Do you have a coherent ideology?

[Borachio]

You're confusing me, now.

I'm saying the court system does represent the consensus (more or less). And what makes you think that the consensus isn't (a) reality?

The consensus doesn't reflect an objective morality (whatever that might be). I'm not saying it does. I'm saying it's the "morality" of our times, if you like.

 

[Mise]

67% ???
Ha, what!?!
I think of myself as reasonably consistent!

I answered the initial questions pretty "openly". E.g. I said it was sometimes okay to torture people, anticipating just the sort of questions they later asked...

As an aside, my opposition to torture in practice is more about oversight and accountability than about the morality of the act itself. I have no doubt that torture does, occasionally, prevent greater moral wrongs. The problem is, the situations in which we torture people are simply not transparent enough: there is too little oversight and accountability of people who torture people for national security reasons. Their actions are obscured by layers upon layers of bureaucracy and institutional arse-covering, so we have no idea whether the torture is justified or not. For example, the question stipulated that there was a 75% chance that torturing the guy would prevent loads of deaths. But in reality, that 75% is not only a lot lower, it's also completely indeterminable, because there is no transparency, accountability or oversight. So I oppose the use of torture as it is practised by e.g UK and US authorities.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You're confusing me, now.

I'm saying the court system does represent the consensus (more or less). And what makes you think that the consensus isn't (a) reality?

The consensus doesn't reflect an objective morality (whatever that might be). I'm not saying it does. I'm saying it's the "morality" of our times, if you like.

You are on trial. The prosecution presents eye witnesses. He asks questions which they answer which create an impression of events for the jury. Your attorney asks them questions intending to alter that impression. The jury deliberates until they reach a consensus about the events. That consensus has no direct correlation to the actual events, and everyone involved knows it. It may by coincidence be that same as the reality, but it really doesn't make any difference if it is.

As to morality, the law is a structure for managing behavior in the absence of morality. In some cases the law reflects morality, ie most people hold killing to be immoral and we have laws against murder. But in most murder trials the primary issue is whether the killing is justified under law so not murder...because the moral stance against killing people is either rigid or vague or both.

In even more cases the law is completely outside any consensus of morality. Can I market my new tape used for holding ductwork together by calling it duct tape, which is what it actually is, or can someone stop me by claiming their tape had the 'name' first? From a moral standpoint who even begins to care? But we need laws to settle these differences in order to keep them from spilling into morality...when one tape maker uses his tape to bind up the other one and drop him down a mineshaft.

 

[Angst]

I like how I'm as much a screwball as Mechanicalsalvation yet I always seem to be so different from his worldview.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I like how I'm as much a screwball as Mechanicalsalvation yet I always seem to be so different from his worldview.

My thoughts precisely even though the difference is rather superficial...

 

[Angst]

They are eindeed.

 

[timtofly]

So far it seems to me that its more exciting to strugle and clash than to stay in line and 100 % behave. If there was objective morality there would be much less variety. I guess we need to pay the price for creativity too.

Creativity has nothing to do with it either. Culture and arts has the ability to portray what we feel, but it does not control who we are. Why do you think that all there is is struggle, when doing that just cancels out any human advancement?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Creativity has nothing to do with it either. Culture and arts has the ability to portray what we feel, but it does not control who we are. Why do you think that all there is is struggle, when doing that just cancels out any human advancement?

Some of the best music, literature and so on has been done in conditions of great stress. Its the adversity of situation that often brings ones best capacity to the fore while in prosperity and conformity it stays hidden. Sometimes we are just forced to improvise and be creative.
Culture isnt instrument of control rather contrary it explores man potential and what he is as well as inspires. It knows no boundaries.
You need both struggle and periods of relaxation for human advancement. Struggle doesnt necessarily destroys. Without struggle we wouldnt be where we are. We would have been anihilated long time ago.

 

[timtofly]

Or we would have colonized space.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Or we would have colonized space.

I really doubt that since a) inherent laziness of people, b) since the technologies needed to get to space we have learned mostly through war

 

[madviking]

My issue isn't that you do not have all the right answers, but the attitude vibe I got from you. It seemed rather arrogant without even bothering to really back it up.

i'm just lazy and don't feel like typing a whole lot

 

[Borachio]

You are on trial. The prosecution presents eye witnesses. He asks questions which they answer which create an impression of events for the jury. Your attorney asks them questions intending to alter that impression. The jury deliberates until they reach a consensus about the events. That consensus has no direct correlation to the actual events, and everyone involved knows it. It may by coincidence be that same as the reality, but it really doesn't make any difference if it is.

As to morality, the law is a structure for managing behavior in the absence of morality. In some cases the law reflects morality, ie most people hold killing to be immoral and we have laws against murder. But in most murder trials the primary issue is whether the killing is justified under law so not murder...because the moral stance against killing people is either rigid or vague or both.

In even more cases the law is completely outside any consensus of morality. Can I market my new tape used for holding ductwork together by calling it duct tape, which is what it actually is, or can someone stop me by claiming their tape had the 'name' first? From a moral standpoint who even begins to care? But we need laws to settle these differences in order to keep them from spilling into morality...when one tape maker uses his tape to bind up the other one and drop him down a mineshaft.

I'm not really seeing how the law differs (much) from public consensus on morality, here. It's a more or less good fit. I would certainly not claim it's a perfect reflection of what people think. This is why laws, and procedures, change: to more accurately track the consensus. Which also changes.

As for the duct tape name business, in this case the current consensus is that of copyright law. I think copyright law is just a formal legal expression of the public consensus on what is moral applied to one particular area of intellectual property rights.

Morality, after all, is just notions of right and wrong.

 

[El_Machinae]

There is some overlap, sure. Especially in the criminal law.

 

[timtofly]

I really doubt that since a) inherent laziness of people, b) since the technologies needed to get to space we have learned mostly through war

Can you describe the great war or struggle that built the pyramids? Peaceful humans in a group mind setting built something that "reached" the stars. It is also true that competition can be healthy, but science does not work on competition alone. Advancement in technology and space exploration does not have to be military. The only reason that things happened because of military is because there have been a few humans who felt the need to be aggressive during the last 1500 years. Exploration is just not fighting other humans. There is a lot of struggle against nature and unknown forces at work as well. It would seem to me that only focusing on each other, gets us so far. War seems to only be a cultural producer at it's best, but a human set back at it's worst.

Are humans lazy by nature, or lazy because no one has offered them the right incentive. If humans are lazy by nature and just gave into their nature, you would be correct that they would have died out ages ago. Are you saying that war and oppression are the only incentives to live? There are plenty of oppressed people who live and struggle day to day. They do the same things over and over and are not lazy. Would it be the oppression that keeps them from their full potential or their laziness? If they started fighting and killing each other, would they advance in technology? There are technologies that may come from a military use first, but not all of them have.

 

[Mise]

Re Law vs Morality, put it another way: if a law was immoral, wouldn't we repeal it?

 

[El_Machinae]

We'd try, I'd hope. There'd be the push and pull, because it's likely an immoral law would benefit some portion of the citizenry, who'd use obfuscation, bribery, and delaying tactics to keep it around.

Let's consider, suppose pigs are actually sapient and have rich internal lives. This would make our modern industry akin to murder and immoral. How long would it take to criminalize the murder of pigs? You'd need to convince a majority of people and overcome the deliciousness of bacon in the meantime. We currently have laws regarding pig killing, they very explicitly legalise parts of the modern industry. Criminalising the killing of pigs would need those laws repealed.

We saw a variant when the laws regarding slave ownership were changed very, very slowly

 

[Mise]

Yeah, I think that fits Borachio's statement that law reflects some sort of consensus on morality. Additionally, we're also saying here that, even if the law isn't always perfectly moral, it nonetheless strives to be moral.

Clearly some sections of the population are more "represented" by law than others. And law isn't just about morality: it's also, as you say, about interests and money and power and so on. But there is indeed a great deal of overlap, and in broad strokes, you can say that present laws are a decent proxy for a consensus on morality. I can't think of a better barometer for a democratic nation's consensus on morality than its laws.

EDIT: I should also say that not all moral issues should be addressed through law. Only those that are of the interest to all of society (put another way, that all of society has an interest in) should fall within the domain of law. So if I cheat on my girlfriend, that's immoral, but not something that should be illegal.

 

[Borachio]

Yeah.

Also, the law is, or has been, mostly composed of prohibitions. Which is only half the story.

Nowadays, sometimes the law, like that on Health and Safety, talks loftily about duties of care. But that's the exception, I think.

 

[kochman]

Re Law vs Morality, put it another way: if a law was immoral, wouldn't we repeal it?

You would think, right?
In the US, we often just stop enforcing them... and maybe decades later repeal them.
In some places fellatio and sodomy are technically illegal.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I simply stopped caring, honestly.

Is that good? Probably not. Is that intellectually lazy? Definitely.

Am I happier now focusing on the people nearest and dearest to me? You bet your ass I am.