(May 8, 2016 at 8:07 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:(May 8, 2016 at 8:01 am)robvalue Wrote: Laws are not meant to be morality.
Nothing objectively means anything, yes. Subjectively, things mean plenty.
What does it even mean to say a moral system is "correct"? It can be internally consistent, and it can be very persuasive, and it can be "natural", but I don't see how "correct" comes into it anywhere. Before the goals of morality have been agreed, how can any judgement be made?
If you're just assuming what the goals are, then you've just declared your own version of morality to be morality itself.
We can already easily examine the outcomes of actions in objective ways. Why also measure this as "morality"? That seems redundant, and it's why my morality is much more complex.
The goals are eliminating harm and maximizing happiness. Pretty straightforward and obvious.
Can you think of any situation in which the word "correct" could be applied?
Laws are meant to enforce morality, not to be it. I never said that.
Laws do not enforce morality, they are simply rules in place to try and optimize social benefits. In America its the law that you drive on the right side of the road, this is not based on any sort of moral decision. There are also Laws that at times produce outcomes that people would consider immoral, such as, laws that create loopholes or technicalities that allow a murderer to go free.
