Philosophy of law ????????

Forums: Legal, Drugs, Philosophy, Philosophy Of Law
Email this Topic • Print this Page

During our critical moment in history, we face many difficulties of life: the immense amount of debt throughout the world, the wars of "terrorism," the day-to-day struggles, and a world of crime. With all this in mind, we have to consider some form of change that would decrease crime and ensure the saftey of the people in our society. A big issue we are facing, today, is the criminal organizations created from the war on drugs. Thousands of people are incarcerated yearly for non-violent crimes while your average sex offender who makes a living off of torturing children is let out within 3.5-5 years. Yes, the average time served for sex offenders is three and a half years to five years. This law is not only morally reprehensible, but it is truly dangerous to let these people out considering that fact that over 90% will repeat their offense after they serve their sentence.

What is ironic today is that the law is suppose to protect people, but it is doing the exact opposite. It is creating criminal organizations as well as letting dangerous people who hurt children daily. Doesn't the law system need to be rethought?

I apologize for my sloppy writing; I have not slept in a day of so which isn't healthy for me, but I am only 23 so I am used to just saying "**** it."

If we were to end the war on drugs, then we would end the criminal acts associated with it(at least most of the crime). Then we could create more jobs and make society a little bit safer.

I think the war on drugs is rediculous because users are going to use whether or not you tell them they can so just let them do what they want. As long as no-one is being hurt, then we should have no say in what people put into their bodies.

After all, the reason why we ended alcohol prohibition was because of the crime associated with it during the 1920's and early 1930's.

Why not end this stupid war on drugs, so we can focus on the real crime that matters.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 2 • Views: 4,143 • Replies: 32

No top replies

@MoralPhilosopher23,

You seem to have written a blog, not asked a question, or made a simple comment, so I shall use artistic license to respond to it. My response is ... Rubbish ! You seem too liberal to me and you did not mention God so you are agnostic at best. How quickly you forgot that the only reason civilizations exist at all is because we used capital punishment for about ... 100 million years. To stop murder one effective method is simple and easy, kill all the murderers before they breed more ( murderers ). When someone rapes your mom, just kill them before they grab your sisters next. Why do the people who want to legalize pot all hate capital punishment? In case you wonder about it, nearly all laws on Earth are a reflection of the simplified 10 commandments, the problem is that each sect thinks it only applies to them only so they can rob, beat, rape, and murder anyone else. Okay so lets separate Religion and Government, fine. What's next? I know lets raise gross national productivity by outlawing pot smoking crack and cocaine, which all lead to lazy sick people missing more work. Thank God conservatives are leading our police forces. I only wish they would shoot to kill and lower prison expenses for the crimes you mention.

3 Replies

@TimeTravel ,

TimeTravel wrote:

In case you wonder about it, nearly all laws on Earth are a reflection of the simplified 10 commandments,

Absolute nonsense. You couldn't be any further from the truth. This is just something that uneducated christians repeat over and over as an attempt to get the 10 commandments some validity. Not only that but I would have to ask, which version of the 10 commandments since there are two lists of the 10.

2 Replies

@TimeTravel ,

I have written a lot on the philosophy board s0 far and your really entertaining to me to be honest. What is wrong with being liberal? Aren't we suppose to be accepting of the new? If you mean by liberal: wanting to end the war on drugs, the war on terrorism, legalizing gay marriage to ensure that all citizens are treated equally, then yes I am liberal. And I am an atheist as well but that has nothing to do with this.

And you really are a dumbass for saying that we have used capitol punishment for about..... 100 million years. The human species hasn't even been alive for that long. Please look into society a bit more and read less of your bible.

And I really hate to continue to write about religion when I am tired, so I am just going to post what I said to someone else:

"
First, I would ask if God is omniscient. If he answered yes god is omniscient, then I would ask this: If god is omniscient, then would he have the power to see the end at the beginning and everything in-between? If he answered yes then I would ask another question: If god had the ability to see everything before it happened then why would he create an angel (the devil) who would go against him? If he knew that "Satan" was going to turn on him, then why would he create him in the first place? After all, it was because of the "snake" tempting Adam and Eve that resulted in original sin which damned all the nations to come. I mean, if a god really was omniscient, then was his divine plan to create a creature to go against him so he could justify the fall of man? Never helping humanity??

Or is it that he is not omniscient and didn't see the bad results until they happened?

Is it that he seen the evil to come from his creation, but lacked the ability to change it?

If he is all-powerful, then can he change his all-knowing mind? If so, then he would not be all-knowing; or, in other words, omniscient. If he lacked the power to change his mind, then he would not be omnipotent.

The problems of god are very profound and this truly is a small sect of questions concering religion and god. If you would like to raise questions, please do. "

And by the way, did I mention that you suck. If I forgot to, then here you go: You suck. Smile

Toodles

1 Reply

@Krumple,

The version of the ten commandments that he goes by is simple the one that comforts him most. He obviously is willfully ignorant of the contradictions and questions that arise from the holy bible. However this is not about the book of lies, it is about law. And your correct when you said that, " This is just something that uneducated christians repeat over and over as an attempt to get the 10 commandments some validity."

Take care

0 Replies

@TimeTravel ,

You said that, "I only wish they would shoot to kill and lower prison expenses for the crimes you mention." What do you mean, for drugs or for sex offenders? Hopefully your talking about sex offenders because they are much more harm to society than drug users.

People are always going to use drugs so get over it all ready. You probably used them in your younger years too. Focus on the real crime.

1 Reply

@MoralPhilosopher23,

Actually I might be convinced to allow army men to use drugs if we can use them to clear mine fields like the Iranians did but they used kids. Actually if it will cut taxes lets legalize pot, if employers can still find sober machine operators. We already have enough stoned people cutting off their arms with chain saws up here in Maine. I am liberal enough thanks, I actually supported Obama in placing sexy women on submarines, and even conservative Romans knew gay men fought well protecting their lovers in the front line fighting angry Germans. Like I said people in ANY organized religion ( that doesn't mean Punk Rock Band or Heavy Metal Worship) live 7 years longer. So anyone who wants to die young is free to be a Marxist an Atheist, or a chain smoking biker with 50 tattoos, but on average, people who break norms and LAWS, almost always die younger. But cheer up, chicks love bad asses, angry men who abuse their body, and troll online to piss off people who have a proven plan for longevity, and hope for an afterlife. When I was young yes, I also impressed hot chicks by swearing and pissing on flowers.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple crumple it up again and start over like you always do. You obviously have writers block. Now most atheists if you placed them in solitary confinement and severed the brain tissue connecting the two hemispheres of the brain, would still be intelligent enough to establish the Golden Rule, and the 10 Commandments if they only had a crayon and some poster paper. So no offense to God, but the 10 Commandments require so little brain cells to be valid, Confucius mentioned all of it and much much more and he was basically an atheist by most peoples standards. Buddha that cool nice old man in 500 BC came up with 5 training principles for retards, because obviously some people have trouble counting to 10.

1 Reply

@TimeTravel ,

TimeTravel wrote:

would still be intelligent enough to establish the Golden Rule, and the 10 Commandments if they only had a crayon and some poster paper. So no offense to God, but the 10 Commandments require so little brain cells to be valid

You have got to be kidding. Well tell me then, which list are you referring to? Because one of the lists is retarded, absolutely retarded. Thou shalt not have any other gods before me? Really? That requires brain power to come up with? Seriously? You fail. I mean I couldn't come up with anything more ridiculous than that even trying to. So tell me which list are you referring to because you do realize there are 2 separate lists that are considered to be the 10 commandments. Which I should remind you is just 1 more out of the thousands of contradictions in the bible.

1 Reply

@MoralPhilosopher23,

MoralPhilosopher23 wrote:

If we were to end the war on drugs, then we would end the criminal acts associated with it(at least most of the crime).

Very true. And if we ended all laws against contract killing and slavery and blackmail, we would also end the criminal acts associated with those activities as well.

MoralPhilosopher23 wrote:

I think the war on drugs is rediculous because users are going to use whether or not you tell them they can so just let them do what they want.

The same could be said about any criminal activity.

MoralPhilosopher23 wrote:

As long as no-one is being hurt, then we should have no say in what people put into their bodies.

Should we have a say about how much alcohol a person can put in their body before they get behind the wheel of a car?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Well of coure there should be rules and regulations to ensure the safety of the people who live in the country. People get punished for drinking and driving, so people should get punished for driving unider the influence of any other substance. The rules and regulations, however, as I previously stated should be treated as they are with alcohol and cigarettes. Uses could then use in their home away from the steering wheel where they are hurting no one.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

I seriously believe that this guy is here to mess with people. I have read a few of his other responses on some other threads and it all seems like a joke. If he really is serious, then we have to applaud him for his stupidity. Moreover, it wasn't intelligence that caused people to follow the bible, it was fear. It was intelligence that caused people to not follow the bible.

Take care

0 Replies

@MoralPhilosopher23,

MoralPhilosopher23 wrote:

Well of coure there should be rules and regulations to ensure the safety of the people who live in the country. People get punished for drinking and driving, so people should get punished for driving unider the influence of any other substance.

Why? You argue there should be no laws regarding what a person puts in his or her own body, so long as nobody else is hurt. If someone is drunk and gets behind the wheel of a car, the police can arrest that person even if nobody else gets hurt. Given your premise, how can you justify that kind of law?

1 Reply

Simply put, there are no easy solutions.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

If someone is driving intoxicated, then we have to be reasonable and say that this act, in itself, is dangerous because it puts innocent people at risk. Therefore, my premise remains clear because I clearly stated that we should have no say in what people put into their bodies as long as they are not hurting people. I will revise and say that as long as they are not putting people in harms way or hurting people if that will make you happy.

2 Replies

@MoralPhilosopher23,

MoralPhilosopher23 wrote:

If someone is driving intoxicated, then we have to be reasonable and say that this act, in itself, is dangerous because it puts innocent people at risk. Therefore, my premise remains clear because I clearly stated that we should have no say in what people put into their bodies as long as they are not hurting people. I will revise and say that as long as they are not putting people in harms way or hurting people if that will make you happy.

It's not a question of making me happy, it's a question of examining the principles upon which you claim to base your philosophy of law. You said that laws should not dictate what a person can put in his/her body as long as nobody else gets hurt. Now, however, we see that that's not exactly correct. You are, in fact, quite willing, under certain circumstances, to have the state dictate what persons can put in their bodies even in cases where nobody else is hurt. The question now is how far you're willing to take that modification of your position.

For instance, you've indicated that the laws on drugs should be the same as the laws on tobacco and alcohol. Are you, then, in favor of laws that ban certain types of advertising of tobacco and alcohol? If so, what is the basis for your support? If not, how do you square that with your position on drunk-driving laws?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Your definitely raising some good points and I will adress them, but I must first ask a couple questions: 1) If an intoxicated person is driving a vehicle, then aren't they putting innocent bystanders at risk because their mind is at an altered state of consciousness which may or may not react in time to stop before crashing into something or someone? 2) If the answer is yes to the previous question, then wouldn't we want rules and regulations to prevent people from getting hurt and to ensure the safety of the individual? 3) If not, then why?

And I would, as I stated earlier, treat it in the same fashion as we treat alcohol or cigarettes. My concern is not of advertisements and commercials, but of natural right. If you are in your home, then you have the right to use substances as long as your not out driving around(endangering people) or hurting people. What you put into your body is your own deal and not of any one elses.

1 Reply

@MoralPhilosopher23,

MoralPhilosopher23 wrote:

Your definitely raising some good points and I will adress them, but I must first ask a couple questions: 1) If an intoxicated person is driving a vehicle, then aren't they putting innocent bystanders at risk because their mind is at an altered state of consciousness which may or may not react in time to stop before crashing into something or someone? 2) If the answer is yes to the previous question, then wouldn't we want rules and regulations to prevent people from getting hurt and to ensure the safety of the individual? 3) If not, then why?

My position isn't in question here. I don't have any problem with laws designed to prevent drunk driving, but then I also haven't taken the position that the law shouldn't have anything to do with what a person takes into their own body, provided that no one else is injured. You, on the other hand, have.

MoralPhilosopher23 wrote:

And I would, as I stated earlier, treat it in the same fashion as we treat alcohol or cigarettes. My concern is not of advertisements and commercials, but of natural right. If you are in your home, then you have the right to use substances as long as your not out driving around(endangering people) or hurting people. What you put into your body is your own deal and not of any one elses.

I'm not sure how you can divorce the act of ingesting the substances from the act of acquiring those substances. Surely, if you think the former should be unregulated, then I'm not sure how you could contend that the latter should be. It's small comfort to the user to have a law saying you can do as much heroin as you like while another law says you can't buy or advertise the sale of heroin.

0 Replies

@MoralPhilosopher23,

MoralPhilosopher23 wrote:

If someone is driving intoxicated, then we have to be reasonable and say that this act, in itself, is dangerous because it puts innocent people at risk. Therefore, my premise remains clear because I clearly stated that we should have no say in what people put into their bodies as long as they are not hurting people. I will revise and say that as long as they are not putting people in harms way or hurting people if that will make you happy.

I disagree. Not everyone who drives drunk causes harm. Sure there is a much higher chance they will but it is a crime in itself to convict someone of "potentially causing harm".

1 Reply

@Krumple,

The action of driving while intoxicated, in itself, is dangerous because it puts individuals in harms way if the intoxicated driver loses control which is a good possibility. Therefore to prevent harm, there should be a simple rule: No driving while intoxicated.

Sure not everyone who drives drunk causes harm, so should we allow people to drive intoxicated because some won't and some will. A person with homicidal tendencies may chose to not kill, but some will. Shall we give them the chance to roam the streets with weapons of their choice? They may kill someone or do nothing. Shall we let the intoxicated person jump behind the wheel? He may kill someone or may not.

If the probability is to high of risk, then we should have some say in it.

1 Reply

Philosophy of law ????????

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know