all have varying beliefs; that's not going to change, but it will be reflected in our politics, unfortunately. You and I may disagree with a particular law as immoral, but the battle over which worldview to found laws on should be fought in public debate, votes, etc. -- not by arguing that such laws are legally invalid. Only unconstitutional laws ought to be struck down as such.

andrekandre 4y ago
> Every law has a worldview and moral standards it assumes a priori. actually, no, law (legality) is specifically _NOT_ about morality, if it was then jaywalking would be a moral offense, which it clearly is not
- TimTheTinker 4y ago
  I disagree. Jaywalking was outlawed because the auto industry successfully lobbied lawmakers using specifically moral (if flawed) arguments, like: "Cars are dangerous but helpful to people, people's lives are valuable, let's protect human life by outlawing randomly walking across the street where cars are." The moral assumption that argument is asking lawmakers to accept is that human life is valuable. The argument is flawed and mostly wrong otherwise, but it's the moral component that makes it compelling. It's the same with pro-choice laws. They're compelling to many people because of the moral assumptions we're asked to accept -- specifically the bodily autonomy of the woman, among other things. Why should pro-life arguments be the only ones not allowed to be based on morality?

andrekandre 4y ago

> Every law has a worldview and moral standards it assumes a priori. actually, no, law (legality) is specifically _NOT_ about morality, if it was then jaywalking would be a moral offense, which it clearly is not

TimTheTinker 4y ago
I disagree. Jaywalking was outlawed because the auto industry successfully lobbied lawmakers using specifically moral (if flawed) arguments, like: "Cars are dangerous but helpful to people, people's lives are valuable, let's protect human life by outlawing randomly walking across the street where cars are." The moral assumption that argument is asking lawmakers to accept is that human life is valuable. The argument is flawed and mostly wrong otherwise, but it's the moral component that makes it compelling. It's the same with pro-choice laws. They're compelling to many people because of the moral assumptions we're asked to accept -- specifically the bodily autonomy of the woman, among other things. Why should pro-life arguments be the only ones not allowed to be based on morality?