RR 2.68: Can we Legislate Morality?

A follow up to my last video

adrenacrumb's channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/adrenacrumb

IceMetalPunk's channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/IceMetalPunk

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• RR
• rational
• roundtable
• rationalroundtable
• can
• we
• legislate
• morality
• should
• christians
• support
• censorship

[XSC3]

and you can see the rules on what constitutes "theft" is also debated (see IP laws). so it goes. sorry for the long windedness, but I hope you understand where I'm coming from. we can agree to disagree, but I think you have to admit that moral principles are behind laws, and your agreement or disagreement with these laws is based on moral principles as well (even if it's just "that money should be spent on something else" key word is SHOULD, that's a value judgment)

[XSC3]

and need I point out that there will always be people who want to do things that are illegal. so you have laws that fail to stop things, and people who want to do them anyway. you'd have to argue that changing the law on murder (say, making dueling legal again) would be superior than keeping things as they are. now I think those people in nambla are disgusting, but they want to change rape laws. so there. we need moral principles to sort out which way to go on these issues.

[XSC3]

But the drug argument (using the Prohibition of alcohol as the example) that we should legalize something because it's "failed" to stop the problem isn't a great argument. many things most everyone agrees should be illegal even though banning them has never stopped them from happening (ie: laws against murder, rape, theft, etc).a better argument would be that the cure is worse than the disease and here's a better way, not "you can't legislate morality!"

[XSC3]

@xlanciferionx prohibition was enacted based on a popular movement against alcohol. some of it was religious, but much of it was motivated by social concern against the scourges of alcoholism and drunkenness. one could argue it was unpopular and repealed because people like to drink too much and that's that, or argue like people do today about the war on drugs, that the gangs profited from the black market too much and this was worse than the original problem.

[XSC3]

If you did find a law that didn't represent someone's moral interest TODAY, it surely represented someone's moral interest in the past (which is why it was made in the first place). if the moral interest no longer existed (or no longer extended to those in power to change the law), or especially if it became at odds with the ruling agency's goals, it would be changed.

[XSC3]

or think of national security type laws. many consider such laws to be immoral, because they impinge on personal freedoms (such as privacy or free association or free speech). others support such laws because they feel that additional safety or security is a higher good than those personal freedoms and are willing to trade one for another. so either way there are moral principles (safety, personal freedom) at work regarding the laws. find me a law that doesn't represent someone's moral interest

[XSC3]

@xlanciferionx why have one law vs. some other law? laws are made to enforce conditions that the lawmaker presumes to be better than some alternative. the value placed upon it may be anything, it may even be self serving, but it is to protect that principle. if you think you deserve to be richer from some law that protects your money or something, that's still a moral value. you could after all have a law that didn't protect your money, on the path of some other good.

[XSC3]

@xlanciferionx but why does financial value matter? because somebody sees a value in having money. why do they want money? because they want to use it for things they see as good (even if that "good" is just making themselves happy). so the moral value of the pursuit of happiness is behind these "financial values." you could argue that if a person "needs" a car for a job, it is part of their livelihood. they use it to feed themselves & their family. protecting those "goods" is behind the laws

[XSC3]

ps: I'm not really arguing for a lawless society, nor am I in favor of bringing back dueling. but I'm curious how someone like yourself would answer those questions. either I'm not understanding your philosophy correctly, or you haven't thought through these angles, I think.

[XSC3]

@xlanciferionx many countries, including the US, practiced the ancient art of dueling. in dueling, two individuals enter into a contract to mortal combat. each will try to kill the other. the result may be that neither dies, one dies, or both die. the state does not get involved (other than perhaps to have a referee to witness). some such laws are still on the books, but in practice would not be allowed. why shouldn't dueling be lawful? or why not russian roulette?