On June 15 2013 08:07 Komei wrote: 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?
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 do a good deed for a selfish reason does that make it a bad deed?
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.
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.
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 then 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. The majority of Sweden may feel the act itself is immoral but I feel the act of outlawing certain activities because of purely a moral objection would itself be more immoral than the act itself, which is why I disagree with this ruling.
Morality I think does and should dictate law but 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.
But you don't have to make a choice between the 2. That's actually the beauty of the argument behind separation of laws and morals, it allows moral criticisms of the law. One could morally disagree with a legal provision while acknowledging that nonetheless he is legally obligated to do something.
To clarify further, I don't see the problem with this law, if as a matter of public policy, Sweden feels sufficiently strongly against this, they decided to ban it. What I am essentially objecting, is the notion that beastiality is banned because it is morally wrong. There's 2 arguments at play here, what I think the law should be, and one regarding what the law now is in Sweden. Lets disregard the former for a moment here, for its just my 2 cents, I'm arguing that this law needs to be passed for the right reasons. Going back to the idea that laws are a social tool, the detachment of laws and morals is precisely what allows this to be passed. But the understanding of this as moral law, is what opens up the can of worms.
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 do a good deed for a selfish reason does that make it a bad deed?
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.
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.
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 then 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. The majority of Sweden may feel the act itself is immoral but I feel the act of outlawing certain activities because of purely a moral objection would itself be more immoral than the act itself, which is why I disagree with this ruling.
Morality I think does and should dictate law but 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.
But you don't have to make a choice between the 2. That's actually the beauty of the argument behind separation of laws and morals, it allows moral criticisms of the law. One could morally disagree with a legal provision while acknowledging that nonetheless he is legally obligated to do something.
To clarify further, I don't see the problem with this law, if as a matter of public policy, Sweden feels sufficiently strongly against this, they decided to ban it. What I am essentially objecting, is the notion that beastiality is banned because it is morally wrong. There's 2 arguments at play here, what I think the law should be, and one regarding what the law now is in Sweden. Lets disregard the former for a moment here, for its just my 2 cents, I'm arguing that this law needs to be passed for the right reasons. Going back to the idea that laws are a social tool, the detachment of laws and morals is precisely what allows this to be passed. But the understanding of this as moral law, is what opens up the can of worms.
Why should the law be passed if not for moral reasons?
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 do a good deed for a selfish reason does that make it a bad deed?
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.
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.
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 then 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. The majority of Sweden may feel the act itself is immoral but I feel the act of outlawing certain activities because of purely a moral objection would itself be more immoral than the act itself, which is why I disagree with this ruling.
Morality I think does and should dictate law but 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.
But you don't have to make a choice between the 2. That's actually the beauty of the argument behind separation of laws and morals, it allows moral criticisms of the law. One could morally disagree with a legal provision while acknowledging that nonetheless he is legally obligated to do something.
To clarify further, I don't see the problem with this law, if as a matter of public policy, Sweden feels sufficiently strongly against this, they decided to ban it. What I am essentially objecting, is the notion that beastiality is banned because it is morally wrong. There's 2 arguments at play here, what I think the law should be, and one regarding what the law now is in Sweden. Lets disregard the former for a moment here, for its just my 2 cents, I'm arguing that this law needs to be passed for the right reasons. Going back to the idea that laws are a social tool, the detachment of laws and morals is precisely what allows this to be passed. But the understanding of this as moral law, is what opens up the can of worms.
I find this confusing because it seems to me what you're essentially saying is that if the majority of people in Sweden feel it's morally wrong then it's okay to ban it, but it's not okay if they decide to ban it because it's morally wrong.
Honestly, people who are into animals are no different from pedophiles, homosexuals or straight people. Well, they are in the sense that they partake in risky/potentially abusive behavior like pedophiles do but the brain lights up the same; they are attracted to what they are attracted to. It's just unfortunate that what they are attracted to happens to be a horse and there is no way in which to partake in the activity without potentially harming yourself or the animal. It's like pedophilia; they are attracted to children, that part is not their fault. However, partaking in their fantasies is what causes harm.
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 do a good deed for a selfish reason does that make it a bad deed?
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.
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.
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 then 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. The majority of Sweden may feel the act itself is immoral but I feel the act of outlawing certain activities because of purely a moral objection would itself be more immoral than the act itself, which is why I disagree with this ruling.
Morality I think does and should dictate law but 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.
But you don't have to make a choice between the 2. That's actually the beauty of the argument behind separation of laws and morals, it allows moral criticisms of the law. One could morally disagree with a legal provision while acknowledging that nonetheless he is legally obligated to do something.
To clarify further, I don't see the problem with this law, if as a matter of public policy, Sweden feels sufficiently strongly against this, they decided to ban it. What I am essentially objecting, is the notion that beastiality is banned because it is morally wrong. There's 2 arguments at play here, what I think the law should be, and one regarding what the law now is in Sweden. Lets disregard the former for a moment here, for its just my 2 cents, I'm arguing that this law needs to be passed for the right reasons. Going back to the idea that laws are a social tool, the detachment of laws and morals is precisely what allows this to be passed. But the understanding of this as moral law, is what opens up the can of worms.
I find this confusing because it seems to me what you're essentially saying is that if the majority of people in Sweden feel it's morally wrong then it's okay to ban it, but it's not okay if they decide to ban it because it's morally wrong.
In scenario A the law remains detached from morals in essence, each Swede could have different reasons for supporting such a ban, ranging from personal views that such acts are immoral, to paranoia of potential diseases which might form because of such acts. Law remains social, it is law by virtue of the Swedish society saying so, for whatever reasons.
In scenario B the law is passed because it is derived directly from morals. A logical causal connection exists. That is what I'm refuting.
On June 15 2013 08:26 Ponera wrote: I am officially cancelling my tickets to sweden.
Honestly, people who are into animals are no different from pedophiles, homosexuals or straight people. Well, they are in the sense that they partake in risky/potentially abusive behavior like pedophiles do but the brain lights up the same; they are attracted to what they are attracted to. It's just unfortunate that what they are attracted to happens to be a horse and there is no way in which to partake in the activity without potentially harming yourself or the animal. It's like pedophilia; they are attracted to children, that part is not their fault. However, partaking in their fantasies is what causes harm.
You think Sweden somehow is specially inclined to bestiality? One of the most civilized countries in the world? I've always assumed it's illegal since it technically is, so does everyone else.
On June 15 2013 08:26 Ponera wrote: I am officially cancelling my tickets to sweden.
Honestly, people who are into animals are no different from pedophiles, homosexuals or straight people. Well, they are in the sense that they partake in risky/potentially abusive behavior like pedophiles do but the brain lights up the same; they are attracted to what they are attracted to. It's just unfortunate that what they are attracted to happens to be a horse and there is no way in which to partake in the activity without potentially harming yourself or the animal. It's like pedophilia; they are attracted to children, that part is not their fault. However, partaking in their fantasies is what causes harm.
Would be a horrific spot to be in, mentally.
Being a pedophile isnt't a crime and not all of them act out their desires. Zoophiles who partake in their fantasies don't necessarily cause harm, thus the discussion.
On June 15 2013 06:01 Reason wrote: [quote] 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 do a good deed for a selfish reason does that make it a bad deed?
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.
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.
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 then 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. The majority of Sweden may feel the act itself is immoral but I feel the act of outlawing certain activities because of purely a moral objection would itself be more immoral than the act itself, which is why I disagree with this ruling.
Morality I think does and should dictate law but 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.
But you don't have to make a choice between the 2. That's actually the beauty of the argument behind separation of laws and morals, it allows moral criticisms of the law. One could morally disagree with a legal provision while acknowledging that nonetheless he is legally obligated to do something.
To clarify further, I don't see the problem with this law, if as a matter of public policy, Sweden feels sufficiently strongly against this, they decided to ban it. What I am essentially objecting, is the notion that beastiality is banned because it is morally wrong. There's 2 arguments at play here, what I think the law should be, and one regarding what the law now is in Sweden. Lets disregard the former for a moment here, for its just my 2 cents, I'm arguing that this law needs to be passed for the right reasons. Going back to the idea that laws are a social tool, the detachment of laws and morals is precisely what allows this to be passed. But the understanding of this as moral law, is what opens up the can of worms.
I find this confusing because it seems to me what you're essentially saying is that if the majority of people in Sweden feel it's morally wrong then it's okay to ban it, but it's not okay if they decide to ban it because it's morally wrong.
In scenario A the law remains detached from morals in essence, each Swede could have different reasons for supporting such a ban, ranging from personal views that such acts are immoral, to paranoia of potential diseases which might form because of such acts. Law remains social, it is law by virtue of the Swedish society saying so, for whatever reasons.
In scenario B the law is passed because it is derived directly from morals. A logical causal connection exists. That is what I'm refuting.
A. The majority of Swedes are against bestiality for a multitude of reasons, including morality. This is okay. B. The majority of Swedes are against bestiality for a single reason, morality. This is not okay.
On June 15 2013 08:26 Ponera wrote: I am officially cancelling my tickets to sweden.
Honestly, people who are into animals are no different from pedophiles, homosexuals or straight people. Well, they are in the sense that they partake in risky/potentially abusive behavior like pedophiles do but the brain lights up the same; they are attracted to what they are attracted to. It's just unfortunate that what they are attracted to happens to be a horse and there is no way in which to partake in the activity without potentially harming yourself or the animal. It's like pedophilia; they are attracted to children, that part is not their fault. However, partaking in their fantasies is what causes harm.
Would be a horrific spot to be in, mentally.
Being a pedophile isnt't a crime and not all of them act out their desires. Zoophiles who partake in their fantasies don't necessarily cause harm, thus the discussion.
On June 15 2013 06:07 S_SienZ wrote: [quote] 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 do a good deed for a selfish reason does that make it a bad deed?
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.
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.
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 then 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. The majority of Sweden may feel the act itself is immoral but I feel the act of outlawing certain activities because of purely a moral objection would itself be more immoral than the act itself, which is why I disagree with this ruling.
Morality I think does and should dictate law but 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.
But you don't have to make a choice between the 2. That's actually the beauty of the argument behind separation of laws and morals, it allows moral criticisms of the law. One could morally disagree with a legal provision while acknowledging that nonetheless he is legally obligated to do something.
To clarify further, I don't see the problem with this law, if as a matter of public policy, Sweden feels sufficiently strongly against this, they decided to ban it. What I am essentially objecting, is the notion that beastiality is banned because it is morally wrong. There's 2 arguments at play here, what I think the law should be, and one regarding what the law now is in Sweden. Lets disregard the former for a moment here, for its just my 2 cents, I'm arguing that this law needs to be passed for the right reasons. Going back to the idea that laws are a social tool, the detachment of laws and morals is precisely what allows this to be passed. But the understanding of this as moral law, is what opens up the can of worms.
I find this confusing because it seems to me what you're essentially saying is that if the majority of people in Sweden feel it's morally wrong then it's okay to ban it, but it's not okay if they decide to ban it because it's morally wrong.
In scenario A the law remains detached from morals in essence, each Swede could have different reasons for supporting such a ban, ranging from personal views that such acts are immoral, to paranoia of potential diseases which might form because of such acts. Law remains social, it is law by virtue of the Swedish society saying so, for whatever reasons.
In scenario B the law is passed because it is derived directly from morals. A logical causal connection exists. That is what I'm refuting.
A. The majority of Swedes are against bestiality for a multitude of reasons, including morality. This is okay. B. The majority of Swedes are against bestiality for a single reason, morality. This is not okay.
I don't understand.
B will be used as a stepping stone for more morality based laws on animals in the future, A won't necessarily.
Bestiality is taboo and was illegal in sweden until homosexuality was legalized. Then people of that age reasoned that if same-sex sex was allowed why not animals and now someone realised that it is so not the same thing. End of story.
To all people who eat meat here, please stop and think. You kill these animals, how the fuck can you then not think it is ok to fuck them, it at the very least is nothing to them and at most would give them pleasure. If they don't like it they\ll let you know anyway.
This is the current swedish minister of agriculture speaking in our parliament. It's really awkward, and in my opinion very weird that he sees it necessary to problematize this. i highly doubt that this is a big problem in Sweden. But then there seems to be something off with him, as a whole...
I just googletranslatede what he said:
"However, we note that it ultimately becomes a matter of what is sexual exploitation of animals. Let me give some examples. Is it, and should it be, legal to a sex emphasize on something that for example a dog tastes or smells good, to let the dog lick it is påstruket on sex? Should it be permitted to stroke a bitch on the teats with love, or will it count as a sexual exploitation of animals? It becomes extremely difficult question of judgment to decide whether a change in the law."
I see this is really bad enlgish but i don't have time to make a better translation now..
On June 15 2013 08:26 Ponera wrote: I am officially cancelling my tickets to sweden.
Honestly, people who are into animals are no different from pedophiles, homosexuals or straight people. Well, they are in the sense that they partake in risky/potentially abusive behavior like pedophiles do but the brain lights up the same; they are attracted to what they are attracted to. It's just unfortunate that what they are attracted to happens to be a horse and there is no way in which to partake in the activity without potentially harming yourself or the animal. It's like pedophilia; they are attracted to children, that part is not their fault. However, partaking in their fantasies is what causes harm.
Would be a horrific spot to be in, mentally.
Being a pedophile isnt't a crime and not all of them act out their desires. Zoophiles who partake in their fantasies don't necessarily cause harm, thus the discussion.
On June 15 2013 08:29 S_SienZ wrote:
On June 15 2013 08:17 Reason wrote:
On June 15 2013 08:15 S_SienZ wrote:
On June 15 2013 07:53 Reason wrote:
On June 15 2013 06:48 S_SienZ wrote:
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: [quote] 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 do a good deed for a selfish reason does that make it a bad deed?
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.
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.
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 then 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. The majority of Sweden may feel the act itself is immoral but I feel the act of outlawing certain activities because of purely a moral objection would itself be more immoral than the act itself, which is why I disagree with this ruling.
Morality I think does and should dictate law but 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.
But you don't have to make a choice between the 2. That's actually the beauty of the argument behind separation of laws and morals, it allows moral criticisms of the law. One could morally disagree with a legal provision while acknowledging that nonetheless he is legally obligated to do something.
To clarify further, I don't see the problem with this law, if as a matter of public policy, Sweden feels sufficiently strongly against this, they decided to ban it. What I am essentially objecting, is the notion that beastiality is banned because it is morally wrong. There's 2 arguments at play here, what I think the law should be, and one regarding what the law now is in Sweden. Lets disregard the former for a moment here, for its just my 2 cents, I'm arguing that this law needs to be passed for the right reasons. Going back to the idea that laws are a social tool, the detachment of laws and morals is precisely what allows this to be passed. But the understanding of this as moral law, is what opens up the can of worms.
I find this confusing because it seems to me what you're essentially saying is that if the majority of people in Sweden feel it's morally wrong then it's okay to ban it, but it's not okay if they decide to ban it because it's morally wrong.
In scenario A the law remains detached from morals in essence, each Swede could have different reasons for supporting such a ban, ranging from personal views that such acts are immoral, to paranoia of potential diseases which might form because of such acts. Law remains social, it is law by virtue of the Swedish society saying so, for whatever reasons.
In scenario B the law is passed because it is derived directly from morals. A logical causal connection exists. That is what I'm refuting.
A. The majority of Swedes are against bestiality for a multitude of reasons, including morality. This is okay. B. The majority of Swedes are against bestiality for a single reason, morality. This is not okay.
I don't understand.
B will be used as a stepping stone for more morality based laws on animals in the future, A won't necessarily.
So one day we might make it illegal to eat meat or keep pets?!
What are reasons against animal cruelty aside from moral? Is this such a bad thing?
On June 15 2013 08:26 Ponera wrote: I am officially cancelling my tickets to sweden.
Honestly, people who are into animals are no different from pedophiles, homosexuals or straight people. Well, they are in the sense that they partake in risky/potentially abusive behavior like pedophiles do but the brain lights up the same; they are attracted to what they are attracted to. It's just unfortunate that what they are attracted to happens to be a horse and there is no way in which to partake in the activity without potentially harming yourself or the animal. It's like pedophilia; they are attracted to children, that part is not their fault. However, partaking in their fantasies is what causes harm.
Would be a horrific spot to be in, mentally.
Being a pedophile isnt't a crime and not all of them act out their desires. Zoophiles who partake in their fantasies don't necessarily cause harm, thus the discussion.
On June 15 2013 08:29 S_SienZ wrote:
On June 15 2013 08:17 Reason wrote:
On June 15 2013 08:15 S_SienZ wrote:
On June 15 2013 07:53 Reason wrote:
On June 15 2013 06:48 S_SienZ wrote:
On June 15 2013 06:37 Reason wrote:
On June 15 2013 06:21 S_SienZ wrote: [quote] 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 do a good deed for a selfish reason does that make it a bad deed?
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.
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.
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 then 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. The majority of Sweden may feel the act itself is immoral but I feel the act of outlawing certain activities because of purely a moral objection would itself be more immoral than the act itself, which is why I disagree with this ruling.
Morality I think does and should dictate law but 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.
But you don't have to make a choice between the 2. That's actually the beauty of the argument behind separation of laws and morals, it allows moral criticisms of the law. One could morally disagree with a legal provision while acknowledging that nonetheless he is legally obligated to do something.
To clarify further, I don't see the problem with this law, if as a matter of public policy, Sweden feels sufficiently strongly against this, they decided to ban it. What I am essentially objecting, is the notion that beastiality is banned because it is morally wrong. There's 2 arguments at play here, what I think the law should be, and one regarding what the law now is in Sweden. Lets disregard the former for a moment here, for its just my 2 cents, I'm arguing that this law needs to be passed for the right reasons. Going back to the idea that laws are a social tool, the detachment of laws and morals is precisely what allows this to be passed. But the understanding of this as moral law, is what opens up the can of worms.
I find this confusing because it seems to me what you're essentially saying is that if the majority of people in Sweden feel it's morally wrong then it's okay to ban it, but it's not okay if they decide to ban it because it's morally wrong.
In scenario A the law remains detached from morals in essence, each Swede could have different reasons for supporting such a ban, ranging from personal views that such acts are immoral, to paranoia of potential diseases which might form because of such acts. Law remains social, it is law by virtue of the Swedish society saying so, for whatever reasons.
In scenario B the law is passed because it is derived directly from morals. A logical causal connection exists. That is what I'm refuting.
A. The majority of Swedes are against bestiality for a multitude of reasons, including morality. This is okay. B. The majority of Swedes are against bestiality for a single reason, morality. This is not okay.
I don't understand.
B will be used as a stepping stone for more morality based laws on animals in the future, A won't necessarily.
So one day we might make it illegal to eat meat or keep pets?!
What are reasons against animal cruelty aside from moral? Is this such a bad thing?
It could happen, coz B essentially states that animals are deserved the same liberties as humans. A right not to be "raped" on the part of the animal with a corresponding duty to not infringe that right on the part of humans.
Well, that's up to the people the relevant law is directed towards. Unfortunately in a democracy things often are not done for the best of reasons. Some could even be bad or contradictory reasons.
On June 15 2013 09:14 KoRDragoon wrote: I just googletranslatede what he said:
"However, we note that it ultimately becomes a matter of what is sexual exploitation of animals. Let me give some examples. Is it, and should it be, legal to a sex emphasize on something that for example a dog tastes or smells good, to let the dog lick it is påstruket on sex? Should it be permitted to stroke a bitch on the teats with love, or will it count as a sexual exploitation of animals? It can become extremely difficult to determine exactly how to change the law."
I see this is really bad enlgish but i don't have time to make a better translation now..
Ill help you out.
"It ultimately comes down to a matter of defining the issue. For example, would it be considered exploitation to encourage a dog to sexually smell or lick something? Should it be legal to fondle a female dog's teats with love, or will it count as sexual exploitation? It becomes extremely difficult to exactly judge how to change the law."
"permitted to stroke a bitch on the teats with love" sounds totally creepy lol
EPT
