Lawful but Immoral

[Trillovinum]

Recently, I've been assigned to write an article on what is lawful but immoral by today's standards. Problem is, I've got squat; I just don't know where to start.

So, my fellow Escapists, would you be kind enough to help a fellow, and post the laws that you think aren't moral by your standards?

I'm going to give you this to chew on;

"morals" is a very unclear and ill-defined subject.Morality is merely a manner of perception of certain events. These can be personal, societal, religious, etc. and depend on the manner with which an individual regards the world.

you were asked to find laws that aren't necessarily moral to our standards. I assume that by this they mean mainstream western points of view (as far as this concept even exists)this naturally includes a high degree of individualism and states that every individual should be able to make his own decisions and do with his life whatever he or she wishes. therefore, imposing rules on how to live and behave directly contradicts with this ideal of total freedom.

So plainly, aren't all laws immoral as they impede on our personal liberties?


mind you, I am in favor of laws and regulations to keep our society from sliding into total anarchy but i thought this was an interesting philosophical point.

 

[Biosophilogical]

I do not believe in the death penalty. No person has the right to take another person's life unless there is more then 1 life at stake. If somebody needs to die so a family can be saved then I have no problems with that, but killing somebody as a punishment is just wrong in my opinion.

Killing someone when there is an alternative is also wrong (like life-time imprisonment). Also, the purpose of the justice system should be to minimise harm, so it should try and rehabilitate criminals and keep them from society if they cannot be rehabilitated. It shouldn't go around deciding who lives and who dies, or working as a tool for public vengeance.

I'm not trying to dismiss what you said, I'm trying to add further points in your favour.

OT: Death penalty, tax exempt status for religion (possibly, I'm not entirely up to speed with the reasons for that law, but it sounds ridiculous), prohibiting gay marriage, having legalised cigarettes for people under 25-30.

 

[flamingjimmy]

Laws around the world prohibiting homosexuality, or any other sex act.

What moral right does the state have to tell people what they can and can't do in private between consenting adults?

So raping a 3 month old child is okay

wtf? I said 'between consenting adults' and you come out with this?

Just in case you really are that dense, I'll spell it out for you. Rape, by definition, is without consent, and 3 month old children are not adults.

or newborn puppy

Puppies cannot give consent, and nor are they adults.

Or what if the consenting adult is mentally retarded?

It depends how retarded, if they are capable of understanding what they are doing then yeah. If they aren't capable of understanding it, then they are not able to give informed consent.

 

[Nieroshai]

It depends on your source of morality. If you're religious, it is likely that something isn't illegal but goes against your moral standard. Like premarital sex to an Abrahamic religion, or eating meat to a Hindu.

 

[Ambi]

Spoiler: Factory farms; legal in many places, arguably immoral and cruel

ha! morals. i personally don't care about morals, i care about logic.

and when it comes to threads about morals there's always someone who has other morals and instead of politely disagreeing will tell you that your a monster.

Do you believe in using logic to figure out methods of making the world a less painful place?

no. call me a monster if you like but i`m not one usually swayed by emotions or pictures of the brutality of the world. you can`t ignore that this stuff happens and act shocked every time you see something bad in the world. I plan on using logic to make the world better not less painful.

So you don't believe in ethics? What is a better world? Could more subtle feelings have swayed your intellectual outlook on life towards something sub-par? By judging that something can be better, you are bringing subjectivity into it. Morals and logic are both intended as means to an end; an end to which the only justification is feelings of satisfaction.

What I mean is, the subtle egoistic feelings and desires that drive your will to reason cannot be reasoned to be more objectively worthwhile than those with emotion-derived and/or culturally-derived values that form the basis of ethical reasoning. A blubbering ball of angst protesting the moral decay of his government or some hippy who bursts into tears at pictures of animal testing can be just as logically sound as you.

Don't get me wrong, plenty of moral standards are illogical because they're based solely on religion, and some knee-jerk instinctual emotions go against our interests, but emotions don't necessarily cloud reasoning. They invigorate people to use reason for a noble cause; morals and logic can go hand in hand.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that "ha! morals. I prefer logic" comment led me to believe you have the impression that your mind is an oasis of objective clear thinking and strength, while those that have unselfish goals and convictions are somehow tainted, weak, and illogical. Are you proud of yourself?

 

[Grospoliner]

Recently, I've been assigned to write an article on what is lawful but immoral by today's standards. Problem is, I've got squat; I just don't know where to start.

So, my fellow Escapists, would you be kind enough to help a fellow, and post the laws that you think aren't moral by your standards?

Take no offense, but this assignment is stupid. You should say as much to the one who assigned it. Law is at it's very essence, the set of actions which are acceptable by citizens subject to that law. Morals are little better than subjective ideals put forth by individuals, with every point of view varying within any subset of ideal. There is no such thing as moral right and wrong as the concept of morality is inherently flawed.

 

[Ambi]

Recently, I've been assigned to write an article on what is lawful but immoral by today's standards. Problem is, I've got squat; I just don't know where to start.

So, my fellow Escapists, would you be kind enough to help a fellow, and post the laws that you think aren't moral by your standards?

Take no offense, but this assignment is stupid. You should say as much to the one who assigned it. Law is at it's very essence, the set of actions which are acceptable by citizens subject to that law. Morals are little better than subjective ideals put forth by individuals, with every point of view varying within any subset of ideal. There is no such thing as moral right and wrong as the concept of morality is inherently flawed.

Most people know morals are subjective, but anyone who's not a sociopath nonetheless exercises at least somewhat of a judgement between right and wrong. What's wrong with saying, "in my opinion, this is wrong"?

Are they no longer morals if one recognises their subjective nature?

 

[Canid117]

Drug prohibition.

What moral right does the state have to tell me what I can and can't ingest into my own body?

Because it can kill you.

 

[Grospoliner]

Recently, I've been assigned to write an article on what is lawful but immoral by today's standards. Problem is, I've got squat; I just don't know where to start.

So, my fellow Escapists, would you be kind enough to help a fellow, and post the laws that you think aren't moral by your standards?

Take no offense, but this assignment is stupid. You should say as much to the one who assigned it. Law is at it's very essence, the set of actions which are acceptable by citizens subject to that law. Morals are little better than subjective ideals put forth by individuals, with every point of view varying within any subset of ideal. There is no such thing as moral right and wrong as the concept of morality is inherently flawed.

Most people know morals are subjective, but anyone who's not a sociopath nonetheless exercises at least somewhat of a judgement between right and wrong. What's wrong with saying, "in my opinion, this is wrong"?

Are they no longer morals if one recognises their subjective nature?

No, but we should understand them for what they are rather than applying arbitrary value to something when none exists.

 

[Kair]

I am continuing the discussion with someone with a little less aggressive behaviour. That is, a little less aggressive and a little less biased. It makes a difference.

Aw, can't defend your arguments so you refuse the need to? You must be really sure of your own arguments! It's okay to call someone close minded and a closest conservative but when you're actually called out on contradictions in your own logic that's "aggressive"?

I already explained what I said to another person. The explanations were just below the reply I sent to you. You must be angry to miss 8/10th of a post like that.

And you never called out any contradictions, you just misunderstood everything I said and dismissed how I said it as arrogant. There is no need for me to explain to you, because I have explained it to you 30 times before. You are almost the same person as every other who has attacked me instead of wishing to learn. You say the same things and learn just as little, the only distinction is that I choose not to bother with you this time.

 

[McMullen]

Recently, I've been assigned to write an article on what is lawful but immoral by today's standards. Problem is, I've got squat; I just don't know where to start.

So, my fellow Escapists, would you be kind enough to help a fellow, and post the laws that you think aren't moral by your standards?

For actions that are lawful but immoral:

Patent trolling, suing for libel even though the defendant used completely objective and factual claims, exploiting loopholes to avoid paying workers overtime or avoid giving benefits to full-time workers, denying insurance coverage for preexisting conditions, suing a person for anything over $10 per pirated music track, knowingly releasing and charging $200 or more for cripplingly bug-ridden software or hardware without supporting or patching it, etc. Aside from the first two, can basically be summarized as "popular business practices with regards to employees and/or consumers".

For laws that are immoral:

S.978 (misdemeanor to steal a physical copy of a copyrighted work, felony to stream a digital copy online), Any law that bans same-sex marriage, the Oregon law that makes it a crime to talk dirty in bed (seriously), the DMCA, zero-tolerance policies, and... that's what I got right now.

 

[rossatdi]

I am continuing the discussion with someone with a little less aggressive behaviour. That is, a little less aggressive and a little less biased. It makes a difference.

Aw, can't defend your arguments so you refuse the need to? You must be really sure of your own arguments! It's okay to call someone close minded and a closest conservative but when you're actually called out on contradictions in your own logic that's "aggressive"?

I already explained what I said to another person. The explanations were just below the reply I sent to you. You must be angry to miss 8/10th of a post like that.

And you never called out any contradictions, you just misunderstood everything I said and dismissed how I said it as arrogant. There is no need for me to explain to you, because I have explained it to you 30 times before. You are almost the same person as every other who has attacked me instead of wishing to learn. You say the same things and learn just as little, the only distinction is that I choose not to bother with you this time.

That's funny I didn't see you address the fact that your model is just Freud's Ig, Ego, Super Ego without the delicacy and with a huge host of arrogance injected into it.

I didn't see anything in your replies to the other poster as to the logical contradiction regarding gay marriage and your animal/human divide. Simply put, homophobia has to be a socially constructed repression (or misfiring) of instinct - after all, why hate someone who increases your chances of successful mating? The moral animal a person is the less they should care about someone else's sexuality.

Thirdly, you didn't answer me on how you think its okay to accuse people of being closed minded and conservative. I could call you arrogant and deluded but unless I was to provide evidence then its just random hurling of insults - which as you didn't respond is what I can only assume you're doing.

I love your 'wise sage' persona, you think anyone buys it?

But then I read your suggestion of moving to a gift economy and laughed.

 

[Kair]

I am continuing the discussion with someone with a little less aggressive behaviour. That is, a little less aggressive and a little less biased. It makes a difference.

Aw, can't defend your arguments so you refuse the need to? You must be really sure of your own arguments! It's okay to call someone close minded and a closest conservative but when you're actually called out on contradictions in your own logic that's "aggressive"?

I already explained what I said to another person. The explanations were just below the reply I sent to you. You must be angry to miss 8/10th of a post like that.

And you never called out any contradictions, you just misunderstood everything I said and dismissed how I said it as arrogant. There is no need for me to explain to you, because I have explained it to you 30 times before. You are almost the same person as every other who has attacked me instead of wishing to learn. You say the same things and learn just as little, the only distinction is that I choose not to bother with you this time.

That's funny I didn't see you address the fact that your model is just Freud's Ig, Ego, Super Ego without the delicacy and with a huge host of arrogance injected into it.

I didn't see anything in your replies to the other poster as to the logical contradiction regarding gay marriage and your animal/human divide. Simply put, homophobia has to be a socially constructed repression (or misfiring) of instinct - after all, why hate someone who increases your chances of successful mating? The moral animal a person is the less they should care about someone else's sexuality.

Thirdly, you didn't answer me on how you think its okay to accuse people of being closed minded and conservative. I could call you arrogant and deluded but unless I was to provide evidence then its just random hurling of insults - which as you didn't respond is what I can only assume you're doing.

I love your 'wise sage' persona, you think anyone buys it?

But then I read your suggestion of moving to a gift economy and laughed.

1. Did you believe I opposed gay marriage?

2. I accuse you of being conservative because aggression is most often found in challenged conservatives, and that you so aggressively opposed very different ideas from the society you know. You were the one to start hurling insults first. If you don't realize that then it might be a character flaw. My retaliatory insults were meant to keep you away, which didn't work. I am not good at dealing with scorned debaters.

3. I talk this way because I am tempered. Years of doubt and criticism has made me this way. Do not believe your hostility is the first hostility I face.

 

[Ambi]

Recently, I've been assigned to write an article on what is lawful but immoral by today's standards. Problem is, I've got squat; I just don't know where to start.

So, my fellow Escapists, would you be kind enough to help a fellow, and post the laws that you think aren't moral by your standards?

Take no offense, but this assignment is stupid. You should say as much to the one who assigned it. Law is at it's very essence, the set of actions which are acceptable by citizens subject to that law. Morals are little better than subjective ideals put forth by individuals, with every point of view varying within any subset of ideal. There is no such thing as moral right and wrong as the concept of morality is inherently flawed.

Most people know morals are subjective, but anyone who's not a sociopath nonetheless exercises at least somewhat of a judgement between right and wrong. What's wrong with saying, "in my opinion, this is wrong"?

Are they no longer morals if one recognises their subjective nature?

No, but we should understand them for what they are rather than applying arbitrary value to something when none exists.

I may sound like an idiot, but placing arbitrary value to what, exactly?

 

[rossatdi]

1. Did you believe I opposed gay marriage?

2. I accuse you of being conservative because aggression is most often found in challenged conservatives, and that you so aggressively opposed very different ideas from the society you know. You were the one to start hurling insults first. If you don't realize that then it might be a character flaw. My retaliatory insults were meant to keep you away, which didn't work. I am not good at dealing with scorned debaters.

3. I talk this way because I am tempered. Years of doubt and criticism has made me this way. Do not believe your hostility is the first hostility I face.

1. No, but you accuse opponents of gay marriage as being animalised humans where I would contend that for better or worse (worse in this sense) it is a cultural issue that has over-ridden instinctual.

2. 'Scorned debaters'? You mean people who don't allow you to get away with wild assertions? I love different ideas, I'd tear down society and re-build it tomorrow if I could. I think its hilarious that rather than respond to any single argument I've put forward you've continually tried to attack me. There's open mindedness and just accepting what people say without critical consideration, different thing.

3. Hostility? Challenging other people's assertions is not hostility. Years of doubt and criticism have tempered you? One would have thought they'd have tempered your ideas so you could defend them.

4. Again, I ask you to respond to my claim that your model is simply a shadow of the Id, Ego, Super Ego model and that stating that humans start as 'animals' but referring to non-Human people as 'animalised humans' is contradictory because animalised implies they've been turned into something they weren't.

 

[Kair]

1. Did you believe I opposed gay marriage?

2. I accuse you of being conservative because aggression is most often found in challenged conservatives, and that you so aggressively opposed very different ideas from the society you know. You were the one to start hurling insults first. If you don't realize that then it might be a character flaw. My retaliatory insults were meant to keep you away, which didn't work. I am not good at dealing with scorned debaters.

3. I talk this way because I am tempered. Years of doubt and criticism has made me this way. Do not believe your hostility is the first hostility I face.

1. No, but you accuse opponents of gay marriage as being animalised humans where I would contend that for better or worse (worse in this sense) it is a cultural issue that has over-ridden instinctual.

2. 'Scorned debaters'? You mean people who don't allow you to get away with wild assertions? I love different ideas, I'd tear down society and re-build it tomorrow if I could. I think its hilarious that rather than respond to any single argument I've put forward you've continually tried to attack me. There's open mindedness and just accepting what people say without critical consideration, different thing.

3. Hostility? Challenging other people's assertions is not hostility. Years of doubt and criticism have tempered you? One would have thought they'd have tempered your ideas so you could defend them.

4. Again, I ask you to respond to my claim that your model is simply a shadow of the Id, Ego, Super Ego model and that stating that humans start as 'animals' but referring to non-Human people as 'animalised humans' is contradictory because animalised implies they've been turned into something they weren't.

1. Ethnocentricity and instinct are symptoms of the same illness which I explained.

2. People who see discussion as a conflict are called debaters. I can not discuss with people like you because we operate on different models of discussion.

3. Calling someone arrogant is hostility.

4. And I already told you I thought of everything you had to say before you said it, that term included. I have no better term, I use animalised as an adjective, not as a verb. The fact that you choose to nit-pick about something like that shows you have no intention of discussion, but debate or squabble. Though I knew that from the moment you started talking.

There is no sense in talking to you. I will let you win your little game.

 

[Stryc9]

Drug prohibition.

What moral right does the state have to tell me what I can and can't ingest into my own body?

When you become a danger to those around because of the drugs you are taking then it becomes the states right to tell you what you can and can't put into your body.

When you stat breaking into houses for your next hit or crack, or start stabbing people because you think they are out to get you because of the PCP you took then it's the state's duty to ban those substances.

It's not a moral issue, it's a public health and safety issue.

 

[rossatdi]

1. Ethnocentricity and instinct are symptoms of the same illness which I explained.

2. People who see discussion as a conflict are called debaters. I can not discuss with people like you because we operate on different models of discussion.

3. Calling someone arrogant is hostility.

4. And I already told you I thought of everything you had to say before you said it, that term included. I have no better term, I use animalised as an adjective, not as a verb. The fact that you choose to nit-pick about something like that shows you have no intention of discussion, but debate or squabble. Though I knew that from the moment you started talking.

There is no sense in talking to you. I will let you win your little game.

1. So you're claiming instinct is illness? That seems like an odd claim. In Freud's model, the Id is something that can be controlled but never 'cured'. Do suggest curing instinct then?

2. It would be very boring discussion if people were unwilling to contradict, to debate.

3. As is calling someone close minded.

4. So why not use 'Id' seeing as that's the model your copying. If you can't describe your terms properly that's bound to lead to confusion, -ise or -ize is a verb forming suffix(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/-ize). Its important to be clear in your arguments because otherwise they are hard to comprehend, my apologies if I mistook the fact you weren't using language in a traditional manner (I guess I must be too close minded!). First thing you learn in modern philosophy is often semantics because they're important for making accurate arguments.

 

[flamingjimmy]

Drug prohibition.

What moral right does the state have to tell me what I can and can't ingest into my own body?

When you become a danger to those around because of the drugs you are taking then it becomes the states right to tell you what you can and can't put into your body.

When you stat breaking into houses for your next hit or crack, or start stabbing people because you think they are out to get you because of the PCP you took then it's the state's duty to ban those substances.

I've already responded to these points when raised by someone else, read the thread bro!