What do you think is the relationship between morality and law?
Is it ever moral to break the law or if one disagrees with the law should one simply try to change it?
Does the legality of an action have any bearing on its morality?
Just curious as to what people think about this..

I think this: Humans use laws to satisfy society's moral requirements and to maintain authority to make determinations as to said requirements.

Morality is used by a group of people to try to ensure the safety of the individual from every other individual.

Law does that but it has another calling. It has the supreme obligation of maintaining the society, the way of life.

well its against the law to asult or kill but its moraly wrong to watch a girl get raped and do nothing

its against the law to speed but if ur trying to get to a hospital to save someones life that is right

this should be in ethics

Originally posted by Asguard
well its against the law to asult or kill but its moraly wrong to watch a girl get raped and do nothing

its against the law to speed but if ur trying to get to a hospital to save someones life that is right

this should be in ethics

Ya think? I mean, I think it's fair to establish the link between morality and law outside of ethics. Ethics certainly comes into play but that wasn't the question. So are you saying the two can't be related without discussing ethics? If so, is my assessment wrong? I believe it to accurately describe the relationship of course. Set me straight if I'm way off.

In retrospect, this should have been under "Ethics, Morality, and Justice"
Can it be moved?

"Does the legality of an action have any bearing on its morality?"

To some people yes, to others - no. Simply put, morals are a representation of our surroundings and the ideas put into our heads at a young age. If one grows up in a family where it is dead wrong to break any law in any which way and never experiences a human being who does break laws carelessly, one will likely share the morals that it is "right" to follow the law.


"I think this: Humans use laws to satisfy society's moral requirements and to maintain authority to make determinations as to said requirements."

Yes, in large part, I would agree. Abortion is an excellent example of this. "Murder is wrong!" is a common excuse to put abortion as illegal. The fact is, morals are subjective. So who the fuck cares if you think murder is wrong? Laws should never, ever be based on something subjective as morals.

Laws should never, ever be based on something subjective as morals.

Then what should we base them on? When it comes down to it, all laws were created from some type of morality issue.

Star:

Good point. I would say that law should be based on the (objective) greatest good for the greatest number, with specific protections for the individual - but this is a moral judgement too.

I think. Saying that a law should or should not serve a function means that you value that function....

"Then what should we base them on?"

What is in the best interest of a society. Example which will cause little debate between us: pot. Is it immoral to smoke drugs? To many people, yes. Is it beneficial to legalize it? Yup.


"When it comes down to it, all laws were created from some type of morality issue"

And Socrates was put to death. Just because history showed it happen or because our society did it doesn't mean it's a good idea. Actually, I like a quote from George Carlin to back me up here; "Whenever I find that the large majority of Americans agree with me on something, I re-evaluate my opinion". Star, people have never thought things through. People have never much cared about politics. Or logic. And so our societies' developements reflect this.

Ah, but Xev, there is a distinct difference.
You see, when we say laws are based on morals we are saying "choose a law based on a completely subjective topic". Even if I were to say basing laws on best interest of society was a moral issue, it greatly confines the level of subjectivity within the debate.


Oh, plus:

"Moral; Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character"

Mine has nothing to do with judging goodness or badness of human action or character. It has to do with what is in the best interest of all...

Perhaps what you meant to say was; "this too is subjective".

the law is a work in progress, constantly revaulated and revised as befitting the times

What is in the best interest of a society.

Who decides what is in the best interest of a nation?

Mine has nothing to do with judging goodness or badness of human action or character. It has to do with what is in the best interest of all...

This is a contradictory statement. How do you decide what is in the best interest without using your morals?

Tyler:
Ah, but Xev, there is a distinct difference.
You see, when we say laws are based on morals we are saying "choose a law based on a completely subjective topic". Even if I were to say basing laws on best interest of society was a moral issue, it greatly confines the level of subjectivity within the debate.

That is true. And basing a law on the best interests of society presumably makes that society last longer, which is a fairly objective moral - or at least one that makes sense.

I, however, am not making sense. I think you are right, however, I'm interested in how you respond to Star's objection.

Perhaps what you meant to say was; "this too is subjective".

It would have been closer towhat I meant.

"Who decides what is in the best interest of a nation?"

In the best possible situation? The people of the nation. Closer to reality? The leaders elected by them. Keep in mind, Star, this is not at all how society is run. This is how I wish it was run.


"This is a contradictory statement. How do you decide what is in the best interest without using your morals?"

And that was a ridiculous statement, Star. Morals are what is "right" and "wrong". Now, if you believe morals are objective we can end the arguement right now with me calling you a moron and you calling me arrogant. However, if you agree that they are subjective, you can surely see how what is in the best interest of society has nothing to do with morals.

It is in the best interest of society to legalize pot. Why? It would keep money out of criminals (which are a detriment to society and the economy). It would free up police time to take care of serious problems (which is good for society, I hope you agree). You will note that in neither of the two statements did I say anything relating to morals. Both statements may be (I say may because in other debates such as abortion or gun control which are more tight there is more room for it to be...) easily debatable - however, neither is related to morals.

"That is true. And basing a law on the best interests of society presumably makes that society last longer, which is a fairly objective moral - or at least one that makes sense."

At least a fairly natural one, I believe. Perhaps the natural tendency of humans is to kill our species off, but I doubt it!


"I, however, am not making sense. I think you are right, however, I'm interested in how you respond to Star's objection."

It's simple, really. Whenever having a debate never utter the words "this is wrong(in a moral/ethical sense)" or "this is right(yadda yadda...)". Simply argue what would better benefit society's existence and progress.

Tyler:
At least a fairly natural one, I believe. Perhaps the natural tendency of humans is to kill our species off, but I doubt it!

Exactly.

It's simple, really. Whenever having a debate never utter the words "this is wrong(in a moral/ethical sense)" or "this is right(yadda yadda...)". Simply argue what would better benefit society's existence and progress.

I like that rule.

In the best possible situation? The people of the nation. Closer to reality? The leaders elected by them. Keep in mind, Star, this is not at all how society is run. This is how I wish it was run.

And your assuming that "the people" of a nation are not going to used their own morals in deciding what is right or wrong for themselves and their families?

And that was a ridiculous statement, Star.

Why, because it doesnt agree with what you feel is right?

Morals are what is "right" and "wrong". Now, if you believe morals are objective we can end the arguement right now with me calling you a moron and you calling me arrogant. However, if you agree that they are subjective, you can surely see how what is in the best interest of society has nothing to do with morals.

I must be stoned but this doesnt make sense to me. And Im not trying to argue or start a fight, but the latter of the statement is what is confusing me. How can it be in the best interest, if not pertaining to whats in the best interest of individuals, as well as a society as a whole?

Simply argue what would better benefit society's existence and progress.

You cant do that without bringing up past issues and why or why not they work/ed. I dont see how a society can flourish without the use of morality intwined with the passing of laws. In some aspects, like legalization of pot, yes - leave out morals. But most laws are not cut and dry like the pot issue. Most laws are there to protect people from other people. If not using morality to compare what is right and wrong, there is nothing and noone to say that it is right or wrong. You cant just say, "thats bad". There has to be a reason that something is deemed bad, and your morals are what tells you if it is good or bad.

"And your assuming that "the people" of a nation are not going to used their own morals in deciding what is right or wrong for themselves and their families?"

Haha, no. Sadly, I am well aware of the fact that people will never be intelligent enough as a whole to dismiss morals and ethics.


"Why, because it doesnt agree with what you feel is right?"

No, because it has no logical connection.


"I must be stoned but this doesnt make sense to me. And Im not trying to argue or start a fight, but the latter of the statement is what is confusing me."

Ay, that's because I meant to say "if you think morals are subjective....". My bad, apologize through and through.


"How can it be in the best interest, if not pertaining to whats in the best interest of individuals, as well as a society as a whole?"

How does what's in the best interest of the individual have anything to do with morals? Star, keep in mind I am explaining how I believe society and government should function. I highly doubt humans, however, are capable of functioning this way.


"You cant do that without bringing up past issues and why or why not they work/ed. I dont see how a society can flourish without the use of morality intwined with the passing of laws."

Morals are subjective. They're useless and stupid. They are simply the bias we carry in our minds because of our parents and early childhood environment.


"But most laws are not cut and dry like the pot issue. Most laws are there to protect people from other people. If not using morality to compare what is right and wrong, there is nothing and noone to say that it is right or wrong. You cant just say, "thats bad". There has to be a reason that something is deemed bad, and your morals are what tells you if it is good or bad"

Star, you don't seem to be getting your head around one simple idea - I don't care what is bad or good. I couldn't give a flying fuck if murder is "wrong". It should be illegal for one very good reason - it is a detriment to society to have murder legal. That's one example. Give me any other law you think is not "cut and dry" and I'll tell you, based on my preffered system, why I think it should be illegal or legal.

This system I describe, Star, does not rely at all on "right and wrong". Do you know why? Because those ideas are 100% subjective. They have no validity in real life. In fact, I'd say morals in today's society have been nothing but a detriment. Morals are like organized religion - they're here to keep the helots from acting like idiots.

Originally posted by Tyler
"Does the legality of an action have any bearing on its morality?"

To some people yes, to others - no. Simply put, morals are a representation of our surroundings and the ideas put into our heads at a young age. If one grows up in a family where it is dead wrong to break any law in any which way and never experiences a human being who does break laws carelessly, one will likely share the morals that it is "right" to follow the law.


"I think this: Humans use laws to satisfy society's moral requirements and to maintain authority to make determinations as to said requirements."

Yes, in large part, I would agree. Abortion is an excellent example of this. "Murder is wrong!" is a common excuse to put abortion as illegal. The fact is, morals are subjective. So who the fuck cares if you think murder is wrong? Laws should never, ever be based on something subjective as morals.

shoulda woulda coulda doesn't matter. You're right, but sadly... you've got your eyes closed. It's just that well, for instance religions and political groups lump morals into clumps of the populace. It's a VERY dynamic distribution of attitudes and immpressionability mixed withed the ability of the groups to effectively communicate their moral message. Toss in the independent freaky people (like the majority on sciforums) and shazzam, there's a semblance of moral objectivity (which is really just an illusion, but an effective one). once you've got the moral message delivered it's up the the folks to elect officials whom sympathize with their moral demands. They then create laws which are based on the aggregate of the pressure applied to them by the beforementioned groups (who can claim the volume of the populace they represent as a bargaining chip). dig? you know, but that's just my take.

okay, I guess that was just western culture (US in particular I spoze) but doesn't it mostly apply to other cultures to? Just at different scales? I'd think the dynamic quite simalar. Hmm, I guess not neccessarily if the people think completely differently. *shrug*

Tyler,

I totally agree with all the other people here who say you have your eyes closed. Whenever anybody makes a statement like "Murder is wrong" or "Drugs should be legalised" they are ultimately basing that statement on a moral judgment. That goes for you as much as anybody and is clear from your posts.

You obviously have a limited understanding of what morality and ethics is. You clearly use a moral system, but at the same time deny that you are using one. The fact is that as soon as you start saying that people <b>should</b> act in a certain way, you are making a moral judgment.

With this in mind, let's review what you've said.

<i>Haha, no. Sadly, I am well aware of the fact that people will never be intelligent enough as a whole to dismiss morals and ethics.</i>

I hope that never happens. A world with no ethics would be total anarchy.

<i>Morals are subjective. They're useless and stupid. They are simply the bias we carry in our minds because of our parents and early childhood environment.</i>

No. Moral systems are what guides every person's actions most of the time. If you consistently act in a particular way, and you can give a reason for your actions, you are acting according to a moral system, whether you call it that or not. If you can't give reasons for the way you act, then you're acting randomly and you're probably mentally unbalanced.

<i>Star, you don't seem to be getting your head around one simple idea - I don't care what is bad or good. I couldn't give a flying fuck if murder is "wrong". It should be illegal for one very good reason - it is a detriment to society to have murder legal.</i>

You contradict yourself. You are implicitly arguing here that murder is wrong <b>because</b> it is detrimental to society. This is actually a form of utilitarian reasoning. If you really had no system of morals, you would have no reason for prohibiting murder. In the case of murder, you have already gone through a mental process of weighing up things like the right of individuals to act as they please against the value of having an ordered society. In this case, you have made a moral decision that the needs of the society outweigh the rights of the individual to kill. That is a moral judgment. The fact that it is guided by outcomes does not diminish that fact. You have just chosen a moral system which says that outcomes are important. (There are other possibilities.)

<i>That's one example. Give me any other law you think is not "cut and dry" and I'll tell you, based on my preffered system, why I think it should be illegal or legal.</i>

Your preferred system of what? If you really have no morals, what is this system you refer to?

<i>This system I describe, Star, does not rely at all on "right and wrong". Do you know why? Because those ideas are 100% subjective. They have no validity in real life. In fact, I'd say morals in today's society have been nothing but a detriment. Morals are like organized religion - they're here to keep the helots from acting like idiots.</i>

Morality is not "100% subjective". If that were true, you could never argue that a particular action was wrong or right. What was right for the individual would be right for all. In fact, every good moral argument can be backed up by sound reasoning. A good moral argument is always <b>logically defensible</b>.

<i>It is in the best interest of society to legalize pot. Why? It would keep money out of criminals (which are a detriment to society and the economy). It would free up police time to take care of serious problems (which is good for society, I hope you agree). You will note that in neither of the two statements did I say anything relating to morals.</i>

You imply that society's interests should be paramount in a consideration of this question. You then weigh up the possible benefits of legalisation in terms of net good for the greatest number of people, and make a moral decision based on that.

The thing is: you think that "society and the economy" are worthy institutions, and you base your argument on that. In fact, I can use the same basis to argue that pot should NOT be legalised. To do so would lead to a "pot industry" like the tabacco industry, which would ultimately be detrimental to society.

On the other hand, I might argue that it is better to take the decision as to whether to smoke pot out of the individual's hands. Experts are much better judges of what is best for people's health than they themselves are. The experts say smoking pot is bad for your health (or at least not good for it), so we should not legalise. This argument gives even greater weight to the interests of society, but at the detriment of individual rights.

Another option is to say that the government should have the right to make any laws it likes. Who cares about "society"? You voted the government in. They know what's best. Therefore it is right that pot is illegal.

My point is that however you argue it, moral judgments have to be made. As soon as you talk about rights or interests, the discussion is a moral one.

One final point. You say "It would keep money out of criminals". Here you <b>assume</b> that pot-smokers <b>are not criminals</b>. In other words, you've defined pot smoking as a non-criminal activity. Then you say that it should be legal because it is not criminal. That's a circular argument, but more importantly for the present discussion, it is based on a prior moral judgment that pot smoking is not wrong. Having decided it is not wrong, you go on to conclude that it is not criminal either, and your conclusion follows.

Originally posted by James R
To do so would lead to a "pot industry" like the tabacco industry, which would ultimately be detrimental to society.

not to intrude, but that industry already exists.
Originally posted by James R

On the other hand, I might argue that it is better to take the decision as to whether to smoke pot out of the individual's hands. Experts are much better judges of what is best for people's health than they themselves are. The experts say smoking pot is bad for your health (or at least not good for it), so we should not legalise.

But what motivation do they have to be truthful? Even though they may posess the knowledge what makes you think that you aren't being lied to? Just playing devil's blah blah..
Originally posted by James R

This argument gives even greater weight to the interests of society, but at the detriment of individual rights.

I think that individualism is the only mode of legistlative ideal that explicitely increases the overall strength of the species. Just a thought.

Morals go towards making the world a better place. Laws don’t always do that. So my morals trump the law. I break the law when I think that’s the best choice.

at times I will commit sins when I know It is the right thing to do.

Morals go towards making the world a better place. Laws don’t always do that. So my morals trump the law. I break the law when I think that’s the best choice.

at times I will commit sins when I know It is the right thing to do.

Why? Because ya'll are using "everyone say it with me now" YOUR MORALS!

Sorry if this post seems rude, I had a long, long reply and it got deleted. Anyway, this reply is late because I was re-reading old ethics stuff.

"I totally agree with all the other people here who say you have your eyes closed. Whenever anybody makes a statement like "Murder is wrong" or "Drugs should be legalised" they are ultimately basing that statement on a moral judgment. That goes for you as much as anybody and is clear from your posts."

Yes, 'Murder is wrong' is a moral judgement. However, could you please show how any morals are involved (or implied) by 'Drugs should be legalized'??


"You obviously have a limited understanding of what morality and ethics is. You clearly use a moral system, but at the same time deny that you are using one. The fact is that as soon as you start saying that people should act in a certain way, you are making a moral judgment."

I don't recall personally saying I have no morals. I was raised in a normal North American family. I still have certain morals which are etched into myself. If I said such a thing, I apologize and take it back. What I wish to say is that I believe it is in the best interest of society to remove morals.

With that in mind, let's review the definition of the word "moral".

1) Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2) Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3) Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
4) Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.

Being the intelligent fellow you are, I assume you will realize that "morals" have to do with what is "good" or "bad"; "right" or "wrong".


"I hope that never happens. A world with no ethics would be total anarchy."

Any proof to back this statement?


"No. Moral systems are what guides every person's actions most of the time. If you consistently act in a particular way, and you can give a reason for your actions, you are acting according to a moral system, whether you call it that or not. If you can't give reasons for the way you act, then you're acting randomly and you're probably mentally unbalanced."

No, not every decision is based on a moral system. Are you actually claiming that I cannot act in a certain way for reasons other than my morals? That's ridiculous. Watch...

I should always be polite.
Why?
Because it will make people treat me nicer (keep in mind this is an example, and obviously this statement is likely false).
So?
That is beneficial to myself as people who respect and are nice to me are more likely to help me if I need help.

In that little discussion there is no mention of "right" or "wrong" in any moral sense. There is the reason I am a polite human being - it benefits me in the long run. Now, kindly show how this has anything to do with "right".


"You contradict yourself. You are implicitly arguing here that murder is wrong because it is detrimental to society"

You need to brush up on your reading skills.

It should be illegal for one very good reason - it is a detriment to society to have murder legal

Because you live your life by morals it seems that you added in a "wrong" where there was none. In fact, James, I can't follow your logic at all. You're saying; I called murder wrong because it is detrimental to society. No, I said no such thing. I said it should be illegal (against the law - not, "wrong") because it would be detrimental to society for it to be legal. There is not one little bit of morals in that statement. No judgement about right or wrong.


"In this case, you have made a moral decision that the needs of the society outweigh the rights of the individual to kill"

Actually, I did not. And I'm a little surprised you insisted on telling me what my logic is instead of asking. Anyway.

Morals, I must keep reminding both of us, have to do with what is right and wrong. I did not decide that the needs of the society outwiegh the rights of the individual to kill. I have decided that in this specific case (murder) it is in the best interest of the individual and the society. Once again, this has nothing to do with "right" or "wrong".


"Morality is not "100% subjective". If that were true, you could never argue that a particular action was wrong or right. What was right for the individual would be right for all. In fact, every good moral argument can be backed up by sound reasoning. A good moral argument is always logically defensible."

I don't believe one can argue an action is right or wrong. And furthermore, it is a fruitless debate in my opinion. Murder is wrong - prove it. All one can prove is that murder is wrong based on their moral system.


"You imply that society's interests should be paramount in a consideration of this question. You then weigh up the possible benefits of legalisation in terms of net good for the greatest number of people, and make a moral decision based on that."

What moral decision? Where does "right" or "wrong" come into play?

I think, James, we are mearly arguing on the point of how we define "moral". I am speaking, as I'm sure you've guessed (duh) about moral judgements as what is "right" or "wrong". I believe you are considering something much more broad; morals encompassing anything that decides how to make a decision.

Earlier you said something to the extent of no matter that my focus is on the benefits of the ends, I am still arguing for a moral system.
--- Laws should be made based on what is beneficial or detrimental to society as a whole (this encompasses the people). Why society as a whole? Because it is my belief that making decisions based on what is beneficial to the individual in a large society is difficult and will ulltimatly lead to the fall of a society which would mean that what one believes is beneficial to the individual is, in the long run, detrimental to both society and the individual (likely). However, this is another debate all on it's own. ---

Now, using the definition of morals being what is "right" and "wrong" - where in my previous statement did I use morals? Do you believe that basing a political/social system on what is beneficial to society (or the individual for that matter) involves "right" and "wrong"? How so?

Oh, and...

"That's a circular argument, but more importantly for the present discussion, it is based on a prior moral judgment that pot smoking is not wrong. Having decided it is not wrong, you go on to conclude that it is not criminal either, and your conclusion follows."

To be honest, the pot debate is a tired one. If you wish I will present my actual beliefs on the situation, however it seems useless for me to re-write whole essays I've already posted on sciforums. I was using a very well-known debate (the pot one) to explain my point in a short way. Everyone has heard the "keep money out of the criminals" arguement for legalization and everyone who's been involved in the debate knows this means money out of the hands of major, often gang-related, more dangerous criminals. I believe that despite my not including the aforementioned part, the intended message got through.

Now. Because I'm of the argumentative type, I feel I need to correct you.


"Here you assume that pot-smokers are not criminals."

Wrong. The people who are involved in importing of marijuana are often involved in other criminal activities. They gain money from marijuana importing/exporting. If marijuana "dealing" was done by the government, these (note: I said these) criminals would have less money and, hopefully, almost none from marijuana. Therefore my statement makes perfect sense: Legalizing pot (and having it managed by the goverment) would keep money out of the hands of criminals. I never once said it would keep money out of the hands of all criminals. Nor did I ever say that marijuana smokers are not criminals. You simply interputed it that way because it suited your arguement.

Tyler:

<i>Yes, 'Murder is wrong' is a moral judgement. However, could you please show how any morals are involved (or implied) by 'Drugs should be legalized'?</i>

As soon as you say "should", you're automatically talking about morals.

In this case, you are saying that some good will come from legalizing drugs, and therefore it should be done. The judgment that good will come of the legalisation is a moral judgment.

<i>I don't recall personally saying I have no morals. I was raised in a normal North American family. I still have certain morals which are etched into myself. If I said such a thing, I apologize and take it back. What I wish to say is that I believe it is in the best interest of society to remove morals.</i>

Removing morals would create anarchy. Nobody could give any reasons for acting as they did, other than that they felt like it at the time. Nor would there be any justification for judging any act as wrong. Eating babies, indiscriminate killing and incest would all be as morally neutral as giving money to the poor or treating your children well.

<i>With that in mind, let's review the definition of the word "moral".</i>

Yes, let's.

<b>1) Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character</b>

i.e. as soon as you label a human action "good" or "bad", you are making a moral judgment.

<i>Being the intelligent fellow you are, I assume you will realize that "morals" have to do with what is "good" or "bad"; "right" or "wrong".</i>

Correct.

<i>No, not every decision is based on a moral system. Are you actually claiming that I cannot act in a certain way for reasons other than my morals?</i>

Only if you have no reasons for acting that way.

<i>I should always be polite.
Why?
Because it will make people treat me nicer (keep in mind this is an example, and obviously this statement is likely false).
So?
That is beneficial to myself as people who respect and are nice to me are more likely to help me if I need help.</i>

You are essentially saying, in this case:
* Being helped by others is good. (Moral judgement.)
* Self-interest is good (Moral judgment.)
* One should act in such a way as to further one's self-interests and the kind feelings of others. (Moral direction.)
* Being polite achieves this aim. (Practical application.)

Note that the first steps in the chain of reasoning are moral judgments.

<i>In that little discussion there is no mention of "right" or "wrong" in any moral sense. There is the reason I am a polite human being - it benefits me in the long run. Now, kindly show how this has anything to do with "right".</i>

The "right" and "wrong" here are implicit. It is "right" to take care of one's own interests. It is "right" to gain the help of others for that purpose.

<i>"It should be illegal for one very good reason - it is a detriment to society to have murder legal"

...You're saying; I called murder wrong because it is detrimental to society. No, I said no such thing. I said it should be illegal (against the law - not, "wrong") because it would be detrimental to society for it to be legal. There is not one little bit of morals in that statement. No judgement about right or wrong.</i>

That's wrong. You just can't see the moral judgment implicit in what you said. Here your reasoning is as follows:

* Things which are detrimental to society are wrong. (Moral judgment.)
* Making murder legal would be detrimental to society. (Application of judgment to specific case.)
* Therefore, murder should be illegal. (Practical application. Note the use of the word "should", which implies that a moral judgment is being made.)

Without the first step here, the moral judgment, you have no reason to say that murder should be illegal. Who cares if murder leads to unnecessary deaths? If there's nothing "wrong" with that, then there's no reason to prohibit murder.

<i>Morals, I must keep reminding both of us, have to do with what is right and wrong. I did not decide that the needs of the society outwiegh the rights of the individual to kill. I have decided that in this specific case (murder) it is in the best interest of the individual and the society. Once again, this has nothing to do with "right" or "wrong".</i>

You have not done what you say you've done. If I want to kill somebody I don't like and who hurts me, how is it in my best interests that I do not do so? In the absence of anything else, it is in my best interests to dispose of the person as I see fit. It only becomes wrong to murder when you start taking into account the interests of potential murder victims, the interests of a well-ordered society and so on. You have put the interests of society ahead of the interests of individuals in this case - you are also granting individuals a right not to be killed indiscriminately, because that would be a bad thing too. Your rationale is entirely based on moral judgments; you just don't see it.

<i>I don't believe one can argue an action is right or wrong.</i>

Would you eat an aborted baby? Why/why not?
If you had your arm amputated for medical reasons, would you eat it afterwards, provided it was certified as uncontaminated? Do you eat meat? What's the difference between eating your arm and eating animal meat?
Would you have sex with your sister or mother if they consented? No? Why not?

<i>Murder is wrong - prove it. All one can prove is that murder is wrong based on their moral system.</i>

True. Now you're getting it.

<i>I am speaking, as I'm sure you've guessed (duh) about moral judgements as what is "right" or "wrong". I believe you are considering something much more broad; morals encompassing anything that decides how to make a decision.</i>

Morals are always involved in decision making, except in the most mundane cases where one choice or another is equally good and it really doesn't matter which choice you make. "Should I have strawberry or chocolate ice cream?" is not a moral choice, but "Should the US bomb Iraq?" certainly involves moral judgement.

<i>--- Laws should be made based on what is beneficial or detrimental to society as a whole (this encompasses the people). Why society as a whole? Because it is my belief that making decisions based on what is beneficial to the individual in a large society is difficult and will ulltimatly lead to the fall of a society which would mean that what one believes is beneficial to the individual is, in the long run, detrimental to both society and the individual (likely). However, this is another debate all on it's own. --- </i>

i.e. What is good for society is "right". (Moral judgment.)
Society takes precedence over the individual. (Moral judgment.)

<i>To be honest, the pot debate is a tired one. If you wish I will present my actual beliefs on the situation, however it seems useless for me to re-write whole essays I've already posted on sciforums.</i>

I don't want to turn this into a debate on marijuana. I only wanted to point out that when you make something illegal you make a moral judgment that it is "wrong", for whatever reason.

<i>Everyone has heard the "keep money out of the criminals" arguement for legalization and everyone who's been involved in the debate knows this means money out of the hands of major, often gang-related, more dangerous criminals.</i>

In other words:

* crime gangs and smugglers are "bad" or "evil" (moral judgment).
* Legalising marijuana would reduce crime gangs and smuggling (judgment based on available facts).
* Therefore, marijuana should be legalised. (Conclusion. Note use of word "should", which indicates a moral imperative.)

<i>The people who are involved in importing of marijuana are often involved in other criminal activities. They gain money from marijuana importing/exporting.</i>

Yes, of course. But their activities are only "criminal" as long as the law defines them as such. It is possible to be criminal and yet morally justified. It is also possible to be non=criminal, yet morally wrong. You have made a moral judgment that gaining money from sale of drugs and so on is wrong and therefore should be illegal. At the same time, you think that small users of marijuana are not hurting anybody; they are not doing anything "wrong". So, using marijuana should be legal.

" as soon as you label a human action "good" or "bad", you are making a moral judgment."
-- good; Having the qualities that are desirable or distinguishing in a particular thing --

So saying something is "desirable" is the same as saying it is "morally right"?
Moral = Good
Good = Desirable
Desirable = Moral ?


"* Being helped by others is good. (Moral judgement.)
* Self-interest is good (Moral judgment.)
* One should act in such a way as to further one's self-interests and the kind feelings of others. (Moral direction.)
* Being polite achieves this aim. (Practical application.)"

Most important are the first two statements, as you have labeled them moral judgements. And really it all rests on your ansewr to my last question.
To say being helped by others is good is to say it is beneficial.
So you are telling me that "Being helped by others benefits me" is a moral judgement. That I don't follow. Or "Self interest benefits me" is a moral judgement?




And as for the marijuana thing....
The 'criminals' arguement is a common one and not my own (as I'm sure you know).


"crime gangs and smugglers are "bad" or "evil" (moral judgment)"

Not in my own opinion. However, in the opinion of the conservative (generally) society I would be debating against...

<i>So saying something is "desirable" is the same as saying it is "morally right"?</i>

No. By "good" in that sentence I meant "morally good", which is the meaning people most often give to the word "good". Most of the time, people do not mean merely "desirable" when they say "good".

<i>So you are telling me that "Being helped by others benefits me" is a moral judgement. That I don't follow. Or "Self interest benefits me" is a moral judgement?</i>

Neither of those are moral judgments.

What is a moral judgment is to say that actions which lead to benefits to you are "good". The reasoning then follows that one ought to do things which are good, which is purely a moral stance.

So, "Self-interest benefits me" may be a mere statement of fact, but "What benefits me is good, so I should strive to do what benefits me" is a moral judgment combined with a plan for action based on that judgment. Morals always imply an "ought" or "should". As soon as you talk about what "should" be done, you are bringing in a moral value.

It would be silly to talk about whether somebody "should" have chocolate instead of strawberry ice cream. It just doesn't matter either way (at least on this information alone), so no moral judgment comes into the choice. But saying that you should pay for your ice cream does involve a moral judgment - that it is "right" or "good" to compensate people for materials and labour.

Going back to your politeness example, are you polite to people you meet once only (e.g. shop keepers, traffic police)? How about your grandparents? Would you step aside to let an old lady through a door? Why? If your actions aren't based on a moral sense here, what are they based on?

Let's look at drug runners. Is it right to arrest them and lock them up in jail? What if they have a family who will suffer if their father is in jail for five years? Is it right to remove the family's income? Why?

"Most of the time, people do not mean merely "desirable" when they say "good"."

100% of the time when I say good I mean desirable. That is the definition I have always gone by.


"So, "Self-interest benefits me" may be a mere statement of fact, but "What benefits me is good, so I should strive to do what benefits me" is a moral judgment combined with a plan for action based on that judgment. Morals always imply an "ought" or "should". As soon as you talk about what "should" be done, you are bringing in a moral value."

But now you're changing completely what I said

James' Reads: What benefits me is good, so I should strive to do what benefits me


Tyler Said: What benefits me is desirable, so I should strive to do what benefits me

And why is it desirable? Because it leaves me in a position of please.

On the deepest level, what Tyler Said: What benefits me is desirable because it will make happy, so I should strive to do what benefits me



"Going back to your politeness example, are you polite to people you meet once only (e.g. shop keepers, traffic police)? How about your grandparents? Would you step aside to let an old lady through a door? Why? If your actions aren't based on a moral sense here, what are they based on?"

I'm polite to random people generally out of force of habit. It's the way I was raised and it would probably take some effort to break that habit. And it's definetly not a habit that's worth putting out effort to break (as it would in no way benefit me - make me happy).


"Let's look at drug runners. Is it right to arrest them and lock them up in jail? What if they have a family who will suffer if their father is in jail for five years? Is it right to remove the family's income? Why?"

I don't care if it's right. It's in societies best interest. It is desirable for society to lock them up.

Tyler,

You're still not getting it.

<i>100% of the time when I say good I mean desirable. That is the definition I have always gone by.</i>

The way you use the term "desirable" carries moral baggage. Your "desirable" is my "morally good".

I may find an attractive woman desirable. I may desire to rape her. But I would not consider it right to rape her. While it may be "desirable" it is not "good". That's how I use those terms. You would probably say it is neither desirable nor good to rape her. Essentially, we are reaching the same moral conclusion but using different terminology.

<i>James' Reads: What benefits me is good, so I should strive to do what benefits me.
Tyler Said: What benefits me is desirable, so I should strive to do what benefits me.
On the deepest level, what Tyler Said: What benefits me is desirable because it will make happy, so I should strive to do what benefits me.</i>

So I read right. You're using a moral system in which whatever makes you happy is equated with what is "good" (or "desirable", by your terminology).

<i>I'm polite to random people generally out of force of habit. It's the way I was raised and it would probably take some effort to break that habit. And it's definetly not a habit that's worth putting out effort to break (as it would in no way benefit me - make me happy).</i>

Are you saying you don't consider that being polite is the right thing to do? Is politeness a mere Machiavellian scheme for you to get what you want from people, or is there some deeper reasoning behind your politeness (other than force of habit)?

The thing is: if you're only being polite because you've been trained, you're not really acting as an autonomous, thinking person when it comes to this. If you're only doing it because it makes you happy, that also is not a very solid moral basis, since it rests on self-interest to the exclusion of others. Importantly, though, it <b>is</b> still a moral basis - just not a particularly defensible one.

<i>I don't care if it's right [to put drug runners in jail]. It's in societies best interest. It is desirable for society to lock them up.</i>

Why do you put the interests of "society" ahead of the interests of the drug runners? Aren't the drug runners members of "society"?