Does the law assume there's such thing as Absolute Morality?

[TheHellDevil]

I'm talking more about the law in theory than in practicum here. I've asked the same question in other guilds but they kind of went off tangent so here's hoping that I'll do a better job of explaining myself this time around.

Absolute Morality, as in there's a fixed set of rules that we may/may not already know. Any action that is not within the boundaries of Absolute Morality is considered immoral.

And mind you, I'm no lawyer and I actually know very little about the law or theory of law. I've been reading a bit of Beccaria and it's piqued my curiosity... so here goes:

Does the law assume there's Absolute Morality? And if so, is it trying place it in words so that it could be followed?  

[bluecherry]

I think kind of, but only to a very limited extent. The law is, in theory, just supposed to be there to keep other people from violating your rights through force or fraud because that's the only way our society can really get along and make any kind of progress in the first place. From there, whatever you do is your responsibility, moral or immoral, and you reap the benefits or the detriments of your decisions. The law doesn't allow (in theory) a relatively small number of choices for people to make in order to open the door for a much larger range of choices to be possible to people. Some things are declared immoral across the board for everybody so that more of a range in the exercise of personal decisions on morality are possible to people.

 

[Sage of Faith]

I know it's been over a year and a half since anyone has posted anything here, whatever. The law as a theory presupposes the existence of values, that is to say, the inherent worth or merit of a particular thing/action/situation. Needless to say, the law is there, at the very least, to protect us, and that in itself presupposes that we are worth protecting. But for any law to be actually obligatory, it has to derive its authority from some absolute source, otherwise the rule of law is reduced to nothing more than the guy with the bigger stick telling you what to do. If you suppose that the law is the latter only, then the implication is that law has no actual authority from anywhere. If you accept the former, then the implication is that human law must derive its authority from and conform to Natural Law, which refers to those moral standards that be understood through reason. In short, Natural Law would actually include an acknowledgment of the existence of God, from whom all morality is necessarily rooted. So in short, if you accept that the law in general is something to be followed, and not just because the police will get you if you don't, then that necessarily implies morality. Otherwise, you're either in the strange position of defending morals yet denying human law, or you would have to deny morals altogether.  

[bluecherry]

Properly, the government should not be one and the same as a literal morality police. They should only enforce one aspect of morality - forbidding the initiation of force or fraud - and aside from that we can pretty much do as we will, act on our own judgments. Additionally though, morality can be absolute without being related to anything mystical like a deity. Anything moral based of the simple nature of reality is a non-mystical moral absolute and not just about who has a bigger stick either. For example, if your aim is to stay alive as a human being, then you should not generally be stabbing yourself with rusty knives. That's not something I'm saying should be a law - that you shouldn't be allowed to stab yourself with rusty knives - but it is something in the way of what you should or shouldn't do based on facts of nature. How you get from facts of nature to making the initiation of force or fraud to be something private citizens shouldn't be allowed to do to each other is a longer explanation, but if you want to hear it and ask I suppose I could give some more explanation for that specifically.

 

[MemorysGalleySlave]

Hiya! Now to play a bit of devil's advocate (in the sense that morality is something existant), why not approach morality as something that of an illusion? A something that lingers in the minds of many, however does not always govern the actions of others. Morality is merely an illusion one indulges themselves in to give a false meaning of existance, just as some believe a dream can be a message from an unseen being. Rather viewing morality as law, but view it as an illusion created by the human psyche to make one feel human. If one were to carry a mass genocide without feeling righteous or guilty, would that person be considered human? The illusion of morality is gone from the one being, so is that being human any more?
Regardless of the police or any type of physical being enforcing laws such as do not murder, steal, etc., their purpose for maintaining law can be meaningless if morality altogether is an illusion.
(Awesome thread, haven't been on for 2 years ^_^)  

[bluecherry]

MemorysGalleySlave

[W]hy not approach morality as something that of an illusion?

Because given that I follow a code of morality that is based on being a guidance of how I can live as long and well as possible, dropping all concern for morality and acting like it is all fake could get me killed. ;o

 

[MemorysGalleySlave]

bluecherry

MemorysGalleySlave

[W]hy not approach morality as something that of an illusion?

Because given that I follow a code of morality that is based on being a guidance of how I can live as long and well as possible, dropping all concern for morality and acting like it is all fake could get me killed. ;o

Hah, I'm playing devil's advocate, meaning I do not believe what I am saying but chose to acknowledge an opinion other than my own. Also, continuing the fun little role, isn't there a difference in what you said?
You wish to live long and well, two different aspects. Living well would fall under the category of morality, for you would find a meaningful enjoyment, satification, or contentment in your life, thus connecting to human emotion to morality. You would be finding something real in your life that is fulfilling.
However, living long can still be achieved without morality. There are people in this world that deserve to be acknowledge dispite what they are, the amoral. Amoral is one who does not understand morality, as in, morality is non-existant in their lives. A mass murderer can live long if he/she succeeds in not getting caught, all morality going to hell.
Personally, I believe in reasoning vs. human emotions. I believe that sometimes, there will be situations present in life that challenges your emotions against logic, but whether which choice is correct or right is up to the individual. I do not believe that morality is a law unless I chose to make it law, interesting concept eh? Anyways, think of it this way, A place you do not wish to be in but are forced to, that is a cage yes? Now imagine the same place, but instead you desire to be in that place. Now it is your fortress.
Same applies to morality and it's hold over one's self. It only has the hold if one chooses it to.  

[bluecherry]

Nope. You misunderstand me. Living long and living well are not two fundamentally different things for me. The system of morality I live by is based upon examining reality and what I am as an individual human being and then figuring out based on that how to get the most out of it. If I'm doing well in what I need to live long, the result is happiness. I can't get one without the other, they are inextricably linked through cause and effect. I won't be happy in the face of imminent destruction, but nor will I be happy for long just barely squeaking by in a very poor state even if it would get me more time alive at that low quality (like say I was diseased in a way that there was pretty much no hope of recovery and I was just in constant agony. At that point I'm in such a state of decay as opposed to flourishing and successful living with no chance to change that that I'd say it had reached the point to call it quits still.) So, there is far from any fundamental conflict possible here. The two things are fundamentally working together. So, again, acting like morality is just an illusion is a recipe for misery and death for me. Do not want razz

 

[MemorysGalleySlave]

ah, this concept is too much fun ^_^. anyways, I did not mean for you to think I was trying to say that you believe the two are different, so apology for miscommunication. Damn, I can't spell XD.
Anyways, sometimes just living a short life is enough. I'm 18, and I've went through child abuse from ages 5-13. Still struggle with the scars, but I have more or less allowed myself to heal. My life was a living hell, but now, I admit, I can't hate my past. Part of it included nearly killing another child because a small remark broke my bottled up emotions over those 8 years. I look at myself now and compare to who I was, and say that I am content. To me, I've lived well, yes, but not long. Yet, I wouldn't mind if my life ended. I haven't lived long but I have lived well, so there is a difference.

Also, remember, there literally are people who are amoral, a term for people who have absolutely no feeling of morality. They cannot tell murder is idealistically wrong, but the same goes for being unable to tell if giving money to the poor is a good thing. I have met these kind of people, and trust me, these kind of conversations end with a brick wall. Yet I have met and read reports on these people who have lived their life, feeling content. Interestingly and oddly, there is a difference between amoral and not feeling emotions, kind of makes you think, eh?

I do think though that your opinion brings up and interesting unionson of things I usually don't think can be connected. Though, I do think you are touching into the concept of people's, excuse me, persons' view of how content and fulfilled their lives are. So, does my opinion, which would make are opinions subjective. Anyways, fun discussing this with you, definitely is fun ^_^  

[bluecherry]

A lot has been really great in my life though I am still relatively young too. However, if things are going so well and I can expect them to keep going well on average for a long time, I would only see that as a good thing and want to keep going on, to want more of it. I'd be vehemently opposed to the proposition of just quitting on such a great thing. Part of what has made much of the time so good is the security in the knowledge that how I'm going along is on a good track to keep going well for a long, long time to come. Had I known for the past month I was going to die tomorrow for example, that last month would have been FAR worse of an experience for me. It would change my whole attitude about the time.

You can say when you are young that you are "livING" well, largely because you are on the right path to go on being well for a long, long time to come. At the end of that long, long time, you can say you have "livED" well when you are dying. If through no fault of your own you die young, you may have still lived well, but I think as you know you are dying it would still change your view of past events, especially what you've done with the recent past. However, if you die young through your own fault, it is probably because you were not living well.

Morality also is not a feeling. Morality is a system and code sort of of ideas. Lacking the ability to feel may make it much harder to grasp and stick to a code of morality though, that I will agree. It is more challenging though as opposed to just impossible for the same reason somebody who is unable to feel physical pain may have a harder time taking care of their physical health. Emotions act like an assessment of your quality of life and what things mean to you much like physical sensations give you a status report on how your physical health is and what those stimuli mean for the health of your body. If somebody can't feel physical pain, they may see they've been cut and are bleeding and know that is dangerous for them and go get the wound disinfected, sewn up, and covered to heal up. However, sometimes they may not realize just how badly they are hurt and how dangerous something is without the physical pain, especially less obvious things like internal injuries, so they may not get injuries or illness treated in time. Similarly for somebody who can't feel much emotionally, they may know what they need to do to take care of their life, but they are missing out on something which helps keep giving them that status report and reinforcing for them how serious various things may or may not be according to their standards, so they may more easily end up neglecting less obvious threats to their life, like not having a sense of fear or worry help in compelling them to hurry up and take care of those bills before they end up on the streets for example perhaps.

Now, I don't think one needs to just go on some kind of "gut" reaction to tell why murder is wrong, so I don't think you need to worry about every and any person who doesn't feel sympathetic toward you killing you. Murdering other people is just not in one's long term best interests for reasons other than simply that it may make somebody feel bad. Aside from the obvious fact that you could get thrown in prison maybe for life, maybe killed in prison, maybe given the death penalty, murdering people is in conflict with the principle of the right to life. If you don't recognize the right to life of other innocent people, then on what basis do you believe anybody else should not just kill you? Now as for giving money to the poor, that's a very contextual, case by case basis. Giving money to a kid who grew up a poor orphan who seems to be brilliant and would make for a good record of a student attending your college? Good idea, you both are better off for it. Giving money to a poor bum who squandered all their money, never worked, and was a real crook who is only going to use it to get more alcohol and ruin their liver even worse? Bad idea, this just hurts you both.

Now, what you speak of as "amoral" actually doesn't really sound so much to me as somebody incapable of any kind of emotions, nor actually somebody with no sense of morality. What it sounds like to me is that you may have just run into another ridiculous nihilist, more specifically, probably a variant of a moral nihilist. I say "ridiculous" here because indeed, I find this person probably is worthy of ridicule, as chances are you probably came across somebody who just thinks it is cool and fun to say this kind of stuff because it goes against the grain while they don't even have a very good grasp of nihilism and its foundations at all and haven't done too much to try to examine it. Given that this is probably coming from somebody who likely isn't prone to giving serious thought to this stuff in the first place, no surprise they don't budge no matter what anybody says, because they probably aren't very interested in listening anyway so much as just showing off their fashionable non-conformism. Although, I will say, if nobody else gives good arguments against them even either (entirely possible if all the other side is doing is appealing to their feelings and peer pressure) then the issue may not be so much that they are a brick wall perhaps as it is that the other side just really has poor arguments. To point out again though why I think being a nihilist is worthy of ridicule, as I've mentioned, I follow a code of morality based upon advancing the quality and quantity of my life overall based on the nature of myself and the situation I live in and like I said earlier, paying no attention to morality in that case is just a way to get yourself hurt, especially in the long run. Moral nihilism is against one's best interests, these people are hurting themselves.

 

[MemorysGalleySlave]

Now we travel into the individual's belief/meaning/value of life. I do agree that yes, I am right now, currently, livING well, that doesn't mean I cannot claimed that I have livED well. Although my point of view of my life differs from (based on what I have seen thus far) many people consider my view unbelievable. I do agree, continuing to live would be nice, but I am also content if I were to die by not my own hands. Now, I am not saying that I yearn for death or that I view life unvaluable, but rather, that I have accepted and taken to heart that yes, I shall die, that yes, I will die by god knows what. But because of the fact I have accepted and taken to heart that my death shall come, be it by whatever means, I view each moment I live only more valuble, and I will not (if the spiritual world exists) weep or groan over my death. I can see that yes, a young person who is told that they have a limited time of life, it would badly hamper someone's view on their time left doesn't mean their life is now going to end unlived. Rather, an exchange of view. As a great man said, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, I believe that once you have chosen to accept death (I don't mean kill yourself), death is not a fearful or hampering thing. Rather, it will allow you freedom, freedom to look at life in a different perspective, to allow one to truly fulfill or have a taste of dreams, joy, a sense of something "real" within. Then, rather than looking at the events they will not be able to do or the time they cannot have, every moment that the person has spent becomes more valuble, that the person will die in a way I'm sure every human wouldn't mind dying, with a smile, remembering something, embracing that last feeling they were gifted with, that warming feeling, would be dying happy.

Back onto the topic of morality, I view it not as a system and code that a mass should follow, but rather, an individual decides upon his/herself. What one sees as murder, I see as a cry, a shout. Murder, in definition accepted by masses, means the act of killing with the intension of killing said victim (and fun fact: name of a flock of crows, weird huh?). I do agree that the act of killing in itself is negative, something had to have pushed the person to preform "murder". Man Slaughter is completely different, the universally accepted term meaning the simple act of killing, without intension towards the victim. This mean I kill by accident, some psychological disorder in my brain, or so on, I have killed without having anything towards the victim.
But back to the view of Murder, I would rather wait until I learn of the intension. If one murdered, usually it is because of some negative feeling taken over the individual to preform murder unto another person. However, if the act of murder was commited for the sheer enjoyment of killing, that enjoyment not originating from any other emotional connection, then yes, I would agree that said action and it's intension wrong, evil, insert any other word with same meaning here _________.

Now, what I am saying Amoral, not immoral. I agree that a nihlist deserves ridicule, but a nihlist would mean that the person understands the meaning of "right" and "wrong". Immoral means that the person understands what morals are, and that a nihilist understands the meaning and nature of morals, but chooses to believe that the "wrong" or immoral is more fun.
Amoral is literally the belief that the said individual completely does not understand morals. That the individual does not understand that to a mass, the act of murder, is considered evil, wrong, etc. Same as the said individual does not understand that to a mass, the act of giving, helping, etc. is considered "right" or "good. Sorry if my earlier example of Amoral was off, I didn't mean to confuse or be misleading. Maybe the person I had meet was a nihilist, I haven't discovered the word until you brought it up (Thanks by the way for teaching me something I didn't know. This is why I love forums, the ability to express/talk about one's opinions, listen and weight the opinions of others, and hopefully learn something from such experience. I thank you for upholding the classic intensional reason behind forums), but from what the person has told me, I even asked him what "good" or "right" was, pushing and seeing if he truly was amoral. Now, it could be that the person knew the meaning of amoral and was thinking that acting amoral was "cool" or any absurd reason along with being a talented actor.
Back to the morality factor, more on if another person chooses to ignore morality, or rather, the purpose of morality, yes, the person may get hurt. However, I do not believe that the said person's path is "wrong" or "off", but rather, their own path is their own, I should not and have no right to fully place judgment unto the person. Rather, I would wish to learn from the person, understand why said person is ignoring such a factor heavily found in life, try to grasp upon what the person is trying to accomplish or what the person believes he/she is accomplishing in this act/intension.
As for a moral nihilism, I would agree that ideally, it isn't in one's best interest to get his/herself harmed, but I do not understand the said individual. I am not saying I do not understand the terminology that has been placed on the said person, but rather, the actual person altogether. Maybe the person is a masocast, enjoying the hurt. Maybe the person is not knowing why they are acting upon such matter. But I do believe that the said term placed on a person can be for the person's learning. Pain is universal, no one in their life can walk free of fear or despair, that all people at some time during some length, be it on and off, will encounter pain, emotionally, physically, and/or mentally or altogether. Rather, instead of treating such pain as something to avoid, but use it as a teacher, to learn from whatever angle the pain comes through.

I apologize for the long, long response back, I've been busy with college, first year, so just trying to get used to the work load/feeling of it.