Off-Topic Hang out with people and talk about whatever. Feel free to suggest a better description for this forum as everyone seems to have an opinion. :D

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1    
Old June 26th, 2013 (9:53 PM).
droomph's Avatar
droomph droomph is offline
weeb
  • Crystal Tier
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: nowhere spectacular
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Impish
Posts: 4,291
Suppose in a culture, there are three classes of law.

First, the S. It covers how people should live in order to make themselves happier, ie health and lifestyle tips.

Second, the P, which governs how to make life better for everyone, ie physical laws, such as no murder, robbery, etc.

Then lastly, the M, which governs how to make us virtuous, ie moral laws, such as no lying.

Of the three, S, P, and M, which laws should the secular law system (ie the State) control?

And don't think this is an easy answer. If you provide a "duh it's this way" answer with no logical explanation, then you missed the while point of this discussion. The point is to challenge your personal point of view and see what you really should believe in, whatever that is.
__________________
did u no there r 21 letters in the alphabet
o i forgot 5
uraqt


Reply With Quote

Relevant Advertising!

  #2    
Old June 26th, 2013 (10:45 PM).
Mr. X's Avatar
Mr. X Mr. X is offline
It's... kinda effective?
  • Crystal Tier
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Posts: 2,385
It's hard to determine since a lot of issues can be in multiple classes, and with how issues/laws of one class will bleed over to affect the issues/laws of another class

Case in point, gay marriage. Depending on who you ask, it would fall under S, M, or S and M (No, not THAT kind). Additionally, this will affect specific laws for P.

For this, I don't think we can say which laws should be left to the government or state. We can't, for example, say let the government decide everything for S and P, and let the states handle M.

Realistically it would have to be a case by case basis - Horribly inefficient, but it's the only possible solution.
Reply With Quote
  #3    
Old June 29th, 2013 (8:24 PM).
TRIFORCE89's Avatar
TRIFORCE89 TRIFORCE89 is offline
Guide of Darkness
  • Gold Tier
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Temple of Light
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
Posts: 8,128
First, the S. It covers how people should live in order to make themselves happier, ie health and lifestyle tips.

Second, the P, which governs how to make life better for everyone, ie physical laws, such as no murder, robbery, etc.

Then lastly, the M, which governs how to make us virtuous, ie moral laws, such as no lying.

S, in the sense of standards in what we use or consume and recommended guidelines for citizens. But no bans or requirements to use or not use what is legally available.

P, yes. Not much more to say there.

M, not through laws. More on a high level. The government can help shape a culture through a variety of tools. They don't need to outlaw lying, unless it is under oath
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #4    
Old July 1st, 2013 (5:40 AM).
Esper's Avatar
Esper Esper is offline
  • Silver Tier
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Posts: 10,487
Secular governments should cover those laws where everyone pretty much agrees on certain things. This is the example of laws covering murder, robbery, etc. It's how we keep things fair and we all agree, generally, that laws should cover stuff like that. More important than that we all agree on this stuff is that we can prove it's necessary to have laws regarding them. Where you can prove the law is needed is where it should be, I'd say.

As for our health, happiness, and morality, well, to a degree we have laws regarding morality since some people's morals might lead them to cause harm to others. That's why you can't just burn witches even if your moral system says you should. But that isn't really about morality since it's really more a case of someone's morals stepping outside of the area of 'physical' laws. There's lots of overlap, or potential for overlap, in areas of society. We shouldn't legislate people's feelings, but sometimes the laws will conflict with our feelings if our feelings bring us certain places.

Like the gay marriage thing. Some people says it's morally wrong and the government shouldn't tell people's what's moral. I'd say that's not what the government is doing. What they'd be doing is making things equal and fair and it's the morally outraged who have stepped outside of the space where their morality should go.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #5    
Old July 1st, 2013 (9:45 AM).
Black Ice's Avatar
Black Ice Black Ice is offline
[XV]
     
    Join Date: Dec 2005
    Posts: 611
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Scarf View Post
    Secular governments should cover those laws where everyone pretty much agrees on certain things.
    the majority is not always right.
    __________________
    \
    Reply With Quote
      #6    
    Old July 1st, 2013 (10:38 AM).
    droomph's Avatar
    droomph droomph is offline
    weeb
    • Crystal Tier
     
    Join Date: Sep 2011
    Location: nowhere spectacular
    Age: 20
    Gender: Male
    Nature: Impish
    Posts: 4,291
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Black Ice View Post
    the majority is not always right.
    no doubt about it, but how do we tell otherwise?
    Reply With Quote
      #7    
    Old July 1st, 2013 (11:11 AM).
    Kanzler's Avatar
    Kanzler Kanzler is offline
    naughty biscotti
    • Crystal Tier
     
    Join Date: Jul 2008
    Location: Toronto
    Gender: Male
    Nature: Relaxed
    Posts: 5,893
    Well, that's when you need some kind of standard for "enlightened" decision-making. That can be done with a constitution, or some other institution that is able to sit away from the whims of the masses.
    Reply With Quote
      #8    
    Old July 8th, 2013 (6:20 PM).
    Arlo's Avatar
    Arlo Arlo is offline
       
      Join Date: Dec 2012
      Posts: 483
      None of the above.

      The closest thing listed to what the state should actually enforce is "P," but that's not even accurate.

      The state should enforce laws designed explicitly to punish deliberate acts that bring direct, measurable harm to other people. That's it. If it doesn't harm anyone else, it's not a crime. If it's not a deliberate act, it's not a crime.

      All the rest of that - health and lifestyle and virtue and so on - is, quite frankly, nobody else's damned business. People should be entirely free to live however they might choose, ONLY so long as their actions don't bring direct and measurable harm to others.
      Reply With Quote
      Reply
      Quick Reply

      Sponsored Links
      Thread Tools

      Posting Rules
      You may not post new threads
      You may not post replies
      You may not post attachments
      You may not edit your posts

      BB code is On
      Smilies are On
      [IMG] code is On
      HTML code is Off

      Forum Jump


      All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:23 AM.