Should the Law Be Used to Enforce Morality?

Offline

May 2010

312

NicoleB said:
It should be illegal to smoke.

And sorry, you made "enjoy it", but if I ever get into power, it's getting banned.

wait why

as long as people smoke outside it's cool

one-more-time said:
I find having children to be immoral

this thread is nuts

May 30, 2012 3:17 PM

#23

Monad

Offline

Jun 2008

15842

Jack_Rav said:
Just a quick post, since I've got to rush off in 5:

The law already does enforce morality to a certain degree. Think about most criminal offences you know: murder, theft, ABH/GBH etc. etc. They've been criminalised because they're deemed immoral to society at large. Indeed, any law introduced, it can be argued, enforces a certain morality to a certain degree; I think it's impossible for the law not to reflect morality at all.

The question should then be to what extent should the law be used to enforce morality? That's where it gets a little more difficult, obviously. Although, in my opinion, the minimum interference with the what-may-be-termed 'difficult' issues of morality would certainly be the ideal. I don't think many would disagree that murder is immoral, for example, but issues concerning cannabis use, censorship etc might be viewed as more difficult and so less certain that the law should interfere at all.

I disagree, anything that causes great harm to others like murder, theft, rape, violence etc isn't just about morality. Is because if those where not illegal then a society can't faction. A place where anyone could kill, rape or steal from another will become a wild jungle. No progress, no piece in general or as a person, people wouldn't even be able to sleep at night. It will be the absolute chaos.
So you see moral or not is irrelevant. You can't have a law if it doesn't at least prohibits the actions that create chaos and stop the existence of an environment that stops law from even excising.

May 30, 2012 3:22 PM

#24

Kaiserpingvin

Offline

Jan 2008

4016

Monad said:
Is because if those where not illegal then a society can't faction.

Of course it can.

And even if it cannot, it is still a moral stance - "a functioning society is a moral good/necessity". There is nothing necessary about it.

May 30, 2012 3:23 PM

#25

Offline

Mar 2012

17649

Agreed with Monad. Those basic ones are about property rights. You gotta have property rights.

LoneWolf said:
@Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian.

May 30, 2012 3:25 PM

#26

Offline

May 2010

312

Kaiserpingvin said:

Monad said:
Is because if those where not illegal then a society can't faction.

Of course it can.

And even if it cannot, it is still a moral stance - "a functioning society is a moral good/necessity". There is nothing necessary about it.

now we're getting into the ontology of morality

hint: it's supernatural!

May 30, 2012 3:26 PM

#27

Offline

Mar 2012

17649

Kaiserpingvin said:
And even if it cannot, it is still a moral stance - "a functioning society is a moral good/necessity". There is nothing necessary about it.

This is just arguing semantics. If we can't all agree that a functioning society is "necessary", then there is no point in this discussion whatsoever.

LoneWolf said:
@Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian.

May 30, 2012 3:30 PM

#28

Offline

May 2010

312

just what i thought was about to happen we are now getting into the root of ethics

you guys have a good conversation I'm hungry

May 30, 2012 3:38 PM

#29

Offline

Feb 2010

1267

Slurpentine said:

one-more-time said:
I find having children to be immoral

this thread is nuts

How imposing life on one is a good thing?

There is none in the Void of Nothingless thinking "Oh, I dream about my first birthday."

one-more-timeMay 30, 2012 3:41 PM

LUL

May 30, 2012 3:41 PM

#30

Offline

Mar 2012

17649

Go on one-more-time. I completely disagree, but I'm interested in seeing how you back your opinion. That is, if we are allowed to, God forbid, go off topic.

LoneWolf said:
@Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian.

May 30, 2012 3:43 PM

#31

Kaiserpingvin

Offline

Jan 2008

4016

Post-Josh said:
This is just arguing semantics. If we can't all agree that a functioning society is "necessary", then there is no point in this discussion whatsoever.

Most people agree. It's still a moral claim.

May 30, 2012 3:43 PM

#32

Offline

May 2010

312

one-more-time said:

Slurpentine said:

one-more-time said:
I find having children to be immoral

this thread is nuts

How imposing life on one is a good thing?

There is none in the Void of Nothingless thinking "Oh, I dream about my first birthday."

"Imposing life"

There's nothing about this that sounds off to you?

May 30, 2012 3:43 PM

#33

Monad

Offline

Jun 2008

15842

Kaiserpingvin said:

Monad said:
Is because if those where not illegal then a society can't faction.

Of course it can.

And even if it cannot, it is still a moral stance - "a functioning society is a moral good/necessity". There is nothing necessary about it.

Is not a moral necessity. It's pretty much a living necessity. No one will have even the slightness of decent life in a crazy world where everyone is a beast and you have to sleep with one eye open.
Hell our species as a whole might have died because the only reason we are more powerful than wild animals is because we form rules and groups that lead to a society structure that allows to support each other.
Even if we didn't became food we might as well have turned back into monkeys since our brain will be useless in a chaos environment where knowledge can't find piece to be implemented.

MonadMay 30, 2012 3:47 PM

May 30, 2012 3:43 PM

#34

Jack_Rav

Offline

Dec 2010

874

That's funny, actually, because I kind of see childbirth as the exact opposite. You know, furthering the species etc.

May 30, 2012 3:46 PM

#35

Kaiserpingvin

Offline

Jan 2008

4016

Monad said:
Is not a moral necessity. It's pretty much a living necessity. No one will have even the slightness of decent life in a crazy world where everyone is a beast and you have to sleep with one eye open.
Hell our species as a whole might have died because the only reason we are more powerful than wild animals is because we form rules and groups that lead to a society structure that allows to support each other.
Even if we didn't became food we might as well have turned back into monkeys since our brain will be useless in a chaos environment where knowledge can find piece to be implemented.

'
So? Even granting something as ridiculous as the lack of laws would lead to total extinction, to hold the perpetuation of our species as a good thing is a moral fucking claim.

How hard is this to get?

May 30, 2012 3:46 PM

#36

Offline

Mar 2012

17649

Kaiserpingvin said:

Post-Josh said:
This is just arguing semantics. If we can't all agree that a functioning society is "necessary", then there is no point in this discussion whatsoever.

Most people agree. It's still a moral claim.

Yeah, although it could also be a logical claim. Upon thinking about it, what I'm considering logical here could also boil down to moral or emotional value, so I suppose moral encompasses it all.

Aside: I just realized you're kaiser. I guess you're a mod, haha.

LoneWolf said:
@Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian.

May 30, 2012 3:50 PM

#37

Offline

Feb 2010

1267

Slurpentine said:

"Imposing life"

There's nothing about this that sounds off to you?

Giving birth is imposing life on one, without asking. And very often not even considering the risks. Having babies is selfish act, nothing more, or you want to argue that it's not?

I guess you're unfamiliar with Benatar Asymmetry.

I want to facepalm so much.

one-more-timeMay 30, 2012 3:56 PM

LUL

May 30, 2012 3:51 PM

#38

Silverstorm

Offline

Mar 2011

4390

Some laws are used to protect basic rights or "guide" a society in a direction and others are used because of said society's view on what is good, basically morale. It all really comes down to who can argue which way better and how the person/people listening understand.

Basically saying what others already have. And there are pieces to each users posts that answer the question but I must agree with Post-Josh, if we can't agree on that basic fact than this was a waste of time, that I could have used to watch a cat play the piano.

Back to question: Now should it, no and yes.

"In the end the World really doesn't need a Superman. Just a Brave one"

May 30, 2012 3:51 PM

#39

Silverstorm

Offline

Mar 2011

4390

one-more-time said:
I have nothing to back this up, but I think you'll agree that pot smokers will deny that marijuana has negative effects while cigarette smokers understand the risk.

I must agree...weed has no ill effects while a cig does- is how its seen here.

NicoleB said:
It should be illegal to smoke.

And sorry, you made "enjoy it", but if I ever get into power, it's getting banned.

It gets tricky when you want to ban something like that. I agree that people that smoke should not smoke in areas that are public but when I walk through an area that smokers are at and can be, don't walk that way or hold your breath. They have a right to enjoy the substance they bought (legally).

lucjan said:

hotd1989 said:
Forcing anyone else to do something they don't want to do should be illegal.
(This would include Rape, Murder, Genocide, assault, etc, due to the fact the victim would not 'want' these things)

Wrecking or taking other people's property should be illegal.

Other than that, do what you want, IMO.

What about taxes? Such as income taxes? Lots of people don't want to pay those, but the government forces them to.

Some laws are made like I said earlier to guide. In the US, the tax laws are an example.

"In the end the World really doesn't need a Superman. Just a Brave one"

May 30, 2012 3:56 PM

#40

Offline

Mar 2012

17649

one-more-time said:

Slurpentine said:

"Imposing life"

There's nothing about this that sounds off to you?

"Without asking" is an illogical argument. Not considering the risks is a generalization. Having a child is only always selfish if you believe every single thought and act is selfish, which I understand is a viable viewpoint. If that's what you believe, then saying something is selfish is meaningless anyway.

Edit: I just read a brief summary of Benatar Asymmetry. Not sure if it was a publicity stunt, but his argument is definitely not sufficient (as far as I understand it) to make such an implication.

JoshMay 30, 2012 4:01 PM

LoneWolf said:
@Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian.

May 30, 2012 4:01 PM

#41

Offline

May 2010

312

one-more-time said:

Slurpentine said:

"Imposing life"

There's nothing about this that sounds off to you?

This is one of the silliest things I've ever read

I don't even know where to begin? I think the biggest problem is that you're introducing, to the moral dimension, what is essentially an amoral act?

and hell, it's an act that allows us to keep our species goin' so I guess you could actually make the argument that it's a good act? But then (and your idea is guilty of this too) it assumes a little too much about the actions that will be taken by the child and a host of other factors involved in their new life

Can I ask you how you feel about death?

May 30, 2012 4:13 PM

#42

ezikialrage

Offline

Aug 2009

5520

AnnoKano said:
I came up with the idea for this thread after having a discussion with a group of friends, and I thought it was an interesting topic so I decided to post a thread about it.

The idea came up when I was discussing whether or not prostitution should be legalised with some friends. My friend said he was against it on moral grounds, and for that reason it should be illegal. The discussion went on beyond that and other points were made but I thought discussing this one in greater detail would be interesting.

My own view is that it should not be the state's duty to enforce morality on citizens, but that's largely because I don't consider it to be feasible; just because you make something illegal does not mean that people will immediately stop doing it. At the same time, it will put a number of people off doing something.

If the government is elected in democratic elections and includes a 'moral' policy in their manifesto, does that mean they have every right to make moral judgements as to what is and what is not acceptable behaviour?

Laws based on morality could include a number of things, including drugs, prostitution, pornography, indecent exposure... I'd like you to focus on the morality of these issues when discussing them, rather than on the implications they might have either way. I am only really concerned with the question at hand.

That question, as stated in the title, is this:

Should the Law be used to Enforce Morality?

I'm looking forward to reading everyone's thoughts on this, and I shall respond or elaborate on my own views as the discussion goes on.

Morality is what is considered right.Of course everyone has a different idea of right and wrong.but all laws are based on morality.

May 30, 2012 4:25 PM

#43

Offline

Feb 2010

1267

Post-Josh said:
"Without asking" is an illogical argument.

Imposing, without the other sides consent. Or you want to argue that it is not imposing YOUR will? Children are not asking to be born. None is screaming on the other side "Please have me! Please, I want to write symphony, I want to be a football player!".

You're gambling with others welfare.

Not considering the risks is a generalization.

I really don't think that many parents think further than their "Oh, how wonderful it will be when we have a child, the first steps, the first birthday". Then it turns out that child has some disorder, some illness, what if the kid dies in a horrible, horrible way?
Oh right, that is kids problem.

Have a child is only always selfish if you believe every single thought and act is selfish, which I understand is a viable viewpoint. If that's what you believe, then saying something is selfish is meaningless anyway.

There is no need when it's not existing.

I just read a brief summary of Benatar Asymmetry. Not sure if it was a publicity stunt, but his argument is definitely not sufficient (as far as I understand it) to make such an implication.

Benatar asymmetry, we know that the suffering is a minus, only way to prevent the minus is to not to create the living thing that can feel or create the minus. Now, positives, they only exists also if something exists but there is no negative in not making the thing you're calling a positive. That's basically the asymmetry argument, Benatar.

Slurpentine said:
This is one of the silliest things I've ever read

I don't even know where to begin? I think the biggest problem is that you're introducing, to the moral dimension, what is essentially an amoral act?

Answer a simple question - how is imposing life, without other sides consent a good thing.

and hell, it's an act that allows us to keep our species goin' so I guess you could actually make the argument that it's a good act? But then (and your idea is guilty of this too) it assumes a little too much about the actions that will be taken by the child and a host of other factors involved in their new life

So, your argument basically is that we have to procreate for the sake of it? Be the DNA slave, do what it tells. We serve no purpose, there is no need for you nor me, no final destination.

Can I ask you how you feel about death?

What do you mean? Death is death, it's Game Over.

LUL

May 30, 2012 4:34 PM

#44

Offline

May 2010

312

one-more-time said:

So, your argument basically is that we have to procreate for the sake of it? Be the DNA slave, do what it tells. We serve no purpose, there is no need for you nor me, no final destination.

Can I ask you how you feel about death?

What do you mean? Death is death, it's Game Over.

1. That's the point; it's not good or bad

2. We're genetically predisposed to procreation, yes. It's not about being a slave; if there is any "purpose to humans" it's to procreate. It's not even an end-all be-all case; we're the only beings we know of capable of advanced cognition so the sky is the limit really and hell, people can have whatever "purpose" they like. Also, why are you, an obvious nihilist, so concerned with morality?

3. That's an interesting point.

May 30, 2012 4:47 PM

#45

Offline

Mar 2012

17649

one-more-time said:

Post-Josh said:
"Without asking" is an illogical argument.

Of course it is imposing your will, of course the non-existent child cannot provide consent, of course they are not asking to be born (nor do they reject the thought of being born), and of course it's a gamble, everything is.

None of those things making bringing a child into this world immoral. You should have a child because you are willing to bet with confidence that you will be able to provide him/her with a "good" life. You could be wrong, but your life has led you to believe that existing (as you see it occurring for your child) is worth it. You believe that it is something someone deserves to have, under your care, which you believe to be "sufficient".

Not considering the risks is a generalization.

It's the kid's problem? You think most people would think that? No, people would say "it's no one's fault" ie. it's chance. You could argue it's the parents fault, but that would be unproductive (in terms of human existence) if it was a widespread belief. Obviously you believe we should die out as a species though, so we're at odds again.

There is no need when it's not existing.

There is no need to do anything.

I just read a brief summary of Benatar Asymmetry. Not sure if it was a publicity stunt, but his argument is definitely not sufficient (as far as I understand it) to make such an implication.

Yeah, basically what I read. I don't buy it. Pain and pleasure are not binary opposites that exist separately. You can not argue that speculative beings have an overall neutral level of "happiness" that can only go down in existence, because speculative beings do not have a level to begin with. How can you do something immoral to something that doesn't exist? You can't.

Children are not born at a higher or lower level of happiness than when they did not exist, they are given a level for the first time. It does not necessarily go strictly downwards from there.

Basically, you can't measure things that don't exist.

LoneWolf said:
@Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian.

May 30, 2012 4:57 PM

#46

Cazril

Offline

May 2012

Laws are mostly made to enforce order rather than any sense of morality or at least they should be. Government and laws are meant to simply enforce things that keep order and benefit people as a whole and then let individuals choose what they think is morally correct. Forcing any type of morals often end badly, look at prohibition in the U.S., encouraging a positive morality often works better.

May 30, 2012 5:13 PM

#47

Offline

Feb 2010

1267

Slurpentine said:
1. That's the point; it's not good or bad

Giving birth to a child, without his consent, in-to this fucked-up world. Do you understand what "gambling with others welfare" means?

2. We're genetically predisposed to procreation, yes. It's not about being a slave;

So, basically do what you are programmed to do. What a pile of bullshit.

if there is any "purpose to humans" it's to procreate. It's not even an end-all be-all case;

Procreate for the sake of nothing!

we're the only beings we know of capable of advanced cognition so the sky is the limit really and hell, people can have whatever "purpose" they like.

I don't care for your silly delusions.

Also, why are you, an obvious nihilist, so concerned with morality?

I'm not a nihilist, what is pretty obvious.

Post-Josh said:
None of those things making bringing a child into this world immoral. You should have a child because you are willing to bet with confidence that you will be able to provide him/her with a "good" life. You could be wrong, but your life has led you to believe that existing (as you see it occurring for your child) is worth it. You believe that it is something someone deserves to have, under your care, which you believe to be "sufficient".

I look at the world and say "Yeah, 9 lion cubs will die before their first birthday", that is 9 out of 10, do the simple math, the negative impact is so substantial that it doesn't justify the one lion, which is going to live and do the fucking thing and all the other little joy joys.
I'm not the one making the "cake", you're the one has to explain "making the cake", lets call the "cake" what it is - the nuclear power plant, or some other kind of thing that has the risk. You're saying "Create the risk", I'm saying "Do something that has no risk". There is no risk becoming a Marsians, Plutonians or Saturnites, right, all of those civilizations do not exist and there is no evidence of any horror because they don't exist. So for us to become "them" there is no risk in that equation, there is no downside in that equation, you're the one who wants to maintain the experiment, we have the planet, we have the experiment - you wan't to keep it running.
No, you explain to me what your ethics are for keeping it running, why do you get to tell something that will suffer, that might pronounce the words "I'd rather not have been", why should you tell them they will be again, you will make new ones, you will make more of us, things just like us, more frankenstain mongsters will come out of your palace, you tell us why you have the authority to do that, why should your judgement override my judgement which says "I wish to never be awakened again", "I wish to never zombie on this planet again". I cannot not zombie on this planet ever again as long as you people keep making the zombies. You explain it, you're the aggressor, you're the one wanting to take the risk, you explain it and justify it to me why you should have that authority, because you will not be pulling straws not for yourself but for someone else.

Obviously you believe we should die out as a species though, so we're at odds again.

Yes and not only. If I had a big red button, which made Planet Earth explode - I'd smash it, with love.

Children are not born at a higher or lower level of happiness than when they did not exist, they are given a level for the first time. It does not necessarily go strictly downwards from there.

Basically, you can't measure things that don't exist.

My previous post is one part of the argument, it is a need equation, your pleasures are drived through the function of needs, you need first, you have to be deprecated, first you have to be put in a negative state and basically unwind the negative state to create the positive. You have to be discomforted before you can be comforted. And that is why the suffering wins. Suffering is real, satisfactions are an illusion of our psychology, illusion of "put in the negative state and climb your way out and think you've gotten somewhere positive" when all you've done is eliminated the negative, you've gotten rid of your affirmaties, your deprivation, but you have not accomplished anything positive, there is no positive to compensate for any negative.

EDIT:

Basically, you can't measure things that don't exist.

Like we all can't imagine that the future will exist, there will be people in it and that we could be concerned with their welfare, like somehow we have to strangle the philosophy to be able to figure out that something has a future potential implication, no I don't think that we need to do that, I really don't think that we need to strangle philosophy to figure out that future has people in it.

one-more-timeMay 30, 2012 5:28 PM

LUL

May 30, 2012 5:16 PM

#48

Offline

Mar 2012

17649

Lol, how nihilistic. No risk, no reward, my friend.

@ the red button thing, how arrogant.

JoshMay 30, 2012 5:22 PM

LoneWolf said:
@Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian.

May 30, 2012 5:17 PM

#49

Offline

May 2010

312

1. Personal attacks
2. Moral affirmations despite professed nihilism
3. Flouting the closest thing to a "purpose" humans have on the basis that it's demeaning despite my reasoning that it's also not an "end-all be-all" case and not exclusive to humans

I think we're done here gentlemen

May 30, 2012 5:25 PM

#50

Offline

Mar 2012

17649

Slurpentine said:
1. Personal attacks
2. Moral affirmations despite professed nihilism
3. Flouting the closest thing to a "purpose" humans have on the basis that it's demeaning despite my reasoning that it's also not an "end-all be-all" case and not exclusive to humans

I think we're done here gentlemen

LoneWolf said:
@Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian.

May 30, 2012 5:26 PM

#51

Scud

Offline

Jul 2007

5255

May I ask why you are still alive if you do not think life is worth living?

May 30, 2012 5:30 PM

#52

Offline

Mar 2012

17649

Scud said:
May I ask why you are still alive if you do not think life is worth living?

Anime.

LoneWolf said:
@Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian.

May 30, 2012 5:39 PM

#53

Offline

May 2010

312

Post-Josh said:

Scud said:
May I ask why you are still alive if you do not think life is worth living?

Anime.

this

though I think life is definitely worth living

The vagina in your sig and the ass in mine are also good reasons

May 30, 2012 5:51 PM

#54

Offline

Feb 2010

1267

Post-Josh said:
No risk, no reward, my friend.

A one-liner as answer? Sweet.

Slurpentine said:

2. Moral affirmations despite professed nihilism

¿Hablas Inglés?
I'm not a Nihilist. English comprehension?

The vagina in your sig and the ass in mine are also good reasons

Sorry, I'm an Asexual.

though I think life is definitely worth living

Sometimes comes out the defected mongster, which realizes that this planet is full of shit.

Let's say that we find out that 9 out of 10 woman secretly enjoys being raped, would that justify legalizing rape? Just bare it, because others like it! I don't think so.

Scud said:
May I ask why you are still alive if you do not think life is worth living?

How do you spread the seed of philosophy if you are dead?

How do you stop the frankenstein mongsters coming out of palace by killing yourself?

Did you even think before you wrote that?

And even so - I don't have a legal right over my death. "Oh, but suicide is the answer", it can fail, don't you know? I don't want to exit the dirty way, I want control over my death. But for you people, it's all about how long you live not about efficiency.

LUL

May 30, 2012 5:52 PM

#55

Scud

Offline

Jul 2007

5255

one-more-time said:

Scud said:
May I ask why you are still alive if you do not think life is worth living?

So your life has purpose then?

May 30, 2012 6:05 PM

#56

rekindledflame

Offline

Jul 2011

847

Should the law be used to enforce morality?

I would say no, although as already noted all laws revolve around morality to certain degree's. I have no qualms with this, however I think there are other aspects that should be considered before deciding on somethings legality. Those being is it necessary for order, is it harmful (physically) to society or it's members, and will it create a drain on the system from a monetary standpoint. Preferably to be considered for law it would need to meet at least two of these categories.

I do not oppose cocaine being legal because I find drugs morally unacceptable, but rather because drug addicts and users can easily become a danger to others, not to mention a drain on the system economically. Gay marriage, whether I find it morally acceptable or not is irrelevant, it does not fall in any of the three categories. Of course I realize even this system has inherent flaws, however it is merely to illustrate my stance that while all laws have moral implications, that it should not be the deciding factor in what is or isn't illegal and by no means should a government enforce their own individual moral standards or even those of the masses, on the sole grounds of morality, religious or not.

May 30, 2012 6:05 PM

#57

Offline

May 2010

312

one-more-time said:

I wasn't talking to you; I don't want to because I'm done and asexuals are scum anyway

I do want to point out that this is definitely fucking Nihilism though:

one-more-time said:
We serve no purpose, there is no need for you nor me, no final destination.

WombstoneMay 30, 2012 6:13 PM

May 30, 2012 6:24 PM

#58

Offline

Feb 2010

1267

Scud said:
So your life has purpose then?

There is no higher purpose, all you do is chase the fake cheese and the price for it is too high. You're design to give yourself a purpose, this feeling that you're accomplishing something.

We come in, make the mess, clean up some of the mess and give blue ribbon to us. That is like fireman starting fires to justify his existence.

Lets say there was a perfect world, the person being born would have no mess to clean up, no poor people to feed, no woman to save from a bad husband, no little rescue mission to go on, what exactly it would accomplish through its existance? All it would be then is a need machine it would have needs, it would have to go out in the world and to consume, rip somethings flesh off of it, or someway steal existance of something, because that is what we've been sort of designed to do, is to do it convieniently. There is every likelyhood that in the end of the game there's going to be more needs unsatisfied that satisfied, there still be spilt milk on the floor, yes, he'll clean up some of it but he'll leaves some of it behind, and that would be the net product.

@Slurpen, do I really have to repeat my self for the third time - I'm not a Nihilist. But it's okay if you don't know difference between philosophies and want to label me as Nihilist.

LUL

May 30, 2012 6:43 PM

#59

FurukawaPan

Offline

Feb 2010

I would think most of us want a law that benefits all of us on some level, keeps us safe, and gives everyone an equal opportunity to prosper. When people choose to act immorally, they create evil. Why are "immoral" things considered wrong? Why can't we just do what we want? Maybe it's because someone other than ourselves is going to suffer for it.

Law always has to strike some type of balance between the freedoms of an individual to make choices in their own life, against limiting those choices ability to affect or damage the quality of life of another. This very balance is defined by one's morality, and so I think the only law which is truly devoid of morality would be no law. As soon as we even attempt to codify a rule of some sort, we are applying our own concept or belief of right v. wrong and thus legislating some type of morality.

May 30, 2012 7:07 PM

#60

Offline

Feb 2005

13573

Obviously, laws do enforce morality.
But as far as I'm concerned, and according to the basic principles of the modern legal state, laws that grant a boon, a right, or imposes on the authority of the state, are always welcome and need little to no justification.
On the other hand, any law that in any way infringe upon the rights and independence of a group or individual, should be justified with important concerns and be well grounded in practical issues, whether it is for the purpose of protecting other groups and individuals or imposing order and necessary duties for the continued functioning of the state.

Thus, I'd demand that any law that infringes on someone (or grants a boon to a specified group but not to others) should be necessary in one way or another.
Obviously, theft, murder and rape is illegal because our society is built on slave morality and it would collapse completely if we were not protected against these things. And from there on, as society gets more complicated, we need more and more and more laws to keep the order in our complex society, whether it's laws for inheritance, building permits, insurance or laws regulating the conduct and workings of the government organs.

But stuff like making prostitution, gay marriages or what have you illegal is retarded when the matter is all about personal choice and no part are unwillingly harmed in the process. And the only reason prostitution is a problem in many places, is because it is illegal, and thus gets into a criminal underworld with human trafficking, pimps and drugs.
And speaking of drugs, we've got the same problem there, several drugs are even less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco, and should not be restricted at all. Sure, it only makes sense to ban smoking in restaurants and other public places, and having laws against drunk driving, because that harms others in the process, and the safety of the people is the highest priority of the state. But dropping acid or puffing weed in private should not be a offence.

one-more-time said:
@Slurpen, do I really have to repeat my self for the third time - I'm not a Nihilist. But it's okay if you don't know difference between philosophies and want to label me as Nihilist.

Uh, the idea that existence has no inherent meaning or purpose is pretty much the textbook definition of existential nihilism.
¿Hablas Inglés? [2]

May 30, 2012 7:25 PM

#61

Offline

Mar 2012

17649

one-more-time said:

Post-Josh said:
No risk, no reward, my friend.

A one-liner as answer? Sweet.

I have nothing left to say to you on this, is all.

LoneWolf said:
@Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian.

May 30, 2012 7:33 PM

#62

Offline

Feb 2010

1267

Post-Josh said:
No risk, no reward, my friend.

Lets risk giving somebody else Elephant man disease, Autism, 18 years of retardation, horrific medical procedures, lets risk all that just so we can justify our existence.

When does life gets stupid and ludacris enough for you to say "This is pretty stupid". It certainly seemed stupid enough for me at a young age to be quite certain that I'm not going to reproduce, I'm not going to throw any victims on this planet.
These little illustrations in my life, which made crystal clear, I'm not saying that these are things that convince you, but they just make it clear, vivid images of the first cat that I got stuck with and how it died, I'll never get those images out of my head, I can't calculate any value that I would trade, if I had the power to change how the animal died, I can't think of some positive thing, some Lamborgini-type possession that I could put as a value and say "That is what they was worth". Right there my math is already finished, it's blown up over a stupid cat. How can you people just look at this slop, to see what happens to people, to see what happens to animals every day in the wild,
and say "It's all okay, my standards are too high", how low will you go? How bad it has to get?
There's no horror that human beings will not endure, because they are so possessed, what you sort of can see in a competition sports, you'll see what people resort to, what people do, they're so driven, we used to have blood-sports, that is ho much it meant to people to play this ego game, this "triumph over" game, and for some people it's all about - "I'm going to win, life is not going to beat me". It's just en Ego trip.

With what kind of confidence, well some people will coincide "Well yea, this looks a little bit messy, BUT" and the BUT always comes up like "human beings do do some interesting stuff". The most everything, if you look at what they're doing, is to do with some sort of drama or entertainment or something that's feeding that ego, the part of us that lives by carelessly through stories.

For people not to coincide this desire factor, addiction thing, the fact that we are compelled down to our toes, so to speak, to play, to want to need, to feel like we are not hole, the only way we be can hole is through this "medium", this living thing but not to recognize that it never works out none wins the "game of life", they all end up gone, the end, that's it, and for what? How many times you have to do it? What's the accomplishment? A million human beings, a billion human beings, a trillion human beings? Just seems that here is no perspective at all, the number that finally will be, ill be an arbitrary number if somedys going to make a rational argument that somehow universe is diminished because it was just 10 zillion human beings that ever lived, 20 zillion would've been better?

C'mon, it's just an experience, you're caught up in it and addicted to it, there is just no need to impose addiction to somebody else, there is no need to throw somebody else through that door in-to that really messy place.
I mean, if life was well constructed, our consciousness had great adventures, then you could make an argument that there is no harm, but that is not a reality, not even close to reality we can create and part of the whole mechanism what makes us want is that deprivation, that feel that we are unfinished, undone, we are in a need of something, something HERE while you're alive, not dead. Just understand that is just a mechanism in our head, this mechanism isn't much different for heroin addict, just recognize that, quit pretending that this is worth the trouble, worth the risk, especially the risk.
The imposition, throwing somebody in-to it, creating them and putting them in there, being God, giving them not Garden of Eden but a sloppy, shitty world to live in.
I have to make the accusation again, apparently most human breeders are more malicious than God, at least God started off with a Garden of Eden, he had the sense to create the paradise for man kind, he didn't create human beings in-to a shit and that is what you're doing. You're playing God and putting your creation in shit, kind of makes you an asshole.

@Baman, Nihilists value nothing. Antinatalists value suffering. I'm not a Nihilist, can you stop with your ignorance already?

LUL

May 30, 2012 7:47 PM

#63

Offline

Mar 2012

17649

I'm glad you got that out of your system, now kindly shut the fuck up.

LoneWolf said:
@Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian.

May 30, 2012 7:48 PM

#64

Offline

Feb 2005

13573

one-more-time said:
@Baman, Nihilists value nothing. Antinatalists value suffering. I'm not a Nihilist, can you stop with your ignorance already?

Uh, nope.
Moral nihilism states that morality is a human construct. Whether or not they themselves still hold any values while knowing this is a individual choice. I am one and I still have my moral preferences even though I do in no way regard them as rigid guidelines, and would throw them away without a second thought if needed to. And just being a "nihilist" does not necessarily include moral nihilism either.
So if we're ignorant from drawing a logical conclusion (Since indeed, you are a existential nihilist, as you yourself so clearly have expressed), then you are doubly so for not knowing that nihilism is a multifaceted term.

May 30, 2012 7:58 PM

#65

Offline

Feb 2010

1267

Existential nihilism is the philosophical theory that life has no intrinsic meaning or value. <wiki>

Antinatalists value suffering.

Or you have not faced any antinatalists before?

Calling me Nihilist enough times will not make me such.

one-more-timeMay 30, 2012 8:17 PM

LUL

May 30, 2012 8:25 PM

#66

Offline

Feb 2005

13573

Your whole argument is about how it's bad to put people into existence because existence entails suffering right? Thus, you are saying life has no meaning and has no value in face of suffering. So existential nihilism is clearly included.

May 30, 2012 8:29 PM

#67

Monad

Offline

Jun 2008

15842

Kaiserpingvin said:

Who said anything about holding our species as a good thing? It's not about being good or bad is because existence is everything so even if it's bad it changes nothing in our attempt to keep it.

May 30, 2012 8:40 PM

#68

Offline

Feb 2010

1267

Baman said:
Your whole argument is about how it's bad to put people into existence because existence entails suffering right? Thus, you are saying life has no meaning and has no value in face of suffering. So existential nihilism is clearly included.

Nihilists believe everything is awash and that nothing should be done about the suffering of others. You can tip-toe around how many times you want, interpret how you please, antinatalists are not nihilists. If you call me such - I don't care, you're wrong, that's it.

Buddhism is often mistakenly classified as nihilistic or existentialist too.

LUL

May 30, 2012 8:47 PM

#69