Law and how it fits in Abolute Moralities

This is a great Debate between Discrete and purpledawn

OK DL, start the ball rolling. What's the first thing on your agenda?You're in a differnt time zone that I am and I've got a lot of projects going on outside EvC, so bear with me, the responses may be slow.It is probably wise to put the read header on our posts.Edited by purpledawn, : Added thoughts.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This is a great Debate between Discreet and purpledawn

quote:

---

So what is law?

---

Which is pretty much what you have said.

quote:

---

So basically for the sum of it. I feel that laws in general are a series of rules of conduct that are either officially, unoffically agreed upon by people entering into a particular culture. That need to be learned for a person to manuever their way through life and get along with people.

---

When we look at our legal system today, it is very overwhelming. There are laws that are still on the books, but are not enforced anymore because they are unnecessary in our society today.When I look at the history of the United States, I can see why laws (rules) are needed as civilization grows.Before American became "owned", a man living alone in the wilderness, didn't need rules on how to deal with others. But if he decides to visit a Native village, he starts to "invade" another's space so to speak.A small village will have rules that ensure the peace and survival of the village.Even in the wild, animals have rules of engagement so to speak.When those rules are violated, there are consequences.Laws also provide protection. This can be illustrated by our own "Wild West". As the pioneers moved west and people settled, creating small towns, peaceful people needed some sort of protection from those that wished to steal and kill. From what I remember of history, laws seemed to come in later as the town formed.IOW, laws seem to be formed after someone commits an act that is unacceptable or viewed as hazardous to the majority. Those warnings on labels stem from the stupid things people do.Here recently in Carmel, Indiana, a speed limit was established for the Monon Trail. What used to be primarily a bicycle trail, is now used more and more by pedestrians. So now speeding cyclists became a hazard to walkers and a new rule is needed.IMO, most laws develop from the needs of the civilization.(I keep getting interrupted so this post seems a bit disjointed, sorry.)

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This is a great Debate between Discreet and purpledawn

quote:

---

So from here you point out that laws can serve to protect. I certaintly agree but at the same time what are laws protecting? For example 1860s at the end of the reconstruction era in the U.S. (I don't know how many) but many Southern states passed several Jim Crow Laws that were meant to protect White people from their former Black slaves through a systematic stifling of Black people's political power. So in this instance a question arises of how law is applied.

---

Laws in and of themselves are not moral as you can see by the definition again. I brought up the protection from outlaws aspect and you brought up the Jim Crow Laws (which I had forgotten about), which shows that laws aren't always based on what we consider today to be right and wrong, but then the attitudes were different then. They probably thought it was the right thing to do. People want protection from what they fear.

quote:

---

But in other cases are the who, what and how as clear cut? Harkening back to the Jim Crow Laws, the people who decided to create these laws were definetly not the majority of the population (as the majority in the southern states were black at about this time i think).

---

Laws/rules are created by those in authority or those presumed to be in authority.

quote:

---

The second question arising out of your post is who, what and how are the needs of a civilization determined?

---

Throughout history, my guess is we will see a lot of laws created to benefit those in power besides the ones created to benefit civilization.

quote:

---

Law is also not preemptive. Laws can not be made for situations that had yet to occur. Civilizations I don't think can make laws in such a way to consider and 'protect' against situations that have not been created or even thought of.

---

Exactly.The thread that just started concerning the Leviticus laws brought this to mind. Maybe one way to go at this is to look at laws from the past and then some in our own lifetime to see what they might have been based on. Even looking at laws that have become obsolete. What were the moralities or needs of the time? What laws tend to stick around through time? Do not murder seems to be consistent through time, but then again in our own countries history it depended on who was killed whether the law was enforced. Whites killing Indians or Blacks, not enforced, but if they killed Whites, yet it was enforced. So it was relative to who had the power to enforce. Even the rules in the OT were relative to whether you were a Hebrew or not.Unfortunately the thread concerning abolute morality fell apart. So which meaning of absolute to you feel refers to morality? I figure either 5 or 6. Now I've mentioned above that those in power or presummed authority determine what is right or wrong.So we can have a city that has rules and we can have small groups who hve their own set of rules, which may compliment the city rules, be neutral or go against them.If you read the History of the Jews you find that many people didn't like the fact that the Jews had their own set of rules. (Sabbath rest, no pork, etc.) So right and wrong is relative to a society or group.As you've noticed in our own countries history, what is considered right and wrong behavior has changed. Slavery was right and now it is wrong. Smoking was accepted behavior and now it isn't.Hopefully I haven't wandered off the path you were aiming at. What I see is that laws seem to reflect the morality of the culture.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This is a great Debate between Discreet and purpledawn

We seem to agree that laws are relative to the person or group who holds the power or is perceived to hold the power. So then laws are also going to be relative to the morals of the person or group in "power." (Hence the reason we should pay attention to who we vote into office.)I think we need to look at what is absolute morality? In Message 8 I listed the meanings associated with absolute. So which meaning of absolute to you feel refers to morality? I figure either 5 or 6. Who sets up the standards of right conduct? Are these also set up by those who are in power or perceived to be in power?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This is a great Debate between Discreet and purpledawn

Hey DL,
Did you forget or get bored with our discussion?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Since I now have a better understanding of the Absolute Moralities idea (See Message 223 in that thread for my understanding.), I think we can progress.Moral is nothing more than being able to distinguish right from wrong. A law is not a living thing that can distinguish right from wrong.Laws are nothing more than what a society determines to be beneficial to keep a community running as smoothly as possible.As an individual, I may consider a law to be wrong because of how I was raised or how it affects me, but if I am part of that society I'm not allowed to break that law. There are some laws in place that only affect us when our circumstances warrant it. Example...Abortion is legal in the U.S. Even though it is legal, that doesn't mean I have to do it if I feel it is wrong.Whether I would choose an abortion would depend on the situation.1. I'm married/single, pregnant, and don't wish to have a child; but healthy.
2. I'm married/single, pregnant, and either I or the child will die because of a medical situation.
3. I'm a rape victim, impregnated by the rapist.Now I can say that in situation one, I would not choose abortion. I would consider it wrong. This is when our own personal ideas of right and wrong will determine what we choose. Even though abortion is legal I don't have to have one.Now if I lived in a country with a limit on the number of children I'm allowed to have and this one was over the limit; then they may mandate that I have to have an abortion despite my ideas of right or wrong.Laws are developed to deal with the community. So they cover what is beneficial for the community not necessarily all individuals.Individual ideas of right and wrong often clash with what is legal.

quote:

---

The hardest thing in accepting is that I feel that moral actions and stances should be intrinsically arrived at not coerced.

---

You are equating moral with good. We call someone or their action moral when it is in compliance with our own or societies values of right and wrong. We've classified that as good. That which is not in compliance with our own standards are considered immoral or implying that they don't know right from wrong or they wouldn't be doing something that we consider to be wrong. We classify that as wrong.

quote:

---

Moral action should be done for the sake of its value instead of legislated upon IMO when it becomes legislated morality then losses all meaning because morale actions then become actions that must be followed instead of freely done.

---

Give me an idea of what types of legislated actions you are talking about.

This is a great Debate between Discrete and purpledawn

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

I'm not sure how I am equating moral with good or even what good is for that matter.

---

Bear with me on this. I'm not used to using the terms moral or immoral. I tend to use ethical or unethical in regards to choices. I was trying to make sure I understand how you are using moral when you use it concerning actions and stances. So you were saying that right actions and stances should be inborn.Unfortunately we are all products of our environment. Our temperament may be inborn, but what we consider to be right and wrong or our moral values, are acquired through example, teaching, and imprinting from parents and society. So people are coerced into their values.As far as the legislated action you gave as an example, I am familiar with the practices of Affirmative Action. I'm not a minority, but I am a woman.Affirmative action came about as a way to correct social injustices, IOW discrimination/prejudice. These injustices limited access to educational opportunities and job experiences for minorities which would in turn affect their quality of life.So they are using affirmative action to help minorities "catch up" so to speak. Unfortunately they just reversed the discrimination. I think many on both sides feel that the affirmative action program should expire and people should be judged on their own merits.So was it wrong for the Civil Rights Movement to want ammends or was it just not the best way to go about it?Was it a good idea then, but past it's prime now?If discrimination is a wrong behavior, is it wrong to protect people from those who discrimate?Telling people they can't murder, steal, discriminate, lie, etc. would be legislating morality. IOW, dictating what the society accepts as right and wrong. Parents do the same thing to their children.People fight to change laws that they consider wrong or not applicable any more. The civil rights movement fought to get laws changed and enacted to proctect. Sometimes its just as harder to undo what is in place. I'm sure there will be a time.The on going debates concerning Affirmative Action:

quote:

---

So I am in the position of recieving a higher status in college apps then other groups when my skills as a student may not necessairly be as good as one who may be ranked lower then me.) This particular legislation has forced me into my own moral quandry.

---

Out of curiosity, do you have to accept the higher status?When I was a single parent, I was eligible for food stamps. I didn't feel I should take the food stamps since I was able to make ends meet.The help is there if you feel you need it, but if it isn't mandatory you can choose to make it on your own merits. This is the type of choice where our own personal moral values come into play. I don't think society would care which choice you make.Alcohol, Prostitution, CensorshipThose are some things that seem to be geared by religious moral values. They want everyone on the same page or they don't like dealing with temptation. I don't feel it is right to micromanage moral values. They should stick to dealing with those things that can harm the innocent.

This is a great Debate between Discrete and purpledawn

Edited by purpledawn, : Added Debate Notice

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

So as applied to moral decisions. Moral decisions should be made for the sake of making them not because there is an external factor involved saying that this is the decision you must make.

---

Intrinisic is natural. So you may not mean inborn, from birth, but the intrinsic value in learning aobut chemistry is for the sake of learning. Some people just like to learn whether they need the info for anything specific. Just as for cooking. Some people just enjoy cooking, whether they have to or not. It's just how they are naturally.IMO, morals are a little bit of inborn (temperament) and a lot of what you have been taught over the years. If someone asks me to steal, my natural reaction is no. When it comes to things outside of what I've been taught or my temperament, then I have to think a bit more before acting.An ethics seminar sounds interesting.

This is a great Debate between Discrete and purpledawn

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz