Arsenist Wanted

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Thank you Fell for clairfying that,... That makes much more sense than Spriggans post which implied that it was a morality issue (an extesion of the BYU honor code into the community)

[42]

The problem is that Provo zoning laws don't account for normal singles. They assume all singles are students, which isn't true.

[Fellfrosch]

That's what I figured. Miscommunication has sparked many an interesting discussion.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

I wasn't saying that laws are based on Judeo-Christian morals

But lets not be coy, since we live in the USA and we arn't talking about India I can infer that you meant Judeo Christian Morals and not Hindu, Buddhist, Stoic, or Confuscist Morals.

Let's look at your housing argument, taking all morals out of the picture:
Why should the landlord not discriminate?  What is the problem with discrimination?  I challenge you to explain the problems of discrimination without resorting to morals (try explaining it without saying that it is "wrong" or that people have natural rights

Whoah, WHoa, Whoa... since when are natural rights or natuaral law moral or immoral? Since morality reflects the changing view of society and their interpritation of various behaviors to insure "moral" stability the fact that something is a natural law isn't enough to make it moral. It may be a natural law that puppies grow up to be dogs or that Horses eat hay but it doesn't make their state of being moralistic. The fact that all men are created equal doesn't make that creation or the implied equality of the createeany more moral than if all men were created different.

I also never said all law was immoral if you reread what I said in the first paragraph!!

I feel confidant that law is not just designed to enforce morality

you might get that I was saying that morality is not the guiding force of law it is a contributing factor, but one that is often overlooked in the persuit of true justice.

What about all the social welfare laws?  They are not administrative - they're not in place to arbitrate.  They are done to help the less fortunate homeless, poor, unemployed etc...  It is charitible, another incarnation of morals.

Are you actually saying those laws got passed out of the goodness of someones heart and their concern for right and wrong and not because people in the lower classes of society were rioting and killing people? They are there to arbitrate, between social classes...

they effectively say "Ok the government will assure you have a roof over your head and money to buy food, in exchange you wont burn down Salt Lake and kill your boss."
The arbitration comes in when the bosses are forced to pay their workers a minimum salary, assure extra pay for overtime, a 40 hour work week with breaks for the restroom and lunch.
Its not charitable, its scraps designed to keep people just poor enough to not get so ticked off they riot. You think minimum wage and the eight hour day are charity? Excuse me for laughing... HA!

[Entsuropi]

Jeffe... here in britain we have this strange little idea.

We call it:
"Making Sense".

Try it sometime, its quite pleasant.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

What don't you understand, I know I was in a bit of a hurry when I wrote the last post  I am at work, but what didn't make sense to you.

[Fellfrosch]

If I may step in here, I have to argue against Jeffe's concept of natural rights. Are you saying that "all men are created equal" is a natural law without regard to the legal framework? That it is an immutable rule of society which exists outside of concepts of morality? I see no historical basis for that, and I doubt that you could successfully argue it. Cultures have existed (some still do) in which it is considered moral to degrade other people based on race, religion, gender, or whatever. Just because your culture doesn't do this doesn't mean that you're magically right. How can you say that the Nazis or the Khmer Rouge or the American slave owners were trampling on rights that they didn't even believe in, unless you impose your own moral framework on them?

[House of Mustard]

I don't want to waste space with quotes, so i'll refer to your paragraphs.

First paragraph.
How many times do I have to say that I was not talking about religious morals.  I was refering only to the difference between "right" and "wrong."  Thank you for calling me coy, however.  I don't think anyone ever has.

Second Paragraph.
You didn't even address my challenge.  Explain discrimination without bringing "right"and "wrong" into it.

The natural laws are not moral in themselves.  All men being created equal is not a moral law.  However, if all men are created equal, and I discriminate against one of them, isn't that immoral (in the sense that it is "wrong"?)  Explain the problems of discrimination, without putting it in the context of right and wrong.

Anyway, I am running out of time and need to get back to class.

Okay.  I'll play your game.  Given your reasoning for why there are social welfare laws "so you don't burn down the city and kill your boss": if you boil it down further it still goes to right and wrong.  Burning things down is wrong.  Murdering people is wrong.  Infringing on the rights of others is wrong.

Did I make ANY reference to minimum wage and the 8 hour day in reference to charity?  I believe i mentioned unemployment, homlessness, and poverty.  I did mention etc. I guess, so maybe you thought I was meaning labor laws when I actually said social welfare laws.

Anyway, out of time.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Are you saying that "all men are created equal" is a natural law without regard to the legal framework?That it is an immutable rule of society which exists outside of concepts of morality?

Wow, that was so not how I wanted it to come out...

Let me reread what I typed and restate.

[Fellfrosch]

Now it's my turn to agree with Jeffe, because there are obvious cases where moral laws become amoral. As Malcolm X put it, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins." Burning cities and killing bosses is immoral, I'll admit, but that's not why I want to stop it from happening. I want to stop it because I live in the city and don't want all my stuff burned down. The lawmakers want to stop it because they're the bosses and don't want to get killed. Morality takes back seat to self-preservation in this case.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Like you said lets back up...

You said that you don't like legislated morality.  I said that all laws are based on morals, in the sense that all laws are based on an inherent sense of right and wrong.  Then you said that since sodomy is now legal, then laws must not be based on morals.  Huh?

Actually I said that

Suffice it to say that I feel writing a law to arbitrairily enforce morality is wrong and against the constitution of the United States. I feel confidant that law is not just designed to enforce morality ...blah blah Supreme Court ...I find it hard to say all laws are based on a standard of morals

Ok the emphesis was my own, but Im sure I never said that no laws were based on morals or that all laws based on morals were wrong.
I did say I hate arbitrary laws that enforce morality on others. Specifically laws that limit my ability to prosper and live in a comfortable manner. This matter is moot because Spriggan quoted the legal circumstance wrong.


The example of the supreme court striking down Sodemy laws was to demonstrate that the original laws legislating a persons morality were wrong and violated a persons right to privacy and in the words of Chief justice Anthony Kennedy "demeans the lives of homosexual persons". The ruling is amoral where as the struck down laws are moral.

and since when do social welfare laws not involve labor laws. Did they become a different ilk just because the Labor movement is organized? They have the same purpose and in many cases the battles to get the laws passed were fought and won by the same people. Just because you never mentioned the 8 hour day 40 hour work week or minmum wage doesn't mean they arent social welfare laws.

But you say I dont address your challenge...
your right because its a bogus one.
You assume I meant that all laws were Amoral or that all moral laws were bad.  I don't think thats the case at all. I do think that there is a reasonable line that can be drawn. My example about German and Latin law was not an expression of how I feel but fact. Sure there were feelings involved but the idea of being fined or even serving time are a variation on old verguilt laws that ensured famlies of the wronged got restitution for their property.

Fell What I meant to say about Natural Law is that limiting their use to only the moralistic camp is a cop out designed to rob anyone of the right to reply. Many natural rights arn't always moral, Letting a murder live because a policeman got him to confess after he requested to speak to a lawyer... or allowing a Klansman the right to free speech at a hate rally. I dont know if these are great examples, but natural rights can be just as amoral as moral.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

As Malcolm X put it, "Your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins."

nice quote, wish I'd thought of it.

[Fellfrosch]

I know what you're saying, I just think that the concept of "natural rights" is tied up with morals inextricably. You cannot have natural rights without a previous notion of what is right and wrong, and that (as Mustard pointed out) is a moral statement. We have defined certain rights for our nation, among them free speech (I don't think "right to an attorney" is considered a natural right, but whatever), and because of our beliefs we say that these are basic human rights that everyone everywhere is supposed to have. Other nations don't have those rights, or have defined them differently. Just because we label them "natural rights," does that make other countries wrong? Only in relation to our made-up definition of what is right, which we can only hold from a moral perspective. Take those morals away and you have no natural rights, just some cool laws we choose to live by.

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Unless we doggedly hold to the opinion that all the other nations are wrong... and that only we have it right  

After all we are Americans!!! Well Some of us anyways.

Seriously though I do see your point but dont think its an absolute.

[Fellfrosch]

I was, of course, ignoring the fact that Americans are always right. We are, so the subject is moot, but it's fun to argue occasionally anyway.

And may I say, thanks for keeping it civil. It's very refreshing