Everyone calls it that, and no one agrees with Tim's semantics. What's the point of a semantics of one? — S
Well thank you. I always appreciate confirmation that what makes sense in my head, actually works :smile: — ZhouBoTong
Sure we may listen to some other person or deity, but in the end, each person decides what they think is right, right? — ZhouBoTong
Why? We have laws and we have law, and the latter does not consist in any particular law or even any particular set of laws. Do you want to live in a lawless society? If your answer is 'No', then to be intellectually honest you should respect law; but that does not require you to respect any particular law or set of laws. Why would you not respect a particular law or set of laws? I believe it would be because you didn't believe those laws were just or rationally justified. — Janus
Lawless societies would not be expected to thrive or even to last for long, so if you wish to live in a society at all, it would seem to follow that the consistent and honest attitude would be to respect the law as law, which is really equivalent to wishing that there should be laws. — Janus
you have provided no argument that I can see to refute that claim. Perhaps you could give an example of a society in which murder, etc, is or was widely approved of. I have virtually no doubt that you can't do that. Prove me wrong! — Janus
The point is that it is the fact that no one wants to live in a lawless society that commits them to moral respect for law as such. Tim is right about this; but he is wrong to conclude that it is always morally wrong to disobey any law. — Janus
But egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies have lasted for longer than any Western society by several hundred times. None of them had a hierarchical system of law. — Isaac
The point is that it is the fact that no one wants to live in a lawless society that commits them to moral respect for law as such. Tim is right about this; but he is wrong to conclude that it is always morally wrong to disobey any law. — Janus
That cultural sub-groups are considered to be more or less members of the community is a matter of community sentiment. Of course some may dissent, although this is less likely in tribal and traditional societies, but the dissent will be immoral from the point of view of the community. So I am saying that morality is relative, relative to communities, not to individuals, which is what I have arguing all along. — Janus
So I am saying that morality is relative, relative to communities, not to individuals, which is what I have arguing all along. — Janus
Sure breaking the law is somewhat immoral, — ZhouBoTong
↪ZhouBoTong
That is a great point. I think it will be very difficult to refute the way you’ve put it there. Well done sir. — DingoJones
Well done sir.
— DingoJones
Well thank you. I always appreciate confirmation that what makes sense in my head, actually works :smile: — ZhouBoTong
Everyone calls it that, and no one agrees with Tim's semantics. What's the point of a semantics of one?
— S
hahaha. fair enough. I think my compulsion to find common ground is acting up again :grimace:
13 hours ago ReplyOptions
DingoJones
773
Well thank you. I always appreciate confirmation that what makes sense in my head, actually works :smile:
— ZhouBoTong
A sign of wisdom. :up: — DingoJones
is there ANY moral action you can think of, that I cannot come up with a hypothetical where that "moral" action suddenly becomes "immoral"? Sure breaking the law is somewhat immoral, so is donating to charity. Everything would be on a scale with NOTHING being perfectly moral, right? — ZhouBoTong
As to Zhou's "point" that you think so much of: as I read it, he argues that everything is somewhat immoral. Again, that makes breaking the law immoral. — tim wood
Neither drugs nor lying are necessarily immoral because neither are necessarily harmful. But they usually are. — luckswallowsall
I think people generally just pre-reflectively accept the mores that their culture serves up to them. Once they become reflective, which is probably not all that common, then some of their mores, (less likely the really important ones dealing with matters of life and death) may be discarded or transformed. (They might come to believe that masturbation, or pre-marital or homosexual sex, for example are not immoral, where they formerly did believe those things were immoral).
Of course it is true that individuals in most communities are held morally responsible for their actions, which means that it is, morally speaking, deemed to be ultimately up to them; but it does not follow from that that people have any absolute autonomy when it comes to moral beliefs, or even as to whether their actions conform to their avowed beliefs. — Janus
"Sure breaking the law is somewhat immoral," then it follows that breaking the law is immoral. — tim wood
I call the side that outweighs as the correct moral choice. Despite our MASSIVE disagreement on semantics, I am not sure our views on morality are that opposed.
— ZhouBoTong
Everyone calls it that, and no one agrees with Tim's semantics. What's the point of a semantics of one? — S
Yes, I wouldn't say we have "zero autonomy" any more than I would say we have "absolute autonomy"; — Janus
That process is often to be observed on these very forums; where some people just keep falling into it over and over, and yet seem to be completely oblivious to what they are doing, or perhaps to say it better: what is being done to them. — Janus
I have an emotional IQ of negative 12, so I will struggle to identify the significance in general sentiments. — ZhouBoTong
I'm interested in why you think it is immoral to break the law, this seems controversial. — dePonySum
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.