Should laws be based on morals?

Discuss..

Aren't they?

Massive gray area, morals are not equal across societies, therefore it would be dangerous to make laws based on destructive morals.

SBSP wrote:Aren't they?

Mostly yes, but Im asking if they Should be based on morals, espically when morals are so subjective.

I think a lot of them are already, killing someone is morally wrong, robbing someone is morally wrong, corruption is morally wrong, these are all legally wrong as well. There are grey areas but I believe most people regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation etc. can agree with this, the problems come when you are basing laws of morals which come from religion and things like that.

Yes, if the morals represent the majority's thoughts.

Do you the statutory interpretation/judicial precedent part of law or legislature?

Ricardo wrote:Do you the statutory interpretation/judicial precedent part of law or legislature?

I feel like theres a word missing here

Oh shit yeah, "Do you mean**" and "the legislature**".

SBSP wrote:Yes, if the morals represent the majority's thoughts.

Government can control the media.
Media change are morals.
We change are morals to suit the government.
Bang! Morals changes and so are laws and we are heading towards Oceanian.

Laws should be made by people who represent the majority of the nation. So technically, it doesn't matter what we base our laws on as long as the majority of the people agree on it.

Isn't the belief that the government should represent the majority in and of itself a moral?

At the end of the day, every law is based on a moral of some kind. We all have our subjective views on what is right and wrong and that comes through in our laws. For example, we Americans believe that everybody is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of poontang. That's a moral. We've practically codified it. We have all kinds of morals codified in laws. Even the laws for the laws are based on morals. The Bill of Rights is a document of morals. For example, you cannot put somebody in jail without first giving him an option to be tried before a jury of his peers where he gets to confront his accusers and present evidence, etc. That's a moral. And if convicted, the punishment delved out cannot be one that is cruel or unusual. Also a moral.

Even the rules upon which this forum are governed are based on certain morals. For example, no bumping old threads. That's a moral. It's my moral belief that such moral is a silly moral. I have the moral that when somebody says something really stupid or makes an asinine prediction, we should be able to revisit the idiocy at a later time so we can all point and laugh. But that's my moral. The admins have different morals, apparently. They have the power. I don't. Their morals prevail.

Moral

Logic > Morals

Zzonked wrote:Logic > Morals

That's a moral

menalawyerguy wrote:

Zzonked wrote:Logic > Morals

That's a moral

You're a moral.

Ya know what's immoral? Not being able to access the football forum because clicking on it diverts to the portal for some strange reason. What's up with that?

Zzonked wrote:

menalawyerguy wrote:

Zzonked wrote:Logic > Morals

That's a moral

You're a moral.

Can't be. I'm a lawyer. So by definition I'm an immoral greedy dishonest fuck

menalawyerguy wrote:Isn't the belief that the government should represent the majority in and of itself a moral?

No.

For example Omission Laws in England are predominantly based on morals and they seem just and reasonable so I think laws should be based on morals for the most part.

ahlycotc wrote:

menalawyerguy wrote:Isn't the belief that the government should represent the majority in and of itself a moral?

No.

Sure it is. It's a judgment on what is right and wrong. That's a moral.

Yeah I'd agree with that, I think a dictatorship is morally wrong because the people get no say, and while the people don't get as much say as our politicians make it out to be, in a republic there is some public input, which is why I support it.

menalawyerguy wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:

menalawyerguy wrote:Isn't the belief that the government should represent the majority in and of itself a moral?

No.

Sure it is. It's a judgment on what is right and wrong. That's a moral.

It's the definition of a government. If you have a government that doesn't represent the people, it will fall.

ahlycotc wrote:

menalawyerguy wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:

menalawyerguy wrote:Isn't the belief that the government should represent the majority in and of itself a moral?

No.

Sure it is. It's a judgment on what is right and wrong. That's a moral.

It's the definition of a government. If you have a government that doesn't represent the people, it will fall.

Not necessarily. Dictatorships all over the place lasted for centuries. And a government that serves the majority could fall as well. But what you said specifically is that laws should be made by those who represent the majority. That's a moral conclusion: that it is right for governments to represent majority, which implies that it is wrong for governments to not serve the will of the majority.

Laws should be based on what I want.