[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by Bloodeagle

I think you are drawing a distinction between responsible behavior and negative behavior specifically to make a point.

I am assuming in your hypothetical that the person involved lacks knowledge and training in hunting safety. Am I correct in that assumption?

If so, taking the safety course is still a neutral behavior under your standard. Implementing the lessons learned is positive behavior. I liken it to drunk driving. Driving drunk is, itself, neutral by your strict standard because not all drunk driving inevitably leads to MVA's that injure others. The negative behavior is drunk driving that causes an MVA that would otherwise not have occurred. In our current system, we punish drunk driving not because it always causes accidents but because it increases the chances of it causing an accident that could have been avoided. This is similar to taking the hunting safety course; without that knowledge and training, there is an increased likelihood of an accident while hunting.

My question of how you think the law would promote positive behavior (other than by punishing the opposite) is still pending.

You cannot find the distinction between a responsible action and an action that simply does not harm? I'm sorry, but I don't see how this is complicated.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by Umami

Morality cannot exist without the context of humanity, which is inherently ignorant.

That wouldnt make much sense if objective morals exist. From whatever we arise, so does morality; independent of our existence. If morals are purely subjective, your statement has merit.

[scienceguy]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

Is there objective value in transient things?

Probably not.

Not to mention that objective value is an oxymoron.

I personally believe that morality is an illusion and appears as a byproduct of analyzing choices.

If morality was universal, then we probably wouldn't need laws (and someone to enforce them) for large societies to function. This is Because we would already be able to expect the behavior of others to fit in with our behavior. If the morality was successful We'd be very efficient and computer like. Go Borg.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

So, to be clear, your argument is not that peer pressure is more effective than law, but that law is in itself ineffective? Also, how can you conclude that the "healthy spirits" of non-compulsive law always outweigh the improve spirits gained from a properly behaved society?

No. My argument is:

Peer pressure is more effective than law at affecting behavior. Allowing cultural institutions to regulate behavior offers agency or an illusion of agency. We are social creatures; shame, guilt, isolation, identity, acceptance and status are all greater motivators than the threat of punitive recourse.

Ex. It is the difference between a father teaching his son how to hunt and properly handle his rifle because it is tradition(state of being to be striven for) and a father buying his son a rifle, shoving him through a class to get a license calling it good enough, since it's the law.

We've all been on the roads, licensed drivers are not guaranteed to drive responsibly at all.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by scienceguy

Not to mention that objective value is an oxymoron.

I personally believe that morality is an illusion and appears as a byproduct of analyzing choices.

If we can agree that there is no such thing as an evil action, only evil minds, then I will agree with this.

Originally Posted by scienceguy

If morality was universal, then we probably wouldn't need laws (and someone to enforce them) for large societies to function. This is Because we would already be able to expect the behavior of others to fit in with our behavior. If the morality was successful We'd be very efficient and computer like. Go Borg.

The kicker is, morality is a code and submission is a choice. For example, the cardinal sin for a narcissist is hypocrisy. Yet, the narcissist only feels shame for hypocrisy, never guilt. This is because they are constantly amending their morality. It isn't that they are at any point ignorant of their codes. I suspect, even if objective morality was discovered this particular case would not disappear.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

No. My argument is:

Peer pressure is more effective than law at affecting behavior. Allowing cultural institutions to regulate behavior offers agency or an illusion of agency. We are social creatures; shame, guilt, isolation, identity, acceptance and status are all greater motivators than the threat of punitive recourse.

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

1) Why must they be mutually exclusive?

Now we are just going in circles.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

Now we are just going in circles.

Why do you need multiple institutions to serve the same function? Especially when one of them is lackluster? Unless you enjoy getting fisted by the iron hand of beaurocracy? However you spell that silly thing.

Look, I'm trying to offer you a better car for the same price. Just take the ****ing deal.

[scienceguy]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

Why do you need multiple institutions to serve the same function? Especially when one of them is lackluster? Unless you enjoy getting fisted by the iron hand of beaurocracy? However you spell that silly thing.

Look, I'm trying to offer you a better car for the same price. Just take the ****ing deal.

In large population highly mobile societies, laws are more effective than morality and peer pressure. There is no peer pressure to influence someone that you will never see again. If we all lived in low population low mobility villages then laws probably wouldn't exist. In those systems the old teach the young the rules of their life and disputes are settled by committee. Jerks are dealt with quickly.

Want to see the fruits of a large population lawless society visit Haiti. The minute you get off the plane you can tell why the place is a disaster. It's a very sad place. They have morals, but it's so disorganized that nothing works.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

Why do you need multiple institutions to serve the same function?

The family is an institution that functions to educate (among other things). Our school system is an institution that functions to educate. The internet can be an institution that functions to educate (think wiki). Libraries are an institution that function to educate.

If our school system is the most effective institution should we get rid of libraries?

Your point also ignores the fact that not every person is the same. Sure, the school system is probably the best for most, but what about those that learn better through their own study (in which libraries or internet is more effective)? Should we not appeal to their needs to due to mean needs of the majority? By that logic, maybe peer pressure is best for most, but certainly not all. Why should we abandon them to a less effective form of promoting positive behavior simply because the majority of people work that way?

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

Look, I'm trying to offer you a better car for the same price. Just take the ****ing deal.

If the deal is either a "good car" or "a good car and an okay car", I'll take both the good car and the okay car, please.

Originally Posted by scienceguy

In large population highly mobile societies, laws are more effective than morality and peer pressure. There is no peer pressure to influence someone that you will never see again. If we all lived in low population low mobility villages then laws probably wouldn't exist. In those systems the old teach the young the rules of their life and disputes are settled by committee. Jerks are dealt with quickly.

Want to see the fruits of a large population lawless society visit Haiti. The minute you get off the plane you can tell why the place is a disaster. It's a very sad place. They have morals, but it's so disorganized that nothing works.

I have been accepting his premise as true for the most part (except pointing out the flaw that majority=/= all), but to be frank I am skeptical as well. I have just opted to question the validity before the soundness, so to speak.

[StellarKnight]

Originally Posted by Treghc

There are absolute morals we know to be true. I commonly give out the story of a society that deems its citizens morally obligated to kill every new born child. Pretty soon, this society will cease to exist.

If this is the line of reasoning you use to deduce objective moral standards, then homosexuality would be absolutely immoral. On in the inverse, it wouldn't be absolutely immoral to summarily execute anyone over the age of 65.

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

No. My argument is:

Peer pressure is more effective than law at affecting behavior. Allowing cultural institutions to regulate behavior offers agency or an illusion of agency. We are social creatures; shame, guilt, isolation, identity, acceptance and status are all greater motivators than the threat of punitive recourse.

The problem is that in a liberalized society, these are not manifest uniformly throughout. In a lot of ways, law is an attempt to bridge the gaps between the individual segments of society, which is probably why we see "law" expanding into different realms as multiculturalism becomes more prolific (in our country, at least). It's worth noting, however, that law has shouldered different roles throughout history; we're no longer in an era where natural law is believed to be a foundation, and our use of the law is different because of it.

[Treghc]

Originally Posted by StellarKnight

If this is the line of reasoning you use to deduce objective moral standards, then homosexuality would be absolutely immoral. On in the inverse, it wouldn't be absolutely immoral to summarily execute anyone over the age of 65.

I wouldn't place homosexuality as immoral simply because it causes no harm to anyone. Killing someone just so happens to cause harm to that person. It also most likely not the choice of the one being killed to actually be killed; it is almost always against their will. Homosexuality doesn't cause any of these problems, so it is hard to place it as being immoral.

And I'm with the idea that as soon as I become a burden to society rather than a contributory member of it, I have to no reason to stick around anymore. Setting and age limit for death is stupid, but I do think one should have the choice to end their life comfortably, should they choose.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by Treghc

I wouldn't place homosexuality as immoral simply because it causes no harm to anyone. Killing someone just so happens to cause harm to that person. It also most likely not the choice of the one being killed to actually be killed; it is almost always against their will. Homosexuality doesn't cause any of these problems, so it is hard to place it as being immoral.

He was implicitly referencing to universalized maxim of Kant's categorical imperative (with or without knowing it). You claim that killing all the babies is immoral because then society would cease to exist. Society wouldn't cease to exist if a single baby were killed. But you cooked in the notion that for an action to be moral when one person does it once, it must be moral every person were to do it all the time. By that notion, homosexuality would be immoral as well (because if everyone were always homosexual our society would also cease to exist.

[Tuff]

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/20...r giii_s_knee

lol racism

[TheSilentAssassin]

lol rush limbaugh

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by StellarKnight

The problem is that in a liberalized society, these are not manifest uniformly throughout. In a lot of ways, law is an attempt to bridge the gaps between the individual segments of society, which is probably why we see "law" expanding into different realms as multiculturalism becomes more prolific (in our country, at least). It's worth noting, however, that law has shouldered different roles throughout history; we're no longer in an era where natural law is believed to be a foundation, and our use of the law is different because of it.

Correct. This is the big elephant in the room. Diverse populations are highly likely to be atomized, requiring more law to reign em' all in. Though I seriously question the effectiveness of it.

You are correct. Classical law, is much different than law in our time. If this thread is about "should be" not "what is" then I hold to everything I've advocated so far.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

The family is an institution that functions to educate (among other things). Our school system is an institution that functions to educate. The internet can be an institution that functions to educate (think wiki). Libraries are an institution that function to educate.

If our school system is the most effective institution should we get rid of libraries?

Your point also ignores the fact that not every person is the same. Sure, the school system is probably the best for most, but what about those that learn better through their own study (in which libraries or internet is more effective)? Should we not appeal to their needs to due to mean needs of the majority? By that logic, maybe peer pressure is best for most, but certainly not all. Why should we abandon them to a less effective form of promoting positive behavior simply because the majority of people work that way?


If the deal is either a "good car" or "a good car and an okay car", I'll take both the good car and the okay car, please.



I have been accepting his premise as true for the most part (except pointing out the flaw that majority=/= all), but to be frank I am skeptical as well. I have just opted to question the validity before the soundness, so to speak.

I think the library and the internet are resources in the way of tools. The university or the school is capable of providing a service that many parents would be unable to. It all depends, farmers raising farmers don't need the university or school system for much of anything. Aeronautical engineer mom and brain surgeon dad raising a child to follow down their path will need to make use of the full education system.

Going back to behavior, law should serve one purpose. Justice. Cultural institutions suck at dealing with justice. Everything else ought to be matters of order structure and operation.

I've only ever been concerned with the majority. I have come to understand that there will always be a minority population who disagrees or is different and the only logical way for them to live is to put up and shut up.

[Treghc]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

He was implicitly referencing to universalized maxim of Kant's categorical imperative (with or without knowing it). You claim that killing all the babies is immoral because then society would cease to exist. Society wouldn't cease to exist if a single baby were killed. But you cooked in the notion that for an action to be moral when one person does it once, it must be moral every person were to do it all the time. By that notion, homosexuality would be immoral as well (because if everyone were always homosexual our society would also cease to exist.

If every single person were to be homosexual by choice within a society, sure... it'd be an immoral decision. Remember that morals are decided by one's decision. Homosexuality is not a choice. I get what's being said, but I don't think it counteractive to my argument. I gave out a theoretical that will probably never happen within a society, but it was done to give a point about moral realism more so than any stances one might take on specific moral decisions.

[TheSilentAssassin]

I'm just playing devils advocate at this point:

Originally Posted by Treghc

If every single person were to be homosexual by choice within a society, sure... it'd be an immoral decision. Remember that morals are decided by one's decision.

I think we are just working with different interpretations of morality. For me, the notion of "personal morality" simply isn't morality. Morality must be universal by definitions. (This may be a difference between theologians/pre-modern philosophy and modern moral relativism psuedo-philosophy)

I'm staying in the realm of Kant for now.
http://www.trinity.edu/cbrown/intro/kant_ethics.html

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

I think the library and the internet are resources in the way of tools. The university or the school is capable of providing a service that many parents would be unable to. It all depends, farmers raising farmers don't need the university or school system for much of anything. Aeronautical engineer mom and brain surgeon dad raising a child to follow down their path will need to make use of the full education system.

So why do a variety of tools and institutions work for education but not for promoting proper behavior? Why must promoting proper behavior come from only one source?

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

Going back to behavior, law should serve one purpose. Justice. Cultural institutions suck at dealing with justice. Everything else ought to be matters of order structure and operation.

WHY? Why should law serve only the purpose of justice? Your claim that because culture is better than law we should only do culture is like saying that since Kobe is the best shooter on the Lakers no one else should ever shoot the ball. Or to bring back your analogy, I'd rather get a free good car and an okay car then just a good car.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

So why do a variety of tools and institutions work for education but not for promoting proper behavior? Why must promoting proper behavior come from only one source?

It doesn't have to. To be honest I don't know why I asked the other day "why do you need multiple institutions to serve the same function." I'd rather drop it since in the beginning I listed multiple institutions that are well suited to regulate behavior. Sorry for the run around.

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

WHY? Why should law serve only the purpose of justice? Your claim that because culture is better than law we should only do culture is like saying that since Kobe is the best shooter on the Lakers no one else should ever shoot the ball. Or to bring back your analogy, I'd rather get a free good car and an okay car then just a good car.

Law should only deal with justice in so far as behavior is concerned because it fairs poorly in any other avenue aside from justice. That is my position. I've already said enough on why I believe it fairs poor doing any more than justice.

By the way I never offered you a two for one deal on the car.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

By the way I never offered you a two for one deal on the car.

That is the situation we have, is it not? Law and culture are not mutually exclusive. Either I can have the good car (culture) or the good car and the okay car (culture and law). Law and culture are not mutually exclusive. Your argument has shifted from "law is less effective than culture" to "law is ineffective" and back repeatedly. This is what I am trying to break down. If you want to condemn law on it's own merits, then do that, but because law and culture are not mutually exclusive condemning law based on the superior merits of culture is illogical.

Which leads us to this:

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

It doesn't have to. To be honest I don't know why I asked the other day "why do you need multiple institutions to serve the same function." I'd rather drop it since in the beginning I listed multiple institutions that are well suited to regulate behavior. Sorry for the run around.

--

This is where you argument should have begun and stayed. The rest about it being less effective than culture is fallacious.

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

Law should only deal with justice in so far as behavior is concerned because it fairs poorly in any other avenue aside from justice. That is my position. I've already said enough on why I believe it fairs poor doing any more than justice.

Before we can go any farther, we must get into what justice means, but only if you are willing to go down this route. Justice can be a tricky concept. So, if you would like, what is justice and how should law pertain to it.