...there can exist a morality in breaking, and presumably a greater morality in breaking than not breaking, does not make the immorality of breaking disappear. — tim wood

Ahh, so on your basis, either way, the law always involves morality.

Otherwise, your formulation of not immoral because illegal seems self-contradictory. — tim wood

Based on your intertwining of morality and legality, it seems it would be self-contradictory.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I should have worded the formulation differently.

A something not immoral (or moral, irrelevant of morality, in other words) when said something happens to be illegal.

But, seems that in your mindset, legal concerns are all founded on moral building blocks. No absence of morality in legality.

...And, to add, that morality is always "right" by nature, that there can be two moralities (two "rights") that seem to contradict but that impression would perhaps just be subjectively superficial? Or is that formulation also self-contradictory, maybe even nonsensical?

...And, to add, that morality is always "right" by nature, that there can be two moralities (two "rights") that seem to contradict but that impression would perhaps just be subjectively superficial? Or is that formulation also self-contradictory, maybe even nonsensical? — THX1138

Moreover on this, it can even be argued in your way of thinking that even if something considered moral that happens to result from an action not executed with moral intention (like infidelity from someone in an arranged marriage that produces genuine romantic love) should still be subject to penalty due to the nature in which it was done.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

It's nonsense to say that a foundational preference could be based on reason, as it would be an attempt to overcome the is/ought problem.

How do you propose you'd have a foundational preference that has something to do with reason? What would be an example?

Are you suggesting that categorically there are none? That's how I'm reading you - no duties at all. Question: assuming you drive, do you drive on the correct side of the road? Why, exactly (assuming you do)? — tim wood

It makes sense to say that there are duties a la things that are legally enforced, for example. But if that's what you're saying, then (a) obviously there are no duties to use particular grammar, which was his example, and (b) even if there were, obviously he was saying that he disagrees with the notion of that.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

The "is-ought" problem was resolved long ago. For a current resolution, see Mortimer Adler. Language - broadly defined - through memory mediates experience, and reason underpins language. That is, reason is always there. Arguably there in the experience itself, but I am not prepared to argue that. But you might care to try a self-analysis of what you do when you accidentally touch something hot and burn yourself. — tim wood

Huh???

First, what was Adler's supposed resolution? If I read it in the past, I don't recall it.

Yes, as to illegality. As to harm, I'm agnostic on marijuana. . . etc — tim wood

It seems that we are introducing a new variable into the original question - namely that the immorality of drug taking depends on the level of self harm it might inflict on a person (along with any collateral damage to society).

You seem to be saying that occasional recreational marijuana use appears to be non-harmful and thus it is morally OK to consume marijuana - provided you do so in a place where it is legal.

However - and please correct me if I'm misrepresenting you - you appear to be saying that it is immoral to consume certain drugs even if they are legal.

E.g., in your viewpoint is it immoral to consume heroin in a country where it is legal - say Portugal?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Most briefly, if you want X (if X is something to be that isn't), And Y is the way to get it, then you ought to do Y. — tim wood

Hence why I said foundational. "If you want x" would be the foundation. You can't get to that from an is.

So it's not even addressing the claim I made.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

No? I've had grape juice. I like grape juice. I want grape juice. (Fermented, these many years.) This, per you, is foundational. This is the is-ness. Are you arguing I cannot get to an ought? If I want wine I should - ought to - go to the store and buy some. — tim wood

From a fact to a value statement. "Ought" is a type of value statement. As is "I like grape juice" and "I want grape juice."

Saying that something is the "is/ought problem" is a way of mentioning that you can't derive any value statement from an objective fact.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Vitamin A, and other vitamins have an effect on your body. It's up to each individual whether they value that effect or not. There's no objective fact that the effect it has is more valuable than the effects of not having vitamins, or that you should value the effects or anything like that.

Question: assuming you drive, do you drive on the correct side of the road? Why, exactly (assuming you do)? — tim wood

So I don't die. So I don't kill anyone. So I don't get hurt or hurt anyone. Because I don't want to get a ticket. Which of those defines my driving on the right side of the road as a duty? They all sound like "desire for intended consequence", which, although my philosophy knowledge sucks, I think Kant used as a counter/opposite for duty.

Oh, and what was the answer to this:

Your view destroys (in a Kantian sense) law.
— tim wood

And yet we (he) still go to jail if we break the law. So what was destroyed? — ZhouBoTong

In my mind, all that is destroyed is the sense of duty. The law is still 100% intact.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

@tim wood
I'd like to go back to our earlier conversation about exceeding the speed limit. If I followed you correctly you said (or at least implied) that speeding was not immoral because people typically do not deliberately speed, it's more of an unconscious decision - likely you are going along with the flow of traffic.

To be moral is to accept being a member of a community, many communities. It is to accept the obligation to the other, as they accept a similar obligation to you. — tim wood

Ahh, so on your basis, either way, the law always involves morality. — THX1138
Yes. Always and absolutely. — tim wood

But given that the laws are collectively decided upon by the community, when you speed you are violating the collective decision that exceeding the speed limit is dangerous not only to yourself but to other fellow citizens on the road. Is it as dangerous as taking heroin? I don't have an answer to that - and in any case it's irrelevant. The community has made the decision that speeding is illegal, and you must accept that obligation. And there is clearly no moral obligation requiring you to speed under normal circumstances.

So it seems to me that if you want to be consistent in your approach, then you must conclude that exceeding the speed limit is immoral.

I think you're just going to have to man up and admit that in your thinking there is no such thing as a fact. — tim wood

I said, "Vitamin A, and other vitamins have an effect on your body." That's a(n objective) fact. What's not a(n objective) fact is whether the effect is good or bad, desirable or undesirable, something we ought to pursue or not, etc.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

The idea isn't at all that people do not judge things to be good or bad, preferable or not, recommendable or not, etc. Obviously we do.

Rather, the world outside of people does not judge things to be good or bad, preferable or not, recommendable or not. Those judgments are something that brains do. They're not something that rocks, the atmosphere, a music CD, a vitamin A pill, etc. do.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Why do you care? Sounds like duty to me. — tim wood

sounds like semantics to me.

Because by accepting it as a duty you can expect others to accept some reasonable version of that duty to you. — tim wood

I don't accept it as duty, nor expect others to. Hence the need for laws.

Please indicate where this subject arose. I do not believe it's a part of this thread. — tim wood

It's what's at dispute if we're disputing whether value judgments can be objective.

If the law is immoral, — Terrapin Station

Who decides? — tim wood

We do, individually and collectively.

It's what's at dispute if we're disputing whether value judgments can be objective. — Terrapin Station

Value judgements are not objective, by definition. A value judgement is a subjective judgement.