Lawful but Immoral

[rossatdi]

In terms of lawful / immoral - corporate behaviour and tax law is probably an easy win.

Selling Power Balance wrist bands. Its legally making money by using techno-babble to hide the fact it does nothing.

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

Unless you factor in public health care which the users of damaging drugs (legal and illegal) are happy to fall back on.

Taxation on legalised drugs theoretically off-sets the public health impacts. Prohibition of the most dangerous to remove social impact (again, theoretically).

I certainly don't think drug prohibition has been done properly (LSD is one of the most illegal drugs in the UK despite being essentially harmless physically).

Drug prohibition is unlawful moral in some circumstances but not lawful immoral as the OP asked.

 

[Kair]

There are so many laws that are immoral in the immoral society that I will not bother to start listing them.

 

[rossatdi]

Yea, have you considered that the government might be trying to save MY life by not allowing YOU to take a hallucinogen? For some reason, I'm ok with this. They are trying to negate the possibility of second hand smoke inhalation as well by forcing smokers to smoke in designated places. So don't start with the "it's not fair" argument. If you want to get into this PM me.

I don't get it... is this trying to say that someone on hallucinogens is an imminent danger to others around him? Clearly, you've never seen someone on hallucinogens.

Seconded, hallucinogens are pretty far down the scale of 'danger to the wider public'. Anything extremely physically addictive that can lead to dependency, and on to crime, that's a fair thing to legislate against.

 

[Xanadu84]

Read anything on the contributing causes to the economy downturn, and you are going to find a wealth of information. Shady business practices, irresponsible investments, lots of stuff that take advantage of a complex modern world. Actually, there is a pretty good metaphor to use here: In game terms, there are a lot of legal but immoral actions that act like video game exploits. Putting legal weight behind stopping these immoral actions amounts to bug fixes.

 

[rossatdi]

There are so many laws that are immoral in the immoral society that I will not bother to start listing them.

He's asking what's lawful and immoral not what's an immoral law.

Legally discriminating between races = immoral law
Legal right to sell pseudo science as healthcare (homoeopathy / power balance) = lawful immoral

 

[Stublore]

Look at the actions of Wall Street and the following bailout.
The number of people who lost their homes and jobs while the guys who caused the mess got/get huge bonuses and zero responsibility for their actions.

 

[yohlazy]

Alot of laws or conflict people debate about abortion laws and rights death row/penilty hell thankful they don't have may but laws about prohibiting video games ignoring the game makes right to speech (depending on where you live) and the idea a game is art and should have the same rights as other art work and before I get a bunch of flame I did say there arn't many of these now but there are still people asking for them

 

[WolfThomas]

In Medicine it is against the law to euthanise a terminal suffering patient (in most countries), because according to the hypocratic oath you must do no harm, and it is against the law to kill (which euthanasia counts as when done to humans). Even though a patient will die in the next 12 hours and the death will be the most painful imaginable to humans and there is nothing you can do, except death, to stop it, a doctor and nurse must do all they can to prolong the life of the patient. This is lawful, but very immoral. It's right up there with torture.

Actually in most countries, there's a concept (i can't remember the name this late at night) that in a terminally ill patient that still has pain you can continue giving pain relief past normal doses, even if it's going to have the secondary effect of hastening their death.

 

[Mjbbtt]

OP, is this for an ethics class? If so, I can give the usual examples, but first, I'd like to clarify something.

There are different ethical theories, but subjectivism (the view that everyone has different rules and there's no way to judge others) defeats the purpose of morality, which is to guide our behavior around others and, yes, to provide judgments. Different people have different theories, and we can't always justify one over another, so we can't just assume one theory is right, but consider your teacher giving you an "F" because he doesn't like your subjectivist argument, or because he doesn't like you. If you're a subjectivist, all he has to say is that he has different rules and you can't judge him, which is clearly wrong.

Now, the hot topic issues like abortion, gay marriage, suicide, euthanasia, lying, etc, are good, but the important thing is the distinction between what the law covers and what morality covers. Something may be illegal and immoral for two completely different reasons, which is the point. Whatever you pick, say why it is not illegal, but why whichever ethical theory (or, better yet, theories) say(s) it is immoral (and because people think so is not good enough.)

 

[darth gditch]

Drug prohibition.

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

The flipside of this being the fact cigarettes are legal. Considering the harm they do compared to other drugs which are illegal but far less harmful.

Seems at very least hypocritical that the government doesnt mind me getting cancer but wont let me take ecstacy on a night out.

There's no moral justification for cigarettes being illegal either, I'm not sure its hypocrisy, just double standards.

However it makes a mockery of the argument that drug prohibition is for the purpose of harm reduction that's for sure.

I'm willing to contend that.

If you look at basic Christian morality, there's plenty there that says, to effect, "don't muck up your body." Or somesuch thing.

So, there is moral justification to banning any kind of intoxicant.

Although, I pretty okay with people smoking, drinking, ect. As long as it doesn't hamper there ability to do their jobs, doesn't make them a burden to society, and doesn't hurt me or my loved ones.

And you are 100% correct that allowing cigarettes is total hypocrisy.

OT: Anything you might find in tax law. There are so many arcane loopholes, some as simple as listing certain revenues differently, some very complicated, in tax law it's hard to believe that the "adjusting" almost every corp. and obscenely wealthy person does is legal. But it is. And it's immoral because they are purposefully exploiting the law to get out of paying taxes.


Then again, I might too if I was being taxed in the ~45% income bracket.

 

[Tiscolfo]

What about youth's in asia?!?! jk
OT: Cigarettes... :| a lot of my friends have asthma because of this, damn stupid hand smoke I hate it, always ask for no smoking sections in restaurants. Second hand smoke is more harmful than smoking it

 

[KaizokuouHasu]

In Medicine it is against the law to euthanise a terminal suffering patient (in most countries), because according to the hypocratic oath you must do no harm, and it is against the law to kill (which euthanasia counts as when done to humans). Even though a patient will die in the next 12 hours and the death will be the most painful imaginable to humans and there is nothing you can do, except death, to stop it, a doctor and nurse must do all they can to prolong the life of the patient. This is lawful, but very immoral. It's right up there with torture.

Actually in most countries, there's a concept (i can't remember the name this late at night) that in a terminally ill patient that still has pain you can continue giving pain relief past normal doses, even if it's going to have the secondary effect of hastening their death.

True. As long as it doesn't actually kill them (i.e. overdose).

 

[the spud]

Seat belt laws. It doesn't affect anyone but myself whether or not I wear a seatbelt. I consider it unconstitutional to prevent someone from doing anything as long as they are of age and their action only affects themselves.

 

[MaxwellEdison]

Anarchist here, decided I'd throw in the whole "establishment of a coercive state" thing in just for fun.

 

[Jacob.pederson]

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?

Ummm . . . RIAA MPAA . . . Extorting money from single mothers ??


http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/05/riaa-extortion-why-the-only-rico-they-fear-is-suave.ars

 

[EricKei]

Seat belt laws. It doesn't affect anyone but myself whether or not I wear a seatbelt.

Except that, if you DO get into an accident (granted, this is just about the only time it would matter), your soon-to-be-airborne body, alive or otherwise, could easily present either a physical or mental hazard to others (read: "WTF?! *screeeeeeCRUNCH*").

Look at the history of American politics, basically...

...And pretty much every other country on the planet. The US government is far, far from perfect, but that just makes it one messed-up system among many, some better, some worse.

Back OT:

I have the same basic issue as a number of others above when it comes to head shops and drugs and the like -- While I don't do any myself (not even booze/cigs -- I am allergic to the former and abhor the aroma of the latter), I don't think that it is right to prevent others from doing it via legal means. That being said, I forbid them in my own household, but someone who wants to take a drag can just step outside and close the door. Problem solved. I do, however, support the idea of having bars/shops/etc where people may imbibe in private, preferably in the company of barkeeps (etc) who are (medically) trained and fully authorized to restrict the supply of people who appear to be overdosing or who would present a danger to themselves or others if they overindulge. Doing so on private property is fine by me -- Don't like their rules? Leave. Leaving a country is a little more complex of an undertaking.

edit: re: Plagiarism, the lazy student's worst friend and best enemy. Unless the DMCA or other relevant copyright acts have all gone away, a document is automatically copyrighted once it's written and presented. That makes plagiarism a form of copyright infringement. Also, even if copyrights are not an issue, it's still theft (even if it is of a nontangible thing).

 

[Kair]

There are so many laws that are immoral in the immoral society that I will not bother to start listing them.

He's asking what's lawful and immoral not what's an immoral law.

Legally discriminating between races = immoral law
Legal right to sell pseudo science as healthcare (homoeopathy / power balance) = lawful immoral

In my case it does not matter that I mixed it up. When most laws are immoral, there's also a good chance there is a deficit of correct laws.
The base of my first post is still relevant.

 

[Vorpals]

Legal standards have very explicit standards and codes, and they are a matter of "what is" than "what should be."

Moral standards and issues are entirely different. Moral standards depend on some sort of framework that you set up for yourself or for society in general, but moral standards and frameworks are NOT explicit, and morality is always a case of what should be the case.

The one similarity between the two is that lawmakers derive their laws from some presumed or agreed upon moral framework; then, to indict said law, you need to justify a different moral framework and argue against it, or argue about how the said law does not meet said moral framework.

This disjunct between what is the case and what should be the case is called the is/ought fallacy in academic philosophy, and worth looking up. For an oversimplified example, genocide might be going on right now, but it probably should not be going on right now.

The assignment is asking you to indict a law in terms of what should be the case, so there is no one answer. An easy case can be made against drug prohibition though.

 

[dfphetteplace]

Drug prohibition.

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

Every right if said drug can have a negative effect on society, eg..Imagine a country in which everyone took cocaine. Extreme example, but resonates my point well.

No, your example is ridiculous.

If the principle you're basing your justification on is harm prevention, then you're way off.

Prohibition causes much more harm to society because it puts control of the market into the hand of organised criminals. Turf wars, gang violence, all would be reduced drastically.

Legalization leads to acceptance of the practice. Would you want your child to go to a heroin bar when he turns 21?

Do you have anything other than scare mongering and conjecture? Anyone living in Ireland will remember the head shop controversy last year. They'll also remember that everyone didn't become a drug addict. Prohibition has proven itself to be bad, what we need is honest education on drugs.

I'm sure you have never seen someone dying from a heroin overdose, or had someone try to kill you because they were high on cocaine, nor have you ever entered a booby trapped meth lab that had caught fire, or someone literally become a bipolar schizophrenic because of massive drug abuse. I have. I've seen what drugs do to people almost everyday in my job. When I was in my band I saw a lot of friends turn to criminals because of drugs. I'm not saying everyone that uses drugs will be like this, but it does have an effect on people, and more often then not, it is not a good change. I agree with the education on drugs though. People need to learn that it is not worth it.