...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
Otherwise, your formulation of not immoral because illegal seems self-contradictory. — tim wood
...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
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
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
Yes, as to illegality. As to harm, I'm agnostic on marijuana. . . etc — tim wood
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
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
Question: assuming you drive, do you drive on the correct side of the road? Why, exactly (assuming you do)? — tim wood
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
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
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
Please indicate where this subject arose. I do not believe it's a part of this thread. — tim wood
If the law is immoral, — Terrapin Station
Who decides? — tim wood
It's what's at dispute if we're disputing whether value judgments can be objective. — Terrapin Station
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.