Law is morality

Originally posted by Wulebgr
Law is morality; if the state fails to promote some standards of morality, anarchy results.

The real argument concerns the specifics: whether consensual sex between and among three grown me, and two women (all together) is acceptable, for example. As well as whether, someone so engaged privately should be permitted to work with children during the daytime.

This seemed like a completely different subject I wanted to talk
about so I am starting a new thread.

Just so I understand you, and I have to say I'm not sure I do, you
are saying that all laws are morality? I have heard people say
over the years religious people shouldn't pass laws because they
would be forcing morality upon others that do not share their
religious beliefs. If what you say is true, and I believe if I
understand you I agree with you that no matter who is passing a
law they are bringing on a moral view upon everyone else, the
only difference would be an identifiable religious foundation.

If everyone passing a law is going to be bringing their morals
and pushing them upon everyone else, should the foundations of
those ideas matter one wit? Simply having a religious foundation
alone for a law shouldn’t disqualify any idea or law alone, there
should be some other reasons. The same things should be true for
accepting a law with some religious foundation attached to it, it
must serve the community well.

The sticky part of this will be with things like the example you
brought up in my opinion, what is acceptable and not? Who gets
to say what is and is not acceptable? As soon as a line is drawn
on what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior we have cut off
some just on the other side of the line that are not going to get
their way, while as soon as line is wiped off the books we have
then offended some that believe that line was good and proper.

The same things are true with taxes as they are used to promote
some behavior and discourage others, and the pure redistribution of
wealth among citizens. as some are not allowed to keep what they
have because others do not make as much.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Originally posted by Wulebgr
[b]Law is morality; if the state fails to promote some standards of morality, anarchy results.

The real argument concerns the specifics: whether consensual sex between and among three grown me, and two women (all together) is acceptable, for example. As well as whether, someone so engaged privately should be permitted ...[text shortened]... zens. as some are not allowed to keep what they
have because others do not make as much.
Kelly

Laws as you point out have there basis in religion(sa well as a desire to rule others)It seems to me that in our society religion should be practised indiviually while laws should be understood to reign antisocial behavior. Cause if it were up to religious types there would be laws against the Simpsons(8c) whereas we need to discourage people from hurting, abusing,exploiting, and generally doing harm to each other.

Of course law and morality are intimately related. How can this not be self-evident. Hell, the only way that law can be contraposed to morality is by virtue of an ethos... and a value laden determination of the meaning/nature of "morality". So one has to face the irony that any difference itself turns on an ethical/moral substrate.

Who gets to say what is and is not acceptable? As soon as a line is drawn on what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior we have cut off some just on the other side of the line that are not going to get their way, while as soon as line is wiped off the books we have
then offended some