|
On June 15 2013 03:09 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 03:06 Reason wrote:On June 15 2013 02:23 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 02:20 Desmoden wrote:On June 14 2013 20:06 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 20:02 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:54 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:52 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:35 xM(Z wrote:
[quote]
so i'm a hypocrite and i don't care or, being a hypocrite is better then the alternative: kill or be killed, abuse or get abussed and so on.
but how about you?, you want to make rules for something/someone/everything else based on your judgement/reason/logic. that makes you just like me, not better.
ignorance does not excuse innocence.
edit: i also never defended this law; i argued how people can't make calls, any calls, in behalf of someone/something else but themselves. My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree? yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed. Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand. but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one  I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one. ^this should have stopped all discussion Unless of course people argue also on basis other than consent. And surprisingly they do, gasp. This should have stopped all consent based discussion, which it didn't, gasp. His point stands. On June 15 2013 02:54 Zaqwe wrote:
Bestiality is illegal due to the act being perverted, not due to concern for the animal.
This is not true and it's been painful reading your ignorant posts in this thread, please stop, you don't know what you're talking about. You say I am wrong, yet you can't refute anything I have said. Interesting.
There is nothing to refute. We are talking about ethical/policymaking ideas, those are subjective to some degree. His opinion is as valid as yours, yours though when applied create society with more suffering than otherwise.
|
On June 15 2013 03:13 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 03:12 Reason wrote:On June 15 2013 03:09 Zaqwe wrote:On June 15 2013 03:06 Reason wrote:On June 15 2013 02:23 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 02:20 Desmoden wrote:On June 14 2013 20:06 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 20:02 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:54 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:52 xM(Z wrote:
[quote]
yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed. Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand. but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one. ^this should have stopped all discussion Unless of course people argue also on basis other than consent. And surprisingly they do, gasp. This should have stopped all consent based discussion, which it didn't, gasp. His point stands. On June 15 2013 02:54 Zaqwe wrote:
Bestiality is illegal due to the act being perverted, not due to concern for the animal.
This is not true and it's been painful reading your ignorant posts in this thread, please stop, you don't know what you're talking about. You say I am wrong, yet you can't refute anything I have said. Interesting. You claimed bestiality is illegal due to the act being perverted, not due to concern for the animal. Prove it. If it's motivated by concern for the animal, animal cruelty laws would be enough. Bestiality criminalizes sex with animals, regardless of any harm or cruelty.
No, it declares that bestiality is cruelty, motivated by concern for the animal.
You've dodged the question.
You've made a claim, now prove it or be quiet.
Show me the piece of legislation that states "x because it's disgusting" and not "x because of the welfare of the animal"...
You won't be able to find that piece of legislation because it doesn't exist.
Interesting.
On June 15 2013 03:13 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 03:09 Zaqwe wrote:On June 15 2013 03:06 Reason wrote:On June 15 2013 02:23 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 02:20 Desmoden wrote:On June 14 2013 20:06 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 20:02 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:54 KwarK wrote:On June 14 2013 19:52 xM(Z wrote:On June 14 2013 19:46 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
My argument is that the government shouldn't outlaw things based upon the personal disgust of individuals unless harm is being done. I think we agree? yes, in principle, but then someone might come in and make you define the word "harm" and then you'll be screwed. Infringing upon the person or property of an individual ought to serve. I'm not a lawyer or a legislator here so I haven't gone to great effort to make that as watertight as it could possibly be but it ought to be a concept people can understand. but it's not about people understanding concepts, it's about animals understanding concepts too. allow all/everything, or be a hypocrite. i said i am one, but you're trying to weasel out of it, out of being one I believe there is no public good issue here if it is done by individuals in the privacy of their own home. Bringing the government back into the bedroom in a situation when no humans are being harmed in any way is wrong, even if people dislike the idea of it. It's no different than the ban on homosexuality (not saying that beastiality is the same thing as homosexuality, saying that legislating sexual behaviour when no harm is occurring is wrong in both cases for the same reasons) I believe that the animal welfare issue was previously covered by the old law which already covered animal cruelty. The remaining argument is the question of the right of consent over their own bodies for domesticated animals. If someone genuinely believes that animals should have the right of consent over their own bodies then they can argue that beastiality is literally rape and that slaughtering for meat is literally murder but they can't just pick one. ^this should have stopped all discussion Unless of course people argue also on basis other than consent. And surprisingly they do, gasp. This should have stopped all consent based discussion, which it didn't, gasp. His point stands. On June 15 2013 02:54 Zaqwe wrote:
Bestiality is illegal due to the act being perverted, not due to concern for the animal.
This is not true and it's been painful reading your ignorant posts in this thread, please stop, you don't know what you're talking about. You say I am wrong, yet you can't refute anything I have said. Interesting. There is nothing to refute. We are talking about ethical/policymaking ideas, those are subjective to some degree. His opinion is as valid as yours, yours though when applied create society with more suffering than otherwise.
I won't attempt to refute his claim until he attempts to prove it.
He has claimed to have knowledge of the reasoning behind the new bestiality law, and has said it is nothing to do with the well being of the animal but instead just that people find it to be disgusting.
I know this is factually incorrect. He is wrong.
|
On June 15 2013 03:10 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 03:06 Zaqwe wrote:On June 15 2013 02:37 Excludos wrote:On June 15 2013 02:25 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 02:21 Excludos wrote:On June 15 2013 02:17 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 02:14 Excludos wrote:On June 15 2013 02:11 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 01:24 Excludos wrote:On June 15 2013 01:19 mcc wrote:
[quote]
You understand that the demand is there even if it is not legal and I doubt illegality is seriously decreasing said demand. Yes, because no amount of laws ever decrease demands for any product in ever. In fact, laws are kinda useless, no one follows them anyways. Sometimes they do sometimes they do not. Nice of you to offer useless generalizations even though my post implied specifics of this particular scenario. Considering that attraction is pretty much given biologically and people watching child pornography are probably attracted to children so they will be most of the market. Considering that laws governing sexual behaviour have low compliance as they go against one of the most powerful instincts and they are not extremely well enforced. Thus my conclusion. Unless you have hard empirical data, which part of my argument is problematic to you ? Anyway I am not disputing that there is some decrease, but not significant. And thus the question arises, is it worth it ? Making people that otherwise would never hurt anyone into criminals. It is problematic question. I've made 3 more posts since that one where I explain my stance a bit more in depth. I don't feel like repeating them. As far as I can tell you said nothing in them regarding your claim that banning it significantly reduces demand. It makes it easier for people to put up a website anyone could visit and pay money to download child porn from. I really, really, don't want to make it easier for people to film Child pornography and sell it. Think of this scenario: what if there is actually a lot of people who enjoy child porn, and someone ends up earning a ton of cash through his new website "ChildTube". Lets just keep it illegal, shal we?  How does it make it easier to setup a website. Setting up such a site would still be illegal. The only thing that would be legal would be viewing, commercial usage would still be illegal. And that is where my question comes in. Making viewing illegal makes sense only if it actually increases demand. If it does not, making viewing legal would be a better course of action. It could be possible to make a special case where sharing is illegal, but viewing is not. I don't have any statistics to back up any claim that deman would increase in this case. But even if there is a slight chance that it does, I really don't want to take any chances on something this serious. Child pronography is about the most repulsive thing I can think of, and it literally destroys lives. We seem to be getting off track from the original point. I am sure we all agree that fighting child pornographers is great, and they do indeed harm children. However if we narrowly adopt the view that only causing harm should be a criminal act, then the law should criminalize "encouragement or support for the creation of" rather than possession or viewing. Then in a court of law it would be required to prove support (such as showing credit card payments used to fund the content). Such a law wouldn't be acceptable to most people because then paedophiles would be free to view obscene material as long as they don't harm anyone. The reason the law is not so narrow is because society at large doesn't just want to punish people who create it or support the creation. We live in a society that wants to punish people for being despicable, and that is why possession and viewership are illegal in general. Ultimately the average person doesn't care if harm is being done, they just want to punish sick and disgusting perverts for doing socially unacceptable things. Such law would be acceptable to great many people if not for fearmongering and namecalling of people like you. Lets also punish schizophrenics because they do sick and disgusting things. The thing you call "moral" laws are stupid and should be abolished as all victimless crimes. Fortunately as time goes on views like yours are getting weaker.
Society's morals are changing, but the desire to implement laws to enforce moral codes is as strong as ever.
For example in just recent history most of Europe has adopted very harsh speech/thought crime laws. Even when no harm to anyone can be demonstrated, expressing socially unacceptable views is illegal.
Morals change, but not the desire to punish immorality.
|
On June 15 2013 03:16 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 03:10 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 03:06 Zaqwe wrote:On June 15 2013 02:37 Excludos wrote:On June 15 2013 02:25 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 02:21 Excludos wrote:On June 15 2013 02:17 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 02:14 Excludos wrote:On June 15 2013 02:11 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 01:24 Excludos wrote:
[quote]
Yes, because no amount of laws ever decrease demands for any product in ever. In fact, laws are kinda useless, no one follows them anyways. Sometimes they do sometimes they do not. Nice of you to offer useless generalizations even though my post implied specifics of this particular scenario. Considering that attraction is pretty much given biologically and people watching child pornography are probably attracted to children so they will be most of the market. Considering that laws governing sexual behaviour have low compliance as they go against one of the most powerful instincts and they are not extremely well enforced. Thus my conclusion. Unless you have hard empirical data, which part of my argument is problematic to you ? Anyway I am not disputing that there is some decrease, but not significant. And thus the question arises, is it worth it ? Making people that otherwise would never hurt anyone into criminals. It is problematic question. I've made 3 more posts since that one where I explain my stance a bit more in depth. I don't feel like repeating them. As far as I can tell you said nothing in them regarding your claim that banning it significantly reduces demand. It makes it easier for people to put up a website anyone could visit and pay money to download child porn from. I really, really, don't want to make it easier for people to film Child pornography and sell it. Think of this scenario: what if there is actually a lot of people who enjoy child porn, and someone ends up earning a ton of cash through his new website "ChildTube". Lets just keep it illegal, shal we? How does it make it easier to setup a website. Setting up such a site would still be illegal. The only thing that would be legal would be viewing, commercial usage would still be illegal. And that is where my question comes in. Making viewing illegal makes sense only if it actually increases demand. If it does not, making viewing legal would be a better course of action. It could be possible to make a special case where sharing is illegal, but viewing is not. I don't have any statistics to back up any claim that deman would increase in this case. But even if there is a slight chance that it does, I really don't want to take any chances on something this serious. Child pronography is about the most repulsive thing I can think of, and it literally destroys lives. We seem to be getting off track from the original point. I am sure we all agree that fighting child pornographers is great, and they do indeed harm children. However if we narrowly adopt the view that only causing harm should be a criminal act, then the law should criminalize "encouragement or support for the creation of" rather than possession or viewing. Then in a court of law it would be required to prove support (such as showing credit card payments used to fund the content). Such a law wouldn't be acceptable to most people because then paedophiles would be free to view obscene material as long as they don't harm anyone. The reason the law is not so narrow is because society at large doesn't just want to punish people who create it or support the creation. We live in a society that wants to punish people for being despicable, and that is why possession and viewership are illegal in general. Ultimately the average person doesn't care if harm is being done, they just want to punish sick and disgusting perverts for doing socially unacceptable things. Such law would be acceptable to great many people if not for fearmongering and namecalling of people like you. Lets also punish schizophrenics because they do sick and disgusting things. The thing you call "moral" laws are stupid and should be abolished as all victimless crimes. Fortunately as time goes on views like yours are getting weaker. Society's morals are changing, but the desire to implement laws to enforce moral codes is as strong as ever. For example in just recent history most of Europe has adopted very harsh speech/thought crime laws. Even when no harm to anyone can be demonstrated, expressing socially unacceptable views is illegal.Morals change, but not the desire to punish immorality.
Sigh. Would you care to give some examples demonstrating that in most of Europe it is illegal to express socially unacceptable views?
|
It's sad to see how many people reply without reading the whole...half paragraph. Four people a year on average had sex with a horse in a country of 9.5 million and you're bored enough, or ignorant enough to really try and make that some kind of association or representation of a country. As an American I hope that Swedes don't generalize us that badly, or they'd have a hell of a lot worse data than four horse-lovers a year to work with. I live near an Amish community that has more reported incest on a ten acre farm than Sweden does in all of Stockholm.
|
On June 15 2013 03:15 Reason wrote:
No, it declares that bestiality is cruelty, motivated by concern for the animal.
You've dodged the question.
You've made a claim, now prove it or be quiet.
Show me the piece of legislation that states "x because it's disgusting" and not "x because of the welfare of the animal"...
You won't be able to find that piece of legislation because it doesn't exist.
Interesting.
If sex with an animal was cruelty, animal cruelty laws would be sufficient to prevent it. You would simply charge someone with animal cruelty, then in court provide evidence they had sex with the animal.
The only reason anti-bestiality laws are needed is to criminalize sex in cases where it is not cruel.
|
On June 15 2013 03:16 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 03:10 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 03:06 Zaqwe wrote:On June 15 2013 02:37 Excludos wrote:On June 15 2013 02:25 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 02:21 Excludos wrote:On June 15 2013 02:17 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 02:14 Excludos wrote:On June 15 2013 02:11 mcc wrote:On June 15 2013 01:24 Excludos wrote:
[quote]
Yes, because no amount of laws ever decrease demands for any product in ever. In fact, laws are kinda useless, no one follows them anyways. Sometimes they do sometimes they do not. Nice of you to offer useless generalizations even though my post implied specifics of this particular scenario. Considering that attraction is pretty much given biologically and people watching child pornography are probably attracted to children so they will be most of the market. Considering that laws governing sexual behaviour have low compliance as they go against one of the most powerful instincts and they are not extremely well enforced. Thus my conclusion. Unless you have hard empirical data, which part of my argument is problematic to you ? Anyway I am not disputing that there is some decrease, but not significant. And thus the question arises, is it worth it ? Making people that otherwise would never hurt anyone into criminals. It is problematic question. I've made 3 more posts since that one where I explain my stance a bit more in depth. I don't feel like repeating them. As far as I can tell you said nothing in them regarding your claim that banning it significantly reduces demand. It makes it easier for people to put up a website anyone could visit and pay money to download child porn from. I really, really, don't want to make it easier for people to film Child pornography and sell it. Think of this scenario: what if there is actually a lot of people who enjoy child porn, and someone ends up earning a ton of cash through his new website "ChildTube". Lets just keep it illegal, shal we? How does it make it easier to setup a website. Setting up such a site would still be illegal. The only thing that would be legal would be viewing, commercial usage would still be illegal. And that is where my question comes in. Making viewing illegal makes sense only if it actually increases demand. If it does not, making viewing legal would be a better course of action. It could be possible to make a special case where sharing is illegal, but viewing is not. I don't have any statistics to back up any claim that deman would increase in this case. But even if there is a slight chance that it does, I really don't want to take any chances on something this serious. Child pronography is about the most repulsive thing I can think of, and it literally destroys lives. We seem to be getting off track from the original point. I am sure we all agree that fighting child pornographers is great, and they do indeed harm children. However if we narrowly adopt the view that only causing harm should be a criminal act, then the law should criminalize "encouragement or support for the creation of" rather than possession or viewing. Then in a court of law it would be required to prove support (such as showing credit card payments used to fund the content). Such a law wouldn't be acceptable to most people because then paedophiles would be free to view obscene material as long as they don't harm anyone. The reason the law is not so narrow is because society at large doesn't just want to punish people who create it or support the creation. We live in a society that wants to punish people for being despicable, and that is why possession and viewership are illegal in general. Ultimately the average person doesn't care if harm is being done, they just want to punish sick and disgusting perverts for doing socially unacceptable things. Such law would be acceptable to great many people if not for fearmongering and namecalling of people like you. Lets also punish schizophrenics because they do sick and disgusting things. The thing you call "moral" laws are stupid and should be abolished as all victimless crimes. Fortunately as time goes on views like yours are getting weaker. Society's morals are changing, but the desire to implement laws to enforce moral codes is as strong as ever. For example in just recent history most of Europe has adopted very harsh speech/thought crime laws. Even when no harm to anyone can be demonstrated, expressing socially unacceptable views is illegal. Morals change, but not the desire to punish immorality.
It weakens. If you look how many such laws were there and how many are there today. Free speech limiting laws have also as a purpose prevention of harm. Nearly all of legislation in last 50 years is at least pretending to be motivated by harm prevention. Sometimes it is a ruse and mostly those laws meet rather harsh opposition if the ruse is too clearly seen.
|
Understanding beastiality laws as moral law is what makes it objectionable in the first place. Morals can be very subjective depending on culture or even the individual itself. You're essentially enforcing one side's morals over others.
|
On June 15 2013 05:56 S_SienZ wrote:
Understanding beastiality laws as moral law is what makes it objectionable in the first place. Morals can be very subjective depending on culture or even the individual itself. You're essentially enforcing one side's morals over others.
Well, that's something that comes with democracy. Our elected parliament in our representative democracy voted for this change to happen.
Avoiding morals entirely when it comes to the creation of laws is almost impossible.
|
On June 15 2013 05:56 S_SienZ wrote:
Understanding beastiality laws as moral law is what makes it objectionable in the first place. Morals can be very subjective depending on culture or even the individual itself. You're essentially enforcing one side's morals over others.
That's essentially the same for every law, and most of the time it's a good thing.
Most people consider murder to be morally wrong, so we outlawed murder, cool!
The problem arises when the majority of people are discriminatory and you end up like Uganda or Russia.
|
On June 15 2013 06:00 Maxie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 05:56 S_SienZ wrote:
Understanding beastiality laws as moral law is what makes it objectionable in the first place. Morals can be very subjective depending on culture or even the individual itself. You're essentially enforcing one side's morals over others. Well, that's something that comes with democracy. Our elected parliament in our representative democracy voted for this change to happen. Avoiding morals entirely when it comes to the creation of laws is almost impossible.
No it isn't. Otherwise legal positivists would have died out a long time ago.
Your conception of democracy is misled, 51% telling 49% how to live isn't a democracy, that's populism. Democracy requires both form and substance. Basic liberties need to be ensured so that political equality can be ensured for democracy to take place in the first place.
|
On June 15 2013 06:01 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 05:56 S_SienZ wrote:
Understanding beastiality laws as moral law is what makes it objectionable in the first place. Morals can be very subjective depending on culture or even the individual itself. You're essentially enforcing one side's morals over others. That's essentially the same for every law, and most of the time it's a good thing. Most people consider murder to be morally wrong, so we outlawed murder, cool! The problem arises when the majority of people are discriminatory and you end up like Uganda or Russia.
Why are you writing like that? It makes me cringe.
|
On June 15 2013 06:01 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 05:56 S_SienZ wrote:
Understanding beastiality laws as moral law is what makes it objectionable in the first place. Morals can be very subjective depending on culture or even the individual itself. You're essentially enforcing one side's morals over others. That's essentially the same for every law, and most of the time it's a good thing. Most people consider murder to be morally wrong, so we outlawed murder, cool! The problem arises when the majority of people are discriminatory and you end up like Uganda or Russia.
That's the problem right there.
Most people just look at the paradigmatic cases of law we have and assume morals are the reasons why they are there. But that's far from a clear cut answer. There are many potential explanations for laws regarding murder, from Hobbes's social contract to Mill's harm principle to Bentham's empirical positivism.
When people only know the laws but don't know why they are there, we potentially develop bad laws like this one for the wrong reasons, assuming they were the original reasons underlying the system in the first place.
|
On June 15 2013 06:07 S_SienZ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 06:01 Reason wrote:On June 15 2013 05:56 S_SienZ wrote:
Understanding beastiality laws as moral law is what makes it objectionable in the first place. Morals can be very subjective depending on culture or even the individual itself. You're essentially enforcing one side's morals over others. That's essentially the same for every law, and most of the time it's a good thing. Most people consider murder to be morally wrong, so we outlawed murder, cool! The problem arises when the majority of people are discriminatory and you end up like Uganda or Russia. That's the problem right there. Most people just look at the paradigmatic cases of law we have and assume morals are the reasons why they are there. But that's far from a clear cut answer. There are many potential explanations for laws regarding murder, from Hobbes's social contract to Mill's harm principle to Bentham's empirical positivism. When people only know the laws but don't know why they are there, we potentially develop bad laws like this one for the wrong reasons, assuming they were the original reasons underlying the system in the first place.
So do you think every law should come with it's associated reasoning? I'm sure that information is held somewhere... but I don't know. What do you suggest as an alternative to the current situation and can you elaborate on what you feel this situation is?
I certainly don't feel like laws are passed willy nilly for no clear reason.
|
On June 15 2013 06:14 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 06:07 S_SienZ wrote:On June 15 2013 06:01 Reason wrote:On June 15 2013 05:56 S_SienZ wrote:
Understanding beastiality laws as moral law is what makes it objectionable in the first place. Morals can be very subjective depending on culture or even the individual itself. You're essentially enforcing one side's morals over others. That's essentially the same for every law, and most of the time it's a good thing. Most people consider murder to be morally wrong, so we outlawed murder, cool! The problem arises when the majority of people are discriminatory and you end up like Uganda or Russia. That's the problem right there. Most people just look at the paradigmatic cases of law we have and assume morals are the reasons why they are there. But that's far from a clear cut answer. There are many potential explanations for laws regarding murder, from Hobbes's social contract to Mill's harm principle to Bentham's empirical positivism. When people only know the laws but don't know why they are there, we potentially develop bad laws like this one for the wrong reasons, assuming they were the original reasons underlying the system in the first place. So do you think every law should come with it's associated reasoning? I'm sure that information is held somewhere... but I don't know. What do you suggest as an alternative to the current situation and can you elaborate on what you feel this situation is? I certainly don't feel like laws are passed willy nilly for no clear reason.
There's been (a still ongoing) hundreds of years of debate about that. It hasn't been conclusively resolved but it's been roughly divided into 2 camps: one side is saying laws are a social tool for regulation and essentially whatever the "source of law" in a society says is law. In that version, the content of law is generally checked by democracy, separation of powers, yadayada, you know the drill. The other camp is basically saying that laws and morals are one and the same. But personally, that camp's ideas is getting progressively untenable as globalisation forces the mingling of differing cultures.
Think about it, if laws that are moral are ok, what's stopping the legislation of positive obligations? (Instead of don't do something, you have to do something). What's stopping say, a predominantly Catholic populace from voting a new law that makes church mandatory for EVERYONE. They'd argue its moral, it was voted by a majority. Laws passed are generally negative obligations because such laws are the least infringing of people's liberty.
Also, a gap between law and morals is essential for moral goodness to even exist. Imagine a man walking past a beggar, he feels sorry for him and hands him his sandwich. The man has done a moral good deed and the beggar feels grateful. Now imagine if there was a law, for moral reasons, that compelled such charity. The beggar would (rightfully so) be entitled, and the moral merit of the deed is void since there was no choice involved.
|
On June 15 2013 06:21 S_SienZ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 06:14 Reason wrote:On June 15 2013 06:07 S_SienZ wrote:On June 15 2013 06:01 Reason wrote:On June 15 2013 05:56 S_SienZ wrote:
Understanding beastiality laws as moral law is what makes it objectionable in the first place. Morals can be very subjective depending on culture or even the individual itself. You're essentially enforcing one side's morals over others. That's essentially the same for every law, and most of the time it's a good thing. Most people consider murder to be morally wrong, so we outlawed murder, cool! The problem arises when the majority of people are discriminatory and you end up like Uganda or Russia. That's the problem right there. Most people just look at the paradigmatic cases of law we have and assume morals are the reasons why they are there. But that's far from a clear cut answer. There are many potential explanations for laws regarding murder, from Hobbes's social contract to Mill's harm principle to Bentham's empirical positivism. When people only know the laws but don't know why they are there, we potentially develop bad laws like this one for the wrong reasons, assuming they were the original reasons underlying the system in the first place. So do you think every law should come with it's associated reasoning? I'm sure that information is held somewhere... but I don't know. What do you suggest as an alternative to the current situation and can you elaborate on what you feel this situation is? I certainly don't feel like laws are passed willy nilly for no clear reason. There's been (a still ongoing) hundreds of years of debate about that. It hasn't been conclusively resolved but it's been roughly divided into 2 camps: one side is saying laws are a social tool for regulation and essentially whatever the "source of law" in a society says is law. In that version, the content of law is generally checked by democracy, separation of powers, yadayada, you know the drill. The other camp is basically saying that laws and morals are one and the same. But personally, that camp's ideas is getting progressively untenable as globalisation forces the mingling of differing cultures. Think about it, if laws that are moral are ok, what's stopping the legislation of positive obligations? (Instead of don't do something, you have to do something). What's stopping say, a predominantly Catholic populace from voting a new law that makes church mandatory for EVERYONE. They'd argue its moral, it was voted by a majority. Laws passed are generally negative obligations because such laws are the least infringing of people's dignity. Also, a gap between law and morals is essential for moral goodness to even exist. Imagine a man walking past a beggar, he feels sorry for him and hands him his sandwich. The man has done a moral good deed and the beggar feels grateful. Now imagine if there was a law, for moral reasons, that compelled such charity. The beggar would (rightfully so) be entitled, and the moral merit of the deed is void since there was no choice involved.
Laws are often based upon morals but morals are not based upon law. Our society doesn't seem to feel anybody has a moral obligation to do anything, save look after children properly, so I don't think laws of positive obligation are anything to be concerned about.
Does the removal of choice alter the morality of an action? If you say "kill x person or I will kill you" it removes some of the responsiblity from myself, but it doesn't make the act of killing that person any more or less morally corrupt than doing it on my own, the only difference there is that I did it through my own choice and responsibility for this morally wrong action lies solely with me.
If it was legally required to give money to homeless people that doesn't change the inherent morality of the action, it just places the credit of the action elsewhere as opposed to making it void, but that's not going to happen anyway.
|
On June 15 2013 06:37 Reason wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 06:21 S_SienZ wrote:On June 15 2013 06:14 Reason wrote:On June 15 2013 06:07 S_SienZ wrote:On June 15 2013 06:01 Reason wrote:On June 15 2013 05:56 S_SienZ wrote:
Understanding beastiality laws as moral law is what makes it objectionable in the first place. Morals can be very subjective depending on culture or even the individual itself. You're essentially enforcing one side's morals over others. That's essentially the same for every law, and most of the time it's a good thing. Most people consider murder to be morally wrong, so we outlawed murder, cool! The problem arises when the majority of people are discriminatory and you end up like Uganda or Russia. That's the problem right there. Most people just look at the paradigmatic cases of law we have and assume morals are the reasons why they are there. But that's far from a clear cut answer. There are many potential explanations for laws regarding murder, from Hobbes's social contract to Mill's harm principle to Bentham's empirical positivism. When people only know the laws but don't know why they are there, we potentially develop bad laws like this one for the wrong reasons, assuming they were the original reasons underlying the system in the first place. So do you think every law should come with it's associated reasoning? I'm sure that information is held somewhere... but I don't know. What do you suggest as an alternative to the current situation and can you elaborate on what you feel this situation is? I certainly don't feel like laws are passed willy nilly for no clear reason. There's been (a still ongoing) hundreds of years of debate about that. It hasn't been conclusively resolved but it's been roughly divided into 2 camps: one side is saying laws are a social tool for regulation and essentially whatever the "source of law" in a society says is law. In that version, the content of law is generally checked by democracy, separation of powers, yadayada, you know the drill. The other camp is basically saying that laws and morals are one and the same. But personally, that camp's ideas is getting progressively untenable as globalisation forces the mingling of differing cultures. Think about it, if laws that are moral are ok, what's stopping the legislation of positive obligations? (Instead of don't do something, you have to do something). What's stopping say, a predominantly Catholic populace from voting a new law that makes church mandatory for EVERYONE. They'd argue its moral, it was voted by a majority. Laws passed are generally negative obligations because such laws are the least infringing of people's dignity. Also, a gap between law and morals is essential for moral goodness to even exist. Imagine a man walking past a beggar, he feels sorry for him and hands him his sandwich. The man has done a moral good deed and the beggar feels grateful. Now imagine if there was a law, for moral reasons, that compelled such charity. The beggar would (rightfully so) be entitled, and the moral merit of the deed is void since there was no choice involved. Laws are often based upon morals but morals are not based upon law. Our society doesn't seem to feel anybody has a moral obligation to do anything, save look after children properly, so I don't think laws of positive obligation are anything to be concerned about. Does the removal of choice alter the morality of an action? If you say "kill x person or I will kill you" it removes some of the responsiblity from myself, but it doesn't make the act of killing that person any more or less morally corrupt than doing it on my own, the only difference there is that I did it through my own choice and responsibility for this morally wrong action lies solely with me. If it was legally required to give money to homeless people that doesn't change the inherent morality of the action, it just places the credit of the action elsewhere as opposed to making it void, but that's not going to happen anyway.
Your first statement raises more questions than it answers. Laws are often based upon morals, how often? Is there a principled method? Also is the problem of subjectivity, a conflation of the legal and the moral could only feasibly work with the existence of an objective moral code (if you look at the works of those who argue for such a case e.g. Aristotle, Finnis, they talk about self-evident (LOL) basic goods which all humans should strive towards), but such objective morals have yet to be proven. How do you resolve it when one side's morals fundamentally clash with anothers?
Of course the removal of choice alters the morality of an action. Morality isn't an instrumentalist concept that's concerned with outcome, but about how we arrive at our decisions. If outcome were the sole determinant, businesses who grant scholarships for tax break purposes would be far more moral than the pauper who split his bread to a dying hobo.
|
Noooooooooooooooo! Damn it!
Just kidding. Surprised they banned it so late.
|
On June 15 2013 06:48 S_SienZ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2013 06:37 Reason wrote:On June 15 2013 06:21 S_SienZ wrote:On June 15 2013 06:14 Reason wrote:On June 15 2013 06:07 S_SienZ wrote:On June 15 2013 06:01 Reason wrote:On June 15 2013 05:56 S_SienZ wrote:
Understanding beastiality laws as moral law is what makes it objectionable in the first place. Morals can be very subjective depending on culture or even the individual itself. You're essentially enforcing one side's morals over others. That's essentially the same for every law, and most of the time it's a good thing. Most people consider murder to be morally wrong, so we outlawed murder, cool! The problem arises when the majority of people are discriminatory and you end up like Uganda or Russia. That's the problem right there. Most people just look at the paradigmatic cases of law we have and assume morals are the reasons why they are there. But that's far from a clear cut answer. There are many potential explanations for laws regarding murder, from Hobbes's social contract to Mill's harm principle to Bentham's empirical positivism. When people only know the laws but don't know why they are there, we potentially develop bad laws like this one for the wrong reasons, assuming they were the original reasons underlying the system in the first place. So do you think every law should come with it's associated reasoning? I'm sure that information is held somewhere... but I don't know. What do you suggest as an alternative to the current situation and can you elaborate on what you feel this situation is? I certainly don't feel like laws are passed willy nilly for no clear reason. There's been (a still ongoing) hundreds of years of debate about that. It hasn't been conclusively resolved but it's been roughly divided into 2 camps: one side is saying laws are a social tool for regulation and essentially whatever the "source of law" in a society says is law. In that version, the content of law is generally checked by democracy, separation of powers, yadayada, you know the drill. The other camp is basically saying that laws and morals are one and the same. But personally, that camp's ideas is getting progressively untenable as globalisation forces the mingling of differing cultures. Think about it, if laws that are moral are ok, what's stopping the legislation of positive obligations? (Instead of don't do something, you have to do something). What's stopping say, a predominantly Catholic populace from voting a new law that makes church mandatory for EVERYONE. They'd argue its moral, it was voted by a majority. Laws passed are generally negative obligations because such laws are the least infringing of people's dignity. Also, a gap between law and morals is essential for moral goodness to even exist. Imagine a man walking past a beggar, he feels sorry for him and hands him his sandwich. The man has done a moral good deed and the beggar feels grateful. Now imagine if there was a law, for moral reasons, that compelled such charity. The beggar would (rightfully so) be entitled, and the moral merit of the deed is void since there was no choice involved. Laws are often based upon morals but morals are not based upon law. Our society doesn't seem to feel anybody has a moral obligation to do anything, save look after children properly, so I don't think laws of positive obligation are anything to be concerned about. Does the removal of choice alter the morality of an action? If you say "kill x person or I will kill you" it removes some of the responsiblity from myself, but it doesn't make the act of killing that person any more or less morally corrupt than doing it on my own, the only difference there is that I did it through my own choice and responsibility for this morally wrong action lies solely with me. If it was legally required to give money to homeless people that doesn't change the inherent morality of the action, it just places the credit of the action elsewhere as opposed to making it void, but that's not going to happen anyway. Your first statement raises more questions than it answers. Laws are often based upon morals, how often? Is there a principled method? Also is the problem of subjectivity, a conflation of the legal and the moral could only feasibly work with the existence of an objective moral code (if you look at the works of those who argue for such a case e.g. Aristotle, Finnis, they talk about self-evident (LOL) basic goods which all humans should strive towards), but such objective morals have yet to be proven. How do you resolve it when one side's morals fundamentally clash with anothers? Of course the removal of choice alters the morality of an action. Morality isn't an instrumentalist concept that's concerned with outcome, but about how we arrive at our decisions. If outcome were the sole determinant, businesses who grant scholarships for tax break purposes would be far more moral than the pauper who split his bread to a dying hobo.
I think choice is a matter of responsibility and doesn't change the nature of the action, but motivation is entirely a separate issue.
If I go back in time and kill Hitler, am I a cold blooded murderer or a hero? Am I both or neither?
If I were American, I guess I would be sentenced to death for unlawful murder then high-fived all the way to the chair by everybody in the place, which seems a little strange. I think whether we like it or not a conflation of legality and morality is exactly what we wrestle with every day and I don't think we always emerge victorious.
I feel morals dictate laws and changes in law reflect the changing morality of the populace. I think that's a good thing and it seems to me that morals should actually overrule law as a result of this. Why should I be punished for murdering a genocidal maniac just because the basic act of murder is morally wrong?
To consider laws without morals or morals without laws, I'd have to choose the latter, laws are just a shortcut to arriving at the right moral answer in the majority of cases, I guess this is where judge and jury come into play to explore the final aspects of an each individually.
When one sides morals clash with the others, I guess you just have to go with the majority. If the majority of the population are pro-choice it stands to reason that this act has to be viewed as morally good, as there is no objective morality apparently, and if the majority of the population are pro-life it has to be morally corrupt. Compromise is often the only tool at our disposal and when uncompromising issues arise majority dictates morality.
At face value using my own reasoning on this then I'd have to agree with this law if that's the way the majority of Sweden feels, but on closer inspection you'd have to consider the morality of denying others their wishes simply because you disagree with it and that's where we get into issues of harm.
So although morality I think does and should dictate law, it's incredibly complex and intertwined. This is a difficult situation because everyone has decided that cruelty to animals is morally wrong and overrules the rights of the person inflicting the cruelty on the animal to do so. What I think is questionable is whether it really constitutes cruelty, laws based purely upon a simple moral objection with no connection to other pre-established moral guidelines are definitely not a good thing as they lead to discrimination and oppression of minorities. Whether this is simply moral objection with no real basis being disguised as protecting against animal cruelty is another question altogether, this brings us back to whether motivation behind an action changes it's inherent morality or not.
If I do a good deed for a selfish reason does that make it a bad deed or any less of a good deed?
|
What about inseminating animals for livestock? Surely it's some sort of sexual act between a human and an animal if the animal ends up being pregnant as a result.
Or do they have a loophole for economic reasons like in my country?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
