Skip to forum content

You are not logged in. Please login or register.


Forum Oi! → Chit-Chat → Morals (And Therefore Ethics) Are Absolute

Pages 1

You must login or register to post a reply

RSS topic feed

Posts: 3

1


True, fairness in that the same laws apply to all is a key.   A rich man shouldn't be punished different than a poor man for the same misbehavior.   (which by the way is a problem today).
Revolution is actually something encouraged by the founding fathers of America.   The key thing was that the revolution would be through a free and honest election.  If there is a trust and faith in a fair and honest election where everyone was free to vote anyway they wanted and all votes were counted, then the efforts that could go to violence can be going to a better campaign next time (hopefully).
Of course, Liberty isn't the only principal for laws, but it is  A principal, and it is not based on morals, but on an acceptance that people do not always make moral choices, but that is ok as long as they don't hurt anyone else.
Finally, in a race between me and Usain Bolt, I would expect to lose.  Unless we were driving Fieros.  First off, I don't he could fit his 6' 6" frame in one.   Second off, I got so used to pushing one that I still have good leg strength to get it moving.

2

I believe that there are moral absolutes, I just disagree that a law is default immoral unless it is based on absolute morality.

3



I should distinguish between criminal law and administrative or tort law.
I assert that it is always immoral to make a crime of something that does not violate a moral principle. Thus, negligently hitting someone with your car can be a crime, but speeding--no matter how fast--cannot. Many of our woes today arise because the polity attempts to define precursor behaviors that "lead" to immoral outcomes, and to criminalize those precursor behaviors.
Preemption is best carried out by social induction (the disapproval of your peers), but can be backed up with administrative law and tort law.
Ordinances, regulations, etc., which are not punished but violations of which may result in monetary or other remunerative penalties, do not need to be based on moral principles. Thus, an administrative offense of speeding is acceptable, but only if the penalty is not odious. Specifically, inability to pay the penalty can never be the basis for criminal sanctions. This takes the teeth out of administrative  law to the extent that a citizen is willing to flout it.
Tort law covers the difference. If you cause damages to another through negligence, the other may recover damages from you--again in a remunerative context, not a punitive context. So if  you are looking at your phone at run into a guy in the sidewalk and break his leg, you may be and should be liable for his medical expenses, lost income, etc.

Posts: 3

Pages 1

You must login or register to post a reply

Forum Oi! → Chit-Chat → Morals (And Therefore Ethics) Are Absolute

Similar topics in this forum