Show of Hands

Exactly.

Rights are based on morality.

How so?

What do you mean "how so?"?

A right, by definition, is a moral entitlement.

The idea that people have rights is a moral concept.

Maybe I made an assumption that the implied meaning was religious morality. If the question is just the generic term moral, meaning right or wrong, then sure everything legal is based on morality.

My point is that actions are not inherently right or wrong and the judgement of these actions is based on how they impact the rights of others.

Sure, that's the basis of law, how our actions affect others and society. But that's a moral concept.

Does the question imply religious/universal morality?

I'll say universal. For me that's also religious. It's at least non-material.

Then how are our laws based on religious morality? Wouldn't that make adultery illegal?

It is in 23 states.

www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2012/11/15/adultery-still-crime-states-including-mass/KiIPGRcFnAeT4CGmenFTKM/story.html

Ask Kermie...

Disagree because it's ridiculous.

Morality is ridiculous? Please explain.

Well, a universal morality is certainly ridiculous, because it doesn't exist, but I was talking along the lines that laws are based on morality is ridiculous

Why is universal morality ridiculous?

It doesn't exist. There is no inherent right or wrong, it's a human construct.

Or course there is inherent right and wrong. Just like there are plenty of inherent truths.

Absolutely not

There are none of either

Really? No logical truths? No mathematical truths? You seem to have no concept of truth.

Maybe not, but how do we know those are true? Because you say so?

Thanks you.

Not true. It's a violation of rights

And violating rights is morally wrong.

Not always

majority of people, whether religious or irreligious, will reach the conclusion that murder is morally wrong because of certain logical reasons and or metaphysical reasoning and then reach the conclusion that they should be proscribed.

Nah. I don't oppose murder on moral ground because I don't believe in any moral code. I oppose it because it's bad for society and because I don't want it done to me.

kermie: Your very concept of "bad" is meaningless given your rejection of moral codes. What's so "bad" about murder and why? And who cares what helps society run better, unless we have an obligation to it? Another moral concept.

Total hogwash. How do you know you don't like mushrooms? You don't need a book to tell you. You have a brain. We can easily see that murder is detrimental to society. Relying on a book to tell you that is serious nonsense.

Arguing that something is personally distasteful is easy but meaningless. What you personally dislike holds no sway over how someone else should act. And my point about "bad for society" is: Why should that matter? Why should that guide action?

*blink*

You're not serious?

Very serious. The good of society guiding my actions is a moral concept. What if a murderer doesn't care if society burns? What then? A lot of people don't care about society. And the idea that they should care is, of course, a moral concept.

I don't believe in an absolute morality like "the bible says so". But we do legislate based on some form of "collective" morality.

Probably just making the same basic laws anyway because they make sense?
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

Good luck with that.

Amazing how the more-than-half-of-all-humanity who doesn't believe in and/or never heard of God, Christ, the Bible, or heaven managed to come up with the same basic formulation of "Com'on, guys, quick being dicks to each other" over and over again.

quit*

Aranathi- what does your tag line mean? "Stop feeding trolls by downvoting"

Does it mean we should downvote trolls to stop feeding them?
Or downvoting trolls feeds them?

Good luck with what? With what has already historically happened time and time again? Yes, good luck!

What has happened, throughout history, is morality being legislated for a healthy society.

The only thing that has changed is the legislature's version of morality.

God's guidance says women have the right to get an abortion.

You are a sick person.

But *must* they be?

Of course not

we live in.

Isn't it? :/

Nah. I think most people are fundamentally decent, if ignorant and undereducated.

But laws can be, and usually are, the result of both moral reasoning and the need to maintain the desired social order.
For example, most people agree that murder is both morally wrong and contrary to the proper functioning of a well ordered society.

Well in our country laws are mostly based on whoever donates the most money, but that's neither here nor there.

In theory laws can be based on anything, and certainly many are based on the morals of the majority. But don't need to be.

No, they could be based on the whim of a dictator. And throughout human history that's been the case more often than not.
This is why most reasonable people recognize that laws are just the operationalized expression of some underlying value.

I know you're trying to assert that you're more reasonable than me, but I agree. However values don't need to be based on morals.

And anyway, unless the dictator is mentally deranged (which has happened) even he bases his laws on values. Just his own set of values. And our current politicians base laws on their values of power and money.

So of course laws are based on values. But what the people making laws (clerics/kings/citizens/whoever) value varies widely.

Kermie, just to clarify, "values" are a personally derived set of beliefs about what is right and wrong. "Morals" are part of a systemized set of shared beliefs about what is right and wrong.

Values are more likely to vary from one person to the next because each individual will make personal determinations about what constitutes "the good."
Morals are shared beliefs which derive from a common, usually learned, set of values.

So when I changed the language from "morals" to "values" and said laws are the operationalized expression of some underlying value, the personal nature of the way laws handed down or made was implied.

And likewise, values are not based on morals, but morals are always based on values.
But at the level of moral action, or ethics, the distinction between values and morals within a given individual becomes so blurred as to be irrelevant.

In any event, I stand by my statement that not all laws have to express a particular objective moral imperative, outside the simple fact that a law is, in itself, the expression of a society's shared belief in maintaining order.

I'm not even sure we disagree on that point. I think this is is just another one of those situations where you're injecting prior animosity into present conversations.

It's ok to just agree with me once in a while, you know.

Lol ok bro. I did agree with you. You were the one who implied I wasn't reasonable.

Kermie, I never said or implied you weren't being reasonable.
I said "reasonable people agree" on the premise I stated.

For crying out loud, stop being so sensitive.

Yes daddy

If calling me daddy will keep you from being so mopey and hostile, then go right ahead.

And what will keep you from being hostile? Worry about yourself instead of wasting time with unsolicited advice for everyone else.

Not everybody. Just people like you.

"Thank goodness murder happens to be forbidden in my random old book, or else we'd all just have to let people kill each other at will with no reason to stop it!"