User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 32

  1. #11
    Senior Member Zeno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    696

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poki View Post
    Morals and ethics do not apply to laws. Laws are in place to protect us from people who do stupid shit.
    You do realize that
    Quote Originally Posted by Poki View Post
    Laws are in place to protect us from people who do stupid shit.
    is an ethical point of view right?

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,633

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeno View Post
    You do realize that is an ethical point of view right?
    How so? I didnt even define stupid shit. A moral or ethical law is...it is illegal to have more then one wife, It is illegal to sleep with another while married due to reasons that it hurts people and or god said it shouldnt. Or an internal want of "i am the only one". Those are personal morals and ethics and do not apply across the board.

    It is illegal to have more then one wife because it causes to many issues in society is not a moral or ethical reason. Because it conplicates the tax laws not to mention ownership laws. It is one of cause and affect based on current situation. That means "should" is actually more of a reasonable calculation of cause and affect as a society, not based on moral or ethics.

    You dont make being gay illegal because it is not moral. You make gay illegal when gay itself causes huge issues to society. For example...if STDs were wiping out our population due to gay people then it shouod be made illegal. While gays do have more issues with STD, its not an epidemic or a major issue currently to society as a whole. But the only issue we really face on wide scale are actual moral issues. If anti-gay became a cult that caused issues to the point where it created alot of problems in society it should be illegal. Its not a moral issue, its a reasonable calculation.
    Im out, its been fun

  3. #13
    Senior Member Zeno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    696

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poki View Post
    How so? I didnt even define stupid shit.
    Because if what you're saying is true, and that laws are created to protect us from people who do stupid shit. Then we can logically conclude that the ethical philosophy behind whether a law is passed is whether it protects us from people who do stupid shit.


    Quote Originally Posted by Poki View Post
    You dont make being gay illegal because it is not moral. You make gay illegal when gay itself causes huge issues to society. For example...if STDs were wiping out our population due to gay people
    That's not at all how the legality of gay marriage played out in the united states. The arguments behind it were moral. No where do judges say "OH WE SHOULD MAKE GAY MARRIAGE ILLEGAL BECAUSE OF AIDS"

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,633

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeno View Post
    Because if what you're saying is true, and that laws are created to protect us from people who do stupid shit. Then we can logically conclude that the ethical philosophy behind whether a law is passed is whether it protects us from people who do stupid shit.




    That's not at all how the legality of gay marriage played out in the united states. The arguments behind it were moral. No where do judges say "OH WE SHOULD MAKE GAY MARRIAGE ILLEGAL BECAUSE OF AIDS"
    No, we had to make it "legally" because of stupid morality that happened in the first place to make it illegal. Its a reversal of law, not a creation of law. The "real" change is not a law that should have been put in place, but a removal of a law put in place.

    Ethics revolve around morals. If what i propose is not moral based, it is not ethically based

    Oh, we are talking reality. Should have clarified...

    In america law is based off of whatever is possible. Be it morals, ethics, stupidity, selfishness, its a crap shot really. You can prove every direction possible with our laws. I can prove me right and you wrong and me wrong and you right, both right, and both wrong. Good luck with logic.

    I dont look at what is to define what should be.
    Im out, its been fun

  5. #15
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,707

    Default

    I'm going to come at this from an more abstract angle, questioning a lot of the assumptions that previous posters have made.

    While plenty of people argue that we shouldn't legislate morality, that's pretty much exactly what we do except in the most mundane of cases. Laws against murder are entirely about morality, whereas laws about traffic lights are about common conventions of public safety, for example.

    Therefore the "if it doesn't harm anyone else it should be OK" doesn't quite fly with me. There is more to morality than just not harming people or not being cruel to people. A large part of having a common morality is what binds us together as a community. Those aspects of morality which are considered exceptionally critical get made into laws.

    That said, a case can be made for a more libertarian approach, e.g., with respect to drug laws. The moral cases for and against Prohibition also apply to the War Against Drugs. (I wanted to write "Drug War", but given what's happening with drug cartels in Mexico and the US, that conjured the wrong image). Pointing out the huge black market and large amounts of criminal behavior and loss of life that exist entirely because drugs are illegal is an entirely valid moral argument to not legislate the valid moral view that drug addiction is dangerous and wrong.

    No such argument exists in the case of suicide. The best moral argument for suicide in my opinion is that if someone is terminally ill and in a lot of pain, there is a case for allowing suicide or euthanasia. I am definitely sympathetic to such arguments, having had cases where grandparents who had suffered a severe stroke and could have been put on life support to extend their lives for a couple of months. But they didn't need suicide or euthanasia, they just needed kind hospice-level care to let them live for the few hours they had left. Even terminally ill cancer patients get plenty of pain meds for their last days.

    I think it is important, morally, to have suicide, assisted or not, be illegal. It's a huge barrier to cross to say it's OK. For most people, suicidal thoughts and attempted suicide are huge warning signs, and as @prplchknz points out, such people are usually in a very bad mental state. Their problem isn't that they need to kill themselves, but that they're extremely unhappy, and they need help with that unhappiness/depression.

    It is these kinds of laws, this kind of morality, that indicates what kind of people we are as a society. We value the rights to life and liberty very highly. We value the right to liberty so highly, it is entirely illegal to sell yourself into slavery. By the same reasoning, it should not be legal to kill yourself. Just as we can make moral arguments that maybe it's a little bit OK, in some cases, to allow slavery, we have a very good reason to disallow that: not to restrict the freedom of the individual, but to prevent other people from [i]taking advantage[i/] of that individual's dire predicament. Similarly, we shouldn't allow suicide: not to restrict the freedom of the individual, but to prevent other people from taking advantage of that individual's dire predicament.

    Don't think that's a legitimate worry? Try this on for size. Rich, terminally ill guy is on his deathbed. His physician assisted his (hypothetically legal) suicide. Because the suicide is legal, no one pries too closely, and we never realize that his family bribed the doctor to end his life sooner, so they could all get their inheritance sooner. If the suicide is illegal, then the doctor is much less tempted to agree, and if there is a "suicide" it will be investigated very closely to make sure that it wasn't a murder.

    And finally, a story from Robert A. Heinlein:
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.

  6. #16
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    8,632

    Default

    It is cruel to force someone to live who no longer wants to live.

    The only exception is for those who are mentally ill and can be brought out of that mindset.

  7. #17
    Senior Member tinker683's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    ISFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ceecee View Post
    Yes. I'm not considering moral or ethical arguments here, only legality.
    This. Legally, I think this is a matter the state doesn't need to be involved with, not unless their is evidence that the suicide wasn't a suicide but murder.
    "The man who is swimming against the stream knows the strength of it."
    ― Woodrow Wilson

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    25,416

    Default

    I'm for life.

    Not an inch to the culture of death.

  9. #19
    Globalist Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    10,134

    Default

    I used to be for it, but having dealt with family members who have considered suicide and grappling with suicidal thoughts myself, I can't say I'm still ok with it or comfortable with it, even when depression or other mental illness isn't involved. It's kind of amazing anything is alive at all, really. This got me in trouble with people on another message board, but I stand by my conviction that suicide shouldn't be acceptable. Maybe it's too religious-sounding, but I think life is rare and something we have to try to make the most of, somehow. I just see suicide as giving up, and I'm not ok with that.
    Likes Raffaella liked this post

  10. #20
    Lord Grumpus Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    4,598

    Default

    You should get to decide the time and the manner in which you'd like to leave the world. I don't think it's humane to limit the options for those who want to exit the world. It should be something as easy as swallowing a pill, falling asleep, and not waking up.
    There are 129 million dead trees in California. Governor Moonbeam vetoed legislation to cut down these trees; now there are multiple forest fires that have resulted in many deaths, including 300 missing people. This is why Dems are dangerous; this treehugger refused to cut down even dead trees.
    Likes Lia_kat, Yama, Riva liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. Do you think global warming 'deniers'/skeptics should be legally prosecuted?
    By ZNP-TBA in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 163
    Last Post: 05-25-2016, 02:39 AM
  2. How literally should the Bible be interpreted?
    By Kiddo in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 130
    Last Post: 02-02-2008, 07:32 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO