Morals > Rules?

[RayOxide]

Well I basically was just reading Joes newly made thread (or, semi-newly made thread) and it made me want to make a decent topic, in ways.. This should get a page to three..

 

 

 

Basically, the idea came to me today where I noticed, every time someone swears in my class, the teacher gets angry.

 

I ask why.. It's just a word, a sentence, a phase, etc.

 

They all give mixed reasons. Some just say "It's not proper English." - Does that really explain it?

 

 

 

There are more things though, swearing is just one.

 

Religious morals have been pushed less into governments, so laws have been slightly less religious based, unlike the early 1900s (example), but there is still quite a bit, and it's annoying in a way.

 

 

 

So, the question really is, should rules/laws be based on Morals?

 

 

 

(The meaning of moral is basically a personal belief of what should or should not be done. E.G. Swearing, it's bad in some peoples eyes, but to me it's just poorly educated place-holders for other words).

[warri0r45]

You have to base laws on something, and more often than not those laws are based on the moral zeitgeist (in an open and progressive democracy, at least). I can't really see it working any other way to be honest. Ideally those laws will be both secular and rational. Secular so everyone can practice what they believe without the state forcing religious beliefs on them and rational for obvious reasons.

 

 

 

As for swearing, I tend to think social attitudes towards it are pretty stupid. "[bleep]" is a great word as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure you've all seen the videos of how versatile a word it is. :lol:

[Racheya]

I think that laws should be based on protecting people from harm, but with as little influence from religion as possible. I think more general morals such as 'Murder is wrong', 'Pedophilia is wrong' are better to base laws and rules from than 'God dissaproves of homosexuality' or 'Hell is a bad word.'

 

 

 

As for swearing, I don't think it's appropriate to say call a teacher you [bleep]ing [bleep]. But if you're just talking with friends and having a laugh, swear words are just... words. My parents don't care about swearing, in fact they used to ASK me to swear when I was younger because I wouldn't swear because it was wrong and my dad was like 'Say [bleep] Rachael'. Then again they're not the best parents imo.

[llcoolguy972]

If laws weren't based on morals (a sense of right and wrong) what would they be based on? However, I don't think they should be based on religious "morals"; if one can't justify it without saying "Because the bible says it's wrong," it's invalid.

[RayOxide]

I kinda mean personal morals, not obvious morals lol >_>

[user1991]

The reasons we have these words is because we are humans.

 

 

 

There will always be topics that offend certain people. The f word has a sexual connotation, and since sex is not entirely an open subject in the public arena there are people who are offended by it.

 

 

 

I think the law should have absolutely no religious influence whatsoever, at any point, ever.

 

 

 

It is also human nature to find value in things (and therefore there will always be hierarchies). The Marxists never really seem to get this, you can't have a classless society even without money, some other form of value will just take its place. Whilst we have hierarchical systems of power (and not direct democracy), the actual laws will not be based entirely on public opinion, because the way western societies work is with some sort of Burkean representation where a "representative of the people" is voted in based on the policies they want to bring in, yet there is no mandate that forces them to actually bring in those policies. For example, the majority of Americans are against the Patriot act, yet it still remains because the politicians you have voted into power do not want to remove it (yet).

 

 

 

It will forever be like this for two reasons; 1) direct democracy is impractical in a country of 304,000,000 people and 2) the nature of coercive government itself is mutually exclusive with the idea of the people having total power over their system of law.

 

 

 

Morals are entirely subjective (no arguments from consequence please), even if you could prove God existed 100%, why would his opinions be of any more value than any of ours?

[Zygimantas]

I never understood swearing much, particularly " the middle finger". Who the hell thought of that? Was there some guy 2000 years ago who decided to make it an inappropriate gesture? Its kinda [bleep]ed up how a finger can offend someone, and more [bleep]ed up that society excepted it as an inappropriate gesture. I mean.. wtf mate? :wall:

[Da_Latios]

Personally, I don't swear, but I don't mind it when other people swear.

 

It's just another word. It doesn't offend me.

[Alg]

If it's a democracy, it's going to be the morals of the majority anyway. If stem cell research is banned, for example, it's probably because the majority believes it's murder, while if it's allowed, then the majority believes that it's justified in what it can potentially do.

 

 

 

As for religion... Some morals may deserve a place in society. Look at the ten commandments, mainly these:

 

You shall not murder

 

You shall not steal

 

Other than that, as little as possible, from any belief system... Including Atheistic (What? I consider it a religion :lol: ).

[killerbeer0]

So, the question really is, should rules/laws be based on Morals?

 

 

 

No. Morals are often wrong and laws based on them often have no benefit to society.

[Dizzle229]

So, the question really is, should rules/laws be based on Morals?

 

 

 

No. Morals are often wrong and laws based on them often have no benefit to society.

 

 

 

Of course they should be put into law, just the most basic ones. Thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal are the two main ones, along with several other non-religious ones. And IMO, stem cell research saves many lives, at the loss of people that weren't going to be born anyway, so really it's win-win.

 

 

 

And killerbeer, what the HELL makes you think morals are wrong. Lets take this for example.

 

 

 

You see a car that you REALLY want, but someone else needs to get around, but you want it for no other reason than that it looks cool. You know that if you take it when he;s not looking, you WILL NOT be caught.

 

 

 

Do you take the car?

 

 

 

If you answered no, then you DO have morals. If you answered yes, then you're a selfish bastard.

[killerbeer0]

So, the question really is, should rules/laws be based on Morals?

 

 

 

No. Morals are often wrong and laws based on them often have no benefit to society.

 

 

 

Of course they should be put into law, just the most basic ones. Thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal are the two main ones, along with several other non-religious ones. And IMO, stem cell research saves many lives, at the loss of people that weren't going to be born anyway, so really it's win-win.

 

 

 

And killerbeer, what the HELL makes you think morals are wrong. Lets take this for example.

 

 

 

You see a car that you REALLY want, but someone else needs to get around, but you want it for no other reason than that it looks cool. You know that if you take it when he;s not looking, you WILL NOT be caught.

 

 

 

Do you take the car?

 

 

 

If you answered no, then you DO have morals. If you answered yes, then you're a selfish bastard.

 

 

 

I said morals are often not always wrong.

[Dizzle229]

So, the question really is, should rules/laws be based on Morals?

 

 

 

No. Morals are often wrong and laws based on them often have no benefit to society.

 

 

 

Of course they should be put into law, just the most basic ones. Thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal are the two main ones, along with several other non-religious ones. And IMO, stem cell research saves many lives, at the loss of people that weren't going to be born anyway, so really it's win-win.

 

 

 

And killerbeer, what the HELL makes you think morals are wrong. Lets take this for example.

 

 

 

You see a car that you REALLY want, but someone else needs to get around, but you want it for no other reason than that it looks cool. You know that if you take it when he;s not looking, you WILL NOT be caught.

 

 

 

Do you take the car?

 

 

 

If you answered no, then you DO have morals. If you answered yes, then you're a selfish bastard.

 

 

 

I said morals are often not always wrong.

 

 

 

Well where exactly do you draw that line?

[killerbeer0]

I said morals are often not always wrong.

 

 

 

Well where exactly do you draw that line?

 

 

 

Whenever a moral infringes upon the freedom of another individual rather than preventing the infringement of the freedom of an individual.

[Dizzle229]

I said morals are often not always wrong.

 

 

 

Well where exactly do you draw that line?

 

 

 

Whenever a moral infringes upon the freedom of another individual rather than preventing the infringement of the freedom of an individual.

 

 

 

I don't see your point, isn't that exactly the way it is? You can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't bother someone else?

[Lenin64]

And killerbeer, what the HELL makes you think morals are wrong?

 

Well, there are morals that are particularly restrictive for him.

 

 

 

But I don't understand what that means, how would a moral infringe on someone's rights? Or is this a Westboro sort of issue, and anti-gay marriage laws?

[killerbeer0]

You can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't bother someone else?

 

 

 

If only that was true. Some [cabbage] morals prevent a lot of harmless activities.

[Dizzle229]

You can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't bother someone else?

 

 

 

If only that was true. Some [cabbage] morals prevent a lot of harmless activities.

 

 

 

Such as...?

 

 

 

P.S. Morals are not the same as laws. Morals are something YOU define for yourself. Enjoy it now before we get to the age where Lenin decides our beliefs for us.

[Lenin64]

You can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't bother someone else?

 

 

 

If only that was true. Some [cabbage] morals prevent a lot of harmless activities.

 

 

 

Such as...?

 

Such as homosexual marriage. That appears to be changing, but it was based largely on a question of morality. Also, I really want to say something about Rapture right here, where the scientist may not be constrained by petty morality.

[killerbeer0]

You can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't bother someone else?

 

 

 

If only that was true. Some [cabbage] morals prevent a lot of harmless activities.

 

 

 

Such as...?

 

 

 

P.S. Morals are not the same as laws. Morals are something YOU define for yourself. Enjoy it now before we get to the age where Lenin decides our beliefs for us.

 

 

 

I know morals aren't the same as laws, but many laws (you could make an argument for all) are based on morals, and many of those laws restrict private activities that cause no harm but are still made illegal because it's "wrong". An example is Georgia's Consensual Sodomy law (not sure if it still is in effect though).

[Dizzle229]

You can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't bother someone else?

 

 

 

If only that was true. Some [cabbage] morals prevent a lot of harmless activities.

 

 

 

Such as...?

 

Such as homosexual marriage. That appears to be changing, but it was based largely on a question of morality. Also, I really want to say something about Rapture right here, where the scientist may not be constrained by petty morality.

 

 

 

So I wasn't the only one who thought of Andrew Ryan when this thread popped up?

[Chained_life]

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves"

 

 

 

 

 

To answer your question:

 

 

 

So, the question really is, should rules/laws be based on Morals? Yes, to a degree, depends on the issue, but most...

[killerbeer0]

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves"

 

 

 

 

 

To answer your question:

 

 

 

So, the question really is, should rules/laws be based on Morals? Yes, to a degree, depends on the issue, but most...

 

 

 

Just pulling out a totally random example here... What is your opinion of the "moral" limiting of unconventional sexual practices/desires?

[Zygimantas]

If there is no proper support that supports the moral then the moral should not have an effect on laws.

[killerbeer0]

If there is no proper support that supports the moral then the moral should not have an effect on laws.

 

 

 

But does popular support also mean it's right?