Circumstancial Evidence For Absolute Morality
Pepe_Muffassa
Join Date: 2003-01-17 Member: 12401Members
Join Date: 2003-01-17 Member: 12401Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Would you take this job?</div> <a href='http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/30/wgerm30.xml' target='_blank'>Something is wrong in Germany</a>
For those of you who don't feel like reading it - here is the summary. In Germany, prostitution is legal. Also in Germany, if you can't find a job, there are job centers that will place you in one. Combine these two, and you end up with women being forced by the job centers into sex entertainment jobs - against their will. Not only that, but if they don't comply, they can get their benefits cut (socialisim at it's finest).
The last paragraph sums it up best:
"Now that prostitution is no longer considered by the law to be immoral, there is really nothing but the goodwill of the job centres to stop them from pushing women into jobs they don't want to do."
So there you have it - relativism leads ultimatly to forced prostitution - on a national scale. I know if I had claimed that 5 years ago people would have laughed - but now it is happening. And I thought the government raped us here in America!
For those of you who don't feel like reading it - here is the summary. In Germany, prostitution is legal. Also in Germany, if you can't find a job, there are job centers that will place you in one. Combine these two, and you end up with women being forced by the job centers into sex entertainment jobs - against their will. Not only that, but if they don't comply, they can get their benefits cut (socialisim at it's finest).
The last paragraph sums it up best:
"Now that prostitution is no longer considered by the law to be immoral, there is really nothing but the goodwill of the job centres to stop them from pushing women into jobs they don't want to do."
So there you have it - relativism leads ultimatly to forced prostitution - on a national scale. I know if I had claimed that 5 years ago people would have laughed - but now it is happening. And I thought the government raped us here in America!
Comments
You do understand that arguing about WHAT is moral or immoral is NOT the same thing as relatavism, right?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So there you have it - relativism leads ultimatly to forced prostitution - on a national scale. I know if I had claimed that 5 years ago people would have laughed - but now it is happening. And I thought the government raped us here in America!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It did not occur to you that perhaps this was a huge mistake caused by several newly passed laws that seem to be, ahem, "less than compatible", not a desired situation? You cannot seriously believe that this is a situation that will persist. There's nothing more to be said about it, really. Except, perhaps, that making it known to the public will hopefully lead to the situation being dealt with sooner.
Not that evidence or examples is an good way to decide morality anyway...
First of all, Germany is moving towards a socialistic state. That means that this person/people recieve their benefits from the government (job centre). If you want said benifits, you have to do the work the government assigns you.
Second - Germany has given legal status to prostitution. That means that prostitution gets all the same legal rights as any other business - including finding labor from the job centre. After all - they are a moral, legal business. Anything less would be discriminating.
Now these legal problems come directly from a moral relatavistic stance. Prostitution doesn't hurt anyone, I think it's ok, so let me do it - legally. The age old morals against prostitution are archaeic at best, and opressive/discriminatory at worst.
So there you have it - one woman got caught in a loophole. I feel sorry for her. At the same time, I cry discrimination against prostitution if the government tries to close that loophole.
@lolfighter - your right, I could have found a better way to wrap it up. I just find so much humor in it. After all, these people got what they wanted. They wanted big government and legalized prostitution - in the end it only enslaves thier own to a job no one should have to do.
This woman was not assigned that job, she turned it down as a job when the employer, not the state, offered it to her. Just like in the US, if you are seen to turn down jobs, unemployment agencies punish you for it. This, again, is not unique to Germany.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now these legal problems come directly from a moral relatavistic stance. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think you know what you are talking about.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Prostitution doesn't hurt anyone, I think it's ok, so let me do it - legally. The age old morals against prostitution are archaeic at best, and opressive/discriminatory at worst.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But this, whatever else it is, is a MORAL stance, not a relatavistic stance. Get it? Disagreeing with someone about what is moral and what isn't is <i>not akin to moral relatavism.</i>
And she isn't enslaved. She's being threatened with the loss of unemployment benefits unless she doesn't find a job. The correct solution is to decriminalize but NOT legally sanction prostitution.
Moral Relativism is the belief that morals are relative to the people applying them - be it location, or time. It is the reason why honor killings are OK in one country, and not OK in another.
It is also the reason why situations like this happen. 100 years ago, this would have been unheard of - but morals have changed in relation to the people - prostitution is no longer immoral in Germany because time has changed. That is Moral Relativity.
Contrast that with moral Absolutism: Prostitution is wrong all the time in all places.
I'm pretty sure I have a good Idea what I'm talking about - insulting the oppent doesn't make one right.
Moral Relativism is the belief that morals are relative to the people applying them - be it location, or time. It is the reason why honor killings are OK in one country, and not OK in another.
It is also the reason why situations like this happen. 100 years ago, this would have been unheard of - but morals have changed in relation to the people - prostitution is no longer immoral in Germany because time has changed. That is Moral Relativity.
Contrast that with moral Absolutism: Prostitution is wrong all the time in all places.
I'm pretty sure I have a good Idea what I'm talking about - insulting the oppent doesn't make one right. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What does this have to do with morals? As I've always said, <b>Law does not exist to enforce morality</b>. Law and morality are entirely separate entities. Or at leats they should be. If this woman has a problem doing that job, then she can turn it down and face the consequences of doing so. Just like If I don't want to work at a slaughterhouse, I don't have to but if it is the only job available to me I will have to face the consequences and starve.
Moral Relativism is the belief that morals are relative to the people applying them - be it location, or time. It is the reason why honor killings are OK in one country, and not OK in another.
It is also the reason why situations like this happen. 100 years ago, this would have been unheard of - but morals have changed in relation to the people - prostitution is no longer immoral in Germany because time has changed. That is Moral Relativity.
Contrast that with moral Absolutism: Prostitution is wrong all the time in all places.
I'm pretty sure I have a good Idea what I'm talking about - insulting the oppent doesn't make one right. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What does this have to do with morals? As I've always said, <b>Law does not exist to enforce morality</b>. Law and morality are entirely separate entities. Or at leats they should be. If this woman has a problem doing that job, then she can turn it down and face the consequences of doing so. Just like If I don't want to work at a slaughterhouse, I don't have to but if it is the only job available to me I will have to face the consequences and starve. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Law is a reflection of morality - without morals, there is no law. Law exists to protect the weak. The morals of the country have dicated what the law is - and those morals say that prostitution is OK - as reflected in the law. This womans morals are being trounced on. She says prostitution is not Ok and doesn't want to be one. The law is failing in protecting the weak (her) in that it penalizes her for not wanting to break her morals.
Who ever thought that being more moral would be a bad thing? - yet that is what is being argued here.
She should not be placed in a situation where she has to "face concequences" for not wanting to be a prostitute - especially government sanctioned concequences (cutting of benefits). The law is wrong as are the morals it reflects.
Working at a slaughterhouse and working as a prostitute are 2 totally different jobs. Being a slaughterhouse employee doesn't involve fornicating your own body. So there you have it - no benefits for you unless you let desperate horny men grope you - So sayeth the govenment.
Moral Relativism is the belief that morals are relative to the people applying them - be it location, or time. It is the reason why honor killings are OK in one country, and not OK in another.
It is also the reason why situations like this happen. 100 years ago, this would have been unheard of - but morals have changed in relation to the people - prostitution is no longer immoral in Germany because time has changed. That is Moral Relativity.
Contrast that with moral Absolutism: Prostitution is wrong all the time in all places.
I'm pretty sure I have a good Idea what I'm talking about - insulting the oppent doesn't make one right. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What does this have to do with morals? As I've always said, <b>Law does not exist to enforce morality</b>. Law and morality are entirely separate entities. Or at leats they should be. If this woman has a problem doing that job, then she can turn it down and face the consequences of doing so. Just like If I don't want to work at a slaughterhouse, I don't have to but if it is the only job available to me I will have to face the consequences and starve. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Law is a reflection of morality - without morals, there is no law. Law exists to protect the weak.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And what does that have to do with morality? Law exists in to protect the rights of the people, except in 3rd world countries like Iran where psycho fundies run everything.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The morals of the country have dicated what the law is - and those morals say that prostitution is OK - as reflected in the law.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do they? Is there a statistical study out there that says "78% of germans think forcing women to be prostitutes is OK". Hell, could you even dredge up a statistic that says most germans beleve that prostitution is ok?
Seriously man, if laws were about morality then homosexuality would be illegal in The Judeo-Christian States of America. And it isn't (though you may want it to be). What does that tell you?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This womans morals are being trounced on. She says prostitution is not Ok and doesn't want to be one. The law is failing in protecting the weak (her) in that it penalizes her for not wanting to break her morals.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bah. People get penalized EVERY SINGLE DAY IN EVERY COUNTRY ON THE flipping PLANET for not wanting to break their morals. For instance, I don't think its right that I should have to pay taxes to our government that will be spent on military endeavers, but if I stop paying taxes then the government will hunt me down and do terrible things to me. Even jesus christ knew that law and morality were separate. He broke the law (following his morality) and accepted the consequences of his actions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Who ever thought that being more moral would be a bad thing? - yet that is what is being argued here.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
More moral and less moral are relative terms. For instance, I consider you to be about 50 rungs below me on the moral ladder. Probably you think differently. This woman isn't being more moral, she simply has morals that conflict with the law of her government. I'm not saying those laws are right, I'm just saying that it is **** to make this argument about morality because LAWS AND MORALS ARE SEPARATE ENTITIES.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->She should not be placed in a situation where she has to "face concequences" for not wanting to be a prostitute - especially government sanctioned concequences (cutting of benefits).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How so? Other people have to face the consequences for not wanting to do certain things. Why should she be any different? Look at abortion protesters (not doctor murders mind you), who cahin themselves to doors or other such things. They have to face the legal consequences for their moral choice, and they accept this.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The law is wrong as are the morals it reflects.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The law is wrong, I'll agree, but law has nothing to do with morality.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Working at a slaughterhouse and working as a prostitute are 2 totally different jobs. Being a slaughterhouse employee doesn't involve fornicating your own body.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, but it does involve murdering innocent animals. To me (not really, but for the sake of argument) that is far worse then whoring your own body.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So there you have it - no benefits for you unless you let desperate horny men grope you - So sayeth the govenment.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No benefits for you unless you brutally murder inncent animals. There is no real difference. In my example and in this real situation, a person followed their moral compass and had to face the consequences. Someone who truly believes in their morals should accept the consequences of their moral decisions, just like jesus.
If I remember correctly, when Jesus stood before Pontious Pilate, he stood there as a blameless man. Pontious even washed his hands clean from before the execution - a symbolic sign that he wanted nothing to do with it.
The only thing Jesus was "guilty" of was claiming he was God - and the only people he was "guilty" to are those who disagree with him. Beyond that, he has done nothing.
The closest comparison I could come up with is concientious objectors in the army - but even then they have a way out.
I hope you can see the difference between abortion protestors and this woman. They chain themselves to private property and prevent people from going to work (though I totally disagree with abortion) - and they do freely accept the concequences for thier actions - intentionally breaking the law so as to get their message across.
This woman failed to take a job working as a prostitute (which should be a good thing) and by doing so, she is getting her welfare funding cut. Hardly a win win situation.
I'll find statistics ffor you later
If I remember correctly, when Jesus stood before Pontious Pilate, he stood there as a blameless man. Pontious even washed his hands clean from before the execution - a symbolic sign that he wanted nothing to do with it.
The only thing Jesus was "guilty" of was claiming he was God - and the only people he was "guilty" to are those who disagree with him. Beyond that, he has done nothing.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It was a bad example, particularly because I'm not well versed in the lore. But the point was that jesus knew what his choices would lead to and followed his morality anyway, and accepted the consequences of his actions.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The closest comparison I could come up with is concientious objectors in the army - but even then they have a way out.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A way out with consequences. Here in the states those consequences are relatively few, but its not as though they don't exist.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I hope you can see the difference between abortion protestors and this woman. They chain themselves to private property and prevent people from going to work (though I totally disagree with abortion) - and they do freely accept the concequences for thier actions - intentionally breaking the law so as to get their message across.
This woman failed to take a job working as a prostitute (which should be a good thing) and by doing so, she is getting her welfare funding cut. Hardly a win win situation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree, but you're still missing the point of my argument. I'm not arguing that what the german government is doing here is right, I'm just saying that isn't about morality at all.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'll find statistics for you later<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you must, it is beside the point. You're claiming that the overall "morality" of the german public is enforced by law. I refuse to believe that law should enforce morality in any way. Law should be for protecting the rights of individuals. Legislating morality is something third world hellholes run by zealots do.
If law were about legislating morality, then why aren't we executing pedophiles? Why aren't we executing satanists?
And the legelisation was basically made to give prostitutes the option to force their employers into court.
And btw do you americans still have those silly laws, such as: You are not allowed to take an elephant into a public library and are you still executing people just to realize the moment it is too late....darn he was innocent.
And i found another one: America has the biggest porn industry in the world. Now thats a thing: We are against prostetution, but still we are the world leading porn producers. Strange?! Anyone?
Moral Relativism is the belief that morals are relative to the people applying them - be it location, or time. It is the reason why honor killings are OK in one country, and not OK in another.
It is also the reason why situations like this happen. 100 years ago, this would have been unheard of - but morals have changed in relation to the people - prostitution is no longer immoral in Germany because time has changed. That is Moral Relativity.
Contrast that with moral Absolutism: Prostitution is wrong all the time in all places.
I'm pretty sure I have a good Idea what I'm talking about - insulting the oppent doesn't make one right. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Moral Relativism is the belief that morals are relative to the people applying them - be it location, or time. It is the reason why honor killings are OK in one country, and not OK in another.
It is also the reason why situations like this happen. 100 years ago, this would have been unheard of - but morals have changed in relation to the people - prostitution is no longer immoral in Germany because time has changed. That is Moral Relativity.
Contrast that with moral Absolutism: Prostitution is wrong all the time in all places. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But that is exactly the sort of claim that was made by legalizing prostitution: that it shouldn't be punished, and indeed it was always wrong to punish women for it.
That's not moral relativism. Discarding old claimed morals as wrong or unworkable is not the same thing as morals are different society to society. Was the end of slavery moral relatavism? No, it was superior morals surplanting the inferior morals of the past.
If an absolute moral code exists, then an 'inferior moral code' is not inferior, it is immoral. The Absolute is just that, absolute. If you go against it, you're wrong. Simple as that.
Besides, from what perspective do you view morals as Inferior or Superior? If from your own, then you claim a relativistic perspective, simple as that. If from an outside, soverign, immoveable perspective, then you merely designate which moral system adheres to the Absolute the most. In effect, which one is less immoral.
If an absolute moral code exists, then an 'inferior moral code' is not inferior, it is immoral. The Absolute is just that, absolute. If you go against it, you're wrong. Simple as that.
Besides, from what perspective do you view morals as Inferior or Superior? If from your own, then you claim a relativistic perspective, simple as that. If from an outside, soverign, immoveable perspective, then you merely designate which moral system adheres to the Absolute the most. In effect, which one is less immoral. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The whole concept of a superior and inferior moral system simply screams moral relativism. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, only if you are totally ignorant of what moral relativism is, since it stands in stark contrast to such statements...
To say that some moral systems are superior to others is about as explicitly absolutist as one could possibly get, and as far away from relativism as one could get.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Besides, from what perspective do you view morals as Inferior or Superior? If from your own, then you claim a relativistic perspective, simple as that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All perspectives claim that they know the right answer: that's not relativism either.
There's really no end to the things you don't know, is there?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If from an outside, soverign, immoveable perspective, then you merely designate which moral system adheres to the Absolute the most. In effect, which one is less immoral.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is no "outside" perspective. That would be anathema to the very concept of a universal morality. There is only right or wrong.
If morals, indeed, do not have anything to do with the law, then when the law proscribes that you must do something that is against your morals, and threatens punishment (in this case, the withdrawal of benefits that would otherwise have been granted to this woman) - is that not legislating morality? Unfortunately it appears that separation of church and state has in fact led to a breach of separation of church and state. The funny thing is that if this were a law banning *** from recieving marriage benefits, you would be all over that; but when a woman doesn't want to prostitute herself, you're like "whatever, quit whining." As to the subject of moral relativity...I believe that's one of the underlying concepts of separating morality from laws.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There is no "outside" perspective. That would be anathema to the very concept of a universal morality. There is only right or wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Huh? I don't follow this. The outside perspective would be the universal morality...what are you talking about? And I don't think it would be anathema to universal morality. You mean it would be anathema to relative morality.
If morals, indeed, do not have anything to do with the law, then when the law proscribes that you must do something that is against your morals, and threatens punishment (in this case, the withdrawal of benefits that would otherwise have been granted to this woman) - is that not legislating morality? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. I don't see any logical link that would suggest that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Unfortunately it appears that separation of church and state has in fact led to a breach of separation of church and state.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How so? Is there a church involved here? Is religion involved here at all?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The funny thing is that if this were a law banning *** from recieving marriage benefits, you would be all over that; but when a woman doesn't want to prostitute herself, you're like "whatever, quit whining."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats not the case at all. You'd know this if you actually read my posts. I disagree with the law whole heartedly, my entire argument thusfar has been that morality has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand, because morality and law are two completely different things.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As to the subject of moral relativity...I believe that's one of the underlying concepts of separating morality from laws.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't see how this is so. But you don't use the term properly. To you, anything that isn't handed down by god is morally reletivistic.
I shudder to think what it would be like to live in this country (or any other for that matter) that enforced morality through law. I mean, christ, I violate christian moral code every flipping day. I'd have been executed long ago for sure if their bs "moraility" were enforced by law.
And i found another one: America has the biggest porn industry in the world. Now thats a thing: We are against prostetution, but still we are the world leading porn producers. Strange?! Anyone? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe because the citizens of a country aren't always properly represented by their government? Or perhaps because the minority of the populace of a country aren't the dominant world view of a population?
Just because the US has the largest porn industry in the world, doesn't mean everyone supports it; or works for it; or even knows about it. The US is probably one of the biggest drug importers too, but that doesn't mean someone's doing a line of crack in every bathroom.
Despite that; yes, some places still have obscene laws - just like some cities in Europe still have obscene laws. Generally they're a result of back scratching politicians, or they had a legitimate use in the past.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Law is a reflection of morality - without morals, there is no law. Law exists to protect the weak. The morals of the country have dicated what the law is - and those morals say that prostitution is OK - as reflected in the law. This womans morals are being trounced on. She says prostitution is not Ok and doesn't want to be one. The law is failing in protecting the weak (her) in that it penalizes her for not wanting to break her morals. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Without morals there is no life - it's just something that's inherent in life. A dog has 'morals' in the sense he knows that someone shouldn't kill their protecter [source of food and shelter], or run off [results in punishment, loss of shelter]; but they're all based off of experiences (because before that it's instinct - something humans have very little of). The same way a child shouldn't disobey their parents [source of food and shelter], or commit treason [results in punishment, loss of property/existence].
It just happens that many modern morals are developed from religion instead of base experiences. A dog needs to learn that attacking that 'tasty copper wire' results in injury, but humans get to read the sign that says "Danger: 10,000 Volts". It tends to happen that written morals are interpreted by everyone differently - or just ignored. Resulting in so many variations only the ambiguous values of the majority can be represented in law.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Law exists to protect the weak.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Law exists to create equality (though it fails quite often). Though it may seem this is akin to 'protecting the weak', many times a company is made stronger through law; even against a weaker opponent.
As abhorrent as this loophole combination of laws creates; if it''s a representation of what the majority of a country wanted it will stay (which it seems it will eventually be fixed if it's even a problem) - they could easily throw in an additional law like "Job centers cannot force, based on the applicants moral perceptions, immoral job requisites for benefits."
The initial post in this thread seems to point at some moral absolution where prostitution is blatantly immoral; and I've seen no evidence that it really is. However, most cultures consider using your body in work as a requirement immoral if it's forced (like being forced to be a model, or forced to play sports, or forced to prostitute).
Just because you don't like cannibalism doesn't mean the cannibals can't like it <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> .
(Although, I'm sure by some way of arguing, we could find that leading civilizations through history have supported at least similar ideals; like: not killing fellow citizens pointlessly, honor/sacrifice/glory through battle, money is good, power is good - even if they contradict your current beliefs.)
[edit]: missing one bracket
Anyway, I think I know where this is going. You're going to argue that the German law is completely wrong and illegal because the woman has a right not to be exploited for a living, and the government is infringing on that, and that morality has nothing to do with the law or the woman's rights.
My question is this: where did this right come from? As a citizen, you have certain civil duties, including, but not limited to, paying taxes. As such, since she recieves benefits from other people's paychecks. Therefore, if she isn't willing to put up with her end of the bargain, then the government has the prerogative to deny her rights. That's the whole point of citizenship. So, where is this "right" that you talk of? The various international treaties on human rights? Hogwash.
You have said in the past that we have rights because some politicians felt that we as civilized people ought to grant people basic "rights." I say that the definition of civilized people presupposes a certain set of morality (values, if you will), one which values the importance of human life and liberty. Whether or not you want to admit it, that in itself is a moral code. It could have just as easily been that a group of politicians got together and said "We, as civilized people, ought to deny people any rights at all except that which they earn and take by force. The poor bring down society; therefore we must promote the strong and dispose of the weak." You may disagree with that statement, but it's true. See, if the law had nothing to do with morality then that would mean that some other objective benchmark must be used to institute laws. You would point to the state's constitution. But there must be a basis for the constitution. I see four possible bases for the constitution: majority rule (popularity), populism(class), utilitarianism(gain/loss), and morality (right/wrong). Since you've argued that the point of the constitution is to protect the minority from the majority, we can rule out the first. Since there is no bias towards or against "the common man" in the constitution (barring stuff like lawyers, which only have to do with the execution and not intent of the law), we can throw out the second. The third isn't, afaik, used by anyone as a benchmark for legality. Thus it doesn't apply either. That leaves morality as the key underpinning.
After all, why would the drafters of the constitution do it unless they felt that it was somehow "right"? Isn't justice a moral value? And I don't think you would argue against justice being one of the key elements of the constitution.
To a degree, yes it is legistlating morality, if you mean that it happens to conflict with one of your moral guidelines. If by law, you are required to do something that you might feel to be immoral, then yes, by definition, that law has affected your personal moral code. Thoreau's <i> Civil Disobediance</i> is a great discourse upon the citizen's responsibility to make sure that their countries laws are moral.
However, there is a diffrence between laws that are moral, and laws that are emplaced to enforce morality. Laws that are moral are ones that fit within your moral system. However, just because that may happen to be the case with many laws, that does not mean that they were enacted specificaly for enforcing morality. A ban of murder for example, is to most people a moral law. Its main purpose, however, is not to tell you that murder is immoral. Its purpose is to protect people from being killed.
This may seem insulting simple, but one you get beyond simple examples people seem to have hard time making this distinction. A law, to use your example, that bans a group of people from marrige, (lets go back a few decades say interracial marrige to avoid treading on most current politcal/relgious views in this example) does not serve any protective purpose. It, instead would be designed to enforce one set of morals over another.
To me this is immoral, and as such I take Thoreau's example and oppose these laws. I would encourage you to take a simliar stand agaisnt laws that conflict with your moral code., even where it might conflict with mine.
However, be careful not to cross the boundry between opposing immoral laws, and using the law to force your morals on other people, remember the diffrence between a moral law, and a law to enforce morals.
Anyway, I think I know where this is going. You're going to argue that the German law is completely wrong and illegal because the woman has a right not to be exploited for a living, and the government is infringing on that, and that morality has nothing to do with the law or the woman's rights. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
pretty close. I would say she has the right to not work in such a dangerous work environment.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->My question is this: where did this right come from? As a citizen, you have certain civil duties, including, but not limited to, paying taxes. As such, since she recieves benefits from other people's paychecks. Therefore, if she isn't willing to put up with her end of the bargain, then the government has the prerogative to deny her rights. That's the whole point of citizenship. So, where is this "right" that you talk of? The various international treaties on human rights? Hogwash. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know about you, but I believe that all human beings are entitled to certain inaliable rights, and that it needs to be this way for modern society to achieve progress. Just because the German government might disagree with me wouldn't mean that she doesn't have that right.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You have said in the past that we have rights because some politicians felt that we as civilized people ought to grant people basic "rights."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, this is why we have rights in a literal sense.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I say that the definition of civilized people presupposes a certain set of morality (values, if you will), one which values the importance of human life and liberty. Whether or not you want to admit it, that in itself is a moral code.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I wouldn't say that it is nessesary for "civilized" society, but more that it is nessesary for societies that wish to progress, technologically or in thier ideas. No moral code is required, mearly a set of rules designed to protect certain rights and enable the society to progress.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It could have just as easily been that a group of politicians got together and said "We, as civilized people, ought to deny people any rights at all except that which they earn and take by force. The poor bring down society; therefore we must promote the strong and dispose of the weak." You may disagree with that statement, but it's true.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To a point yes. Ultimately, however, that society would either stagnate and eventually be taken over by a more "freedom" oriented one, or it would erupt into chaos and revolution until a more "free" society was formed.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->See, if the law had nothing to do with morality then that would mean that some other objective benchmark must be used to institute laws. You would point to the state's constitution. But there must be a basis for the constitution.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is, and I've given it to you.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I see four possible bases for the constitution: majority rule (popularity)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If we wanted the majority to rule, we wouldn't need a constitution to protect rights.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->populism(class)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->utilitarianism(gain/loss)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bingo.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->and morality (right/wrong)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If it were based on morality, then whos morality? The public's as a whole? If thats true then it is tyrany by majority, see possibility number 1.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Since you've argued that the point of the constitution is to protect the minority from the majority, we can rule out the first. Since there is no bias towards or against "the common man" in the constitution (barring stuff like lawyers, which only have to do with the execution and not intent of the law), we can throw out the second. The third isn't, afaik, used by anyone as a benchmark for legality Thus it doesn't apply either.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here you are wrong. I submit that a society can only really progress when it is free, and that is why the base rights are important. Law is built around these base rights because they are the best way society can progress. So it is abstracted a little, but yes, law is ultimately based on utilitarianism.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That leaves morality as the key underpinning.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not at all.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->After all, why would the drafters of the constitution do it unless they felt that it was somehow "right"?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That may have been the original reason, however it is not nessesary to share their moral viewpoint to understand the importance of civil rights.
You already defined it just fine: the idea that morality is relative to different times and cultures. The problem is that is the implication that it is at work here, which is false. The people who worked to make prostitution legal did so not because they thought anything should go, but because they thought it was the right thing to do. You may disagree, but that's a moral argument, not an argument of moral relatavism.
More to the point, why are people entitled to inalienable rights? Because they're human? What makes humanity so special, then? What defines the "progress of ideas"? Just to be constantly different than we were before? I think that would be ridiculous, since judges refer to legal precedent all the time. There certainly is no progress in that. Why is progress to be valued over the status quo? It would be a lot easier to respond to you if you defined your terms.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That may have been the original reason, however it is not nessesary to share their moral viewpoint to understand the importance of civil rights.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh? I posit that it requires *a* moral viewpoint to understand the importance of civil rights.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The people who worked to make prostitution legal did so not because they thought anything should go, but because they thought it was the right thing to do. You may disagree, but that's a moral argument, not an argument of moral relatavism<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know if I agree. I believe that the reason it was legalized was that, in the eyes of the legislators, "civil rights" were more important than individual morals. That in itself, of course, is a moral statement. However, the fact is that it probably wasn't even an issue until significant amounts of people started feeling that it ought to be legalized, which inherently implies some sort of moral relativism. I'd have to see the actual wording of the law to come to any conclusion.
All of the above. Ultimately, every factor of human society is progressed through freedom.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Obviously the fact that flag-burning is still legal is a very strong case that utility is not a valid basis for law.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What does flag burning have to do with anything? (Besides which, flag burning is still legal because it is actually considered the only propor way to dispose of a flag).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->More to the point, why are people entitled to inalienable rights? Because they're human? What makes humanity so special, then? What defines the "progress of ideas"?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you read what I write? I already explained why we are "entitled" to inalienable rights. And it only applies to humans currently for the same reason it only applied to whites 100 years ago.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just to be constantly different than we were before? I think that would be ridiculous, since judges refer to legal precedent all the time.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It isn't about being different then we were before, its about being better. Its about higher quality of life for as many people as we can get it to. Its about not letting tired old ideas stand in the way of understanding the universe better.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There certainly is no progress in that. Why is progress to be valued over the status quo?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because keeping things the same causes stagnation. Not to mention that the status quo is still sorely lacking in the ability to bring contentment to people.
Whats your next argument wheee? "Why do the people deserve to be content?" "Define higher quality of life?" ect.
You know, I'm not even arguing from my own beliefs at this point, I began a separate arguement in the last post just so I could further separate morality and the law. I only continue to argue it because your arguments **** me off so much with their lack of actual content.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That may have been the original reason, however it is not nessesary to share their moral viewpoint to understand the importance of civil rights.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh? I posit that it requires *a* moral viewpoint to understand the importance of civil rights.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You point being? That morals are still somehwere way down the line, so law actually does exist to enforce morality? Thats like saying that the bible exists to be written on paper.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The people who worked to make prostitution legal did so not because they thought anything should go, but because they thought it was the right thing to do. You may disagree, but that's a moral argument, not an argument of moral relatavism<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't know if I agree. I believe that the reason it was legalized was that, in the eyes of the legislators, "civil rights" were more important than individual morals.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What are you smoking? Civil liberties includes being able to define your own set of morals.
Alright, let me try and understand your argument for a second, from the begining.
Laws enforce morality because long long ago, when the bill of rights was written, its writers made a moral judgement. Is this correct? Because it doesn't make any sense.
Ok nevermind this string of argumentation because it is entirely beside the point. The original point, is that this woman's crisis has nothing to do with moral relativism. She has her opinion of what is right and wrong, the state has theirs, they conflict. Thats Absolutism. Each believes that their version is the one true right version (yes I know, I'm anthropomorphising the state for the sake of argument).
Moral relativism is sitting on the sidelines watching this and saying "I can understand how each could be right, from their own perspective". So thats kind of a simplification but you get the idea.
But, as I have maintained, the law isn't making a moral judgement, its making a logical judgement based on earlier judgements that date back to... whatever the german version of the bill of rights is.