Philosophy Alert: Laws, moral, immoral, or amoral?

[El Vez]

Bobster-

Well yes, it was a stunted segment due to O'Reilly's belligerence but it was still pretty obvious who had more information to impart.

My girlfriend loved Zinn's You Can't Be Neutral On A Moving Train. I haven't had a chance to read it yet, have you? What's your take on Zinn and Chomsky? I'm not familiar with the camp you identify yourself with.

For some reason, all of the discussion on this thread reminds me of an ethics class I took in college. I had a very interesting professor (all of the philosophy professors were worthwhile at Auburn, actually) who spent a great deal of our time in class discussing Kant and Rand. She was dismissive of both in many respects, but she especially regarded Kant's views as impossible in the world we live in. According to Kant, if a deranged man came to Noiseradio's door with the intent to inflict violence on his wife and asked Noise where his wife was so he could do so, Noiseradio would HAVE to truthfully disclose where she was. Compared to that, even the most blatantly selfish example of Rand's ethical egoism looks pretty good.

[bobster]

El Vez --

RE: The Leftwing U.S. foreign pollicy split. I hesitate to start this, but here we go.

To answer your question, I have only read the occasional op-ed pieces by all these folks. (I really do need to read Zinn's American history book and probably Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent" which are both still universally pretty highly regarded on the left hand side of the spectrum.)

Basically, there's two schools (which I described above somewhat glibly -- I edited it, so you may not have read what's there now).

Frankly, I think Chomsky, Zinn and many others have gone off the deep end and are in permanent "blame America" mode, no matter the circumstances. Noam Chomsky's 9/11 op-ed piece, for example, discussed our involvement in foisting the monstrous dictator Augusto Pinochet on Chile as part of the pattern of U.S. blamefullness during the Nixon Adminstration. Believe me when I say that, as horrible as it was, what we did in Chile was the furthest thing from Osama's mind when he started his little band of merry millenialist mass murderers.

To me, this chain of reasoning means that we should not have got involved in World War II even after Pearl Harbor because, after all, the geninely horrendous Treaty of Versailles and was partly our fault.

Even if you are partly responsible for the creation of monster (as was the case both with Hitler and Al Queada), that doesn't mean you don't have the right, or even the duty, to fight back against it once it becomes a clear danger. Actually, Zinn strikes me as a more of a straight ahead all-outpacifist, which is a position I respect but simply can't buy. Nonviolence can work against a repressive democracy, but not against a tyrant. (It's based on inflicting guilt on your opponent --how you can inflict guilt if no one under the oppessor's grip ever hears about your courageous acts passive resistance?)

Marc Cooper, an L.A. based writer who as it happens, made his bones as a translator for Chile's Salvador Allende, and David Corn, an editor for the Nation, have both published articles in the L.A. Weekly and I'm sure elsewhere highly critical of certain elements of the antiwar movement (mainly International ANSWER, which has some connections with ultra-left Communist and Maoist groups), while applauding other, smaller groups opposed to the war, without the Anarchist/neo-Stalinist trappings.

In particular, Corn has taken on the involvement of Ramsey Clark (a near holy figure to many) who almost seemed to take Saddam Hussein's side and has also been Slobodon Milosevich's defending attorney in the ongoing war crimes trial in the Hague.

Both Corn and Cooper were in favor of attacking Al Queada in Afganistan -- though not neccessarily of the indiscriminate, Rumsfeldian manner in which the war was prosecuted -- but were also against the war in Iraq, putting them at odds with the formerly quite radical writer Christopher Hitchens, who got in touch with his inner warrior after 9/11 and hasn't let go, so staunch a supporter of the war in Iraq that he quit The Nation rather than hang around with peaceniks anymore.

Actually, by far my favorite political writer is Molly Ivins. Love her no-nonsense Texas wit and praticality! (She was pretty much in the Corn and Cooper camp, but was a lot funnier and less combative.)

It's all quite complicated. <Sigh>

RE: Philosophy class. Don't know much anything about Kant -- and everything I know about Ayn Rand is second hand or from watching her (unintentionally) hilarious screenplay for King Vidor's hysterical 1940's movie of "The Fountainhead. " Yep, altruism is the route of all evil. Makes sense to me (he said, oozing sarcasm).

[El Vez]

Thanks for the lowdown, Bobster! I'm glad this computer has finally stopped spazzing on me enough so I could get back to the board.

I love Molly Ivins! Shrub: The Short But Happy Political Life of George W. Bush rarely left my side during my senior year at Auburn. Wonderful, wonderful book.

The Treaty of Versailles. That's one I am still torn on. If Germany had not been bent over the proverbial woodshed so bad that the barrels Germans used to carry thousands of deutchmarks in were more valuable than the currency itself then someone like Hitler would have never risen to the top of the poltical foodchain. At least that's my opinion. Granted, the U.S. was hardly the main bastard involved with how that treaty turned out. Still, I think that World War II was signed, sealed and delivered when Germany's economy got mutilated after the first world war.

As far as Ayn Rand's script for a certain Gary Cooper vehicle.....man, that was a giant turd wasn't it?

[bobster]

Well, I've never heard anyone argue that the treaty DIDN'T help Hitler rise to power. Back when I was studying it, I was pretty convinced that the treaty -- and the horrible economy it engendered pretty much fertillized the soil so that Nazism could take root, and nothing I've heard or seen since argues against that. It's just something many folks prefer not to remember. But, yes, the U.S. wasn't the prime mover on that one, that was the other allies. (See, we're not the worst country in the world all the damn time!)

Re: "The Fountainhead" -- gotta love the symbolism of the Gary Cooper taking the jackhammer to the brick wall, whilst the frigid Patricia Neal looks on, hot and bothered. And what about the all-powerful evil-communist architecture critic! (Yep, we need more critics as supervillains!)

[lipstickvogue]

First, I must admit that, much fun as I am having reading both of your posts, I am far too intimidated to chime in. I finally read Shrub this year (I had already gleefully voted against) but completely adored Ms. Ivins writing!

Here's a semi-on-topic funny secret; I didn't like any of the boys in Jr. High because none were Howard Roark enough for me.


& wasn't it C. Hitchens who wrote that fab book about Orwell?

[bambooneedle]

A law isn't an endorsement of a moral stand. They're only made by governments under pressure exerted from a large enough part of the populace having the power to throw them out if it wasn't made. The laws are just the result of the expression of any majority for a short period of time.

Are you saying that only democracies have laws?

No, could have clarified as much... wasn't thinking that.


How exactly would one go about making a law on an amoral basis?

Anyone think not everyone is a moralist?

[A rope leash]

Many lawyers are taught an amoral philosophy. This allows them to defend the rotten and still sleep at night.

[bambooneedle]

Wouldn't that be immoral then, to defend the rotten etc?

Having an amoral an attitude as possible is necessary to not let emotion cloud an issue, to see things as objectively as you can, like.. say you were a judge. In the end they can more fairly apply the power vested in them in their verdict. This brings up the idea of the law acting as impersonal (non-judgmental*), or as judgmental punisher... and how the limitations of applying common religion based morality paradigms are immediately obvious. I don't know that religions/the religious should feel too proud with regards to influencing the law. Radically different approaches are waiting to be tried, as soon as old thinking dies and they are applicable.

* Well, at least as free as possible from pre-judging or being prejudiced to begin with... making an appropriate decision dispassionately.

[noiseradio]

Having grown up in a family of lawyers, let me tell you that the "amoral philosophy" is bullshit. Lawyers don't think so, but I do. A defense attorney must defend his client, even if he knows that the client is dead guilty. And if you want to see moral outrage from a defense attorney, just suggest the contrary. They consider it a moral imperative to do so.

I think that's really funny.




But I'd like to get back to the main question of this thread. Can you really think of any law which does come from some moral stand on an issue?

[LessThanZero]

But I'd like to get back to the main question of this thread. Can you really think of any law which does come from some moral stand on an issue?

Ummm....homicide? Thou shalt not?

[lipstickvogue]

In Indiana there is an old law still on the books which makes it illegal carry an ice cream cone in one's back pocket...

[HungupStrungup]

In Indiana there is an old law still on the books which makes it illegal carry an ice cream cone in one's back pocket...

I think that came from the Beatitudes.

[lipstickvogue]

I'm not sure about Beatitudes; I believe that it was Luke who was lactose-intolerant, wasn't it?

[bambooneedle]

But I'd like to get back to the main question of this thread. Can you really think of any law which does come from some moral stand on an issue?

Yes. Come on noise, I'm starting to feel jerked around... what's the significance of this question to you?

[bobster]

As I said above, I can think of tons of laws, both "good" and "bad," that come from moral stands -- both ones I agree with and ones I disagree with -- though I prefer the principles based more on not interfering with the rights of others rather than "morality", which is based largely on things unseen and therefore hard to quantify.

Here are some examples: laws against abortion and/or birth control, laws against slavery (well, there was a small war over the matter too), laws against bigamy, adultery, child labor, fornication, murder, theivery. Even the racist/classist oversized penalties for crack possession come from someone's idea of morality. That's why I'm not crazy about it.

And, I've gotta say, I do think it's important part of this question to realize that guilty people also need to have defense attorneys. Without them, the entire system comes crumbling down. (I go ballistic every time I hear some rightwinger say such-and-such right of the accussed is there to protect "criminals", "terrorists" or what have you. It's like no one gets the idea of the presumption of innocence. Without it, EVERYONE's a crook once someone points the finger.

If I was a lawyer, I'd have absolutely no problem, at least in theory, defending anyone I thought was probably guilty (you're never really supposed to "know" -- once they confess to youyou can't subborn perjury and have to advise them to confess to authorities).

It's kind of ironic, but the Johnnie Cochran's of the world are, in a way, doing what I'll call for lack of a better term, "the Lord's work." The only thing that makes it ironic and makes Cochran something other than a hero, is that the quality of the defense you get is based on how much money you have. If O.J. were a teacher, he'd be in prison today -- even if he was, like O.J. a guilty man who'd possibly been framed. Now THERE's a moral problem!

[bobster]

Woops -- accidental double post. (Don't know why that "delete" button seems to appear and dissappear at random.)

[noiseradio]

Yes. Come on noise, I'm starting to feel jerked around... what's the significance of this question to you?

Sorry, I went out of town for a few days. Not trying to jerk anyone around.

The significance of the question is that I hear people say things like "you can't legislate morality" ot "it's fine if you believe such-and-such, but your beliefs have no place in our laws," etc. And I think those are intellectually dishonest statements. All legislation is inextricably tied to morality, in my opinion. We make laws so that people will be forced to act or forced to refrain from acting a certain way precicely because of the sense of right and wrong of the lawmaker(s). We ended segregation in the US because we thought it was morally wrong for a part of our population to be treated s o unfairly. The Jim Crow laws were in place because their proponents felt it to be morally wrong for races to mix. Now both sets of morals are at odds, but both are sets of morals. I'm not talking about moral absolutes here, as in that which has been handed down from on high. But I maintain that laws are an expression of someone's moral code, from Hammurabi to 2003.

So why do people expect laws which govern people to be amoral if people are not amoral. Not talking about religion here. As several have mentioned, there are plenty of terribly moral atheists out there. The statement which prompted this line of thinking for me was something I heard someone say at work. It was along the lines that the President should keep his personal beliefs personal and leave them out of his decision making as he leads the nation. It made me wonder if any president, legislator, justice, etc. could fairly be asked to leave his/her sense of morality at home when doing their job. Issues come up that have to be dealt with, and morality is the basis of the decision-making. There's an AIDS epidemic in Africa; we have a moral obligation to fund research and send help. From an amoral standpoint, we have little to gain from such an expenditure, so we shouldn't do it. But no one cries foul when the administration pledges $15 billion in aid for Africa. (Except perhaps to say that $15 bilion is a pitifully low amount). If the decision to send aid is based on compassion, it's being done for moral reasons--the golden rule or some other such set of ethical guidelines. Why is that acceptable, but other expressions of legality that stem from positions of morality are not?

I'm not trying to convince anyone on any particular issue. I just wonder why the red flag goes up for some issues and not others. Perhaps it is a case of insulting my mother; I can do it, but if you say anything, I'll beat you down. In this case, as long as the moral system from which the law springs is in accord with my own, I won't fuss. But if it counters mine, it's a violation of the church/state separation.

And so my mind rambles on....

[A rope leash]

That money for Africa has a lot of strings attached, one of which is that the recipients not stand in the way of our "war on terrorism". Soon, we will have more military bases in the region. It's strategic, disguised as moral.

I'm finally getting my brain around this. Most laws are designed to keep order, or to regulate. There may be a moral basis for them, but most laws are passed out of either common sense or a sense of selfishness. Most of the laws that effect the average person are designed to protect the average person. Then there are the "tiny" laws that do not directly effect most people, and many of these are designed to protect the interests of business.

While morality may have some impact, the passing of a particular law has more to do with what effect it will have on the careers of the legislators that vote on it. They cannot be pissing off the electorate on a regular basis.

[noiseradio]

Rope,

I wasn't meaning to praise the merits of the African aid package. I'm sure it's loaded in our favor, whatever help it may provide. I only used it as an example of a less controversial topic than gay marriage or abortion. There are so many supercharged feelings about those issues that a discussion of the merits of any related legislation is doomed from the outset in most settings. Pick another act of goodwill or compassion-oriented bill if the Africa aid package seems a poor example. By the way, I agree that it's strategic. I don't think that it ceases to be a moral issue, though. For many (and certainly this administration), national security or even international dominance is considered the right thing to do. I've heard higher ups in the last several administrations insist that some proposed or recently enacted military activity was not just a practical matter, but was an act of rightness itself. During the cold war, all those military bases and troop deployments were to "keep the world safe for democracy," which was absolutely a moral cause. (Please don't read me wrong. Not my moral cause, theirs).

I think you've hit the nail squartely on the head in regard to the prime motivation of legislators--not pissing off the constituency. But even if that's the case, that means laws in this country find their genesis in the morals of the masses. Or at least the morals of the highly influential businesses who have legislators in their pockets. When a prime cut of pork barrel gets passed, the lawmaker may not have a moral stand on the issue, but you can bet that the NRA, NOW, the AFL-CIO, or whatever PAC committee is backing the bil considers it a matter of great moral significance. So whther directly or indirectly, the law reflects the moral stance of someone.

I think when people say "he should leave his personal beliefs out of it; this is about democracy, not his personal morals," what they really mean is "his personal beliefs don't agree with mine on this issue, so he should levae them out of this particular bit of legislation." And while I have felt the same way many many times, I still think it's intellectually dishonest.

[HungupStrungup]

Just lie back on the couch and tell me, when was it that you developed this habit of insulting your mother?

[noiseradio]

When I was ten years old, we had an uncle come to visit...

[tokyo vogue]

my problem isn't so much that laws are based on religious morality, it's that a lot of laws are based on *conservative Christian* morality. most every religreligionion agrees that crimes with victims are bad things. it's the "lifestyle" laws that are the problem. without conservative religion, there is no argument against consensual gay sex. none. you want to talk about what a sin it is, fine, but don't make it a law.



grr.


on a happier title, i've decided that "Boo" by Pinback is the best song ever. thank you.

[bambooneedle]

A pet hate of mine is when polititians, radio commentators etc (and no less just people in general) say, "all those people just go along with that -- 17 year old girls having abortions, big age differences in relationships, or whatever -- because it's 'politically correct' not to oppose it. Inference: so I'm being such a hero for copping all this criticism for being 'politically incorrect'. They fuss about what is supposed to be pc or pi (so innocently ), but how do they know what is so officially pc or pi? Did somebody tell them? ....It's such a bullshit term.