Post: #1

It seems as though public opinion on good and bad is heavily influenced by the law. What is your stance on morality of certain acts outside of the law and legality.

-I believe everyone should be able to use drugs under the principle that people should always have a choice and the war in drugs seeks only to serve private prison

- I would say that random killing is bad. But if you have a personal vendetta, I could make more sense of it. Take Hernandez for example. He allegedly killed his friend because of a beef which people think of as stupid. I am stating that outside of the context of the law, it was not that stupid if he had personal anger towards him.

-society creates robots. laws place everyone in a box.

-I'm just realizing the amount of control people are under

Post: #2

(07-02-2013 06:42 AM)blackglasses Wrote:  - I would say that random killing is bad. But if you have a personal vendetta, I could make more sense of it. Take Hernandez for example. He allegedly killed his friend because of a beef which people think of as stupid. I am stating that outside of the context of the law, it was not that stupid if he had personal anger towards him.

You had me until you got here.

Are you saying it'd be morally acceptable, or at least tolerable, to murder someone (even worse, a supposed friend) over hurt feelings if the law didn't say it was against the rules?

Post: #3

I find that people seem to link good and bad with what gets them singled out not whats legal or not.

For example: Speeding is illegal but people accept going over the speed limit, so is not reporting all of your tips on your income tax and in some places so is backing your car out of your driveway onto the road. It supposed to go nose first.

On the other hand things that are legal but looked down upon: (Canadian law) knowing that the age of consent is 16 not 18, discriminating against employees when it has a business impact, going topless in Ontario, prostitution in Ontario.

I personally don't think morality and law are connected. The law is like the rules of the house when you are a kid; a person who breaks the law isn't a 'bad' or 'good' person. Its fine to break the law if you are willing to pay the consequences of doing so. Morality and the law are flipped when you look at the punishment as a price to be exempted from the rules, for example:
- instead of 'a fine for speeding' look at it as 'you can buy a "Go as fast as you want pass" ' for $500 and some liscence points...would you like one?
- or in more extreme cases a "kill 1 person" pass costs 25 years of your life, would you like one?

Thats where morality gets interesting. What if jail time for murder was only 5 years would it be acceptable then? When the price is 'affordable' but you still don't engage that is when its a moral choice.

Post: #4

(07-02-2013 06:59 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  Are you saying it'd be morally acceptable, or at least tolerable, to murder someone (even worse, a supposed friend) over hurt feelings if the law didn't say it was against the rules?

Imagine the kind of damage feminists would do... Hurt feelings? No longer will there be cries to Jizzabel, just knives in the throat.

If you kill someone in a world without law, you need to be prepared to deal with the consequences. You're not going to be put in a jail, where you're safe, you're going to have people coming right back after you. This sounds fair game to me. Personally, I wouldn't go around killing people - I'd rather make friends than enemies, but if someone has an attraction to danger, why should I care? Until they bother me, I'll leave them be. They'll probably end up sorting themselves out, anyway.

Post: #5

I take the following stance on morality; it's largely a crapshoot. Everyone subscribes to a different set of morals, and some(most people) only expect you to uphold your end of the bargain while they (even secretly)desire to live by a completely different set of rules(double standards anyone?). If you want solid results you want to adopt a 100% simple guideline to life that everyone including you can follow easily. A good guideline for interacting with the world and people can be as such:

Is doing a certain thing silly or sensible?

That is really what it boils down to. Is being harmful silly? Yes. Is being angry or sad sensible? No. Is believing in something sensible? No. With this guideline which is for the most part common sense the concept of good and evil, good and bad can be thrown completely out the window. You only want to do what is practical, as opposed to something silly/regretable. Morality can now be thrown into the trashcan as an old relic that has outlived it's use.

Post: #6

I think you're way off if you think people only refrain from committing crimes because certain acts are "illegal". Criminal law definitely has a deterrent effect, but wouldn't the idea of a victim's friends/family coming and killing you be a deterrent in a lawless society? It's not like people who commit calculated crimes plan to get caught to begin with.

The point of criminal law is to normalise the punishment inflicted on people who trespass others (and to make sure the correct person is being punished), because us humans are capricious little fuckers. Without a system of laws, you would find examples of one man being tortured to death for stealing a loaf of bread from a family, while another gets entirely forgiven for murdering someone's child, because their family are devout Christians etc.

I'm with wiscanada, what makes people hesitant to do something is usually not that it's illegal (do most college students think smoking marijuana is morally wrong?), but that it's socially unacceptable and will get them singled out for doing it.

Post: #7

I'd like to take a second to talk about morals and ethics here:

http://www.dailywritingtips.com/ethics-vs-morals/ Wrote:No, there’s no cage match between the two terms, but there is a distinction: Although the words can be considered synonyms, morals are beliefs based on practices or teachings regarding how people conduct themselves in personal relationships and in society, while ethics refers to a set or system of principles, or a philosophy or theory behind them. (Principles, however, is itself is a synonym for morals.) One lives according to one’s morals but adheres to one’s ethics while doing so. Morals are the tools by which one lives, and ethics constitute the manual that codifies them.

I'll take the example of smoking pot.

The question isn't "is it morally ok/wrong to smoke marijuana?," but "do you think it is ethically correct?" Morallity is simply adhering to what you believe is ethical. As for the answer to "is smoking marijuana ethically ok?...."

It depends who you choose to listen to. What is ethical is completely down to your personal beliefs. No one can tell you what you think is and isn't ethical, you have to make that choice yourself; eg:

Are you prepared to deal with the consequences of smoking marijuana yourself?

In terms of the ethics of smoking marijuana, I believe that there is nothing wrong with smoking weed, given that you're prepared to deal with the consequences. Someone who makes the decision to smoke weed is doing so of their own accord, therefore that is morally fine by me. Is it ethically correct? Personally I don't think it's ethically correct to try force an opinion down someone elses throat, so if that's the decision a person has made, then yes, it is fine for them to smoke weed.

I'm a strong believer in allowing people to do whatever the fuck they want. Restricting someone's freedom, to me, is one of the most despicable acts one can commit - it destroys the whole concept of ethics by removing a person's ability to develop their own.

Eminem Wrote:You find me offensive? I find you offensive for finding me offensive

It's fine for you to think smoking pot is bad. What isn't, is trying to stop me doing it because you have your own beliefs. To those people who think it's ethically ok to impose their ethical systems upon others, I think it's ethically ok to tell you to get the fuck out of my life. Someone who believes otherwise is just a hypocrite. Nothing else for it. It's correct for you to tell me what to do, but incorrect for me to tell you what to do?

If you look at the world the way I do, governing bodies are, in general, the single most unethical, immoral, and hypocritical collections of people on the planet. This is where my intense dislike for authority figures in general comes from. If most of the population wants to live under tyranny, without their freedom, that's fine by me, but for everyone else, they shouldn't be expected to adhere to the rules set out purely to restrict our ability to make our own decisions. A global system of rule is no way to treat a group of people. It's dispicable.

Post: #8

No I am looking at things from a strictly logical view. If someone angers you, then it is human nature to want to harm them

Post: #9

Agreed. The laws of nature would govern

Post: #10

I personally hate drugs, because I have had things stolen from me by druggies. Drugs really screw up third world countries and druggies are highly motivated to commit crimes to get their fix. The gringos I have known who have been murdered around here were involved with drugs in one way or another. On the other hand, I think everyone should be free to make their own decisions and bear the full consequences of their actions. I don't believe in the nanny state.

Post: #11

not because of drugs, because of money and economics. another thing I would like to examine is drugs outside of an economic context. For example if a person had a free supply v