At its core any decision about what we should do is a moral decision. Now, the people in societies are most likely not going to make decisions to form an impractical society. But we do balance things like individual freedom, the survival chances of society as a whole, our own personal needs and desires, etc. Any legal system is going to be a reflection of people’s moral choices on those things. The very things we are trying to achieve in America* are different from what Plato wanted to achieve or what Ancient Romans wanted to achieve or what the decision-makers in North Korea want to achieve. All of these societies (including our own) were/are designed to last, but they all take very different moral positions on how the law should and will function.
There is no way to separate our first principle moral choices from the law.
I’m not following. It isn’t how Machiavelli thought the law should work, either, and Discourses is more applicable to modern society than The Republic. However, we’ve moved so far beyond the point of either Plato or Machiavelli’s conception of society that their works can only be applied in the hypothetical.
Expecting all laws and rules that made sense a thousand (or even a few hundred) years ago to still be valid and applicable now is placing an unrealistic restraint on society; that we should not evolve beyond that point.
Laws are changeable for a reason. What works best is not always viewed as what is “moral,” depending on the standpoint of the individual.
Should I have chocolate or vanilla ice cream? I choose chocolate. Assume it’s because I enjoy the taste and not because vanilla beans are harvested with slave labor or something like that. Is that a moral decision?
Why is maximum freedom to the majority and minimum restriction better than every other system of law? Is this based on a natural principle of the world or is it just what you feel is the best?
Yes, because if you choose to eat the ice cream you are making a moral decision on whether to indulge your desires. By picking a flavor you like you are making a further decision about the extent to which you are going to indulge those desires. You are also deciding the costs of eating the ice cream are outweighed by the benefits.
I am under the impression that this is our current system of legislation, as well as that of several other countries. And I am far from a legal scholar, but it does seem practical WRT the population and more stable than other, more totalitarian governments.
I suppose what has me curious is why you feel there is no practicality, only morality in laws. We are social animals. Rules exist in societies based on what works best within that setting. What works very often changes, depending on the needs of the society. That is not a moral statement, it’s an evolutionary observation, and it applies to many different species. Can you explain why you disagree?
So? That does not mean that it is a natural principle of world. It is a choice. A choice that people have fought and died to enact.
Do you think any society that uses your metrics has out-achieved Ancient Rome for stability during the period of 25 BC to 180 AD?
I never said there was no practicality, just that under the practicality is a decision about how society should be run.
That sounds like a strict deterministic view of how societies function. I guess we can take that position, but then there is no point debating anything. We cannot say that North Korea’s system of law is immoral because it is amoral like every other system of law.
But of course you have no basis then to say that “maximum allowable freedom to the majority with a minimum of restriction [that] still allow[s] us to co-exist as a functioning society” is better than any other system. You can only say societies have the systems that they evolved to have.
Because it causes the least amount of grief over all. Just look at the various systems. All the countries with the happiest healthiest populace are usually democratic in some fashion. It’s not rocket science.
Stability, or endurance? Rome was far from stable on any number of occasions. But again, I think it’s not especially practical to compare a current working system of government to a working system of government from approximately 2000 years ago.
Yes, practicality is a (at least semi-objective) comparison of practical applications and choosing the most applicable solution for the majority based on past experience and current need.
Yes, but you didn’t answer my question. Can you explain why you disagree? (incidentally, I do not say any system of government is “moral” or “immoral.” To me, moral implies a religious overtone that I try to avoid. I prefer ethical)
Actually, some of us are contesting that that’s how most laws are created. Most laws are are least somewhat immoral or amoral because they temper or replace what is right with what is doable: that which is manageable, generalizable, trackable, enforcable, and possible to agree upon.
It would be right for the law to force a vandal to repair or replace anything they damage to a level that equals what it was if it wasn’t vandalized. In practice, we’ll just take money.
It’s a moral decision because I’m choosing to make a moral decision? You’re totally wrong so you’re grasping at straws to make it sound like it’s being unnecessarily decadent. I could just as easily replace the situation with a starving person and some rice and bread.
There’s no natural principle that says we should do anything. Attempting to lower our grief levels is just what we do, because it’s our nature.
That’s how the brain works, by positive feedback. To better our personal lot in the world. Morals, ethics, and laws are just rules to make us help each other, or atleast not screw each other too much. The assumption being if I don’t screw you too much hopefully you won’t screw me too much. This can fail miserably for an individual, but populations where the general pattern is moral tend to be a better environment for individuals so this trait is passed on. See the selfish gene.
Why can’t we compare them? Humans have not fundamentally changed in tens of thousands of years.
Just looking at America, the Founding Fathers did not just look at practicality. They also wanted to set up a society that respected individual freedoms and not for just practical reasons. They saw it as a natural truth that individuals were created equal (of course they were lying hypocrites).
When any society is set up certain decisions need to made. Do we want a society that treats everyone equally? Or do we want a society that benefits an elite? Do we want a society with long term stability? Or do we want to achieve maximum happiness for people (maybe just the elite) today (and fuck the future)?
There is no nature principle we can look to answer these questions. They have to be answered on a moral basis. If you think there is a way to answer those question without looking to morality can you explain it?
It is not a lack of morality, but a different view of morality. Nazi Germany represented certain moral views. They were just different views than ours.* Same for the Ancient Romans. Or the Spartans. All these societies had moral views. They were not amoral. They are immoral from our moral position.** But, our society would probably be seen an immoral by a Spartan.
I am assuming you don’t agree with a lot of the Nazi moral views.
** Just assuming again.
I know.
And people have to make decision between things like greed and altruism. The question of how greedy and how altruistic to be is a moral question.