4 ms·

Morality is important to bring into the equation. Although s/he didn't have to, as you say, I'm glad s/he did. One should always keep ethics as a fundamental la

by aric 13y ago

Morality is important to bring into the equation. Although s/he didn't have to, as you say, I'm glad s/he did. One should always keep ethics as a fundamental layer in discussing law, especially about actions that result in forms of torture (e.g. prison).

rayiner 13y ago
The problem with morality is that it's a lot more subject to disputes and individualized viewpoints than law. For example, I think it's ridiculous to say that prison is a form of torture. If you come at me with that as the basis for your argument, we'd just argue past each other and never reach a satisfactory resolution. We'd waste all day with philosophical disagreement. But if we follow a policy of resolving issues by reference first to the law, well then we may well find ourselves satisfactorily resolving the issue without ever bringing up our divergent personal views of morality. Of course morality always remains in the background. But it's a backstop, an argument for changing the law.
- aric 13y ago
  An individual is not a hive. Law will always have less basis than personal morality. How anyone could think to the contrary is troubling, especially in light of a history replete with oppression and tyranny backed through "law." The US prison system is a form of torture. This is especially so when used against the hundreds of thousands of benign, nonviolent people. Solve problems, it does not. The physical hurt, torment, and destruction to a person's life and opportunities is far more real than words on paper. Many of the forms of imprisonment that linger on are nothing but a relic of barbarous eras and the sociopathy of it continues in full for those who build careers around it. In no rational, compassionate world would being locked into a cage not be considered a form of torture except possibly in the world of those who are shockingly faithful to following whatever [insert authority] tells them to, through law, and shockingly faithful in assuming the system won't err against oneself. If a person were to kidnap you off the street and lock you in a cage, placing you into a horrible environment with cutthroat gangs eager for blood where you'll possibly be assaulted at any time and dramatically ruin your prospects if you ever walk free again, you probably wouldn't like it. You'd probably find it quite torturous. Like many, you'd find it a living hell. You'd probably understand that being placed into a cage is a form of torture. That's what prison is to people who disobey immoral laws. I wouldn't wish it for my enemies. This is why always evaluating the ethical basis is more important. Neither "law" nor "just following orders" suffice. > But if we follow a policy of resolving issues by reference first to the law... No, I don't enjoy circular reasoning. I only like open discourse. That means anything can be referenced. The philosophical disagreement is far more important to talk about either way. That's unless, of course, one finds oneself trapped in a courtroom of an [arbitrary jurisdiction/nation] where morality is mostly left to rot -- nay those very rare moments where nullification occurs and independent thought triumphs.

by aric 13y ago

rayiner 13y ago

The problem with morality is that it's a lot more subject to disputes and individualized viewpoints than law. For example, I think it's ridiculous to say that prison is a form of torture. If you come at me with that as the basis for your argument, we'd just argue past each other and never reach a satisfactory resolution. We'd waste all day with philosophical disagreement. But if we follow a policy of resolving issues by reference first to the law, well then we may well find ourselves satisfactorily resolving the issue without ever bringing up our divergent personal views of morality. Of course morality always remains in the background. But it's a backstop, an argument for changing the law.

aric 13y ago
An individual is not a hive. Law will always have less basis than personal morality. How anyone could think to the contrary is troubling, especially in light of a history replete with oppression and tyranny backed through "law." The US prison system is a form of torture. This is especially so when used against the hundreds of thousands of benign, nonviolent people. Solve problems, it does not. The physical hurt, torment, and destruction to a person's life and opportunities is far more real than words on paper. Many of the forms of imprisonment that linger on are nothing but a relic of barbarous eras and the sociopathy of it continues in full for those who build careers around it. In no rational, compassionate world would being locked into a cage not be considered a form of torture except possibly in the world of those who are shockingly faithful to following whatever [insert authority] tells them to, through law, and shockingly faithful in assuming the system won't err against oneself. If a person were to kidnap you off the street and lock you in a cage, placing you into a horrible environment with cutthroat gangs eager for blood where you'll possibly be assaulted at any time and dramatically ruin your prospects if you ever walk free again, you probably wouldn't like it. You'd probably find it quite torturous. Like many, you'd find it a living hell. You'd probably understand that being placed into a cage is a form of torture. That's what prison is to people who disobey immoral laws. I wouldn't wish it for my enemies. This is why always evaluating the ethical basis is more important. Neither "law" nor "just following orders" suffice. > But if we follow a policy of resolving issues by reference first to the law... No, I don't enjoy circular reasoning. I only like open discourse. That means anything can be referenced. The philosophical disagreement is far more important to talk about either way. That's unless, of course, one finds oneself trapped in a courtroom of an [arbitrary jurisdiction/nation] where morality is mostly left to rot -- nay those very rare moments where nullification occurs and independent thought triumphs.