If you're pro-life, how far do you take that?

[Aroura]

I'd like to bring this point up again though: laws are about what is best for society, they are not about judging what is and isn't moral.

Devil's advocate here. 

Sure, laws against murder help to keep and maintain order. If you could simply kill someone for pissing you off, you could cause a fair amount of disorder. Permitting everyone to kill others for whatever reason they wanted would be utter chaos.

But that's not the whole story. Laws are enacted to enforce a moral code, too.

If a society were to enact a law that allowed parents to decide if they wanted to kill their children at age nine, one could argue that the society could still run smoothly with such a law in place. Hell, it might even be of benefit, weeding out some of the more ornery little shits before they could cause real damage

What about killing a disabled homeless guy with no friends or family? It could be argued that society is impacted little by such a deed. Still, it seems wrong to permit such an action.

The point is, we don't permit murder for moral reasons. Murder is illegal for reasons other than its possible adverse affect on an orderly society.

I would disagree. Chicken and egg here. We don't permit murder because it causes harm. We call it amoral once we decide it does indeed cause harm.

We call murder amoral, and have laws against it, because it causes harm; both individual harm And societal harm. We don't call it amoral just for shits.

It cannot be argued successfully that unnecessary harm is to be accepted. If it were, then we would see that more often. As a matter of fact, we do allow some killing. When? When we agree the benefits outweigh the harm, or when it is necessary to prevent further harm. In self defense, defense of others, and war (though there may be less agreement on this last point).

This essentially comes down to, how do humans determine what is moral? The answer: what causes unnecessary harm. I think that most pro choice people will admit that abortion causes harm. But much like killing in self defense, it causes less harm in the long run than the alternative.

Case in point. Notice the main arguments against gay marriage mostly focus on if its harmful. Is it hurting society? Ruining children? Destroying hetero marriage? Causing disease? And where people stand on the issue largely comes down to if they think the answer is yes or no.

Please, name one reason we outlaw murder aside from the harm it causes to individuals, and therefore the societies those individuals live in.

[robvalue]

I would say morals can often (partially) inform laws, and changes in laws, but the end result is not supposed to be a moral statement. It’s a rule which is judged to best serve society.

[Angrboda]

Laws can be based on morals, but they don't have to be. That you need to license your boat isn't a moral good. There is nothing immoral or harmful about an unlicensed boat.

[vulcanlogician]

Case in point. Notice the main arguments against gay marriage mostly focus on if its harmful. Is it hurting society? Ruining children? Destroying hetero marriage? Causing disease? And where people stand on the issue largely comes down to if they think the answer is yes or no.

Please, name one reason we outlaw murder aside from the harm it causes to individuals, and therefore the societies those individuals live in.

It's hard for me to answer your question because, in my thinking, only those things which are interpersonally destructive are immoral. Something like gay marriage is not immoral because such a thing is not destructive. I don't see exactly where we disagree.

What I might call into question is "...aside from the harm it causes to individuals, and therefore the societies..."

I gave two examples of murder that could be said to not harm societies. I don't see how harming an individual is inherently harmful to society. One could argue that robust and powerful societies (like ancient Rome) housed institutions (such as slavery) which were very harmful to individuals within the society. And yet those societies thrived and prospered. Since it is possible to harm an individual (arguably) for the benefit of the society that encompasses him/her, it does not not seem to logically follow that something that harms individuals therefore harms the societies those individuals live in.

Laws can be based on morals, but they don't have to be.  That you need to license your boat isn't a moral good.  There is nothing immoral or harmful about an unlicensed boat.

Yes. I was going to mention this, but I didn't want to ramble. Many laws are intentioned to create and maintain order in society, but have nothing to do with morality. On the other side of things, there are things (like adultery) which may be considered immoral but are nonetheless permitted by law.

---

---

[The Grand Nudger]

I gave two examples of murder that could be said to not harm societies. I don't see how harming an individual is inherently harmful to society. One could argue that robust and powerful societies (like ancient Rome) housed institutions (such as slavery) which were very harmful to individuals within the society. And yet those societies thrived and prospered.

I think you're mixing up civilization and society.   Society is the aggregate of individuals, and harming one of them does harm the aggregate, even if it doesn't harm the aggregate equally.  Some civilizations thrive and prosper in spite of institutions which harm their society, sure.  IDK if slavery is the best example, since we understand that slavery has an immense cost to society and civilization.  

Take any civilization you had in mind with that..and contend that they could not have been improved by solving their slavery problem...and that's what you would need to maintain in order to say that harming society in such a way was not inherently harmful to their civilization.  

A better example -might- be how we do harm to individuals with our police, purportedly on behalf of society...and yet, the militarized police force that does that harm, here..while we prosper, is definitely costing both society and our civilization all the same. Nevertheless...we contend that policing done right, where the harm to the individual and the aggregate is minimized..and more fundamentally where the opportunity to harm the individual or the aggregate is greatly restricted, and further.. whatever harm is done is restricted to those that harm society, or the civilization, would lead to a greater and more prosperous civilization. As a cynic..and with a long view of history, the job is to export your violence outside of the confines of your own society and civilization. Harming -those- individuals is less likely to harm your civilization or society (but it's not a safe bet..every now and again peoples heads get nailed to trees and cities are sacked in retribution).

Or we could just hit all the whores, queers, and darkies with nightsticks , point to our GDP, and say it's not inherently harmful all the way up to the next civil war and/or popular rebellion.

(Your two examples were inherently and categorically harmful to society, imo, even if the civilization could endure them.... which hey..maybe it might...though I doubt very much that it would.)

[vulcanlogician]

I think you're mixing up civilization and society.   Society is the aggregate of individuals, and harming one of them does harm the aggregate, even if it doesn't harm the aggregate equally.  Some civilizations thrive and prosper in spite of institutions which harm their society, sure.  IDK if slavery is the best example, since we understand that slavery has an immense cost to society and civilization.  

Well, by definition then, Rome was an aggregate of individuals, and therefore a society. We can look at this aggregate on a social level... examining their particular hierarchies... and see slavery as a social phenomenon.

But you raise a new and interesting question there, one that's worth exploring. Let's take morality out of it. Abstractly, can harm to an individual actually benefit his encompassing society? I'm thinking in terms of a tribe tracking a wooly mammoth. The tribe has been without food for days, and the mammoth is about to escape, perhaps for good. One daring hunter leaps onto the beast, clutching its fur and stabbing it with his blade. In the process he is trampled to death, but due to his efforts, the mammoth is greatly weakened and collapses not far from where the hunter leapt onto him.

No one can argue that an individual wasn't harmed in this scenario. But because of his sacrifice, the rest of the tribe was saved from starvation. Does this example demonstrate that harm to an individual can benefit his encompassing society? Or is there more to it than that?

[pocaracas]

I think you're mixing up civilization and society.   Society is the aggregate of individuals, and harming one of them does harm the aggregate, even if it doesn't harm the aggregate equally.  Some civilizations thrive and prosper in spite of institutions which harm their society, sure.  IDK if slavery is the best example, since we understand that slavery has an immense cost to society and civilization.  

Well, by definition then, Rome was an aggregate of individuals, and therefore a society. We can look at this aggregate on a social level... examining their particular hierarchies... and see slavery as a social phenomenon.

But you raise a new and interesting question there, one that's worth exploring. Let's take morality out of it. Abstractly, can harm to an individual actually benefit his encompassing society? I'm thinking in terms of a tribe tracking a wooly mammoth. The tribe has been without food for days, and the mammoth is about to escape, perhaps for good. One daring hunter leaps onto the beast, clutching its fur and stabbing it with his blade. In the process he is trampled to death, but due to his efforts, the mammoth is greatly weakened and collapses not far from where the hunter leapt onto him.

No one can argue that an individual wasn't harmed in this scenario. But because of his sacrifice, the rest of the tribe was saved from starvation. Does this example demonstrate that harm to an individual can benefit his encompassing society? Or is there more to it than that?

I think, in that example, the long term societal wellbeing comes out impaired by the lack of an able bodied individual, even though, in the short term, society does benefit with the food bonanza.
You get food for the short term.
But one less hunter for when that food runs out.

[Aroura]

Laws can be based on morals, but they don't have to be. That you need to license your boat isn't a moral good. There is nothing immoral or harmful about an unlicensed boat.

We do actually license things to prevent harm, or make us better able to punish those who commit it.

What do you think the purpose of ID and licenses are? Why do I need a lice to fish? To prevent over fishing and therefore harm. To drive? To make sure you are able to operate a vehicle as safely as possible, and track you down if you hurt someone.

I'm sure there are some examples of laws not protecting society and those living in it from harm, at least in intent, but mostly that is the very point.

Also, I never said laws are based on morals. I said morals are based on harm, as are laws. All oif which we are constantly reevaluating and updating... Hopefully.

---

Laws can be based on morals, but they don't have to be. That you need to license your boat isn't a moral good. There is nothing immoral or harmful about an unlicensed boat.

We do actually license things to prevent harm, or make us better able to punish those who commit it.

What do you think the purpose of ID and licenses are? Why do I need a lice to fish? To prevent over fishing and therefore harm. To drive? To make sure you are able to operate a vehicle as safely as possible, and track you down if you hurt someone.

I'm sure there are some examples of laws not protecting society and those living in it from harm, at least in intent, but mostly that is the very point.

Also, I never said laws are based on morals. I said morals are based on harm, as are laws. All oif which we are constantly reevaluating and updating... Hopefully.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think you're mixing up civilization and society.   Society is the aggregate of individuals, and harming one of them does harm the aggregate, even if it doesn't harm the aggregate equally.  Some civilizations thrive and prosper in spite of institutions which harm their society, sure.  IDK if slavery is the best example, since we understand that slavery has an immense cost to society and civilization.  

Well, by definition then, Rome was an aggregate of individuals, and therefore a society. We can look at this aggregate on a social level... examining their particular hierarchies... and see slavery as a social phenomenon.

Rome was a civilization.  To wit, a society, culture, and way of life.  Society is the aggregate of individuals..a component of civilization.  It's possible for a civilization to prosper even as the aggregate of it's individuals suffer.  For example, when wealth or power are calcified at the top 1% - society is suffering....but the civilization may be doing great.  I say this with one great big caveat which I'll get to in just a moment.  

But you raise a new and interesting question there, one that's worth exploring. Let's take morality out of it. Abstractly, can harm to an individual actually benefit his encompassing society? I'm thinking in terms of a tribe tracking a wooly mammoth. The tribe has been without food for days, and the mammoth is about to escape, perhaps for good. One daring hunter leaps onto the beast, clutching its fur and stabbing it with his blade. In the process he is trampled to death, but due to his efforts, the mammoth is greatly weakened and collapses not far from where the hunter leapt onto him.

No one can argue that an individual wasn't harmed in this scenario. But because of his sacrifice, the rest of the tribe was saved from starvation. Does this example demonstrate that harm to an individual can benefit his encompassing society? Or is there more to it than that?

I think that you're moving away from the sort of harm I thought we were discussing.  The enforcement of a slave apparatus and a courageous person doing something to the benefit of his peers are so disparate that I don't think any comment on one could address the other adequately.  

In any case, about removing the moral angle.  I can do that with the example of society, civilization, and slavery.  While I think there are moral reasons for a civilization not to engage in slavery..ultimately, I can simply refer to it's effects.

Enslaved people have a historical tendency to get pretty live.  Now, I don't want to ignore the docility of some...but one slave revolt or civil war can eradicate any short term benefit to unskilled labor that civilization that harming their society in that way might incur.  Even in the interim of docility the culture and way of life is negatively affected (deeply negatively affected)..those other components of civilization.  

Regardless of whether or not there is some harm that can be done to society to the benefit of civilization, this particular harm done to society also harms the civilization...inherently so.   The lure, the benefit..is labor, plain and sweet.  The risk is the maintenance of the slave apparatus, unrepresentative contribution (to markets, to innovation) by the disenfranchised, a cultural rift driving society into -at least- two camps, and the dissolution and reestablishment of governing authorities.

The understanding of how people react to their enslavement, all on it's own, provides a practical reason not to engage in it.  History is littered with conflict over the subject..and on a personal note...it's is the thing that despots and slaveholders have nightmares about.  Constantly fretting about the rabble and how to keep them under thumb.  Even -that- labor..intellectual and bureaucratic...would be better spent elsewhere.

---

I think, in that example, the long term societal wellbeing comes out impaired by the lack of an able bodied individual, even though, in the short term, society does benefit with the food bonanza.
You get food for the short term.
But one less hunter for when that food runs out.

I mean..if you're the smartest Ogg in the cave..you might wanna let a dumb young buck do the wetwork...but other than that...meh.

[Neo-Scholastic]

So is there anyone else disturbed by this?

FDA Transplating Aborted Fetus Parts into Mice