1
   

Capital punishment a constitutional right?

 
 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2008 11:38 am
@avatar6v7,
avatar6v7 wrote:
Legal systems should be treated instrumentally, but should be wielded in the cause of morality.
So if the morals at the time say its ok to hang for stealing a sheep i should accept that morality?
avatar6v7
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2008 12:48 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
So if the morals at the time say its ok to hang for stealing a sheep i should accept that morality?

you think that the law is weilded incorrectly because of your morality; so you think that morality should dictate the use of the law.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2008 01:12 pm
@avatar6v7,
avatar6v7 wrote:
you think that the law is weilded incorrectly because of your morality; so you think that morality should dictate the use of the law.
no the law should protect and be just..not give moral guidance..its you that claimed morality as the driving force in law..
avatar6v7
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2008 03:36 am
@xris,
No I said that the law should be a tool of morality, which seems obvious, or the law would dictate 'murder is legal'
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2008 04:34 am
@avatar6v7,
avatar6v7 wrote:
No I said that the law should be a tool of morality, which seems obvious, or the law would dictate 'murder is legal'
There is certain moral issues in the law but the law protects it does not demand morality.Secular morality should be more in keeping than faith driven morality.Religion would make certain abortionist murderers and adulterers could be stoned. There is morality in law such as protecting the vunerable but morals in themselves should not be the reason for laws..
avatar6v7
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2008 01:12 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
.Religion would make certain abortionist murderers and adulterers could be stoned.

Some relgions some of the time, maybe. Not the church where I live. In fact God is the official source of authority for our government and it's legal system in the UK.
xris wrote:
There is morality in law such as protecting the vunerable but morals in themselves should not be the reason for laws..

Then what are the reasons for the law? I do not suggest that it is the job of the law to make us moral people, certainly, but it is the job of the law to do its utmost to make a moral society, and this is in fact the reason for its noninterfearance- it would do the opposite of it's intent.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2008 01:00 pm
@avatar6v7,
avatar6v7 wrote:
Some relgions some of the time, maybe. Not the church where I live. In fact God is the official source of authority for our government and it's legal system in the UK.

Then what are the reasons for the law? I do not suggest that it is the job of the law to make us moral people, certainly, but it is the job of the law to do its utmost to make a moral society, and this is in fact the reason for its noninterfearance- it would do the opposite of it's intent.
The law is not governed by religous teachings in the uk nor should it.. I told you the law should protect not give moral guidance..It has morals but those morals are to protect..Divorce...sexual freedoms..are some of those moral issues that protect the individual that religous morals would or could deny..
avatar6v7
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Dec, 2008 01:28 pm
@xris,
I said morality should be the guide for the law, we restrict the law from interfearing in many situations because of our morality. If you think morality is not what guides the law, then kindly tell me what does.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Dec, 2008 05:58 am
@avatar6v7,
Whose morals are you talking about? Stealing is morally wrong but is greed covered by the law even though it is morally wrong..Laws should be morally correct but it is not the purpose of law.. Business can be morally corrupt but if they dont break the law they are not judged ..
avatar6v7
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Dec, 2008 03:49 pm
@xris,
xris wrote:
Whose morals are you talking about? Stealing is morally wrong but is greed covered by the law even though it is morally wrong..Laws should be morally correct but it is not the purpose of law.. Business can be morally corrupt but if they dont break the law they are not judged ..

The purpose of the law is a moral one, do you disagree? It is not the place of the law to dictate morality, but it should be based on morality, and strive to acheive moral things for the society it serves. It is set up because of morality and for morality. It is not the place of the law to punish people for all evils, only those that are best dealt with by the law. The law is a tool. As to which morality, this is a broader question, but that it should be morality seems unquestionable.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Dec, 2008 04:04 pm
@avatar6v7,
avatar6v7 wrote:
The purpose of the law is a moral one, do you disagree? It is not the place of the law to dictate morality, but it should be based on morality, and strive to acheive moral things for the society it serves. It is set up because of morality and for morality. It is not the place of the law to punish people for all evils, only those that are best dealt with by the law. The law is a tool. As to which morality, this is a broader question, but that it should be morality seems unquestionable.
Merry xmas..and happy new year..
0 Replies
 
Phronimos
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Mar, 2009 04:55 pm
@OntheWindowStand,
OntheWindowStand wrote:
If we have the right to safety, pursuit of happiness and life it self. doesn't that mean capital punishment must exist? it aids in these things. less murderers mean that more people are safe, pursuing happiness and living too.


Is it a constitutional right in the same way that the right of freedom of speech or a woman's right to an abortion are considered to be constitutional rights? No. I also don't see how capital punishment necessarily must exist in order for innocent people to pursue happiness that makes little to no sense.

As for the separate question that has come up between the relationship of the law and morality: I take it that we generally think the legal system should and often does track morality (even though obviously certain things like jaywalking or not running a redlight, even if other cars are remotely nearby don't seem like morally bad things). And as you pointed out morally reprehensible things have been legal in the past, slavery is a classic example. But I don't think the fact that laws have often functioned immorally means that laws can't or shouldn't be founded heavily upon moral concerns.So, I'm inclined to tentatively agree with avatar that the basis for the law is largely moral, although I don't know if morality has to be the sole foundation.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2009 08:55 am
@Phronimos,
Phronimos wrote:
Is it a constitutional right in the same way that the right of freedom of speech or a woman's right to an abortion are considered to be constitutional rights? No. I also don't see how capital punishment necessarily must exist in order for innocent people to pursue happiness that makes little to no sense.

As for the separate question that has come up between the relationship of the law and morality: I take it that we generally think the legal system should and often does track morality (even though obviously certain things like jaywalking or not running a redlight, even if other cars are remotely nearby don't seem like morally bad things). And as you pointed out morally reprehensible things have been legal in the past, slavery is a classic example. But I don't think the fact that laws have often functioned immorally means that laws can't or shouldn't be founded heavily upon moral concerns.So, I'm inclined to tentatively agree with avatar that the basis for the law is largely moral, although I don't know if morality has to be the sole foundation.
What is morality? can you give a precise definition?
Dave Allen
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2009 09:03 am
@OntheWindowStand,
That which suits a particular social gestalt at a particular time.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2009 09:31 am
@Dave Allen,
Dave Allen wrote:
That which suits a particular social gestalt at a particular time.
The social makeup of a society is more diverse than can be described as the whole.My opinion is that laws have certain morality but it is not the founding reason for laws.When government are constructing a new law its based on nothing more than a necessity and if morality came into it all morality would need to be consulted.If you expect the law to be anything other than an ass my solicitor told me your not going to understand the system that makes law.I have seen hundreds of occasions when the moral view of the public was completely opposed to the law..
0 Replies
 
Phronimos
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2009 01:25 pm
@xris,
xris;54194 wrote:
What is morality? can you give a precise definition?


no, I can't. But I'll give it a shot. The values, rules, standards, ideals, principles, ends, or duties (our reactive attitudes are another possible contender, but I'm waiting until I read more on this view before I buy into it) that explain and found good or right human conduct and behavior (including quite possibly motives).
0 Replies
 
VideCorSpoon
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Mar, 2009 06:39 pm
@Theaetetus,
OntheWindowStand wrote:
If we have the right to safety, pursuit of happiness and life it self. doesn't that mean capital punishment must exist? it aids in these things. less murderers mean that more people are safe, pursuing happiness and living too.


It seems kinda severe to say that because we have the right to the pursuit of happiness we in turn have the right to kill offenders of the law, so I would not agree with that statement.

But specific punishment like the death penalty for specific crimes is a matter of state actiondirectlymuch later in American history.

Generally speaking, I do not support the death penalty. If there is even the slightest chance of putting to death someone who is in fact innocent, it is not a practical system. Would putting to death criminals mean people are more safe? I would not think so. People always find a reason to kill someone else regardless of the deterrences in place.
0 Replies
 
Phosphorous
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Apr, 2009 06:03 pm
@OntheWindowStand,
The funny thing about putting moral mores into law is that you solidify those social mores from changing. At least in the law. In reality, the people's morality continues to change as it always has, and the law would become increasingly out of tune with the expectations and morals of society--an awkward situation, considering the insane difficulty of getting a law changed, much less revoked.

Should the law then, legislate morality? The simple answer is no. In a diverse country like the United States, there is practically no issue on which a moral consensus can be reached. To enact moral legislation then would violate minority rights/civil liberties.

But then what about murder and theft? Grand theft auto, extortion, blackmail, slavery? In the case of murder, a very real observable threat to societal stability is documented. Same goes for theft, extortion, and blackmail. In fact, almost all the major laws that we all pretty much agree to be just are secularily valid and viable(slavery being the noted exception).

And that makes sense, because we don't need to consult morality per se to figure out what laws to make. We just need to uphold the stability of society, which, in my opinion, is all that is absolutely required from the law.
Theaetetus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Apr, 2009 07:17 pm
@Phosphorous,
Phosphorous wrote:
The funny thing about putting moral mores into law is that you solidify those social mores from changing. At least in the law. In reality, the people's morality continues to change as it always has, and the law would become increasingly out of tune with the expectations and morals of society--an awkward situation, considering the insane difficulty of getting a law changed, much less revoked.

Should the law then, legislate morality? The simple answer is no. In a diverse country like the United States, there is practically no issue on which a moral consensus can be reached. To enact moral legislation then would violate minority rights/civil liberties.

But then what about murder and theft? Grand theft auto, extortion, blackmail, slavery? In the case of murder, a very real observable threat to societal stability is documented. Same goes for theft, extortion, and blackmail. In fact, almost all the major laws that we all pretty much agree to be just are secularily valid and viable(slavery being the noted exception).

And that makes sense, because we don't need to consult morality per se to figure out what laws to make. We just need to uphold the stability of society, which, in my opinion, is all that is absolutely required from the law.


I am always hesitant on law making based on moral authority. It seems, though, that there are certain behaviors that nearly everyone considers to be bad for the sake of having a common ground to base society upon. But this is a rather slippery slope, because there will be an inherent gray area that individuals with power will attempt to exploit.
0 Replies
 
avatar6v7
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Apr, 2009 08:17 am
@Phosphorous,
Phosphorous wrote:

And that makes sense, because we don't need to consult morality per se to figure out what laws to make. We just need to uphold the stability of society, which, in my opinion, is all that is absolutely required from the law.

But why do we uphold the stability of society? What makes society stable? What is society? The answer is morality- we have societies because it is the moral thing to do, we have laws to uphold the morality based society so the law stems from morality. A society can only be a society if we have at least some shared moral values- in fact your whole liberal discourse on not legilisating on morality is in itself a moral standpoint.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/05/2020 at 11:06:00