5,580
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 134:
Line 134: + + +
→Morality and Law
::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)
::: 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)
::::That's not always true either. Some people think that immoral things that don't infringe another person's rights should not be illegal. And who's rights are being trampled with a law that allows homosexual marraige? Who's are being trampled with a law ''against'' homosexual marraige? I don't think that's a good example.
::::I did some reading, and I figured out my general uneasiess with the statement that it is morally wrong to deprive someone of their rights: Again it doesn't have to be. It could be utilitarian. [[Objectivism|Objectivists] and some libertarians believe that protecting rights is necessary to survival, not "morally right".
::::Addionally, after more reflection, I determined that even if you are right with everything you are saying, Philip, the statement as written still basically comes down to a straw man. Those laws that are based on "morality" are based on morality that ''everyone'' holds. Nobody thinks that murder and theft are morally right (Ethics 101-style paradoxes notwithstanding), so it's ok to make a law based on those morals. However the people who say "We don't want morality to be legislated" (I might as well at this point say for the record that this includes myself) are saying that they don't want morality legislated ''if there is disagreement about the morality involved''. Because then who gets to decide what is ''moral''? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 17:08, 22 October 2008 (EDT)