Should I be jailed for breaking the law?

[Murphy Jnr]

I never claimed that every law is easily judged, but that doesn't mean that morality can't be applied to the law.

 

Yes you did, they were your exact words

[Cyclone]

They were? Maybe you can quote me then?

[Cyclone]

You're kidding me right, you honestly think that Saudi's religious establisment are answerable?

 

I think that trying to make a distinction between religious and secular law isn't relevant as both are subsets of 'the law'.

[Cyclone]

You seem to accept that actions and behaviour can be judged on moral terms.

The law specifies what actions and behaviours you must not and in some cases must take.

 

So it follows that the law can be judged to be moral or not.

[Murphy Jnr]

They were? Maybe you can quote me then?

 

You're saying that laws that protect people from harm are easily judged as right. Drugs are perceived to be harmful therefore the law that has made them illegal is right.

[Murphy Jnr]

I think that trying to make a distinction between religious and secular law isn't relevant as both are subsets of 'the law'.

 

I'm not trying to make distinctions. You on the other hand argued that the law that prevents women from driving is wrong, I'm merely pointing out that in this case there is no law, this ban on women drivers is decreed by religion on the grounds that women will be open to temptation if they are allowed to drive. It is not a law of the land. Any acts of defiance are against the church directly.

[onewheeldave]

Just for fun what do you consider to be a 'right' law

 

A 'right' law would be one that, on balance, brings more harm than good- that tends to protect the population and that brings about the results it is intended to bring about.

 

The seat belt law, for example, tends to accomplish it's aims (less people die in accidents).

 

Bicycle compulsory helmet laws, tend not to- in most countries were compulsory bicycle laws are brought in, statistics show an increase in serious bike injuries and deaths.

 

UK drug laws are as far from 'right' as they could be- they directly cause far, far more harm than they reduce, and, as their stated aim is harm reduction, they also fail in their aim.

 

Worse still, the facts about their negative effects are well-documented, any rational analysis of them indicates clearly that they are stupid, and yet there is still no progress in eliminating them.

 

The UK drug laws are not only failing, they make things worse.

[Cyclone]

You're saying that laws that protect people from harm are easily judged as right.

I said that specific law was easily judged as morally right. I didn't say that all laws were easily judged.

Drugs are perceived to be harmful

There's a question about self inflicted harm though.

Nobody would argue that being murdered isn't harmful. A lot of people argue that they have to right to take drugs as they either don't think they are harmful or accept the risk. Hence judging this law is harder, but not impossible. Personally I'd say the right to do things to yourself should be paramount except where the risk run is high and the cost to society from the potential adverse affect is high (seat belts for example, not the use of cannabis)

therefore the law that has made them illegal is right.

No, see reasoning above.

 

I'm glad you agree though now that it's possible to judge the morality of a law .

[Cyclone]

I'm not trying to make distinctions. You on the other hand argued that the law that prevents women from driving is wrong, I'm merely pointing out that in this case there is no law, this ban on women drivers is decreed by religion on the grounds that women will be open to temptation if they are allowed to drive. It is not a law of the land. Any acts of defiance are against the church directly.

 

You are to put it simply wrong.

 

King Abdullah has overturned a court verdict that sentenced a Saudi woman to be lashed 10 times for defying the kingdom's ban on women driving. ...

 

The punishment was ordered by a court and has been overturned by secular authorities. It was an act of law, not an act outside the law.

[Murphy Jnr]

I said that specific law was easily judged as morally right. I didn't say that all laws were easily judged.There's a question about self inflicted harm though.

Nobody would argue that being murdered isn't harmful. A lot of people argue that they have to right to take drugs as they either don't think they are harmful or accept the risk. Hence judging this law is harder, but not impossible. Personally I'd say the right to do things to yourself should be paramount except where the risk run is high and the cost to society from the potential adverse affect is high (seat belts for example, not the use of cannabis)No, see reasoning above.

 

I'm glad you agree though now that it's possible to judge the morality of a law .

 

No mention of specifics but i'm not arguing over wording; that's your forte.

 

There is an argument that differentiates between Law and Morality, some believe that there is an overlap, you and I live in different camps until A) Morality can be defined clearly but more importantly B) I can better understand how Law can be judged in such a way. I can only debate on what I understand or perceive to be right or wrong.

You've tried hard to convince me that your way of thinking is 'right' sometimes eloquently others confusingly ambiguous, such is your style. I'm not saying you are wrong but neither (at this time) can I give you the pleasure of saying you're right either.

I do see why so many others end up wanting desperately to kill you however see you on another thread i'm sure.