Romney Job 1: Economy, Job 2: Porn

[hornadylnl]

No, I don't. Because obeying the law IS a moral act, but not the ULTIMATE moral act. There are hierarchies of moral authority. Do you obey your parents over your priest? your teacher over a cop?

I would feel comfortable disobeying the law requiring me to shoot an 8-year old. Your hypothetical is red herring and you should know that already.

There are times when it may be more moral to disobey the law. But that is a high bar to reach, because I personally recognize the law as a very high moral authority-- to the degree I try to follow it even when I disagree with it.

I never said that laws are morals. I said that obeying the law is a moral act (you quoted me and STILL got it wrong?).

I also said that all law has a moral component to it.

Laws are the authoritative allocation of values (morals) in a society. My personal morals may differ because I recognize different moral authorities than society as a whole. But as a SOCIETY, the law is the best indication of what we deem to be our values.

Politics is therefore the process in which we struggle to control the allocation of those societal values. It is the attempt to make our own moralities the society's morality (unless we are personally moral hypocrites and claim the untenable belief that our morals are best, but not applicable to anyone else).

Thus, law IS the legislation of morality.

QED

It used to be immoral to marry outside of your race, vote if you're a woman or minority, etc. those were societies morals at one time. I think I'll pass.

 

[Hohn]

Yes, and as society changed, the laws changed.

You prove my point.

 

[Ted]

It used to be immoral to marry outside of your race, vote if you're a woman or minority, etc. those were societies morals at one time. I think I'll pass.

Yes, and as society changed, the laws changed.

You prove my point.

It also used to be both illegal, as well as immoral to society to kill an unborn child.

There is another point.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

No, I don't. Because obeying the law IS a moral act, but not the ULTIMATE moral act. There are hierarchies of moral authority. Do you obey your parents over your priest? your teacher over a cop?

I would feel comfortable disobeying the law requiring me to shoot an 8-year old. Your hypothetical is red herring and you should know that already.

There are times when it may be more moral to disobey the law. But that is a high bar to reach, because I personally recognize the law as a very high moral authority-- to the degree I try to follow it even when I disagree with it.

I never said that laws are morals. I said that obeying the law is a moral act (you quoted me and STILL got it wrong?).

I also said that all law has a moral component to it.

Laws are the authoritative allocation of values (morals) in a society. My personal morals may differ because I recognize different moral authorities than society as a whole. But as a SOCIETY, the law is the best indication of what we deem to be our values.

Politics is therefore the process in which we struggle to control the allocation of those societal values. It is the attempt to make our own moralities the society's morality (unless we are personally moral hypocrites and claim the untenable belief that our morals are best, but not applicable to anyone else).

Thus, law IS the legislation of morality.

QED

Imposing your morals on someone else is the ultimate in imorality.

Webster;
"sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment"
Moral - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Morals are your own, and cannot be dictated. When they are, dictated they cease to be morals.

"Do you obey your parents over your priest? your teacher over a cop?"

I can disobey my parents, teacher, and a priest. By my own choice, they help me find my own moral compass.

I cannot disobey a cop that is enforcing the law. That is the point.

 

[Ted]

Imposing your morals on someone else is the ultimate in imorality.......

Is it immoral to murder someone?

Is it immoral to impose the moral of not murdering someone? Even if the person imposing that moral happens to be a priest?

Notice the operative verb is "murder", not "kill".

 

[mydoghasfleas]

Is it immoral to murder someone?

Is it immoral to impose the moral of not murdering someone? Even if the person imposing that moral happens to be a priest?

Notice the operative verb is "murder", not "kill".

Again I say that laws should protect first and foremost liberty, contracts etc. Lastly or rather never should they enforce morals.

 

[Ted]

Again I say that laws should protect first and foremost liberty, contracts etc. Lastly or rather never should they enforce morals.

Where does one suppose that laws of society are otherwise evolved?

 

[mydoghasfleas]

Where does one suppose that laws of society are otherwise evolved?

I would suppose that some places reflect laws which have evolved otherwise...

 

[hornadylnl]

Where does one suppose that laws of society are otherwise evolved?

Property rights.

 

[Hohn]

Again I say that laws should protect first and foremost liberty, contracts etc. Lastly or rather never should they enforce morals.

The problem is that you have to have a moral basis for claiming that Liberty should be the role of government, and your argument is specious.


Any discussion about "ought" is moral.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

The problem is that you have to have a moral basis for claiming that Liberty should be the role of government, and your argument is specious.


Any discussion about "ought" is moral.

I do not need to cite moral basis for the protection of liberty to be the job of my government. That was the basis of its creation.

The obligation is yours to claim its expansion into moral dictation (through the use of governmental force), is in fact moral. Which is an oxymoron.

 

[Hohn]

Since you won't make the logical connection yourself, I'll lead you to it. Liberty WAS the reason our country was founded. But that is not the AUTHORITY the Founders cited.

They said we are "endowed by our CREATOR" with "unalienable rights." They claimed that they had moral authority from GOD. They claimed that liberty was a right derived from your existence as a person. This is called "natural right."

Thus, the FOUNDERS asserted that they were not only morally allowed to declare independence from England, but OBLIGATED to do so.

From the Preamble:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Impel:
1: to urge or drive forward or on by or as if by the exertion of strong moral pressure : force <felt impelled to correct the misconception>

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world...

If you don't see that the Founders claimed a moral authority from Nature or "Nature's God", then you simply don't get it.

Our country is founded on the idea that liberty is a moral imperative.


Thus, the purpose of the United States is to provide a government that will protect and secure your moral right of liberty.


If you don't see the connection between morals and liberty, then need to dive into this a little more deeply.


I'm not an expert. But I have read a LOT on this, and hold a degree in political science. I have read a lot of political theory and almost all of the Federalist Papers.

The linkage of morality to the law and to liberty is undeniable. You attempt the impossible when denying this.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

Endowed by our creator with life, liberty...

Liberty is not morality.

You can do things which many believe to be imoral, without affecting anothers liberty (using certain drugs for an example).

But, to be jailed for something like this would be an encroachment on your liberty.By your own definition that is imoral. "Moral right to liberty" Laws that do that are as I said before imoral.

This is one example of these "moral laws" which are in fact imoral. I suppose you are OK with this type of law?

 

[LEaSH]

I don't see anything immoral about pornography.

The making of and consuming of porn by and for consenting adults is harmless.

Exploiting women against their will is bad. Stating the obvious here, but if you live next door to a pornographer you really have no basis for complaint unless that pornography is spilling out into your yard.

But the candidate wants people to know that if he's in charge, his brand of morality will be encouraged. maybe even mandated. I can't see how his opinion should be taken seriously.

 

[mrjarrell]

I don't see anything immoral about pornography.

The making of and consuming of porn by and for consenting adults is harmless.

Exploiting women against their will is bad. Stating the obvious here, but if you live next door to a pornographer you really have no basis for complaint unless that pornography is spilling out into your yard.

But the candidate wants people to know that if he's in charge, his brand of morality will be encouraged. maybe even mandated. I can't see how his opinion should be taken seriously.

If he had his way we'd all be wearing magic underwear and watching Osmond's reruns. Never intended to vote for his sort and this has certainly cemented it.

 

[longbarrel]

But what do i know, im just a electrician.

I bet you can solve a DC circuit (series and parallel) and an AC circuit (series and parallel)

 

[Ted]

I would suppose that some places reflect laws which have evolved otherwise...

True. The laws of both man and God have been bastardized by man.

Property rights.

Property rights evolved from much earlier law. Some guy by the name of Moses may come to mind.

 

[ViperJock]

Wow. Some deep discussion here. Bottom line is Romney has to win support from the R wing Evangelicals. In order to do that he says he will go after the porn industry. There is no way he will be able to shut down porn even if he goes after it so you guys are pretty much safe. Any reasonable person knows an industry like that cannot be shut down but the emotional base love to hear him spout stuff like that.

I'm not so sure about the argument that porn is moral and God is cool with it. I guess we'll find out eventually.

 

[level.eleven]

If he had his way we'd all be wearing magic underwear and watching Osmond's reruns. Never intended to vote for his sort and this has certainly cemented it.

Dum, dum, dum, dum, dum!

 

[rich8483]

i propose we make a constitutional amendment banning the selling of all porn greater than 0.25% by volume.

maybe it shall last about 13 years or so.

during those 13 years, the viewing of porn will actually increase despite its legality and Capone Jr. can become a very wealthy man.