Rights Vs. Morals

[4588686]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1319843280' post='2328363']
This talk of "rights" sounds to me like simply more of the same metaphysical mumbo-jumbo you're found of denouncing. And if rights are granted by the government or the law, then they are arbitrary, and the government or law can just as easily take them away.

Trying to talk of whether laws are good or bad without addressing morality is a futile task.
[/quote]

That's a fair point but I think your caught up in trying to make my claim seem more substantial than it is. Those rights are, when you get down to it, arbitrary. Is it theoretically possible to have a government that is allowed to exercise prior restraint over the press and still be a fair and just government? Sure. The decision to make prior restraint such a taboo is a historical contingency that emerged out of the particular interaction in Anglo-Saxon society between the press and the government. As it happens I think we'd do well to keep it. I think the British system of common law and the American incorporation of that system along with our codified system of Rights and demarcations on the bounds of government power, is something pretty great that is worth protecting because it has helped create a pretty free and functional society. But that justification is based on the 'arbitrary' decision that the maximization of freedom, within bounds, is a good thing in itself.

The only defense against the totalitarian that I have is that I prefer not to live in a totalitarian society and that I and those who feel like I do have sufficient power to ensure that a totalitarian cannot exercise his will on the country.

[Socrates]

[quote name='rizz_loves_jesus' timestamp='1319854862' post='2328424']

No. No I should not.[/quote]
Agreed, you should not.
However, that would be the only position truly consistent with the idea of keeping legality and morality completely separated.



[quote]Sure, but people respecting others' natural rights doesn't necessarily have to be done within the realms of a government. Actually, in a perfect world without sin, there would be no government because we wouldn't need it. Government itself is just a contract between the people and a ruling party.[/quote]
However, unfortunate as it may be, we don't live in a perfect world without sin.

[quote]People respecting other people's rights is moral. A government protecting citizens' rights is simply a social contract.[/quote]
Those people in government or law can act either morally or immorally. Law is not somehow exempt from the realm of morality. You need to study Church social teaching, starting with St. Thomas Aquinas.


[quote]Why not make every immoral act illegal?[/quote]
Law should reflect morality, but not every immoral act need be made immoral where the enforcement of such laws would likely lead to greater evils than those they are intended to prevent. It's a matter of prudential judgment. The law should never actively encourage immorality.

Since you apparently want to remove all issues of morality from law, perhaps you should answer the question: "Why not make every immoral act legal"?


[quote]Agreed. I am talking about the federal government.




The 99.999% people on here who wish to see a nationwide ban on homosexual marriage.[/quote]
I'm not sure where you're getting your 99.9999% figure from, as per my experience, most of the people on phatmass actually oppose a federal ban on the recognition of so-called "gay marriage," but that's beside the point.

I'd have nothing against such a ban on principle, so long as it is enacted by Congress via the procedures for a constitutional amendment, rather than judicial activism by federal judges.
Though I'd be happy enough if this matter were left to be decided by the people of the respective states, rather than state laws decided by the people being overturned by the ruling of federal courts, as in California.

As one who earlier argued that the government should keep out of marriage (by not legally recognizing marriages at all), I'm not sure why you should have such a problem with the government keeping out of homosexual relationships (by not legally recognizing them).

A ban on state recognition of homosexual "marriage" would not grant the government any new "authority over citizens' sex lives." Homosexuals would remain free to cohabitate and sodomize each other all they like. They just wouldn't receive any special legal recognition or benefits from the state for it.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1319866506' post='2328506']

uggg, im really not sure what you are getting at. because this is hardly a response of any kind other than semantics. It should be fairly easy for someone of moderate brainpower(especially one who favours a smaller government) to recognize the difference between a moral action that affects other members of society and a moral action that only affects ones self, and the government's role in controlling ones own life and mistakes.[/quote]
My point's really quite simple.
Morality means simply a concept of right vs. wrong; what we ought to do vs. what we ought not do. All law must be based on some kind of system of morality, unless you want to advocate complete nihilism.

Very few moral actions truly affect no one else, and these are generally outside the scope of the law, which regulates public activity that affects others. No one here's advocating "cops in the bedroom" or similar nonsense - that's a strawman.

[quote]The government can feasibly have the right to intervene for stuff that disrupts social order, and the rights of other citizens. To say that the government has the right to enforce morality, especially ones in line with a particular religion, is to support a theocratic police state, much like that of saudi arabia.[/quote]
Most laws "enforce morality" in some sense - the question is whose morality? What "disrupts social order" is extremely subjective, and could be construed to mean all kinds of things, include acts that disrupt social morality. Preserving "social order" is a very weak basis in itself for a just system of law. Plenty of Roman emperors fed Christians to the lions because their religion disrupted the social order of the time. Similarly in more modern Communist regimes.

Which of course illustrates that one need not have religion or religious morality to have an oppressive police state.

[b]"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." ~ John Adams[/b]

[quote]And before you say that individual actions are a societal issue, affecting others, people do not have the right to not be offended. Stating your religion's views on homosexuality, birth control, abortion, etc offends a lot of people, and that is totally ok. people can be offended as much as they want, they dont have a right to remove you from protesting just because they are offended.[/quote]
People may not have a right to not be offended, but neither do people have a right to public obscenity or pornography, if that's what you're trying to get at.

Before you start going off about first amendment free speech rights, I'll have you recall that obscenity and porn were [i]never[/i] considered constitutionally protected "speech" prior to the 1960s.

If that is not what you are getting at, then never mind.

[quote]Personally, i wouldnt want to give the government power to say that something like owning knives or guns is immoral and then take mine. i wouldnt want them to say drinking alcohol is immoral(the bible spells it out clearly) and prevent me from having a drink. I guess i just dont want to give the government power that they will never give back, power that it can build on and abuse. i dont want to give the government power to go after the sins of my neighbor, while foolishly hoping it wont start going after mine.[/quote]
Well, first of all, the Bible never says that all alcohol consumption is immoral (Jesus Himself drank wine!) anymore than it states that owning weapons is immoral, but let's not let the facts get in the way of a good diatribe . . .



[quote]Again, this is a case of your private actions spilling out into public sphere, and thus not really related. the fact that owning and shooting a gun is legal does not mean that brandishing it and shooting it in a public space cannot earn you some attention from the law.


Also, since you brought it up. since you can be arrested for being publicly drunk, would you be ok with the government being able to arrest you for being drunk in your own home? they are one and the same right? and the bible says plenty of times that drunkenness is a sin. so why not that too?

for what its worth, i dont think public drunkeness should earn you any criminal charges unless it is in conjunction with something like an assault.the police taking you off the street for the night is not the same as being criminally charged[/quote]
If one's public drunken behavior adversely affects the public, then it is under the jurisdiction of the law. If your drunkard wants to avoid legal consequences for his acts, he should confine his drunkenness to the privacy of his home.

[stevil]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1320277707' post='2330509']
My point's really quite simple.
Morality means simply a concept of right vs. wrong; what we ought to do vs. what we ought not do. All law must be based on some kind of system of morality, unless you want to advocate complete nihilism.
[/quote]
Law ought to be based on what is necessary for a society to function.
If we go around killing each other then that is very dysfunctional because it leads to society members losing their lives and hence should be outlawed.
If we discriminate against each other based on gender, race, sexual preference, skin colour, religious beliefs then this is dysfunctional because it leads to society members feeling as outcasts and causes confrontation and should be outlawed
Same for stealing, etc
Gay people loving each other and committing to a life of love and support by speaking vows in front of their friends and family does not harm anyone, nor does it cause conflict hence it should be legal.

[Oremoose]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1320296331' post='2330692']
Gay people loving each other and committing to a life of love and support by speaking vows in front of their friends and family does not harm anyone, nor does it cause conflict hence it should be legal.
[/quote]

[size="3"][color="#000000"][font="Calibri"]Physically no, but how about psychologically? There must be so damage done to the psyche, especially of the young who see a gay couple as if was part of natural life not the personal preference of the two adults.[/font][/color][/size]

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Oremoose' timestamp='1320704369' post='2332811']

[size=3][color=#000000][font=Calibri]Physically no, but how about psychologically? There must be so damage done to the psyche, especially of the young who see a gay couple as if was part of natural life not the personal preference of the two adults.[/font][/color][/size]
[/quote]

"damaging to the psyche" is not a legitimate reason to invoke government intervention. as such a nebulous thing, as well as all the other things that can be conceived as "damaging to the psyche" (go talk to a psychologist/psychiatrist), this could never be narrowed down to an objective standard, and would basically end up that some people will be arrested and charged for offending some other people.

You have a right to free speech, but you do not have a right to not be offended.


btw, if it is part of the preference of the two adults, then it is part of "natural" life, or at least as natural as the life outside is ever gonna get. you are simply never going to get "acting opposite to catholic natural law doctrine" enforced as a law.

It isnt natural to be fat either, but that doesnt mean police should be scooping up fat people for jail so that young people do not see them and think it is normal. neither should punks get arrested because i dont want my kid to think dyed green hair and piercings are "natural"

[Oremoose]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1320722712' post='2333053']

"damaging to the psyche" is not a legitimate reason to invoke government intervention. as such a nebulous thing, as well as all the other things that can be conceived as "damaging to the psyche" (go talk to a psychologist/psychiatrist), this could never be narrowed down to an objective standard, and would basically end up that some people will be arrested and charged for offending some other people.[/quote]

i do agree thank you for pointing out where I thought wrong.

[quote] You have a right to free speech, but you do not have a right to not be offended. [/quote]

Since when? To be offended is a type of my freedom of speech. If someones cusses at me for no reason I have Every right to say that his speech directed at me is offencive and that i wish him not to use such words around me.


[quote] btw, if it is part of the preference of the two adults, then it is part of "natural" life, or at least as natural as the life outside is ever gonna get. you are simply never going to get "acting opposite to catholic natural law doctrine" enforced as a law.

It isnt natural to be fat either, but that doesnt mean police should be scooping up fat people for jail so that young people do not see them and think it is normal. neither should punks get arrested because i dont want my kid to think dyed green hair and piercings are "natural"
[/quote]

Just because it is a preferance does not make it natural. it olny means its how they like it. And peoples like and dislikes can be unnatural. As to fat people yes it is unnatural to be fat but is any one happy because they are fat ? Not as far as I know. all fat people I know wish they were fit but are not for reason the can or cannot fix.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Oremoose' timestamp='1320794086' post='2333404']

i do agree thank you for pointing out where I thought wrong.



Since when? To be offended is a type of my freedom of speech. If someones cusses at me for no reason I have Every right to say that his speech directed at me is offencive and that i wish him not to use such words around me.
[/quote]

you have that partially right. you do indeed have the right to say that another person's opinions / speech are offending to you, that is part and parcel of free speech. but you do not have the right to prevent them from speaking/censoring them just because you are offended. also, that is the whole point of freedom of speech.

As a catholic who believes in many socially "unacceptable" things like being prolife, anti contraception, anti gay marriage, you should be both particularly aware of, and pleased with, the right to free speech that you have, because it prevents you from being arrested/etc for speaking your opinions that society at large disagrees with.


[quote]
Just because it is a preferance does not make it natural. it olny means its how they like it. And peoples like and dislikes can be unnatural. As to fat people yes it is unnatural to be fat but is any one happy because they are fat ? Not as far as I know. all fat people I know wish they were fit but are not for reason the can or cannot fix.
[/quote]

I dont think you know very many obese people. Many people are happy with their lifestyle choices that cause them to be fat. also, while many fat people give lip service to wishing they were fit, but are unwilling to do anything about it. which is fine, it just means they are gonna stay fat.

have you never met someone who "wishes they were skinny" in between inhaling buckets of fried chicken and pepsi?

[stevil]

[quote name='Oremoose' timestamp='1320704369' post='2332811']

[size=3][color=#000000][font=Calibri]Physically no, but how about psychologically? There must be so damage done to the psyche, especially of the young who see a gay couple as if was part of natural life not the personal preference of the two adults.[/font][/color][/size]
[/quote]
If it becomes common place then everyone will be desensitised to it. It will be no big deal.
There was a time when people may have been shocked to see an interacial relationship, now most people don't give it a second thought.