Morality

[Peter44]

Just like to say: Those that are going on about laws and morality are missing the point. Law has absolutely nothing to do with morality.

On Kolbergs scale (1 to 6) Law and order is cleary defined at about level 4 usually acheived by chidren of 11 or 12 years old. Of course most of these children never leave that level (because of culture and religion) levels 5 and 6 dont seem to be understood by many on this thread.

Impressive display of douchiness...

Law has a LOT to do with morality. Look at any law system and you'll have a really good idea of what kind of people it governs and what the consensus' morals are, even what kind of history they had. Law is an impressively precise blueprint of the society that created it. Do not underestimate its importance.

What is legal and what is moral are two things that are very connected to each other. As proof, for a very long time, tribunals were ecclesiastic: the moral authorities and the legal authorities were one and the same.

I think this is just ignorance. In many Islamic countries the law demands death for blasphamy for instance.
That is not moral.

I could go on and give many examples of Christian Jewish and Islamic laws that have no moral content whatsoever in fact they have just the opposite.
To suggest that Law in anyway equates to morality is just ignorance probably induced my indoctrination.

You have no idea what your talking about.
What is legal and what is moral differs all over the world. I have been there.

There is no connection. Moral and legal authorities are nothing like each other.
One example will suffice;

It is moral not to kill.

It is Sharia Law to kill apostates.

Get real.

[frankiej]

Yeah, and possessing weed is a crime... But it isn't immoral.

[Rwandrall]

I think this is just ignorance. In many Islamic countries the law demands death for blasphamy for instance.
That is not moral.

I could go on and give many examples of Christian Jewish and Islamic laws that have no moral content whatsoever in fact they have just the opposite.
To suggest that Law in anyway equates to morality is just ignorance probably induced my indoctrination.

You have no idea what your talking about.
What is legal and what is moral differs all over the world. I have been there.

There is no connection. Moral and legal authorities are nothing like each other.
One example will suffice;

It is moral not to kill.

It is Sharia Law to kill apostates.

Get real.

You hold your own morality as a purely objective universal value, and that is wrong. What you think is moral has no effect on what someone else thinks is moral, and claiming you can objectively decide what is or is not moral is absolutely self-centered and insane.

"It is moral not to kill": not in self defense. Which directly means there is, in some scenarios, a way in which killing can be morally acceptable. Who are you to say it is immoral to kill apostates ? In their morality it is moral to do that, who are you to say it's not ? You do not have any authority on deciding what is moral or not, but still claim your own morality is THE ONE MORALITY that everyone else must abide to. That is properly insane.

What's more, you assume that my opinions are based on indoctrination, which means you hold yourself as another of those "enlightened" ones who think anyone having an opinion that defers from theirs is an idiot or a sheep. Which is, again, an impressive display of douchiness. You're not helping your case much.

Morality is subjective, and the Law directly and accurately reflects this subjectivity. That is a fact which you have yet to in any way disprove.

[ElDinero]

I do not care what crimes a friend of mine committed or did not commit. If I am their friend: I am not ever okay with them being put to death until they are no longer my friend.

Nor am I ever okay with them being locked up for an extended period of time stretching past a handful of months.

Your false dichotomy is amusing.

I don't think it is. You're pretty fucked up, really. So you've now added to your repertoire of 'not caring if innocent people get executed' with the hit follow up 'excusing your friends from committing crimes on the basis that they are your friends'.

Don't see how there can be much argument with my dichotomy. If you think there is, provide your alternative.

[Rokcet Scientist]

So you've now added to your repertoire of 'not caring if innocent people get executed' with the hit follow up 'excusing your friends from committing crimes on the basis that they are your friends'.

That's is the essence of the American attitude.

And still people wonder why America is so hated. DUH!

[The Grand Nudger]

Sae is Sae, not America. lol. The stats on our penal system should assure you guys that we do not all share these convictions. We have anonymous informant hotlines that operate 24/7, phones ringing off the hooks. "Implicate your neighbor" is by far more common than "excuse your friend".

[Violet]

I don't think it is. You're pretty fucked up, really. So you've now added to your repertoire of 'not caring if innocent people get executed' with the hit follow up 'excusing your friends from committing crimes on the basis that they are your friends'.

How is that fucked up? I am an anarchist: I do not recognize crimes as you do. If a friend of mine committed a crime (as I hold them): they are likely no longer my friend. And they certainly are hearing my backlash for the action, also providing an explanation immediately. If there is any solid reasoning for what they did, or if they own up to their mistake: we can continue as friends. If not... I might well terminate them myself.

Simply: whatever the state has them imprisoned for, I do not care. If I am their friend: I am getting them out if possible. Friendship is valuable indeed to me... and I've not many instances of it.

Don't see how there can be much argument with my dichotomy. If you think there is, provide your alternative.

Alternative: What the fuck does the law's "crimes" matter to me?

---

Sae is Sae, not America. lol. The stats on our penal system should assure you guys that we do not all share these convictions. We have anonymous informant hotlines that operate 24/7, phones ringing off the hooks. "Implicate your neighbor" is by far more common than "excuse your friend".

Indeed: I am not America. I don't even consider myself 'American'. I just live here right now and am willing to abuse everything citizenship allows me to abuse

Anonymous hotlines annoy me... whether they be in Stalin's Russia or in <insert figurehead>'s America.

Certainly... I am far more morally secure in my position of willingness to save a friend from 'the system'

[Peter44]

I think this is just ignorance. In many Islamic countries the law demands death for blasphemy for instance.
That is not moral.

I could go on and give many examples of Christian Jewish and Islamic laws that have no moral content whatsoever in fact they have just the opposite.
To suggest that Law in anyway equates to morality is just ignorance probably induced my indoctrination.

You have no idea what your talking about.
What is legal and what is moral differs all over the world. I have been there.

There is no connection. Moral and legal authorities are nothing like each other.
One example will suffice;

It is moral not to kill.

It is Sharia Law to kill apostates.

Get real.

You hold your own morality as a purely objective universal value, and that is wrong. What you think is moral has no effect on what someone else thinks is moral, and claiming you can objectively decide what is or is not moral is absolutely self-centered and insane.

"It is moral not to kill": not in self defense. Which directly means there is, in some scenarios, a way in which killing can be morally acceptable. Who are you to say it is immoral to kill apostates ? In their morality it is moral to do that, who are you to say it's not ? You do not have any authority on deciding what is moral or not, but still claim your own morality is THE ONE MORALITY that everyone else must abide to. That is properly insane.

What's more, you assume that my opinions are based on indoctrination, which means you hold yourself as another of those "enlightened" ones who think anyone having an opinion that defers from theirs is an idiot or a sheep. Which is, again, an impressive display of douchiness. You're not helping your case much.

Morality is subjective, and the Law directly and accurately reflects this subjectivity. That is a fact which you have yet to in any way disprove.

Hardly anything you stated is true. I quoted a well known authority on morality with whom I and many others who have studied it happen to agree. Its based on research and is certainly not insane.

I have never claimed anyone who differed from me in an understanding of these principles is an idiot (your words) or a (sheep)
again your words. Not mine.
The law is subjective and inefficient that's why an objective universal application of morality is so superior to those that take influence and writings from whatever source in the past and use it as criteria to live by today.

Because they do this and don't use their own cognitively generated principles. The world is a mess. Children are born in in the servitude of medieval religious beliefs and laws and mankind is paying the price of human ignorance.
I say killing anyone to to justify a a faith without evidence and without reason but what is written by something passed down to a failed desert tribe is not only immoral. Its evil and selfish. That's my judgment and my morality based on reasoning ability and a concern for humanity.

My morality doesn't accept victimless crime nor does it accept those who do these things as normal. It may be culturally and religiously driven but killing someone for changing there mind (apostasy) is worse than insane. Its criminal with intent.

I dont have to disprove anything as I am not the one killing for a belief. Guilt has to be proved not innocence.

No one killed anyone from a lack of belief.
As you admitted the law is subjective (and i certainly agree that morality is) it shows the law is not really to be taken as 'law' and is something only to use in a practical way. I am all for that.

Because of its subjectivity it should expect many of us to contradict it to disagree with it and to break it for all the right reasons.
But as for studying law and its agreed subjectivity I think its a complete waste of someones intellect. Just like religion.

[downbeatplumb]

Are you good or evil?

The below is an article based on a BBC programme I posted elsewhere.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2...-good-evil

[The Grand Nudger]

Nice article, I can back that up from experience. I'm a pretty nice dude until someone starts yelling hooah and talking about flanking a position. I've been fascinated with the effects (and methods) of military indoctrination since subjecting myself to it a decade or so ago.