Laws shouldn't be based on morality - General

[QUOTE=KingPurge;17134090]>.< My morals don't tell me a belief in something is wrong, my logic and reasoning tell me that, which then alters my morals to agree with that. Morality in general is bad, follow logic and reason, and la-de-fucking-da, you have good answers.[/QUOTE] I'm saying your ability to have 'logic' and reason come from your morals. "Calculating losses" means you calculate what matters to you, your morals govern what matters to you. You decide to kill 10 to save 100 perhaps, other morals would say sacrificing those 10 is a terrible crime, and all should go down with the ship or all should be saved. The choice you make depends on your morals in that situation. Look up 'deantology' and 'utilitarianism'.

[QUOTE=Neolk;17134114]He attributes those things to believing in god, so he says believing in god is immoral also [url]http://www.thedigitalpinoy.org/thread/10/5191/1[/url] They are talking about atheism as being immoral, A belief. Eat your fucking fingers.[/QUOTE] Also, atheism isn't a belief. It's the lack of a belief. [editline]11:48PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Neolk;17134144]I'm saying your ability to have 'logic' and reason come from your morals. "Calculating losses" means you calculate what matters to you, your morals govern what matters to you. You decide to kill 10 to save 100 perhaps, other morals would say sacrificing those 10 is a terrible crime, and all should go down with the ship or all should be saved. The choice you make depends on your morals in that situation. Look up 'deantology' and 'utilitarianism'.[/QUOTE] Both of those isms are fucking horse shit.

[QUOTE=KingPurge;17134145]Also, atheism isn't a belief. It's the lack of a belief.[/QUOTE] "Atheism is the position that deities do not exist, or the rejection of theism. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence......" It is a position, a position is a belief.

[QUOTE=Neolk;17134156]"Atheism is the position that deities do not exist, or the rejection of theism. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence......" It is a position, a position is a belief.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure me 69'ing your mom isn't a belief. It's a cold hard fact.

[QUOTE=KingPurge;17134145] Both of those isms are fucking horse shit.[/QUOTE] You didn't look em up, you just said they are horeshit. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism[/url] [editline]01:50AM[/editline] [QUOTE=KingPurge;17134163]I'm pretty sure me 69'ing your mom isn't a belief. It's a cold hard fact.[/QUOTE] Position as in a stance.

[QUOTE=Neolk;17134167]You didn't look em up, you just said they are horeshit. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism[/url][/QUOTE] I didn't need to look them up, I already knew about them. Durr.

This thread just went overboard derailing killing 30 users 1 mod and a goldmember. The FPBNSF is looking into this. Really though why does this stuff always happen on facepunch?

Anyways, You can't lose because you believe with faith, and faith is the position of the unmoveable. When you mature, give that up, cause it's not going to get you anywhere.

[QUOTE=Neolk;17134114]He attributes those things to believing in god, so he says believing in god is immoral also [url]http://www.thedigitalpinoy.org/thread/10/5191/1[/url] They are talking about atheism as being immoral, A belief. Eat your fucking fingers.[/QUOTE] Read the words I'm showing you. He's saying that it does not matter whether God exists or not, God is not a factor that matters. It's the idea that doing stupid things hurts people. God, having no evidence, is a stupid idea. But it's not that idea itself that is immoral, its' the idea that by believing in that idea you could encourage other people to believe in harmful things. So if someone believed in a deistic God that effects nothing and he never talked about it except for people who wouldn't be influenced by him, then it wouldn't be a bad thing, and therefor belief in God isn't an immoral thing by his own standards except under certain circumstances where the problem isn't the belief itself but the touting of said belief. Geddit? I already explained that, get your eyes out of your urethra and read something for once.

[QUOTE=Mr. Mcguffin;17134192]Read the words I'm showing you. He's saying that it does not matter whether God exists or not, God is not a factor that matters. It's the idea that doing stupid things hurts people. God, having no evidence, is a stupid idea. But it's not that idea itself that is immoral, its' the idea that by believing in that idea you could encourage other people to believe in harmful things. So if someone believed in a deistic God that effects nothing and he never talked about it except for people who wouldn't be influenced by him, then it wouldn't be a bad thing, and therefor belief in God isn't an immoral thing by his own standards except under certain circumstances where the problem isn't the belief itself but the touting of said belief. Geddit? I already explained that, get your eyes out of your urethra and read something for once.[/QUOTE] Stop reading the article to find a way out of eating your fingers and read the FUCKING ARTICLE. He is talking about how god is a justification for terrible things, and THUS god is as immoral as the things that come out of it.

[QUOTE=Neolk;17134144]I'm saying your ability to have 'logic' and reason come from your morals. "Calculating losses" means you calculate what matters to you, your morals govern what matters to you. You decide to kill 10 to save 100 perhaps, other morals would say sacrificing those 10 is a terrible crime, and all should go down with the ship or all should be saved. The choice you make depends on your morals in that situation. Look up 'deantology' and 'utilitarianism'.[/QUOTE] No, one is logical choice. "Less dead people is better than more dead people." The other is an irrational emotion based choice. "I'll never kill a soul, not even to save a hundred fold more lives!" Once calculates nothing and is based on feeling, the other is based on fact and is objectively the best option as long as you make the assumption that human life is worth saving at all, which I'm sure both parties make.

[QUOTE=Mr. Mcguffin;17134231]No, one is logical choice. "Less dead people is better than more dead people." The other is an irrational emotion based choice. "I'll never kill a soul, not even to save a hundred fold more lives!" Once calculates nothing and is based on feeling, the other is based on fact and is objectively the best option as long as you make the assumption that human life is worth saving at all, which I'm sure both parties make.[/QUOTE] You only feel it is good to save people because of your morals though, which is what daentology is about. Like, death is bad because our morals say it is bad.

[QUOTE=Neolk;17134218]Stop reading the article to find a way out of eating your fingers and read the FUCKING ARTICLE. He is talking about how god is a justification for terrible things, and THUS god is as immoral as the things that come out of it.[/QUOTE] Hardly. That applies under what I said. He's not complaining about God really, he's complaining about what people do with the idea of God. He might make the argument that stopping belief in God would stop the justifications, but he wouldn't stop all belief in God simply because it's belief in God. He would stop it because he would want to stop the justifications. [editline]07:00AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Neolk;17134251]You only feel it is good to save people because of your morals though, which is what daentology is about. Like, death is bad because our morals say it is bad.[/QUOTE] I feel it is good to save people, but at the same time saving people as measurable benefits both mentally and physically(as in any form of reciprocation gained by saving them). Your thinking is too limited, you forget to factor in human psychology. How is the feeling brought on by selfless acts any less of a benefit than that brought on by material goods? [editline]07:01AM[/editline] I think your problem is that you focus too much on what people say about what they think rather than on what people say they think. Not surprising seeing as how you actually believe in objectivity even when you say you don't. [editline]07:03AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Neolk;17134251]Like, death is bad because our morals say it is bad.[/QUOTE] Death is bad because we have a strong survival instinct. However, many morals can be categorized as instinct. Such as the moral to save people from death.

I think laws should protect individuals from hurting each other and themselves, whether or not they are based on morals.

[QUOTE=veaguy;17134384]I think laws should protect individuals from hurting each other and themselves, whether or not they are based on morals.[/QUOTE] No power tools for you then.

[QUOTE=veaguy;17134384]I think laws should protect individuals from hurting each other and themselves, whether or not they are based on morals.[/QUOTE] We should just lock people in padded cells from birth then.

I agree with the OP. They shouldn't control our lives that much as they do now

[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] Oh fucking hell. Not this shit again. How many times does it have to be explained? All those laws preventing you from doing stuff you think is only going to harm you, isn't for your sake, it's because by harming yourself with those things, such as gambling, drugs, and other such activities, you indirectly harm others. Gambling puts people into debt, people in heavy debt will often resort to crime to survive. Druggies have a habit of resorting to crime to support their habits, heroin and crack addicts are notorious for this. This is almost as stupid as that "I shouldn't have to wear a seatbelt" thread. By the way, the thread title is fucking [B]stupid[/B]. If laws weren't based on morality there wouldn't be any laws at all. Good Job. [QUOTE=Juoniva;17136923]I agree with the OP. They shouldn't control our lives that much as they do now[/QUOTE] Like you have any idea. You sorely estimate just how much fucking freedom and care we have in our sheltered western societies. Control? You think that we have an oppressive government hell bent on having domineering control of every facet of our lives? Bullshit. Do some friggin research on the USSR if you want an idea of "control" and how well that went. You obviously have a very narrow understanding of the world if you think that your life is "controlled". Though I should have expected as much from someone with rise against as their avatar...

I think neolk is a misguided fallibilist. That or a complete idiot.

[QUOTE=professional;17137016]Words[/QUOTE] Would you like to read the thread? [editline]12:33PM[/editline] You have a narrow understanding of the world if you think law = morality.

Very circular argument going on here.

How the shit did this thread get 27 pages of text?

[QUOTE=Xaphania;17140002]How the shit did this thread get 27 pages of text?[/QUOTE] Teens who think they know more than the people who write the laws.

[QUOTE=Lankist;17139692]Would you like to read the thread? [editline]12:33PM[/editline] You have a narrow understanding of the world if you think law = morality.[/QUOTE] Morality: concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct Most laws, are either directly, or indirectly based off Morality. It's not like the OP is complaining about having to pay taxes or being forced by law to vote. He's complaining that he shouldn't have to put up with the laws that are based on morality. Problem here is, the only laws that matter, when shit hits the fan big time, are the ones that ARE based on morality.

[QUOTE=professional;17140128]Morality: concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct Most laws, are either directly, or indirectly based off Morality. It's not like the OP is complaining about having to pay taxes or being forced by law to vote. He's complaining that he shouldn't have to put up with the laws that are based on morality. Problem here is, the only laws that matter, when shit hits the fan big time, are the ones that ARE based on morality.[/QUOTE] Except no. I've explained this dozens of times, and then people like you come in with no intention to check whether or not your dumb argument has been brought up already and/or rebuked by an expert. Read the thread.

[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] When people do drugs; do they not hurt other people by choosing to drive while intoxicated?

[QUOTE=Segui25;17140829]When people do drugs; do they not hurt other people by choosing to drive while intoxicated?[/QUOTE] Driving while intoxicated IS ILLEGAL.

[QUOTE=Segui25;17140829]When people do drugs; do they not hurt other people by choosing to drive while intoxicated?[/QUOTE] Driving while high/drunk is already illegal. If that's justification for contraband why not ban booze, cough syrup and prescription narcotics?

[QUOTE=Lankist;17140867]Driving while high/drunk is already illegal. If that's justification for contraband why not ban booze, cough syrup and prescription narcotics?[/QUOTE] Why shouldn't we ban booze and cough syrup, they can be abused you know. [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;17140854]Driving while intoxicated IS ILLEGAL.[/QUOTE] It shouldn't be though.

[QUOTE=Oecleus;17141578]It shouldn't be though.[/QUOTE] And why is that? [editline]02:28PM[/editline] It's a form of reckless endangerment, a serious criminal offense.