Do morals restrict people? (choices, choice, Zen)

[tomspug]

I'm interested in knowing why you think basic law is flawed. Perhaps you could offer counter-arguments to some of the examples in my post.

[rhys]

I read your post with interest. I think, first, that we all know wrong from right in a general way, and that the people are not ignorant morons without State law. I think that, if you do wrong, you and all those who have any connection with you should pay compensation to the person wronged: 'punishment' is for the birds. That is the way all old law worked, and it's right. We don't need the State to make profits out of it - just any authority strong enought to enforce payment.

To lock people up in prisons is wicked, in my view, turning them, inevitably, into confirmed criminals. What we need is to teach people to look seriously at what they do and see the implications.

[Fluffy]

Originally Posted by tomspug

I think the question that comes to mind is how can something be viewed as valuable without escaping the question of how you came to that conclusion? In other words, how can you view morality (or God) as beneficial without evidence? Or is it merely a position based on speculation?

If I tell you that all Sploogs are Snarfs and all Snarfs are Skeetches, do you agree that we can conclude that all Sploogs are Skeetches without ever having experienced a Sploog?

When we define concepts we give them certain attributes. If you answer yes to the above question, then it also follows that we can look at these attributes and reason whether the concepts possessing such attributes would also necessarily possess other attributes. It also follows that we can do this without having experienced them.

So if we define God to be omnibenevolent, we can also reason that the existence of that God would be of benefit to us since that follows from the meaning of omnibenevolence. Similarly, if morality allows us to be free then this is true regardless of whether or not it exists and so we can still consider morality to be freeing even if we also accept that we are not freed by morality since it does not exist.

[Wandered Off]

Originally Posted by rhys

I think that, if you do wrong, you and all those who have any connection with you should pay compensation to the person wronged: 'punishment' is for the birds.

How is it the least bit sensible that you be held responsible in any way for wrongs of your associates if you didn't participate? Where is the "connection" line drawn? Relatives? Friends? Co-workers?

In general, forcing me to compensate someone for another person's action that didn't involve me would be immoral (theft) IMO.

[rhys]

Originally Posted by Wandered Off

How is it the least bit sensible that you be held responsible in any way for wrongs of your associates if you didn't participate? Where is the "connection" line drawn? Relatives? Friends? Co-workers?

In general, forcing me to compensate someone for another person's action that didn't involve me would be immoral (theft) IMO.

Are you entirely innocent of the doings of, say, your children? Under the old human law, everywhere, families were responsible, and I think that is right. Somebody has to pay for wickedness, the individual often can't afford it, and I can't see why persons having no connection with the criminal should. I'd update it by fining the district, school, local representatives, Church, family obviously, and, most of all, those rich people who exploit the local area.

[Smoke]

Originally Posted by tomspug

I would like to argue the opposite. I think that morals are like law. They APPEAR on the surface to restrict people, but in reality create an incredible amount of freedom that was not there before. ...

The cost of embracing relativism and rejecting morality is, ironically, our independence. Only through the eyes of a child does one see his own independence and assumes that the world also is free. It is only the children who are free, the ones who seek their own good. The victims, sadly, are the mothers and the fathers who provide for the children, who learn to live life for others instead of themselves.

I don't think your argument backs up that first paragraph at all. What I'm hearing is that morals do in fact restrict people, but that restriction ultimately leads to greater freedom. That's not at all the same as morals only appearing on the surface to restrict people.

My opinion is that morals not only restrict people, but that restricting people is the very purpose of morals. Where there is reason and compassion, morals are superfluous, but where there is a deficiency in reason and compassion, morals are better than nothing. For instance, it's better if you take care of your children or your aged parents out of love than out of a sense of duty, but where there is no love, a sense of duty is better than letting them starve.

[Storm]

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

I don't think your argument backs up that first paragraph at all. What I'm hearing is that morals do in fact restrict people, but that restriction ultimately leads to greater freedom. That's not at all the same as morals only appearing on the surface to restrict people.

My opinion is that morals not only restrict people, but that restricting people is the very purpose of morals. Where there is reason and compassion, morals are superfluous, but where there is a deficiency in reason and compassion, morals are better than nothing. For instance, it's better if you take care of your children or your aged parents out of love than out of a sense of duty, but where there is no love, a sense of duty is better than letting them starve.

You don't agree that reason and compassion are morals in and of themselves, Midnight?

[tomspug]

Originally Posted by rhys

I read your post with interest. I think, first, that we all know wrong from right in a general way, and that the people are not ignorant morons without State law. I think that, if you do wrong, you and all those who have any connection with you should pay compensation to the person wronged: 'punishment' is for the birds. That is the way all old law worked, and it's right. We don't need the State to make profits out of it - just any authority strong enought to enforce payment.

To lock people up in prisons is wicked, in my view, turning them, inevitably, into confirmed criminals. What we need is to teach people to look seriously at what they do and see the implications.

But without REAL consequences, why would anyone follow the law?

[Wandered Off]

Originally Posted by rhys

Are you entirely innocent of the doings of, say, your children?

Absolutely I am of my adult children as they are no longer under my control and get to make their own choices. Only if I get to control them should I bear responsibility. With control comes responsibility. With the loss of control comes relief from it.

Under the old human law, everywhere, families were responsible, and I think that is right.

Under the old human law, slavery was peachy. Sometimes they got it wrong.

Somebody has to pay for wickedness, the individual often can't afford it, and I can't see why persons having no connection with the criminal should.

Spoken like a trial lawyer... Someone stole some of my collectible coins, and I think you personally should have to pay. We can set up a Paypal account.

[tomspug]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

If I tell you that all Sploogs are Snarfs and all Snarfs are Skeetches, do you agree that we can conclude that all Sploogs are Skeetches without ever having experienced a Sploog?

When we define concepts we give them certain attributes. If you answer yes to the above question, then it also follows that we can look at these attributes and reason whether the concepts possessing such attributes would also necessarily possess other attributes. It also follows that we can do this without having experienced them.

So if we define God to be omnibenevolent, we can also reason that the existence of that God would be of benefit to us since that follows from the meaning of omnibenevolence. Similarly, if morality allows us to be free then this is true regardless of whether or not it exists and so we can still consider morality to be freeing even if we also accept that we are not freed by morality since it does not exist.

But the freedom of law EXISTS in the system of law. It is evidenced by it. Why do you believe that morality and law are somehow separate? I thought that all moral systems were constructed for the same purposes as law? How exactly are they different.