nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 133:
Line 133: +
→Morality and Law: Another way of saying the same thing.
: Why should laws protect rights? Because it is considered ''morally wrong'' to deprive someone of their rights. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:56, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
: Why should laws protect rights? Because it is considered ''morally wrong'' to deprive someone of their rights. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:56, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
::Hrm in my gut that still seems wrong. Unfortunately the definition in the article isn't much help. Still, though, the statement is misleading. If, as you say, protecting rights is morally right (right? ha!) then people who argue that law should not enforce morality are actually saying the law should not be used to enforce morality ''unless'' the moral in question is depriving another person of their rights. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:57, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
::Hrm in my gut that still seems wrong. Unfortunately the definition in the article isn't much help. Still, though, the statement is misleading. If, as you say, protecting rights is morally right (right? ha!) then people who argue that law should not enforce morality are actually saying the law should not be used to enforce morality ''unless'' the moral in question is depriving another person of their rights. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 23:57, 21 October 2008 (EDT)
::: People who say that the law should not be used to enforce morality are generally only saying so in the context of a moral that they don't agree with (e.g. homosexuality). And I'd say that pretty much any law that is "morality-based" can be understood in terms of "rights-based". For example, a law that forbids homosexual acts can be understood as protecting the rights of people adversely affected by homosexuality. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:55, 22 October 2008 (EDT)