Do you support the legalisation of polyagmy and polyandry

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

nope learning out of failiures during our history as a sociaty, aswell as what might be best to solve current issues effectively.

So you would accept religion if it solves current issues effectively?

That's a scary thought. Worse than euthanasia.

[Something completely different]

Lol.

I dont accept any totalitarian possition in which someone proposes a solution which claims to slove every problem at once.
I accept solutions voted for by a electorat in a republic, which can therefor be undone if not successfull.


And show me a case in which "the bible" or "euthanesia" would solve a current social issue.

And why suddently speak so low of euthanesia? I thought you supportet it?

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Lol.

I dont accept any totalitarian possition in which someone proposes a solution which claims to slove every problem at once.
I accept solutions voted for by a electorat in a republic, which can therefor be undone if not successfull.


And show me a case in which "the bible" or "euthanesia" would solve a current social issue.

And why suddently speak so low of euthanesia? I thought you supportet it?

I used to agree with you. That voting and an electorate was the best solution.

But my feelings are slowly changing on that.

[The Grand Nudger]

Law must be governed by science and rationality, don't you think?

What else do we appeal to when we make our laws? Religious values?

Sometimes we do yeah, and that's pretty transparent I would imagine. I don't personally think that that's a very good way to go about it, but clearly many folks would disagree with me. Other times we appeal to a concept of "fairness" or "justice" -show me some science for either of those? IMO science would be a poor tool for the actual drafting of a law. Sure, we might use it to inform our decisions, project the outcome of a specific ruling, or (as is routinely the case in courtrooms) provide the evidence,.....but.....law is an evolving discussion on our value judgements and somewhere along the chain, after all the science was in and all the arguments heard...there would be a value assigned to any given thing by a human being. We might hope that the process was thoroughly rational, or well grounded in science, but other times we may not. We may wish to assign an irrational and positively magical value to something. We do this with alot of things, like life, for example. You're equally as guilty of homicide for taking a full life or an empty one. No distinctions are made, and I don't imagine that many will be entertained in the near future.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Law must be governed by science and rationality, don't you think?

What else do we appeal to when we make our laws? Religious values?

Sometimes we do yeah, and that's pretty transparent I would imagine. I don't personally think that that's a very good way to go about it, but clearly many folks would disagree with me. Other times we appeal to a concept of "fairness" or "justice" -show me some science for either of those? IMO science would be a poor tool for the actual drafting of a law. Sure, we might use it to inform our decisions, project the outcome of a specific ruling, or (as is routinely the case in courtrooms) provide the evidence,.....but.....law is an evolving discussion on our value judgements and somewhere along the chain, after all the science was in and all the arguments heard...there would be a value assigned to any given thing by a human being. We might hope that the process was thoroughly rational, or well grounded in science, but other times we may not. We may wish to assign an irrational and positively magical value to something. We do this with alot of things, like life, for example. You're equally as guilty of homicide for taking a full life or an empty one. No distinctions are made, and I don't imagine that many will be entertained in the near future.

But why justice and fairness?

And why not other values, like force or authoritarianism or survival of the least fit?

Just because we get good feelings when we think about justice and fairness? Is it ultimately about the dopamine kicks in our brain?

We need to have some rational basis for these positions. If not, we are no different than the religious, and the religious have equal right and are afforded equal sway in our society.

[The Grand Nudger]

But why justice and fairness?

Because we've assigned a positive value to these things.

And why not other values, like force or authoritarianism

Similar to the above but in the reverse.

or survival of the least fit?

We do sometimes draft laws meant to favor those we see as being particularly vulnerable. "Least fit" probably doesn't accurately describe this, but I like to pretend you aren't a troll when the subject is interesting to me.

Just because we get good feelings when we think about justice and fairness? Is it ultimately about the dopamine kicks in our brain?

If that's the reason we give for it (it usually isn't) and we all get into lock step then that would be why a law was created or adopted and then maintained, sure.

We need to have some rational basis for these positions.

Who says we don't? Plenty of rational basis for the adoption and application of law follows from the initial value judgement. "We agree that we positively value such and such, how then do we secure the safety of such and such and what do we do when the value of such and such is threatened"

If not, we are no different than the religious, and the religious have equal right and are afforded equal sway in our society.

They do, and they are. But don't be so quick to jump the gun. The difference between say a secular law and a religious law is the invocation of authority and subsequent explanation from that authority.

"Fairy tale says so, because fairy tale says so"
vs
"We say so, because we value such and such"

-Why- we assign a particular value to any given thing is always up for discussion, and this might help to explain why laws change as values change, eh? But that would be entirely too obvious, wouldn't it......

But hey, why justice and fairness indeed? Why do you value justice and fairness (if you value justice and fairness)? I personally value justice because it insulates me and mine (and yours) from things that I assign a negative value to, greases the wheels of civilization, as it were. I value fairness because I see it as a prerequisite of justice, what justice could there be without fairness or equality (fair being part of some definitions of justice, of course). Now, being human I'm personally willing to bend on either. I can imagine a person for whom I would withhold justice, a person for whom I would withhold equality....but on the balance of it I realize that if I could do that to someone else then they could just as easily do it to me, and that my own personal ticks probably aren't sufficient reason to decide who should get justice or fairness all by their one-sies.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

But why justice and fairness?

Because we've assigned a positive value to these things.

And why not other values, like force or authoritarianism

Similar to the above but in the reverse.

Sorry, but just because you assign a positive value to these things does not make them valuable.

It only makes them valuable to the people who have assigned them this particular value.

If someone chooses not to assign them the value you do, they exercise their right to reject your valuation and therefore reject your moral codes.

And startlingly (for you, anyway), they have as much of a right to assign value x as you have assigned value y. Your valuation is not more important or more valuable than theirs.

And therefore, you are left in a position where you can enforce no moral laws by taking these valuations into consideration.

[The Grand Nudger]

It makes them valuable to me Vinny. It's true, that this value only extends to those who agree on it (though some things..like food and water clearly have objective values...the precise "weight", if you will, of that value is still a matter of how many people agree). Similarly, the strength of a law is in direct proportion to who agrees with it.

People can and do reject "moral codes" (here we go conflating legality with morality..it was bound to happen, I'll run with it). All the time. If writing a law stopped crime there would be no criminals in the world..... Why does that leave me in a position where I cannot enforce a law? Massive non-sequitur bud. It isn't my individual valuation that enforces the law to begin with, nor do I positively value all laws, so how my individual values (or those of any other individual) would invalidate the enforcement of law is a mystery.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

It makes them valuable to me Vinny. It's true, that this value only extends to those who agree on it (though some things..like food and water clearly have objective values...the precise "weight", if you will, of that value is still a matter of how many people agree). Similarly, the strength of a law is in direct proportion to who agrees with it.

People can and do reject "moral codes" (here we go conflating legality with morality..it was bound to happen, I'll run with it). All the time. If writing a law stopped crime there would be no criminals in the world..... Why does that leave me in a position where I cannot enforce a law? Massive non-sequitur bud. It isn't my individual valuation that enforces the law to begin with, nor do I positively value all laws, so how my individual values (or those of any other individual) would invalidate the enforcement of law is a mystery.

So you're saying, if we can simply convince everybody to believe the Holocaust was good, then the Holocaust becomes good.

[The Grand Nudger]

See the problems you run into when you conflate legality with morality? I would say that if we could convince everyone that the holocaust was "good" it would have a hell of a shot at being legal...which is precisely how that went down.

Nice godwin btw.