Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[quote=bulldogdad;14290540][quote=jtur88;14287530]To classify Gun Ownership as a "Moral Principle" is one of the biggest stretches I've ever seen in this forum. Are you suggesting that it is "Immoral" for me to not own a gun, or to own one?
Quote:
HHMMM I don't see where I stated "Gun ownership" as a moral principal it self. The context to the constuction of the legislated right to gun ownership is a moral principle. You know that. I'm sniffing a little straw in your attack.
You said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldogdad
What about slavery, civil rights, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, gun ownership, free speech. I believe that there are moral principles that are imperative for societies to function. Obviously each society chooses which are important enough to dictate.
A moral principle is a moral principle, irrespective of whether it is codified into civil law or not.
Whenever something is the law in Country A and not in Country B, you are faced with two options. Either the law does not reflect a moral principle, or one of the countries is inherently immoral.
You seem to be saying that regulating the rights of the populace is a moral principle. So, is granting a right moral, or immoral? Calling something a "moral principle" sheds absolutely no light on the question of morals.
Are ALL rights morally virtuous, merely because they are rights, or are there some that are not morally virtuous? How does your response differentiate between the two?
The RIGHT to do something is only as moral as doing it.
What about the right to engage in prostitution, or the right to burn plastic trash in an open barrel in the suburbs, or the right to not wear a seatbelt, or the right to catch fish? Which of those are moral principles?
What about the right of an adult to have consensual sex with a 17 year old female. What's the moral principle?
Are ALL rights morally virtuous, merely because they are rights, or are there some that are not morally virtuous? How does your response differentiate between the two?
The RIGHT to do something is only as moral as doing it.
I wondered how long it would take to get to Ethics. Shall we delve into the multitude of Ethical disciplines and theories to dissect the actual values of morality?
The government does legislate morality, i.e. murder, child abuse, robbery and so forth. When behavior hurts property and/or another person; this is when morality is legislated. My question is this, are drug use and alcohol use a moral issue? It is an issue of right and wrong but only to the person who is using. If a person uses alcohol and/or drugs in their own home, I don't see how it hurts society. All the crimes drug addicts are accused of (and some rightly so) theft, breaking and entering, bogus checks, they are already legislated. If someone wants to smoke pot, take dope and drink alcohol, that is their business, as long as they stay at home with it.
The government does legislate morality, i.e. murder, child abuse, robbery and so forth. When behavior hurts property and/or another person; this is when morality is legislated. My question is this, are drug use and alcohol use a moral issue? It is an issue of right and wrong but only to the person who is using. If a person uses alcohol and/or drugs in their own home, I don't see how it hurts society. All the crimes drug addicts are accused of (and some rightly so) theft, breaking and entering, bogus checks, they are already legislated. If someone wants to smoke pot, take dope and drink alcohol, that is their business, as long as they stay at home with it.
EXACTLY!!!! My thought that someone who has a drug problem should not be convicted of a crime for simply abusing them, or having them in possession. The only way they should get in trouble is if they commit a real crime like robbery, assault, murder, drive under the influence, selling to minors.... ect... Instead of throwing someone in prison who has a problem, why not give them the opportunity to seek help? People make mistakes. People that get arrested for doing drugs, when they've committed no real crimes, get treated like criminals. Once released, they can't get a job, because they have a record, therefore; they continue to go back to their old ways. It's a vicious cycle.
Exactly, they stay in the same vicious circle. Prisons are crowded with people who ten years ago had some pot and got busted. Other drugs too.
People in prison don't get rehabilitated, they come out the same as they went in or worse, they can't get a job, vote but at least they are welcomed in AA type organizations.
Thats why I said in my OP, that you can't legislate morals, that less than 80% majority agree with.
For instance, Alcohol was seen by about 60% of Americans as being ok to prohibit. However, the other 40% eventually got their way, because you just can't legislate morality.
Also, civil rights. Until a overwhelming majority thought that everyone should have the same rights, it wasn't passed.
You just can't legislate morality. Everyone knows murder, stealing, and things of that nature are wrong, which is why those are laws in every country.
You can't legislate common sense. Still, people try.
It's human nature. It hasn't changed since the dawn of time and it never will.
The problem is not morals but two sets of laws.
The law of love versus the law of the jungle.
Under the law of the jungle, a predator is "moral", when he preys upon others.
Only under the law of love, would a predator be immoral, and subject to punishment.
The problem with incapacitation via intoxication, is that the current law allows it as mitigation when assigning intent.
Therefore if one commits a felony, while intoxicated, one might argue that judgment was impaired and no intent follows. So instead of assigning full responsibility to the intoxicated, the law attacks the intoxicant.
It would be far simpler to legalize the intoxicants, and hold the intoxicated liable for any injuries they inflict. . . unless they were involuntarily intoxicated / impaired.
Why such a simple solution is politically impossible, stems from national socialism. Since all enumerated "human resources" have a value to the Creditor, it would not be wise to destroy their value by severe punishment. And it enriches the legal profession to make the law into a convoluted mess, so that no one can fully comprehend all the law.
I'm sitting here, watching the current drug czar and last drug czar on CNN, talking about alcohol and marijuana.
The current one, Gil Kerlikowske, is saying that they are against marijuana because, "look at what alcohol and tobacco do now". The former one (sorry, didn't catch his name), said he is in favor of stricter laws on alcohol.
When will people learn, you can't stop people from doing these things.
I'm not just wanting to get into a debate about marijuana or alcohol, but all morals.
If its not widely accepted by the public, and I mean in numbers higher than 80% support, you can't tell 20% of 350,000,000 people they can't do something they want to do.
Sex, drugs, music, hate, and all of the other morals we try to tell people no to. When are we going to learn that all of these things will always exist, but as long as they aren't hurting anyone other than those who decide to participate in them, then why do you care?
Sure you can, what do you think religious Jihads, the Spanish Inquisition and today's Think Tanks do?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My thought that someone who has a drug problem should not be convicted of a crime for simply abusing them, or having them in possession. The only way they should get in trouble is if they commit a real crime like robbery, assault, murder, drive under the influence, selling to minors.... ect... Instead of throwing someone in prison who has a problem, why not give them the opportunity to seek help? People make mistakes. People that get arrested for doing drugs, when they've committed no real crimes, get treated like criminals. Once released, they can't get a job, because they have a record, therefore; they continue to go back to their old ways. It's a vicious cycle.
