Our new president (Obama)

[ed8020]

LOL.

I believe you've already opened several cans of worms so I wouldn't worry about it.

 

"Interpret the law"

Right at the top of the list.

That's where the court figures out whether a state has crossed the constitutional line.

And it is most often "Moral" issues that cross that line.

Yes, morality is a system of values that we hold to be right or good.

However, what we perceive to be moral changes quite capriciously and is usually guided by our religious beliefs.

 

"I can understand the thought that we shouldn't legislate on moral standpoints, but in essence, if we were to do that, then we would have few laws at all. Most criminal offenses wouldn't exist as for the fact that the laws originated with the thought of the person writing the first bill as "____ is wrong. There needs to be a law on it."

Not only do I find that argument wrong but in my opinion it verges on immoral but not necessarily criminal.

Digest that thought for a moment.

If you need me to explain why it's wrong and possibly immoral, catch me on the next post.

BTW. Are you cutting and pasting these from somewhere? Not that I think you are incapable of forming that thought, it's just that I could swear I've read that somewhere, verbatim.

 

You bring up several good examples of how we have MANY bad laws on our books because they were based on what the standard of morality happened to be at the time, rather than whether they were constitutional or not.

Our founding fathers were not only thinking ahead but looking to our past when they wrote the constitution.

One thing I know they understood is that at EVERY point in human history, we thought we knew it all.

We were at the peak of medical knowledge while the plague ravaged Europe.

We were at the height of scientific knowledge while Galileo was being prosecuted for not only explaining, but showing how the Earth reveovled around the sun.

And we were at the pinacle of civilization when we KNEW the world was flat.

Galileo was guilty of heresy. One of the highest forms of immorality. But his only crime was knowing the truth.

And the founding fathers had had ENOUGH.

The only thing that can be known with absolute certainty is that each of us has the INALIENABLE right to life (oooooo, theres a touchy one), liberty (freedom from the restrictions of others) and the pursuit of happiness (even if it hurts).

 

Every one of those examples you brought up can be answered by a couple simple questions.

Are the parties involved consenting adults? Does the act violate someone elses constitutional rights?

If those 2 checks are passed then there should be no crime. Actually I have a feeling I may be missing something but I'm sure you get my point.

Incest: in it's most notable form involves a non adult.

Prostitution: Consenting adults pursuing happiness through a straight forward business transaction.

Suicide: Sad but it's their life.

Assisted Suicide: See above.

Polygamy: Consenting adults pursuing happiness through a straight forward social contract.

And don't even get me started on the war on drugs.

No one ever said that This American experiment was going to be easy OR pretty.

It's the IDEAL that is beautiful.

[Wikinger9048]

You sore losers need to just get over it, support your President and help work towards the future rather than bitching and moaning.

The "patriotism" in this thread is so thick its almost disgusting,

 

Whats this her? The UNO-Kindergarten-Dispute-Club ? You Boys can help Obama to disarmed the People and destroy the national sovereignty. i hope, you have a nice time... in chains.

[Monarch_Anor]

In response to ed... Hitler had his own set of morals then...I mean Murder and genocide are only bad in the eyes of the beholder right?

 

 

You say we cant base a law of so called "morals" but everything comes back to morals if it be murder or littering.

 

 

For instance lets say I dont care about the environment, the government can tell me that I cant throw my trash on the ground because it might hurt an animal?

 

You CANT have laws not based on morals because everything comes back to them.

[myrmaad]

In response to ed... Hitler had his own set of morals then...I mean Murder and genocide are only bad in the eyes of the beholder right?

 

 

You say we cant base a law of so called "morals" but everything comes back to morals if it be murder or littering.

 

 

For instance lets say I dont care about the environment, the government can tell me that I cant throw my trash on the ground because it might hurt an animal?

 

You CANT have laws not based on morals because everything comes back to them.

Wrong.

 

Laws make it possible to live peaceably in a society. Laws protect that "your rights end where mine begin". That's as it should be, it's the nature of governance. If you actually studied law you'd know that morality has not much to do with it. In some primitive societies that lasted longer then the US has been in existence, it was "legal" within the society to eat other humans. Morality is a tenuous concept at best. Go back and forward in time and you'll find very different ideas of what is moral. Heck just travel to other societies and you'll find the same very different ideas about what is moral. Morality is defined by the SOCIAL MORES or values of the collective society. I can imagine a society where giving birth to children would be considered highly immoral.. It may be here sooner than you think.

[ed8020]

@ Wikinger

You know, the funny thing is I seem to remember the exact same sentiment that Michlo expressed, in the country about 4 years ago.

Do you really think that making bombastic assertions like that does anything but yank their chain?

Nobody is going to have one gun taken away from them even IF the ban goes through. And the more fear that is spread by saying those things, the more likely fearful people are going to do really stupid things that only serve to further the cause of those that actually believe in disarming us.Fear is the mind killer.

 

@ Monarch

Who's morals do we base our laws on?

"Hitler had his own set of morals then...I mean Murder and genocide are only bad in the eyes of the beholder right?"

Yes. Exactly right. And 50 years ago, littering was a hell of a lot more morally acceptable but that is beside the point, at least where littering is concerned. There are much more PRACTICAL reasons why littering is against the law that has nothing to do with morals.

It has a cumulative effect onthe environment that ends up coming back on us as a whole.

I appreciate your argumnet but this issue is far more important than the petty offense of littering.

 

I can imagine a society where giving birth to children would be considered highly immoral.. It may be here sooner than you think.

Isn't that already becoming the case in China?

[PureSnipe]

The point I try and make is, morality is defined as the difference between right and wrong. When we say that a law is for "the greater good of society", we're essentially saying it's wrong to do ______ because it adversely effects the rest. Those are morals speaking - saying it's wrong to hurt others. That's a basic moral principle that's used to build most moral standards, but it's a moral principal nonetheless.

 

I did a little bit of research. Morals can be defined as either the cumulative views of right and wrong of a society, or the views of an individual. The thing that throws this entire subject for a loop is when someone takes one interpretation over another.

 

Monarch hit it head-on I think. Granted, littering is a minor thing, but it was a good example. Makes the point of what one person sees is wrong and right is not always what another person sees. There is a standard, but it's all about how a person interprets that standard.

 

Laws shouldn't be based on an individual's morals, but on a society's moral standard. Or so it would seem.

 

Things that are just emerging, or becoming more mainstream and having more light shed on them, have a tendency to get the label of "immoral" more often now as for the fact it's conflicting with the moral values a person has.

I can easily think of an example of when the metal genera of music was emerging in the early 80s. It was considered to be immoral, and downright satanic, and so was anything to do with it. Now you can go to most malls in America, and there's a Hot Topic store there selling clothing that's along the Gothic style, and shirts from popular metal bands. Not many call those stores immoral.

 

Another example - I've seen videos of religious groups protesting outside of concerts. Here's a link to a record of one following Marilyn Manson around protesting, saying his music is immoral, satanic, and that everyone is going to hell.

http://www.theroc.org/updates/manson.htm

If anything helps to show the difference in a society's morals versus an individual's morals, that should do it.

 

Whilst I see your arguments as to making laws based off of morals, when you get right down to it, laws are made for the cumulative good of a society. That level, though, is based off of the moral standard.

 

I know I keep stating the same point. I'm just trying to explain as thoroughly as I can.

 

And nope, I'm not copying and pasting at all

[Pyrosocial]

let it be know that marilyn manson is a known satanist but that should not mean that anyone who listens to his music or goes to his concert is :closedeyes:

[PureSnipe]

And something else I just thought about, and you may want to consider:

 

Let's take the old law of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"

Say I live by that law.

If a person kills my family, I kill theirs.

If a person destroys my house, I destroy theirs.

On whose morals are we judging the action to be morally right?

If we judge on my morals then it's okay, since that's what I consider to be moral.

If we judge on the society's morals it's wrong because the society considers murder and arson to be immoral and/or wrong.

(Again, morals are defined as something being right or wrong.)

If we judge on no morals, there would be no law on murder since it is a right/wrong issue.

 

You can say that making murder a crime is for the betterment of society, and it is. There's still no way to avoid the fact that it still has its basis on a code of morals, be it the "Law of Morality" (which is usually the common standard) or an adapted version of it.

 

The roots of the laws are based on morals. The *idea* behind the law comes from morals. The law itself may have a purpose above being a law strictly for something being immoral, like murder as it prevents a society from killing themselves, but it still originated from the distinction between right and wrong.

Morals

 

Now, you may see things differently than I do, as I tend to question every belief I have. I'm trying to explain my mindset here. Not convince you that yours is wrong, but to convince you there's another way to perceive things.

 

EDIT: I just asked my dad about his views on this subject. He's a pilot, so he's come into contact with quite a few different people. He told me that he heard from his first officer a few months ago (whom had a major in law) that the majority of laws we have in the US today were taken from the book of Deuteronomy in the Bible.

 

let it be know that marilyn manson is a known satanist but that should not mean that anyone who listens to his music or goes to his concert is :closedeyes:

Off topic from the rest of my post.

And on that note, so are many metal singers. Lead singer of Deicide as an example. I've gone to their concerts, and that doesn't make me a satanist.

It comes down to humans are more than the "what you see is what you get" type of package. Usually. :P

As the quote from Martin Luther King says, "Judge a man by the content of his character, not the color of his skin"

That can be adapted to say "Judge a man by the content of his character, not his outward appearance"

[ed8020]

I understood you perfectly well the first time you tried to explain it

Repeating it several times does not make it any more correct.

The constitution is not just and "idea" but an "ideal" which is defined as a standard of perfection, excellence or beauty.

Do you not agree?

Everything you said in your last 2 posts perfectly exemplifies why "morality" is irrelevant to the constitution and the laws we make.

What I showed in a previous post and you seem to understand is that “morality” is a moving target.

Does your mother wear make up?

Does she wear dresses that expose her ankles?

Does she expose her face in public?

Do you see where I’m going with this?

Please let me know if you don’t because if I need to bring this example to it’s conclusion I am going to have to call your mother names that I am %100 confident she does not deserve to be called.

2 of those questions about your mother are related to standards of American morality that are less than 100 years old and one is still in effect today in other areas of the world.

There may be something getting lost in semantics here.

The reason for any particular law may be “based” in someone’s perception of morality but if it does NOT pass constitutional muster it should never be passed into law and if it is already on the books it should be repealed.

I’d like to examine something you said in the very first paragraph you posted today

“The point I try and make is, morality is defined as the difference between right and wrong. When we say that a law is for "the greater good of society", we're essentially saying it's wrong to do ______ because it adversely effects the rest. Those are morals speaking - saying it's wrong to hurt others. That's a basic moral principle that's used to build most moral standards, but it's a moral principal nonetheless.”

Saying something adversely effects others does not mean it is immoral and saying something is immoral does not mean it adversely effects others.

The adverse effect is all that matters.

[PureSnipe]

I agree that the Constitution was written as to prevent laws passing on something considered immoral.

 

I too see where you're coming from. But what's the standard we use to judge an adverse effect?

And do we not make or revoke laws that are based on the morals of our society?

 

Where you made the mention to a woman's attire: In the Muslim culture, that which you mention is seen as immoral, thus it's outlawed there. In the US, it's morally acceptable, so there's no law.

 

Humans tend to govern on their morals. No matter how much you saw that laws are made on principals that aren't based on morality, they are. Look at any law. It's there to prevent an adverse effect. That effect is generally "bad". What defines what's bad?

 

The distinction I'm trying to make is that while laws shouldn't be based on immoral and moral, they all have an underlying standard they use, generally the Moral Law. Whilst laws aren't to be made off of a person's morals, they are still based on some code of morals that they have somewhere.

 

I don't know how else to explain that legislative laws are largely based off of the "Moral Law" that God sets forth, not the morals of man.

 

EDIT: I just found a great article helping to explain Moral Law. This may help.

http://home.sprynet.com/~eagreen/moral.htm