Laws shouldn't be based on morality - General

[QUOTE=Tetsmega1;17129588]If the OP is talking about drugs, they inevitably harm another person, and suicide can harm another person. Thus, the government just makes it all illegal entirely.[/QUOTE] Me being atheist can harm other people just as much as suicide.

[QUOTE=Uberkitty;17108171]In my opinion, laws should only serve to protect people and establishments from each other. Legislators should not make laws prohibiting victimless crimes and crimes which only harm one's self. I believe that laws which criminalize victimless crimes restrict personal freedoms while exhausting the capacity of prisons. This is why blue laws, laws restricting gambling, and drug laws are complete bullshit. Laws should only be in place to protect people from direct harm, such as the loss of property or bodily harm. My point is this: If it harms no one or only harms one's self it should be fully legal.[/QUOTE] All laws are at it's base moral. They are created (In the US) by us; the people. We made them because we feel it the morally right thing to do. Guess what? Many people consider protecting business and people are moral and rights. Without some kind of moral system that most humans develop there would be no laws because people wouldn't care.

[QUOTE=Tetsmega1;17129588]If the OP is talking about drugs, they inevitably harm another person, and suicide can harm another person. Thus, the government just makes it all illegal entirely.[/QUOTE] Not at all. You don't understand drug use, or suicide. Suicide is a personal act, and.. How the fuck do you make it illegal? You can't. It's a personal choice, and no one should be allowed to interfere with that, at least no government. Drug use is again, a personal thing, and the government has no right to govern that. What we do with our own lives is up to us, not the government. My drug use doesn't harm you, my parents, my girlfriend, my friends, my coworkers, or anyone else in my life. If I killed someone, then, guess what? It's not the drugs fault, it's mine, and murder is already illegal. I go to jail one way or the other. Drugs aren't the cause of murder, social issues inside the murderer are the problem. You can't outlaw that. [editline]07:10PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Slasha00;17130339]All laws are at it's base moral. They are created (In the US) by us; the people. We made them because we feel it the morally right thing to do. Guess what? Many people consider protecting business and people are moral and rights. Without some kind of moral system that most humans develop there would be no laws because people wouldn't care.[/QUOTE] No. As lanklist already pointed out, no. Yeah, people would care, people are naturally connected to each other, and naturally feel for each other. Morals are essentially one way of saying, "I know better than you, so listen to me" without evidence or anything.

[QUOTE=Mr. Mcguffin;17129908]Me being atheist can harm other people just as much as suicide.[/QUOTE] take cover, oecleus is going to say something stupid

[QUOTE=Doriol;17130878]take cover, oecleus is going to say something stupid[/QUOTE] Lol, I'd give you a zing if I could. Suicide is just an act that offends people, and no one has a right to not be offended.

[QUOTE=Uberkitty;17108171]In my opinion, laws should only serve to protect people and establishments from each other. Legislators should not make laws prohibiting victimless crimes and crimes which only harm one's self. I believe that laws which criminalize victimless crimes restrict personal freedoms while exhausting the capacity of prisons. This is why blue laws, laws restricting gambling, and drug laws are complete bullshit. Laws should only be in place to protect people from direct harm, such as the loss of property or bodily harm. My point is this: If it harms no one or only harms one's self it should be fully legal.[/QUOTE] What doesn't make sense is how alcohol is legal when drugs aren't. People get addicted it to just the same, and cause car crashes, and all that other shit. So.. >.>

[QUOTE=JerryK;17131027]What doesn't make sense is how alcohol is legal when drugs aren't. People get addicted it to just the same, and cause car crashes, and all that other shit. So.. >.>[/QUOTE] alcohol is a drug :sigh:

Because it's obvious I'm not talking about cocaine, meth, etc you idiot.

Laws are based on viewpoints, which are in turn based on personal/collective morality/societal values (I.E. how people should act towards others, and how society should, in general work).The end. /thread

[QUOTE=Machk;17131081]Laws are based on viewpoints, which are in turn based on personal/collective morality/societal values (I.E. how people should act towards others, and how society should, in general work).The end. /thread[/QUOTE] One could argue that laws are there to protect individuals from one another, and are therefor selfish and not moral at all.

[QUOTE=Mr. Mcguffin;17131167]One could argue that laws are there to protect individuals from one another, and are therefor selfish and not moral at all.[/QUOTE] Kantian morality is a joke.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;17131657]Kantian morality is a joke.[/QUOTE] Just sayin'.

[QUOTE=JerryK;17131075]Because it's obvious I'm not talking about cocaine, meth, etc you idiot.[/QUOTE] Anything that affects your brain, like alcohol, or like a drug is a drug. Not all of them are addictive, but everyone is under the illusion that every drug will instantly hook you when you do it, many are, and some of the worst are, but all the same.. that's a persons decision, not societies. If we were talking about a small society, where everyone relies on everyone else, say, 40 people, then drugs would be universally bad in that situation, but in a society where anyone of us can fuck up for weeks, this is fine.

There's different kinds of morals, and moral theories, such as emotivism, which states that there are no moral truths and absolutes are neither true or false but simply outburts of feelings. In that thought, laws are based simply on how people feel, and given that what people feel change, laws too change to match the 'moral' thought of the time. Another set of moral theoretics such as relativist moral theory, which says that every set of moral ideals is and will be as different and numerous as there are people, basically saying that each person has their own sets of morals based on their experiences. Given that no person is exactly the same as any other, what is moral and laws based on morals will inevitably be argued eternity because no one can completely agree on one set of standards. People who want drugs legalized have a set of morals which are okay with them. These people, at the time of making anti-drug laws, were either a minority, or non-existant. Either way, what is moral will always be in dispute with people, and laws are generally based on morality. All you have to do is gather enough people who have atleast a loose similarity of morals to change laws, such as ones on drugs. It's not that people who want drugs legalized are unmoral, they just have a different set of morals.

[QUOTE=Uberkitty;17108171]In my opinion, laws should only serve to protect people and establishments from each other. Legislators should not make laws prohibiting victimless crimes and crimes which only harm one's self. I believe that laws which criminalize victimless crimes restrict personal freedoms while exhausting the capacity of prisons. This is why blue laws, laws restricting gambling, and drug laws are complete bullshit. Laws should only be in place to protect people from direct harm, such as the loss of property or bodily harm. My point is this: If it harms no one or only harms one's self it should be fully legal.[/QUOTE] Gambling and suicide aren't totally victimless. Think of the families of those people. Would you like it if your dad gambled away all your college money or some shit? Or if he killed himself?

[QUOTE=Uberslug;17132169]Gambling and suicide aren't totally victimless. Think of the families of those people. Would you like it if your dad gambled away all your college money or some shit? Or if he killed himself?[/QUOTE] Emotial pain generally is forgotten after time. At first, it will hurt a lot if a father killed himself, but eventually, as time passes, the son or daughter would move on.

[QUOTE=Slasha00;17130339]All laws are at it's base moral. They are created (In the US) by us; the people. We made them because we feel it the morally right thing to do. Guess what? Many people consider protecting business and people are moral and rights. Without some kind of moral system that most humans develop there would be no laws because people wouldn't care.[/QUOTE] No. [editline]12:08AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Uberslug;17132169]Gambling and suicide aren't totally victimless. Think of the families of those people. Would you like it if your dad gambled away all your college money or some shit? Or if he killed himself?[/QUOTE] Emotional harm is no excuse to tell someone they can't do something. There is no line you can draw between emotional harm that is cause for illegality and emotional harm that will just need to be dealt with. It's his body and his money. If they don't like it they can get divorced. If a father blows all of a family's money away the family can divorce him and take him to civil court. There should be no criminal charges. No matter how severe a domestic issue is, unless a legitimate crime has been committed like assault, rape or fraud, the issue belongs in the civil court system.

[QUOTE=Uberslug;17132169]Gambling and suicide aren't totally victimless. Think of the families of those people. Would you like it if your dad gambled away all your college money or some shit? Or if he killed himself?[/QUOTE] It's not my college money. If he did, I'd say he's a fucking asshole and an idiot, but he's not infringing on my rights.

[QUOTE=Lankist;17132250]No. [/QUOTE] I'm afraid it isn't no. The only reason we choose to protect something is because we hold it valuable or sacred. Our morals govern that.

[QUOTE=Neolk;17132616]I'm afraid it isn't no. The only reason we choose to protect something is because we hold it valuable or sacred. Our morals govern that.[/QUOTE] I'm afraid it is no and I have explained it a dozen times over in this thread.

[QUOTE=Neolk;17132616]I'm afraid it isn't no. The only reason we choose to protect something is because we hold it valuable or sacred. Our morals govern that.[/QUOTE] Which is selfish, which isn't a moral. Thus, not morality, or morally based laws.

[QUOTE=Lankist;17132639]I'm afraid it is no and I have explained it a dozen times over in this thread.[/QUOTE] I'm afraid it is. Morals are what we hold valuable. To ask for less 'morals' on laws is in itself a moral, to have morals that you disagree with stricken from the laws is your own moral. [QUOTE=KingPurge;17132647]Which is selfish, which isn't a moral. Thus, not morality, or morally based laws.[/QUOTE] Different people can have different morals. Just because you hold selfishness to be back doesn't mean I don't consider it next to godly.

[QUOTE=Neolk;17132657]I'm afraid it is. Morals are what we hold valuable. To ask for less 'morals' on laws is in itself a moral, to have morals that you disagree with stricken from the laws is your own moral.[/QUOTE] Please read the thread. That is just downright wrong.

[QUOTE=Lankist;17132666]Please read the thread. That is just downright wrong.[/QUOTE] How is it wrong? Morals are the things that govern our lives are they not? What we consider what we should do, as to what we shouldn't.

[QUOTE=Neolk;17132657]I'm afraid it is. Morals are what we hold valuable. To ask for less 'morals' on laws is in itself a moral, to have morals that you disagree with stricken from the laws is your own moral. Different people can have different morals. Just because you hold selfishness to be back doesn't mean I don't consider it next to godly.[/QUOTE] No. Just because you missed out on explanations, or don't understand doesn't mean ignorance is the right view point.

[QUOTE=KingPurge;17132703]No. Just because you missed out on explanations, or don't understand doesn't mean ignorance is the right view point.[/QUOTE] It is only ignorance to -you- because it is the norm of morality. Different situations in history could have shaped our world completely different than ours. Some people find it morally wrong to abort a fetus, while others find it morally compelling that a mother should have control over her body. Is either point invalid? They both are, because they are both morals, morals that are conflicting.

[QUOTE=Neolk;17132730]Is either point invalid? They both are, because they are both morals, morals that are conflicting.[/QUOTE] No. There is no conflict here. You can't compel a woman to do something with her own body that she does not want that may cause her harm.

[QUOTE=Neolk;17132696]How is it wrong? Morals are the things that govern our lives are they not? What we consider what we should do, as to what we shouldn't.[/QUOTE] Law in first world countries is not based on morals, it is based on individual choice. Almost every law has to serve the sole purpose of ensuring an individual's ability to live their life as they see fit. i.e. you cannot murder someone because you are impeding their ability to live their own life in their own volition. The basis of almost all legitimate first world law and in any country that can be called a free country is that the individual can do ANYTHING, so long as they do not keep another individual from the same. [editline]12:52AM[/editline] The only moral laws we have in the US are holdovers from centuries ago. Laws the idiots aren't willing to accept as corrupt. Instead people try to rationalize them in the above criteria.

[QUOTE=Lankist;17132757]The only moral laws we have in the US are holdovers from centuries ago.[/QUOTE] Teenagers blowing each other? IT'S IMMORAL!

[QUOTE=Neolk;17132730]It is only ignorance to -you- because it is the norm of morality. Different situations in history could have shaped our world completely different than ours. Some people find it morally wrong to abort a fetus, while others find it morally compelling that a mother should have control over her body. Is either point invalid? They both are, because they are both morals, morals that are conflicting.[/QUOTE] Then you're just changing the word opinion to moral and calling it something else. Morals are supposed high grounds that everyone holds. This is why morality is not what laws are based on, nor are they true.