Accomplishments of Liberalism

[ReillyT]

That may be the conception for some, but that's not the fact.

The fact is based on the conceptions of the people involved. If a state passes a law prohibiting x, because 100% of the population believe x is morally wrong, then one can say that the law is based on the system of morality of the population. Even if 100% of the population believes that they have a right to be protected from x, because they believe that x is morally wrong, that is still grounded in morality. The only way that you are correct that morality is not a basis for laws is if people are only concerned about rights in a way that is distinct from any concerns about morality.

I am willing to give you that we are a rights oriented society. However, I think it is silly to think that morality doesn't have something to do with it. People don't argue that abortion should be illegal (not talking RvW here, I am actually talking about the outlawing of abortion) just because it isn't a right guaranteed by the Constitution (which also doesn't prohibit it). They want abortion to be illegal because they think it is immoral. Just ask Allie.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I am willing to give you that we are a rights oriented society. However, I think it is silly to think that morality doesn't have something to do with it.

Well then, if its OK for government to base laws on morality, there's no argument against bannig abortion and gay marriage on nothing more that the argument that 'its the right thing to do'.

 

[ReillyT]

Well then, if its OK for government to base laws on morality, there's no argument against bannig abortion and gay marriage on nothing more that the argument that 'its the right thing to do'.

I think that RvW aside, that is right, or at least the inverse of that is right. The arguments against banning abortion/ gay marriage (and especially gay marriage) do have as their fundamental basis the belief that it is not immoral. There may also be questions of the public good, which is also a separate basis for law. Conversely, the arguments against abortion and gay marriage are also based on the belief that it is immoral, and/or against the public good. Of course, it if far more complicated than this, but I do believe that this is a fundamental aspect of the debate.

 

[Ravi]

The fact is based on the conceptions of the people involved. If a state passes a law prohibiting x, because 100% of the population believe x is morally wrong, then one can say that the law is based on the system of morality of the population. Even if 100% of the population believes that they have a right to be protected from x, because they believe that x is morally wrong, that is still grounded in morality. The only way that you are correct that morality is not a basis for laws is if people are only concerned about rights in a way that is distinct from any concerns about morality.

I am willing to give you that we are a rights oriented society. However, I think it is silly to think that morality doesn't have something to do with it. People don't argue that abortion should be illegal (not talking RvW here, I am actually talking about the outlawing of abortion) just because it isn't a right guaranteed by the Constitution (which also doesn't prohibit it). They want abortion to be illegal because they think it is immoral. Just ask Allie.

But Reilly, there is a reason abortion isn't illegal and it's because there is no right to force someone else's morals on the general population. I think our rights are based more on common law which is an outgrowth of evolutionary common sense as Diruetic alluded to a few posts back. Perhaps it depends on how you are defining the term morals.

Would it be possible for a state to allow murder?

 

[M14 Shooter]

But Reilly, there is a reason abortion isn't illegal and it's because there is no right to force someone else's morals on the general population.

Yes. And this must necessarily work both ways.

 

[ReillyT]

But Reilly, there is a reason abortion isn't illegal and it's because there is no right to force someone else's morals on the general population. I think our rights are based more on common law which is an outgrowth of evolutionary common sense as Diruetic alluded to a few posts back. Perhaps it depends on how you are defining the term morals.

Would it be possible for a state to allow murder?

Of course there is the right (what I mean is more the reality) to force others' morals on the population. If 90% of the population think that something is immoral, and it isn't otherwise protected by the Constitution, then those feelings of morality can be packaged into a law, and there you have it. Even if it is a right guaranteed by the constitution, a strong majority can change the constitution to enshrine their morality. I think that gay marriage should be legal, but because the majority of the people (for a variety of reasons, but predominantly moral/religious ones) disagree, it remains illegal.

Even the common law is shaped by changing perceptions of morality and the common good. Of course, common sense is an important part of it as well. Give me a minute and I will try to come up with a good example.

I think it would be possible for a state to allow murder, strictly speaking. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires states to prohibit murder, or to define it broadly. It used to be the case that if someone was killed in a duel, that was not murder. Culture evolved and this became unacceptable. Of course, because we are not fools, allowing murder generally would never happen.

 

[jillian]

But Reilly, there is a reason abortion isn't illegal and it's because there is no right to force someone else's morals on the general population. I think our rights are based more on common law which is an outgrowth of evolutionary common sense as Diruetic alluded to a few posts back. Perhaps it depends on how you are defining the term morals.

Would it be possible for a state to allow murder?

If I can jump in, as Reilly stated, society does generally make moral judgments, couched in determining the common good. What prevents (or should prevent) abortion from being illegal is that we're not really talking about a moral judgment. We are talking about a largely religious judgment. And the belief as to when life should be protected varies religion to relgion and culture to culture. I have always felt that the whole argument about fetal viability was a silly one, but the determining factor in Roe v Wade was about a balance between where a woman's control over her own body ends and the interest of the state in protecting the fetus begins.

So, while it is an arbitrary line, it does fit in with what we know, which is that life exists on a continuum between zygote and baby and at some point in the pregnancy, the life should be protected.

 

[ReillyT]

If I can jump in, as Reilly stated, society does generally make moral judgments, couched in determining the common good. What prevents (or should prevent) abortion from being illegal is that we're not really talking about a moral judgment. We are talking about a largely religious judgment. And the belief as to when life should be protected varies religion to relgion and culture to culture. I have always felt that the whole argument about fetal viability was a silly one, but the determining factor in Roe v Wade was about a balance between where a woman's control over her own body ends and the interest of the state in protecting the fetus begins.

So, while it is an arbitrary line, it does fit in with what we know, which is that life exists on a continuum between zygote and baby and at some point in the pregnancy, the life should be protected.

I always get nervous when a better lawyer jumps in. Am I right that there is nothing preventing a state from repealing laws against murder? (Granted, it would be a silly thing to do). I can't think of anything off-hand.

 

[Ravi]

Of course there is the right (what I mean is more the reality) to force others' morals on the population. If 90% of the population think that something is immoral, and it isn't otherwise protected by the Constitution, then those feelings of morality can be packaged into a law, and there you have it. Even if it is a right guaranteed by the constitution, a strong majority can change the constitution to enshrine their morality. I think that gay marriage should be legal, but because the majority of the people (for a variety of reasons, but predominantly moral/religious ones) disagree, it remains illegal.

Even the common law is shaped by changing perceptions of morality and the common good. Of course, common sense is an important part of it as well. Give me a minute and I will try to come up with a good example.

I think it would be possible for a state to allow murder, strictly speaking. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires states to prohibit murder, or to define it broadly. It used to be the case that if someone was killed in a duel, that was not murder. Culture evolved and this became unacceptable. Of course, because we are not fools, allowing murder generally would never happen.

Eventually gay marriage will become legal simply because the constitution exists to protect us against the morals of the majority. There's a reason for the separation of church and state. So even if there are laws that are written to pander to some great moral majority in reality they are wrong constitutionally speaking.

Allowing murder won't happen not because it would be immoral, but because it would be dangerous to the stability of the country. Now, if you get big business involved and can turn a profit...

 

[M14 Shooter]

I always get nervous when a better lawyer jumps in.

Fortunately, you dont have to worry about that with Jillian.
-I- am a better lawyer than she is.

 

[Ravi]

If I can jump in, as Reilly stated, society does generally make moral judgments, couched in determining the common good. What prevents (or should prevent) abortion from being illegal is that we're not really talking about a moral judgment. We are talking about a largely religious judgment. And the belief as to when life should be protected varies religion to relgion and culture to culture. I have always felt that the whole argument about fetal viability was a silly one, but the determining factor in Roe v Wade was about a balance between where a woman's control over her own body ends and the interest of the state in protecting the fetus begins.

So, while it is an arbitrary line, it does fit in with what we know, which is that life exists on a continuum between zygote and baby and at some point in the pregnancy, the life should be protected.

Fair enough. I was thinking of morals in terms of religious morals and of course that isn't always the case. Moral can be based on many other things...for example not allowing people to smoke weed to protect them from themselves.

 

[ReillyT]

Eventually gay marriage will become legal simply because the constitution exists to protect us against the morals of the majority. There's a reason for the separation of church and state. So even if there are laws that are written to pander to some great moral majority in reality they are wrong constitutionally speaking.

The Constitution could be amended to prohibit gay marriage... which would suck. I am hoping that it becomes legal because culture evolves away regulating that sort of activity, but it sure is taking some time.

 

[ReillyT]

Fortunately, you dont have to worry about that with Jillian.
-I- am a better lawyer than she is.

You my friend, are a buffoon. Based upon just the last hour, I can assure you with absolute certainty that you know far less about the law than Jillian.

 

[Ravi]

The Constitution could be amended to prohibit gay marriage... which would suck. I am hoping that it becomes legal because culture evolves away regulating that sort of activity, but it sure is taking some time.

Yes, it always make me sad to contemplate amendments that would seem on the surface unconstitutional. Or more properly, un-American.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You my friend, are a buffoon.

That doesnt speak well for Jillian then.

Based upon just the last hour, I can assure you with absolute certainty that you know far less about the law than Jillian.

No, what you can assure me with absolute certainty that 'the court said so, regardless of how crappy their resasoning is' doesn't fly with me.
That doesnt in any way denote any lack of understanding about the law.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes, it always make me sad to contemplate amendments that would seem on the surface unconstitutional. Or more properly, un-American.

Yes... because amendment cannot be unconstitutional.

 

[jillian]

Fair enough. I was thinking of morals in terms of religious morals and of course that isn't always the case. Moral can be based on many other things...for example not allowing people to smoke weed to protect them from themselves.

Yeah, well, that's just goofy given it's no worse than alcohol.

 

[ReillyT]

No, what you can assure me with absolute certainty that 'the court said so, regardless of how crappy their resasoning is' doesn't fly with me.
That doesnt in any way denote any lack of understanding about the law.

You might think that, but that is because you don't understand how the law works.

 

[jillian]

I always get nervous when a better lawyer jumps in. Am I right that there is nothing preventing a state from repealing laws against murder? (Granted, it would be a silly thing to do). I can't think of anything off-hand.

You flatter me.

A state? Or the Federal government? Presumably, we have the right to life, liberty...yadda, yadda. So it seems that allowing murder would be a violation of the social contract, if not the Constitution. But I've never thought about the issue before. It's an intersting question. Certainly there are types of killing that are legitimate, like self defense, defense of others and defense of property, within certain guidelines.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You might think that, but that is because you don't understand how the law works.

Again:
Not willing to accept the rationale for a decision doesn't in any way denote a lack of undertsanding how the law works.

You might think that it does, but that would be because you are too focused on the idea that 'the law is what it is, regardless what it is'.

And THAT denotes a horrid lack of understanding of how the law works.