Legality does not equal morality

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ihopehefails, Oct 20, 2009.

  1. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    Dukakis was once asked in 1988 about abortion and he said something similar to its up to someone's own moral and ethical code to decide for themselves on the issue. While I think that abortion is immoral I generally agree with the general liberal philosophy that someone's own moral and ethical values should determine their own lives but this same liberal philosophy never seems to apply to ones own economic freedom.

    I do not believe that the modern left is "liberal" in the sense that it was once used a hundred of even fifty years ago. It was considered "liberal" to believe in free enterprise as a right to every individual and what level of wealth the obtain is decided by their own moral values (just like Dukakis said). In other words, if Jesus, Mohamad, or their mother told them that they were to rich then they would stop seeking wealth. They really never had the power to determine the morality of others over the same area unless they adhered to the same moral philosophy as themselves.

    There was a great deal of freedom in this philosophy because moral authority has a unique power over human behavior that legal authority does not have. Morality, unlike legality, has the power to shape our personalities. A person who runs a red light might be breaking the law but is not considered immoral but the same person who routinely lies through his teeth is condemned by the moral standards of the community. This will cause that person to evaluate his own personality and might change because of that. This is the power of moral law that legal law does not have. It shapes individuals and the society they compose while legal law only restrains us from becoming a danger to the community such as running a red light.

    What is happening with with our modern political world is that people's own religious moral authority are being replaced with the authority of the state for the end goals of equating the state's legal authority with moral authority. Its the reason why the religion's own moral authority is always under assault by the left because the goal of the modern progressive is to create a state that has the same power of religion to shape individuals in society by equating moral law with legal law.

    In order for freedom to exist there must be a clear distinction about the purposes of both legal and moral law where the purpose of moral law is to shape the behavior of individuals within society and legal law seeks to protect us from harm from others such as is the case of running a red light.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. rightwinger
    Online

    rightwinger Paid Messageboard Poster Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    120,447
    Thanks Received:
    19,869
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    NJ & MD
    Ratings:
    +45,482
    Do you believe then that the state has no reason to object to Gay marriage because of moral reasons?
     
  3. nodoginnafight
    Offline

    nodoginnafight No Party Affiliation

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    11,755
    Thanks Received:
    1,069
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Location:
    Georgia
    Ratings:
    +1,497
    I think you make some very interesting points - but I also think that a tolerance of diverse religious beliefs (which I advocate) necesitates the seperation of church and state that our founders advocated. We cannot hold people to a consistent standard through moral/religious enforcement without imposing a state religion.

    The law is the standard to which men will hold you accountable.
    Religion is the standard to which your god will hold you accountable.

    btw - I believe that a fetus is a human being who deserves protection under our legal system.
     
  4. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    I do not but I and others still reserve the right to object to it.
     
  5. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    I think the abortion example was poorly picked on my part because I could have picked prohibition and it would have sounded less offensive to the anti-abortion crowd. My point is is that moral law belongs in the realm of natural law which is law separate from legal law. The separation of natural and legal law is essential for freedom and a functioning society because most of our free human interactions in society have their own social laws that we create voluntarily through those mutual interactions. When legal law seeks to replace these naturally developing laws it ends up perverting them and gives the state the power to determine how society and individual within it are going to operate.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,152
    Thanks Received:
    6,900
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +15,006
    Legality does not equal morality

    I totally agree. You can have someone like the CEO of Cigna make nearly a quarter billion over 5 years. He has two corporate jets to choose from. He lives in a mansion. His Board of Directors eat off gold plated sliver and plates. Cigna gets every cent from skimming insurance policies. They make nothing and their job is to stand between you and your doctor. Republicans say, "It's legal". They don't get why it's immoral.

    Of course, these are the same people who call other people "born" a certain way, "immoral". And worse, if they ever met their "so called" messiah from a primitive Middle Eastern Desert Religion, they would turn away in horror. Why, this guy looks like Bin Laden dressed as a dirty wizard and can't speak a lick of English.
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2009
  7. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    I find it deeply immoral to stand in the way of a personal choice two people make in the form of a contract. Has it ever ocured to you that most people are satisfied with the insurance they do get as they know that any contractual agreement will be upheld by the government. I find it deeply disturbing that "third parties" not involved in the contract want to stick their nose into the agreement when no one asked them to and make choices for both parties.

    As for your really stupid likening to Jesus and Osama...grow up and stop being a troll.
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2009
  8. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,152
    Thanks Received:
    6,900
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +15,006
    The government doesn't "protect" as much as you think it does. If a case does go to court, insurance companies try to string it out long enough the person dies.

    Jesus and Bin Laden came from the same area and the same culture. All the pictures I've seen of Jesus, he's dressed just like Bin Laden. They probably even speak the same language. How is noting those similarities being a "troll"? That doesn't even make any sense.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2009
  9. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    Its insulting someone's own personal beliefs because you could have said that he was more like Mohamad since they actually were a part of the same religion (they even dressed the same :lol:) but you chose to make some really stupid broad linkage to two different people that have nothing in common.

    The only time that insurance companies go to court is when they feel that they are not obligated to pay under the contract they signed. The courts enforce that agreement which usually results in people getting what they are entitled to or a giant settlement of some form.
     
  10. California Girl
    Offline

    California Girl BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    50,337
    Thanks Received:
    8,960
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +8,965
    I find it immoral that some think it is acceptable for government to dicate the pay of anyone - no matter who that person is or how much they earn. Yes, insurance company pays it's executives breathtakingly outrageously, however, if that is acceptable to the shareholders then it is no business of ours. I find it ridiculous that sports people are paid such vast amounts but, again, it is not our business what they are paid.

    Yes, the health system needs reform and yes the companies need to be regulated to ensure that they do not pull coverage from people when they are ill and that they honor their contractual obligation to meet whatever costs are necessary to ensure that person gets the best treatment possible. We do need to stop this ridiculous strawman about how much people earn.

    Personally, I find abortion morally reprehensible and I am totally opposed to abortion. That does not give me the right to dictate the morals of others. I find it even more reprehensible that anyone - be it another citizen or my government thinks they have the right to tell me how to live my life.
     

Share This Page