4 ms·

No, thank you very much, heard that blame story long enough in my childhood (socialistic country). If it's bad -- let's make it illegal. Law is a reflection of

No, thank you very much, heard that blame story long enough in my childhood (socialistic country). If it's bad -- let's make it illegal. Law is a reflection of what people consider fair and just. If it's legal -- it's fair and just.

vkou 3y ago
> Law is a reflection of what people consider fair and just Law is a reflection of what people with political power consider fair and just, and that set of people is only a subset of all people affected by it.
comrh 3y ago
> If it's legal -- it's fair and just. A quick look at history shows this to be false (Jim Crow laws, Nuremberg Laws, a million other examples). People should never derive their morality from bureaucrats.
- shiroiuma 3y ago
  The politicians (not bureaucrats: bureaucrats don't make policy) aren't making these laws up all by themselves: they're responding to the whims of the voters. Jim Crow laws were "fair and just" at the time, according to most people of the time; that's why the laws existed. The people wanted them (well, the majority who had political power anyway, obviously not the Black people). "Fair and just" is simply an opinion, and according to the people at that time, those shitty laws were fine. They weren't getting their morality from lawmakers; the people at the time simply had bad morals.
  - von_lohengramm 3y ago
    Exactly. Just like how the British people just recently decided that privacy and encryption aren't "fair and just." After all, would a policymaker ever go against the desires of the voters? > well, the majority who had political power anyway You're making a massive assumption that this somehow equates to voters/the people.
    - shiroiuma 3y ago
      You're making a really strange and unfounded assumption I frequently see, where you seem to want to absolve the common people of all guilt. The idea that common white people 100+ years weren't massively racist is, honestly, ridiculous and downright insulting. Racist policies didn't come from a few leaders that somehow got themselves elected; regular people believed that way too. There's no shortage of historical evidence for this fact, and you trying to deny it really sounds a lot like flat-eartherism.
  - comrh 3y ago
    Of course "some people wanted the laws that were enacted", that's basically meaningless and not what OP said.
    - shiroiuma 3y ago
      OP insinuated that these laws were a result of some small minority of racist people. That's complete BS. The laws were the result of much of society being racist. Go talk to your grandparents about how racist people were in those days.
sanderjd 3y ago
I'd rather not outsource my personal morality to the whims of the legislators and jurists that happen to have formed the laws in my particular jurisdiction.
- lmm 3y ago
  I'd suggest moving to a democracy where the legislators answer to people like you.
  - ZoomZoomZoom 3y ago
    One does not simply move to a democracy. Democracies are welcoming for people stepping down, not up.
  - sanderjd 3y ago
    My own morality will never align perfectly with the voters in my jurisdiction, no matter where I live. That's how it works, no individual is ever perfectly aligned with the desires of the society as a whole. In my opinion, the best thing to do is for a somewhat low common denominator of things to be illegal, with a much larger set of things being "enforced" by messy social pressure pushing people on what legal things are nonetheless moral and ethical. People stating "nothing that is legal is immoral or unethical" is one parry in that "message social pressure", and those of us disagreeing is a counter-parry. And that's the way I think it should work! People who care what I think (my family, my friends, my kids, people at work and in my community who respect me for whatever reason) will feel pressure from me, pushing them toward what I think is right (and vice versa!), and people who don't know me, but who think what I'm saying rings true will also be affected, almost certainly to a lesser extent, by what I'm saying. And people (presumably like you) who don't find it compelling, will debate what I'm saying, and other people may find their perspective more compelling than mine, and that's fine too! And in my view, this is just how society works, we messily influence one another toward a loose consensus on what is good and right, above and beyond what we've enshrined into legislation and legal precedent.

vkou 3y ago

> Law is a reflection of what people consider fair and just Law is a reflection of what people with political power consider fair and just, and that set of people is only a subset of all people affected by it.

comrh 3y ago

> If it's legal -- it's fair and just. A quick look at history shows this to be false (Jim Crow laws, Nuremberg Laws, a million other examples). People should never derive their morality from bureaucrats.

shiroiuma 3y ago
The politicians (not bureaucrats: bureaucrats don't make policy) aren't making these laws up all by themselves: they're responding to the whims of the voters. Jim Crow laws were "fair and just" at the time, according to most people of the time; that's why the laws existed. The people wanted them (well, the majority who had political power anyway, obviously not the Black people). "Fair and just" is simply an opinion, and according to the people at that time, those shitty laws were fine. They weren't getting their morality from lawmakers; the people at the time simply had bad morals.
- von_lohengramm 3y ago
  Exactly. Just like how the British people just recently decided that privacy and encryption aren't "fair and just." After all, would a policymaker ever go against the desires of the voters? > well, the majority who had political power anyway You're making a massive assumption that this somehow equates to voters/the people.
  - shiroiuma 3y ago
    You're making a really strange and unfounded assumption I frequently see, where you seem to want to absolve the common people of all guilt. The idea that common white people 100+ years weren't massively racist is, honestly, ridiculous and downright insulting. Racist policies didn't come from a few leaders that somehow got themselves elected; regular people believed that way too. There's no shortage of historical evidence for this fact, and you trying to deny it really sounds a lot like flat-eartherism.
- comrh 3y ago
  Of course "some people wanted the laws that were enacted", that's basically meaningless and not what OP said.
  - shiroiuma 3y ago
    OP insinuated that these laws were a result of some small minority of racist people. That's complete BS. The laws were the result of much of society being racist. Go talk to your grandparents about how racist people were in those days.

sanderjd 3y ago

I'd rather not outsource my personal morality to the whims of the legislators and jurists that happen to have formed the laws in my particular jurisdiction.

lmm 3y ago
I'd suggest moving to a democracy where the legislators answer to people like you.
- ZoomZoomZoom 3y ago
  One does not simply move to a democracy. Democracies are welcoming for people stepping down, not up.
- sanderjd 3y ago
  My own morality will never align perfectly with the voters in my jurisdiction, no matter where I live. That's how it works, no individual is ever perfectly aligned with the desires of the society as a whole. In my opinion, the best thing to do is for a somewhat low common denominator of things to be illegal, with a much larger set of things being "enforced" by messy social pressure pushing people on what legal things are nonetheless moral and ethical. People stating "nothing that is legal is immoral or unethical" is one parry in that "message social pressure", and those of us disagreeing is a counter-parry. And that's the way I think it should work! People who care what I think (my family, my friends, my kids, people at work and in my community who respect me for whatever reason) will feel pressure from me, pushing them toward what I think is right (and vice versa!), and people who don't know me, but who think what I'm saying rings true will also be affected, almost certainly to a lesser extent, by what I'm saying. And people (presumably like you) who don't find it compelling, will debate what I'm saying, and other people may find their perspective more compelling than mine, and that's fine too! And in my view, this is just how society works, we messily influence one another toward a loose consensus on what is good and right, above and beyond what we've enshrined into legislation and legal precedent.