| I have never thought of this before. I was talking with my roommate who has fairly different political views from me, but is relatively strong with defending his arguments. We were talking about abortion, and he said two things. I will only mention one for the purpose of this thread. He said that it is not the governments job to get into morals. The governments job is to serve it's people and maintain order. He said he believes that abortion is terrible, but it is not the governments duty to outlaw it. It made me start to think of what makes a government good. There is so much that could be said, and I believe other people can make better contributions to this topic than I, hence why I am creating this post. Does government need to simply maintain order, or should it also get involved in what people believe to be wrong and right? |
 |
| Define do as it pleases. The government has checks and balances to prevent someone from doing as they please. Unless you mean the government as a whole can do as it pleases, which is why we have elections to prevent this. Rarusu_ said: Can you elaborate on this quote? The wording is somewhat confusing to me.He was moralizing over the government trying to do something based on moral. |
|
| I think I see what your saying Rarusu, but at the same time I disagree. Your saying that it's not right to say the government shouldn't get into morals based on moral judgement? Can't we say to a degree every judgement we make is based on morals? The government is a system not a person. Essentially you can fine tune the details of that system which is somewhat of what I was trying to start this thread on. Should morals be a part of the government system, or just maintaining order? Sorry if I am missing your point. There is nothing wrong with moral standpoints. |
|
Rarusu_ said: I just started looking into NAP so I can not comment much on that, however about the politics from ethics I believe they go hand in hand a lot of the time but you can separate them. WisestOne said: I think I see what your saying Rarusu, but at the same time I disagree. Your saying that it's not right to say the government shouldn't get into morals based on moral judgement? Can't we say to a degree every judgement we make is based on morals? The government is a system not a person. Essentially you can fine tune the details of that system which is somewhat of what I was trying to start this thread on. Should morals be a part of the government system, or just maintaining order? Sorry if I am missing your point. There is nothing wrong with moral standpoints. I'm not taking any position myself, I myself think that the NAP is fairly rational. But it's dishonest to not think of it as a moral way of governing. Maintaining order is also concerned with morals, because what kind of order is it that you want to maintain? You just cannot separate politics from ethics. For example morally speaking, murder is the most heinous thing you can do, which the government forbids. You can ask yourself, does government forbid it because we think it is wrong, or because it would result in chaos if people were killing each other without consequence. You are right that ethics and government really go hand in hand, but sometimes it's different stances that come to the same conclusion. Though sometimes those conclusions may in fact, be different. |
|
Rarusu_ said: It is heinous because you are taking life away from someone. You cause mental pain for those who were associated with that person. I don't know your personal believes, but taking life away from someone is the end of it for them. It's like going past the edge of the universe, it's just nothingness. Why is murdering something heinous? I would say that we probably think it is wrong because it would result in chaos. You cannot build a civilization if people are concerned about getting killed every minute. I agree with what you said though. We probably think murder is wrong because of the chaos, and the fear that we would have if we could be murdered. |
|
| I think it should be involved as minimally possible for a stable society. It helps reduce further problems and conflict of if people took things in their own hands. I think most countries go too far with their laws. I also am very against age based laws of all kinds, I would rather a sort of flexibility with these age based laws or ideally some kind of test of physical, mental and situational criteria. |
| Depends. There is a theocracy, or the separation of church and state. We in the west are supposed to have separation of church and state, but it seems the state cannot keep out of the church's business, and wants to also run the church. This is where the question of State and morals comes in to play. Once the state removes the church, the state becomes again a theocracy, as it is heading now, but the religion is not a moral religion like Christianity, but the religion of the immoral or amoral - new age religion of U.N. and politically correct crowd. Good luck with that. |
| idk about you but the closer a girl gets to looking like ronald mcdonald, the more aroused i become. CAV where can we cast our eyes to @PoruMairu who thinks of himself a member of the true church. Helion. |
| he doesn't make a lot of sense with that line in conjunction with 'the government exists to serve the people and maintain order' because serving the people and maintaining order means enforcing morality morality is the culturally dependent set of social codes for good behaviour so order is largely based on existing morality and allowing immoral acts that don't serve the people is not really serving the people separately, i'm curious as to what he defines and doesn't define as a law involved with morals he thinks abortion is immoral, but should be allowed because it's 'just a moral issue'? i assume he thinks murder should still be banned? is the chaos just 'more noticeable'? what if you just kill a homeless person, or an orphan? steal from someone with dementia? maybe there's another way other people think of morality |
 ~ join the MAL suicide pact! ~ ~ ★☭★ ~ ~ embrace nuclear annihilation! ~ |
Volti said: he doesn't make a lot of sense with that line in conjunction with 'the government exists to serve the people and maintain order' because serving the people and maintaining order means enforcing morality morality is the culturally dependent set of social codes for good behaviour so order is largely based on existing morality and allowing immoral acts that don't serve the people is not really serving the people separately, i'm curious as to what he defines and doesn't define as a law involved with morals he thinks abortion is immoral, but should be allowed because it's 'just a moral issue'? i assume he thinks murder should still be banned? is the chaos just 'more noticeable'? what if you just kill a homeless person, or an orphan? steal from someone with dementia? maybe there's another way other people think of morality Serving people and maintaining order doesn't have to = enforcing morality. Overall morals can change from person to person. For example you not supporting abortion, someone else supporting abortion. Who wins? My friend is essentially saying the concept of abortion does not concern the government, which means it is a woman's right to get an abortion. My friend is strongly against abortion, but says it is not the governments business to intervene in these kind of matters. Also, of course he believes murder should be "banned" because murder would create chaos. Killing a homeless person is wrong, killing an orphan is wrong, stealing is wrong, what is the point your trying to make in that last statement? |
|
WisestOne said: Killing a homeless person is wrong, killing an orphan is wrong, stealing is wrong, what is the point your trying to make in that last statement? that it's 'wrong' is just a moral belief, which the government apparently should not enforce homeless people are inconsequential to society and so killing them doesn't create chaos in fact, killing homeless people discretely could create more order in the end as they often resort to crime for food or drugs, and fill up the streets so why shouldn't i just be allowed to kill them? (i'm personally sympathetic to homeless people, but that ties into morality that some don't share) |
~ join the MAL suicide pact! ~ ~ ★☭★ ~ ~ embrace nuclear annihilation! ~ |
Volti said: Nope. Just because they are lower in society does not mean killing them would be okay. I mean this from a order standpoint. Anyone being killed would create chaos. Look at what is happening today. People are being killed by police, even in situations where the police had the right there are huge riots/disorder due to the murders. Murder does not create order, unless done to put down criminals.WisestOne said: Killing a homeless person is wrong, killing an orphan is wrong, stealing is wrong, what is the point your trying to make in that last statement? that it's 'wrong' is just a moral belief, which the government apparently should not enforce homeless people are inconsequential to society and so killing them doesn't create chaos in fact, killing homeless people discretely could create more order in the end as they often resort to crime for food or drugs, and fill up the streets so why shouldn't i just be allowed to kill them? (i'm personally sympathetic to homeless people, but that ties into morality that some don't share) |
|
WisestOne said: Nope. Just because they are lower in society does not mean killing them would be okay. that's just morality, which is irrelevant now I mean this from a order standpoint. Anyone being killed would create chaos. not true, people disappear all of the time and are never found there are many old people, homeless people, orphans, who don't have family and friends people don't throw riots when they haven't heard from them, and the police don't launch searches they never hear from them anyway, they never listen for them in the first place so it doesn't matter to them or the rest of society if one is killed and the body is hidden they don't know that they just wake up the next day and the food bank has some extra cans to spare, the crime rate is a little lower, and there's a little less urine under the bridge it is depressing but not at all uncommon Look at what is happening today. People are being killed by police, even in situations where the police had the right there are huge riots/disorder due to the murders. Murder does not create order, unless done to put down criminals. that's not my example but you're saying that the police had the right to kill some criminals and it created disorder at the same time as you say murder creates order when it puts down criminals and aren't the rioters creating the disorder? we can't give into their 'moral' demands, so why not class them as criminals? |
~ join the MAL suicide pact! ~ ~ ★☭★ ~ ~ embrace nuclear annihilation! ~ |
Volti said: I'm not speaking based on morality. Killing homeless people would cause disorder "it's not okay".WisestOne said: that's just morality, which is irrelevant nowNope. Just because they are lower in society does not mean killing them would be okay. Volti said: People disappearing won't create disorder, or rather it would create little. People disappearing doesn't equate to them being murdered. You are right about homeless people disappearing, for the most part wouldn't cause a problem. However, if word got out that they were gone because of murder, that is where disorder would come from. Disorder a lot of the time comes from fear. Even if someone you don't care about die, it makes you think whos to say I or someone I care about won't be next? Disorder isn't stemming from compassion, but more from fear.not true, people disappear all of the time and are never found there are many old people, homeless people, orphans, who don't have family and friends people don't throw riots when they haven't heard from them, and the police don't launch searches they never hear from them anyway, they never listen for them in the first place so it doesn't matter to them or the rest of society if one is killed and the body is hidden they don't know that they just wake up the next day and the food bank has some extra cans to spare, the crime rate is a little lower, and there's a little less urine under the bridge |
|
WisestOne said: You are right about homeless people disappearing, for the most part wouldn't cause a problem. However, if word got out that they were gone because of murder, that is where disorder would come from. Disorder a lot of the time comes from fear. Even if someone you don't care about die, it makes you think whos to say I or someone I care about won't be next? Disorder isn't stemming from compassion, but more from fear. Okay. Imagine that I went out and killed ten or so homeless people, and I picked my targets carefully to be criminals and people without a place in society. I cover my tracks really well for a while, but then I make a mistake, and someone finds out. The public, however, haven't yet been told about what I've done... they don't know that any murders have taken place. Only a small group of government workers are aware of the details of the issue. Now, their primary interests are just society and order, but they don't care about morality. What should they do? Should they arrest me, give me a trial, and potentially execute me? Well, this doesn't seem like a good option. If they do this, it doesn't protect order, because the public would find out about my crimes. They would vilify me, protest outside my trial, and protest to the government too for more protections for the homeless. Should they just let me go, and forget about it? If only me and them know about it, there isn't any disorder yet. I have boosted order mildly, and am yet to spark any protests. It seems like it's in the best interests of order to cover up my crimes at least partially, charging me with something milder than murder and not leaking all of the details, or just letting me go. even if someone else did find out, and was going to report the news, maybe it would be better for society and order if the government just had them run into an accident... i suppose they could do that to me too, to make the problem just go away completely... but i'm only really being punished for getting caught hmm |
VoltiiOct 27, 2016 5:57 PM
~ join the MAL suicide pact! ~ ~ ★☭★ ~ ~ embrace nuclear annihilation! ~ |
Volti said: First of all what I am talking about, is how a government should work, now how the government DOES work. The governments main interest of course is to maintain order. Not everyone in the system has the same ideology and some people have the ability to go against what the government wants. Also, letting you go free of charge would be bad. A lot of the times, it's about maintaining standards. For example, just because you "boosted order mildly" does not mean that there may not be consequences for what you did. For example, if word got out and the government didn't punish you, it could give this thought of vigilantism to people. People may think, it's okay to kill it I kill a bad person. If people feel there are such loopholes it will create disorder. I completely see where you are coming from. Plus, we have no idea what goes on behind the scenes to maintain order.Imagine that I went out and killed ten or so homeless people, and I picked my targets carefully to be criminals and people without a place in society. I cover my tracks really well for a while, but then I make a mistake, and someone finds out. The public, however, haven't yet been told about what I've done... they don't know that any murders have taken place. Only a small group of government workers are aware of the details of the issue. Now, their primary interests are just society and order, but they don't care about morality. What should they do? Should they arrest me, give me a trial, and potentially execute me? Well, this doesn't seem like a good option. If they do this, it doesn't protect order, because the public would find out about my crimes. They would vilify me, protest outside my trial, and protest to the government too for more protections for the homeless. Should they just let me go, and forget about it? If only me and them know about it, there isn't any disorder yet. I have boosted order mildly, and am yet to spark any protests. It seems like it's in the best interests of order to cover up my crimes at least partially, charging me with something milder than murder and not leaking all of the details, or just letting me go. even if someone else did find out, and was going to report the news, maybe it would be better for society and order if the government just had them run into an accident... i suppose they could do that to me too, to make the problem just go away completely... but i'm only really being punished for getting caught hmm Torturing terrorist, denying them of free trial, our entire political system. We don't know what goes behind the scenes. |
|
| Basically our law is to protect people's right to pursuit happiness within a reasonable limit. That's to assume all or most people want happiness, with limits of not hurting others. Life is a basic component of human, so it's the first to protect from being hurt. Abortion is sensitive because the fetus is highly dependent on another being, to an extent you can consider it as a part of the other being until it can survive reasonably independently. With modern technology, it's with life support. In fact, it's not just to survive but to thrive. The quality of life is too low if the fetus can only be kept inside the incubator and prepare to die there after a period of time, wasting money as well. So abortion is allowed by some countries before a certain number of weeks. After that, they are supposed to thrive if taken out. There's other essential split, death penalty. Some extremely clean view is that, the gov't has NO right to kill any being, while killing is basically allowed for self-protection against immediate threat. If a criminal is arrested, it can be kept in prison without parole if you think he's dangerous to the others. What if the people want death penalty, can they give the gov't right to kill another being? If there's a criminal walking in the street, why don't you call the police? How do you know he's a criminal? Why would you play judge by giving him a death sentence? |
| Isn't maintaining order defined by what people believe is right and wrong? We have laws against murder because we, as a society, have decided that murder is wrong. We believe it's wrong (I believe that myself). So, in a sense, the government already does this. In fact, every law that the government enforces does exactly this. What you're probably asking for is social issues. These are typically issues that affect a great number of people in society; they are easy topics as they are relatively straight forward and can be relatable in some way. Gay marriage and abortion are the two big ones in today's modern society, but it used to be black and woman's rights before. To my own opinion, I believe government should stay out of social issues. Be as neutral as possible regardless of a person's characteristics and only look at their actions objectively as it relates to the consequences to others around them. That's basically just fancy wording for saying "I do not believe abortion and/or gay marriage and similar issues should be controlled by the government simply because it only effects the individuals that partake in these "problems" and it doesn't in anyway cause harm for those surrounding them." |
| I have a problem with the government imposing religious based morality in the law. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| An amoral government is an impossibility. Most of the moral propositions that actually matter have to be implemented on a state level in order to be considered moral at all. What government shouldn't meddle in, however, is religion. Religion is different. It doesn't just define boundaries but entire paths. |
| I don't think they should interfere with that stuff I mean obviously harmful stuff like murder, rape, stealing etc. Should be outlawed but people shouldn't let their religion control the government. They should let people choose things. It took forever for America to legalize gay marriage because of religion interfering with government. I don't see why that even happened. If you don't agree with gay marriage them whatever but don't outlaw it in a free country, it doesn't affect you anyway."Oh no, the two men next door got married!!!!" ...This somehow affects me... Apart form natural law I don't think they should enforce anything. |
| I disagree. Laws ARE morality. They do dictate what is wrong and what is right. Their purpose is to use force whenever someone strays from the path. Morals are the basis of civilization. Without them we crumble to senseless violence. Laws are just a way to make sure everyone follows the moral codes. |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
| If something doesn't infringe on someone else's rights, the government has no business intervening as far as I'm concerned. |
Take care of yourself |
TheBrainintheJar said: Are they? I feel laws are more so to maintain order, than to follow morals. Don't get me wrong a lot of the time morals and maintaining order go hand in hand, but not always. Standards to maintain order for the most part don't change and follow certain guidelines. Peoples morals can change from generation to generation, as you can see strongly in just the past couple generations. Not everyone has the same moral values, so which side does the government decides whos values they will follow? That is one reason why the governments focus should be to maintain order, and not to appeal to morals.I disagree. Laws ARE morality. They do dictate what is wrong and what is right. Their purpose is to use force whenever someone strays from the path. Morals are the basis of civilization. Without them we crumble to senseless violence. Laws are just a way to make sure everyone follows the moral codes. |
|
WisestOne said: TheBrainintheJar said: Are they? I feel laws are more so to maintain order, than to follow morals. Don't get me wrong a lot of the time morals and maintaining order go hand in hand, but not always. Standards to maintain order for the most part don't change and follow certain guidelines. Peoples morals can change from generation to generation, as you can see strongly in just the past couple generations. Not everyone has the same moral values, so which side does the government decides whos values they will follow? That is one reason why the governments focus should be to maintain order, and not to appeal to morals.I disagree. Laws ARE morality. They do dictate what is wrong and what is right. Their purpose is to use force whenever someone strays from the path. Morals are the basis of civilization. Without them we crumble to senseless violence. Laws are just a way to make sure everyone follows the moral codes. If laws and morals have the same purpose, then they're directly related. Laws exist to enforce morality, which exist to maintain order. I agree morality is subjective and changes from person to person. Laws also change from country to country and from era to era. Still, their purpose remains the same. |
| WEAPONS - My blog, for reviews of music, anime, books, and other things |
More topics from this board
» Is fanart cheating?spaceslut - Mar 5, 2023 |
30 |
by MasterTasuke
»»
6 minutes ago |
|
» what is "love" to you ? what makes you feel loved and how you love people ?ame - Today |
18 |
by MasterTasuke
»»
14 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » strawberry, chocolate or banana milk?bobbysalmon - Apr 17 |
22 |
by SnipeStrike
»»
18 minutes ago |
|
» How do you know other people actually exist?purple_rayn - Yesterday |
17 |
by ISeeLifePeople
»»
2 hours ago |
|
» What do you think about law enforcement (police) in your country?Sad - Apr 16 |
32 |
by KenaiPhoenix
»»
3 hours ago |