Where do moral laws come from?

[Boss]

That doesn't hold. If we held the protection of rights as the basis for law, rather than enforcing morality, we'd still have most of the laws we have now.

The fact is there are plenty of actions that people consider immoral that don't violate other people's rights (and shouldn't be illegal) eg - cheating on your girlfriend. And there are plenty of things one might do that would violate the rights of others, but might not be considered immoral (but should still be against the law) - tax evasion.

Sorry but even the concept of our inalienable natural rights is based and rooted in a morality viewpoint. You can't really escape it. At the foundation, ALL laws are rooted in morality judgement.

 

[dblack]

That doesn't hold. If we held the protection of rights as the basis for law, rather than enforcing morality, we'd still have most of the laws we have now.

The fact is there are plenty of actions that people consider immoral that don't violate other people's rights (and shouldn't be illegal) eg - cheating on your girlfriend. And there are plenty of things one might do that would violate the rights of others, but might not be considered immoral (but should still be against the law) - tax evasion.

Sorry but even the concept of our inalienable natural rights is based and rooted in a morality viewpoint. You can't really escape it. At the foundation, ALL laws are rooted in morality judgement.

So are all morals suitable justification for laws? If not, what criteria distinguishes those that are from those that aren't?

 

[rightwinger]

That doesn't hold. If we held the protection of rights as the basis for law, rather than enforcing morality, we'd still have most of the laws we have now.

The fact is there are plenty of actions that people consider immoral that don't violate other people's rights (and shouldn't be illegal) eg - cheating on your girlfriend. And there are plenty of things one might do that would violate the rights of others, but might not be considered immoral (but should still be against the law) - tax evasion.

Sorry but even the concept of our inalienable natural rights is based and rooted in a morality viewpoint. You can't really escape it. At the foundation, ALL laws are rooted in morality judgement.

So are all morals suitable justification for laws? If not, what criteria distinguishes those that are from those that aren't?

Not all morals

Your moral objection to homosexuality is not a justification for a law against it

 

[ding]

Before space and time were created the laws of nature were already in place. The potential for all realities existed before space and time existed because those laws of nature were in place before space and time. Everything which has unfolded since space and time were created occurred because of the laws of nature. Moral Laws existed before beings that know and create existed. Moral Laws were waiting in time for beings that now and create to catch up to them, thus realizing its potential and fulfilling their role in progressing our conscience and consciousness. So where did the moral laws come from? They came from God who is existence itself; who s reality itself.

Where did you come up with all that? Did you form your own religion or cobble pieces together from others?

Laws come from man, they differ from state to state, country from country.

I see. So slavery can be moral if a society decides it it moral?

Some did and do consider it moral so no, you don't see.

I see that what you are describing is moral relativism.

When isn't morality relative?

Never. Your way of thinking is more aligned with the founding fathers of communism while mine is more aligned with the founding fathers of freedom.

 

[ding]

Yes and no. Morality is a standard of conduct which is the highest possible standard. When one deviates from that standard predictable surprises will eventually occur thus proving why the standard existed in the first place.

That's called circular reasoning. You are deciding on what the standard is and determining proof is met when that standard is met.

Actually I am not. For any given thing you are free to submit a higher standard for consideration. And if it is indeed the highest possible standard you will have discovered the moral law.

That's circular because you are deciding what a higher standard is. If intercourse with a 12 year old when is it moral? 13? 16? 17? 21? And what is the higher standard?

No. Outcomes decide that. The proof is in the pudding so to speak.

 

[ding]

The 'law of causality', 'order', 'justice', 'karma' and many other terms have been used by humans throughout time to describe this aspiration to impose names/nouns upon existence. We live something, experience something and have internal responses, feelings. These themselves are shaped by previous experiences, including socialization. As we navigate life, situations arise that affect us in ways that often resonate with our memories and consciousness. It is natural to try to fit patterns and 'sense' into this mandala of perception. They might even be accurate, at least some of the time. We may never know. We should come to understand our processes, however, and always be prepared to admit that, as certain as we would like to be of 'principles', they are concepts, part of humans and human reasoning, thus, subjective.

Yes, and what I am discussing is the objective moral law which once discovered will be known to be true and unchanging despite the subjectivity of man.

There is no such thing as objective morality.

Sure there is. Remove all preferences for an outcome or consequences to yourself and you can be objective about anything.

 

[ding]

Do you believe that men laying with men or killing our most innocent members of society are the highest possible standards? I don't.

Yes you do!
Is 13: 15 Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword.
16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.

Try reading with context next time.

 

[ding]

Moral laws do not come from god

They were devised by man in the name of god

Not so. They existed before space and time.

 

[ding]

Moral laws do not come from god

They were devised by man in the name of god

They do if they are absolute and not relative.

Man uses an alleged threat of punishment or reward from God to justify his moral code

It does not mean that code comes from God

Sure it does. Failed behaviors naturally lead to failure and successful behaviors naturally lead to success. That's why they are called natural laws.

 

[ding]

Do you believe that men laying with men or killing our most innocent members of society are the highest possible standards? I don't.

Yes you do!
Is 13: 15 Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword.
16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.

Remember that time God got pissed off and killed millions of innocent children, puppies and kittens in a flood?
How about that time he killed the first born children of Egypt?

Yes. I do. But he didn't kill their first born. The pharaoh did. As to the flood, most ancient societies have an account of the flood. The Bible's account is allegorical. If you want to make an argument that God was not moral, why don't you use the account where he told the Jews to kill every man, woman and child when they entered Canaan? My answer to that would be, who said God was being moral when He told them that? In fact, we could point to disease, war and death, right? So we are left with two choices; we can believe He was not being moral or that we don't understand it. I choose the latter.

 

[ding]

Well but that's the thing... man didn't suddenly have a collective epiphany! Something happened to change them from wandering to settling. You can SAY ...oh well, they realized it was more beneficial to work together... How did they realize that? What happened that made them able to trust each other not to be killed in the middle of the night and have all their stuff stolen?

MY premise is, for many years mankind lived by laws of the jungle, survival of the fittest. At some point, they discovered spiritual awareness. It was through that spiritual connection they were able to develop trust relationships with others who also shared spirituality. This is when settlements and civilizations started. In order to set aside "laws of the jungle" behavior, something bigger has to replace it. There has to be some "greater purpose" understood. Spirituality fits this need.

Dogs bond in a pack

Do they have spiritual awareness?

Sure, but dogs have no concept of good and evil. Only humans have knowledge of good and evil.

I've had dogs my whole life

Yes, they do understand that some other dogs (or people) are good or evil

No. they don't. Not like human beings do. They do not possess that level of consciousness.

They have a level of understanding of good and bad. They don't forget either
They do not have any consciousness of a God that will punish them if they are bad...namely because there isn't one
Dogs do understand actions that they do that are good or bad
.

I don't see a lot of humans worrying too much about what God will do to them. If you really believed this then you should expect them to behave differently which they don't. Other than that I don't disagree with what you wrote except that animals do not possess our level of consciousness and therefore, do not possess the same ability we have of being moral. You are placing human traits on animals.

Only Humans Have Morality, Not Animals

 

[ding]

Everything humans can know must be subject to human perception. Abstract, absolute 'laws' have no meaning. Meaning is always in context with humans and falls immediately into human relativistic domains.

But they are subject to consequences and through these consequences they can discover the moral laws of nature.

 

[ding]

That doesn't hold. If we held the protection of rights as the basis for law, rather than enforcing morality, we'd still have most of the laws we have now.

The fact is there are plenty of actions that people consider immoral that don't violate other people's rights (and shouldn't be illegal) eg - cheating on your girlfriend. And there are plenty of things one might do that would violate the rights of others, but might not be considered immoral (but should still be against the law) - tax evasion.

Sorry but even the concept of our inalienable natural rights is based and rooted in a morality viewpoint. You can't really escape it. At the foundation, ALL laws are rooted in morality judgement.

Our founding fathers believed in natural law which is exactly what the OP is discussing.

http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3506&context=wlulr

The Founding Fathers and the Natural Law: A Study of the Source of Our Legal Institutions on JSTOR

http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/v...ontext=naturallaw_proceedings&type=additional

 

[ding]

I don't believe so. As a rule, most girls of 13 to 14 are not emotionally mature enough to make such commitments. Men who take advantage of them are doing so for their own selfish reasons. I don't consider this to be the highest possible standard of conduct.

Again, I told you that you would come back at me with this very argument! You are making a subjective moral decision based on your perception. It's not some universal truth the whole of mankind accepts. You may WISH it were, but it's simply NOT. That's the crux of the debate here.

You say it yourself... "[YOU] don't consider it to be the highest possible standard of conduct!" That's YOUR opinion based on YOUR perspective and perceptions... not a universal TRUTH. You are simply attempting to "ordain" your moralistic beliefs as some kind of universal truth as if something endowed you with this ability. I assure you, it did not. You speak for YOURSELF... as do I, as does every individual.

The universal standard is not taking advantage of others for personal gain.

Again, you are spouting a subjective! That allegation can be made for A LOT of things! I can say that it's immoral to clip coupons from the Sunday paper and use them! Claiming the mortgage interest deduction on your tax returns! Haggling over the price of a new car! Many things might be construed as taking advantage of others for personal gain, it is a matter of individual perspective. There is no universal standard.

I don't believe I am. Pick a subject and we can work through what the highest standard is and then test whether or not we can find a higher standard than that. Fair enough? Let's test it.

 

[dblack]

That doesn't hold. If we held the protection of rights as the basis for law, rather than enforcing morality, we'd still have most of the laws we have now.

The fact is there are plenty of actions that people consider immoral that don't violate other people's rights (and shouldn't be illegal) eg - cheating on your girlfriend. And there are plenty of things one might do that would violate the rights of others, but might not be considered immoral (but should still be against the law) - tax evasion.

Sorry but even the concept of our inalienable natural rights is based and rooted in a morality viewpoint. You can't really escape it. At the foundation, ALL laws are rooted in morality judgement.

So are all morals suitable justification for laws? If not, what criteria distinguishes those that are from those that aren't?

Not all morals

Your moral objection to homosexuality is not a justification for a law against it

How do you decide? Between a moral objection that IS a valid justification for a law, and one that isn't?

 

[ding]

I don't know. It doesn't matter. The "interaction with others" thing was your creation. My claim is that government should be restricted to protecting our rights, and not empowered to enforce morality.

Murder, rape, assault, stealing are all morality

It's true that, for most of us, in most situations, murder, rape, etc are considered immoral. But that's not why they're illegal. They're illegal because the violate the rights of others. We have moral convictions that have nothing to do with the rights of others, and shouldn't be enforced by law.

Are you of the opinion that government should be enforcing morality via laws?

I'm not following you

Can you name a moral conviction that is enforced by government that does not involve your interaction with others?

Are you really of the opinion that government should be enforcing morality via laws?

Can you name one such law?

Sure. Killing is wrong. Do you want to test this?

 

[ding]

That doesn't hold. If we held the protection of rights as the basis for law, rather than enforcing morality, we'd still have most of the laws we have now.

The fact is there are plenty of actions that people consider immoral that don't violate other people's rights (and shouldn't be illegal) eg - cheating on your girlfriend. And there are plenty of things one might do that would violate the rights of others, but might not be considered immoral (but should still be against the law) - tax evasion.

Sorry but even the concept of our inalienable natural rights is based and rooted in a morality viewpoint. You can't really escape it. At the foundation, ALL laws are rooted in morality judgement.

Actually they are rooted in virtue.

 

[ding]

That doesn't hold. If we held the protection of rights as the basis for law, rather than enforcing morality, we'd still have most of the laws we have now.

The fact is there are plenty of actions that people consider immoral that don't violate other people's rights (and shouldn't be illegal) eg - cheating on your girlfriend. And there are plenty of things one might do that would violate the rights of others, but might not be considered immoral (but should still be against the law) - tax evasion.

Sorry but even the concept of our inalienable natural rights is based and rooted in a morality viewpoint. You can't really escape it. At the foundation, ALL laws are rooted in morality judgement.

So are all morals suitable justification for laws? If not, what criteria distinguishes those that are from those that aren't?

Not all morals

Your moral objection to homosexuality is not a justification for a law against it

Right. It is a justification for not normalizing it.

 

[rightwinger]

Moral laws do not come from god

They were devised by man in the name of god

Not so. They existed before space and time.

So did unicorns and leprechauns

 

[rightwinger]

That doesn't hold. If we held the protection of rights as the basis for law, rather than enforcing morality, we'd still have most of the laws we have now.

The fact is there are plenty of actions that people consider immoral that don't violate other people's rights (and shouldn't be illegal) eg - cheating on your girlfriend. And there are plenty of things one might do that would violate the rights of others, but might not be considered immoral (but should still be against the law) - tax evasion.

Sorry but even the concept of our inalienable natural rights is based and rooted in a morality viewpoint. You can't really escape it. At the foundation, ALL laws are rooted in morality judgement.

So are all morals suitable justification for laws? If not, what criteria distinguishes those that are from those that aren't?

Not all morals

Your moral objection to homosexuality is not a justification for a law against it

Right. It is a justification for not normalizing it.

I see your individual morals trying to influence government