Mother and son in New Mexico face jail time for incestuous relationship

[Excited Penguin]

It doesn't concern any topic for me.

I am telling you that in my personal opinion laws should only ever be about protecting people from harm and enforcing responsibilities and should never be about enforcing morality. Period. I have grown exhausted of your weird interrogation. If you have some point to make just make it. No need to wait for the bazinga moment really

What I meant was, I'd prefer it if you came up with examples of your own regarding what you think is wrong despite it not harming anyone.

And I'm telling you your personal opinion in that regard is of a moral nature, as are all laws by virtue of concerning themselves with the wellbeing of humans, which is what morality is all about, at it's very core. They are enforcing a certain type of morality, namely the one that results from its effects on the behaviour of humans.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Laws cannot enforce morality. They can only enforce social behavior. Laws cannot change how you feel about a matter, they can only lay the groundwork for your punishment if you violate their strictures.

I notice you avoided answering my questions. I wonder why that is.

[Losty]

It doesn't concern any topic for me.

I am telling you that in my personal opinion laws should only ever be about protecting people from harm and enforcing responsibilities and should never be about enforcing morality. Period. I have grown exhausted of your weird interrogation. If you have some point to make just make it. No need to wait for the bazinga moment really

What I meant was, I'd prefer it if you came up with examples of your own regarding what you think is wrong despite it not harming anyone.

And I'm telling you your personal opinion in that regard is of a moral nature, as are all laws by virtue of concerning themselves with the wellbeing of humans, which is what morality is all about, at it's very core. They are enforcing a certain type of morality, namely the one that results from its effects on the behaviour of humans.

And I'm telling you I think you're wrong. And this is getting boring.

[Excited Penguin]

They're not moral by my standards, they're moral by that society's however. 

I trust you understand now the sense in which I use that adjective at the moment.

Your problem is that morality is inherently personal, being both subjective and relative. Social morality gives rise to obvious contradictions which indict its usefulness in human life.

In Saudi Arabia, you'd be beheaded for your atheism, legally. Is that moral? Why or why not?

I'll leave you to work out the ramifications on your own. I don't think you've thought this through.

Morality can also be objective, as at a societal level. Laws are an expression of that kind of morality.

It is moral. It is moral for those who agree with it. As for why, I'll refer you to a definition of the word moral:

concerned with or derived from the code of interpersonal behavior that is considered right or acceptable in a particular society.

[Excited Penguin]

What I meant was, I'd prefer it if you came up with examples of your own regarding what you think is wrong despite it not harming anyone.

And I'm telling you your personal opinion in that regard is of a moral nature, as are all laws by virtue of concerning themselves with the wellbeing of humans, which is what morality is all about, at it's very core. They are enforcing a certain type of morality, namely the one that results from its effects on the behaviour of humans.

And I'm telling you I think you're wrong. And this is getting boring.

I expect better arguments than your assertion of boredom.

[Excited Penguin]

No, there isn't, at least none that was pointed out. As it is, personal morals = thoughts about what laws should(or shouldn't) be about.

Nonsense. Your inability to differentiate the two doesn't confine others to your limited thinking ... it only marks you as someone who culls his values from the larger group rather than thinking for himself.

I know what I think about right and wrong. I also know that seeking to impose my own views on others by dint of law is not only foolish in the practical sense, but also wrong for imposing my values on those who don't share them.

By your logic, a theocracy is moral. By your logic, you, an atheist, should kneel each Sabbath and proclaim your fealty to some deity, if such is required by law. By your logic, you yourself don't have the right to your own self-expression, if your society deems your views verboten.

Morality and laws are two different things. I'm perfectly capable of differentiating between them. I'm merely arguing that laws are moral in nature, that governments impose certain kinds of moralities on their people and that the best morality is the kind that seeks out and applies methods of increasing human wellbeing, in a scientific manner, to a people as a whole.

I wouldn't consider a theocracy to be moral, personally. It is moral to some people, though.

If such would be required by law, I'd have to do it if I didn't want to get in trouble, I wouldn't agree with it, though. It would still be moral in the sense that it would be something prescribed by a certain morality, be that morality explicit or implicit in nature. It just wouldn't be moral to me.

A legal right to my self-expression? Certainly not, if society doesn't allow for it. A moral right? By whose moral standards? By mine, I should have that right, by some hypothetical others' I mightn't.

[Excited Penguin]

So you don't think causing harm to the victim and being destructive to society is morally wrong?

So you're a moral absolutist, then?

If I steal a loaf of bread to prevent a child starving, is that good or evil?

It's surprising, the simple level that this conversation has assumed. I should have thought that anyone pondering morality would have also considered ambiguity.

You weren't a part of that discussion, you can't just suddenly pretend you were and expect me to continue where I left off. So I won't be responding to this.

[Losty]

And I'm telling you I think you're wrong. And this is getting boring.

I expect better arguments than your assertion of boredom.

I expect better arguments than your saying "I am telling you" as if you're just right for no reason. Which you're not.

[Excited Penguin]

Laws cannot enforce morality. They can only enforce social behavior. Laws cannot change how you feel about  a matter, they can only lay the groundwork for your punishment if you violate their strictures.

I notice you avoided answering my questions. I wonder why that is.

Perhaps enforcement isn't the best word for it. They represent a certain morality, though, by enforcing social behaviour.

Well, technically, they can change how you feel about a matter. Societal pressure has a big impact on individuals. By laying that groundwork for your punishment, they are telling you what your society, at least formally, deems right and wrong. This is all implicit, not explicit. I can understand  how one would fail to notice this.

Which questions are you referring to?

[Excited Penguin]

I expect better arguments than your assertion of boredom.

I expect better arguments than your saying "I am telling you" as if you're just right for no reason. Which you're not.

You were telling me something, I was telling you something. It seems to me like we were having a lovely chat of sorts.