| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/03/2010 08:25:12 PM · #3701 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
OK, here's some good stuff for conversation. I don't think it's too far off topic, but I leave it purposely academic in it's phrasing:
How do you view the courts of a society:
1) They are charged with defining moral action. (ie. What the courts determine is allowed is deemed 'moral' by definition. What the courts determine is not allowed is deemed 'immoral' by definition.)
Follow up question: If the courts produced an opinion you disagreed with, would you either change your view or understand your opinion to now be immoral?
2) They are charged with protecting moral action. (ie. The courts attempt to protect what is 'moral'. The definition of 'moral' is derived in a place other than the courts. Courts can, therefore, get it wrong and deem an immoral action to be allowed or vice-versa.)
Follow up question: Where is morality then defined?
3) They are blind to morality. (ie. Morality is not defined by the courts and they have no particular calling to defend what is 'moral', only to define what is legal.)
Follow up question: What is morality and why would a society choose to not have its legal system either define or defend it? |
4) None of the above? See the U.S. Constitution, Articles I & III. That's where you'll find my view of the courts. Of course this isn't actually my personal view, only the one I've adopted since well... I'm a US citizen. If it were up to me I would have the courts hand out lollipops all day, but I've yet to find the rational for such in the Constitution much like this anti-gay marriage stuff.
Message edited by author 2010-01-03 20:36:01.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2010 08:46:34 PM · #3702 |
| What, are you guys all yella? I'm open to a 4th option Richard, but try to make it simple and understandable. I don't understand your answer at all. |
|
|
|
01/03/2010 09:20:22 PM · #3703 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What, are you guys all yella? |
No. It's an exercise in navel-gazing that really doesn't much interest me.
When bazillion dollar settlements are handed down to people for doing stuff that my Dad would have told me I was an idiot and to watch what I was doing, and think first, well.....
So it's kind of hartd to equate sense or morality with legal. That's why we're in the pickle we are with this thread.
What you see as immoral based on the ethics of a 2000 year old book, I see as a case of discrimination at the basest level.
Trying to legislate based on hotly contested concepts of morality is always going to be difficult and painful.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2010 09:28:38 PM · #3704 |
Jeb, you are inserting all that into the question. I think it's interesting.
This is why these conversations are frustrating. I ask what I think is a fair and simple question, and people just run all over it and refuse to answer it. They are just somehow scared the hammer is going to fall instead of actually thinking about the answer. |
|
|
|
01/03/2010 09:29:15 PM · #3705 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
3) They are blind to morality. (ie. Morality is not defined by the courts and they have no particular calling to defend what is 'moral', only to define what is legal.)
Follow up question: What is morality and why would a society choose to not have its legal system either define or defend it? |
In the US, it's 3. I don't think any branch of our government defines or defends morality. The Congress passes laws, which, to some degree and in some cases, have moral elements to them.
The government creates laws based on protecting people and their rights. In the US, those rights are spelled out in the Constitution and its amendments.
Congress defines it
Executive Branch enforces it
Courts interpet it
|
|
|
|
01/03/2010 09:34:24 PM · #3706 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
3) They are blind to morality. (ie. Morality is not defined by the courts and they have no particular calling to defend what is 'moral', only to define what is legal.)
Follow up question: What is morality and why would a society choose to not have its legal system either define or defend it? |
In the US, it's 3. I don't think any branch of our government defines or defends morality. The Congress passes laws, which, to some degree and in some cases, have moral elements to them.
The government creates laws based on protecting people and their rights. In the US, those rights are spelled out in the Constitution and its amendments.
Congress defines it
Executive Branch enforces it
Courts interpet it |
Hey! David in the house! But now you have to answer the follow-up, which is, of course, always the tough part. :) |
|
|
|
01/03/2010 10:13:57 PM · #3707 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Jeb, you are inserting all that into the question. I think it's interesting.
This is why these conversations are frustrating. I ask what I think is a fair and simple question, and people just run all over it and refuse to answer it. They are just somehow scared the hammer is going to fall instead of actually thinking about the answer. |
Okay.
No, I don't feel like getting sucked into that vortex, it is NOT a simple question.
Better?
|
|
|
|
01/03/2010 10:18:22 PM · #3708 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
3) They are blind to morality. (ie. Morality is not defined by the courts and they have no particular calling to defend what is 'moral', only to define what is legal.)
Follow up question: What is morality and why would a society choose to not have its legal system either define or defend it? |
In the US, it's 3. I don't think any branch of our government defines or defends morality. The Congress passes laws, which, to some degree and in some cases, have moral elements to them.
The government creates laws based on protecting people and their rights. In the US, those rights are spelled out in the Constitution and its amendments.
Congress defines it
Executive Branch enforces it
Courts interpet it |
Hey! David in the house! But now you have to answer the follow-up, which is, of course, always the tough part. :) |
All of this is, of course, my humble opinion.
Morality is best defined on a personal level. You are free to define your own moral code as long as it doesn't infringe on any of the rights defined, in the US, in the Constitution. The old adage, "Your right to swing your fist ends at my face" comes to mind.
Of course, this is an over simplification.
Community morals are obviously defined by the community. Again, as long as what the community defines does not conflict with the defined rights of the individual, all is good.
The problem exists when one group of people define their morals and then wants others to conform to those morals.
They gay marriage issue is really an easy one as I see it.
The government gets out of the marriage business completely. The government grants civil unions in order to protect the rights of the people entering into the contract. Non-governmental groups can offer marriages as they wish to define them. Churches (or glee clubs, or bird watching societies) can offer ceremonial unions called marriages. If this non-governmental group wants to exclude certain people based on their collective moral code, then that is their right. But these non-governmental arrangements have nothing to do with granting legal rights.
All this talk about traditional definition of marriage and such is so much garbage. "Because that's the way it's always been done" is perhaps the worst reason to allow or disallow anything.
If there is a higher power, as has been debated here and in other threads, then that judgement will be passed when the time comes. Meanwhile, I respectfully ask that no one define what is right for me and I'll grant everyone the same courtesy. In fact, I will fight with all I have to protect your right to determine your own path.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2010 10:19:02 PM · #3709 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What, are you guys all yella? I'm open to a 4th option Richard, but try to make it simple and understandable. I don't understand your answer at all. |
The point was how *I* personally view the courts is irrelevent. The role of the courts aren't subjective. It's spelled out in the Constitution. Basically what David just said.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2010 10:22:19 PM · #3710 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What, are you guys all yella? I'm open to a 4th option Richard, but try to make it simple and understandable. I don't understand your answer at all. |
The point was how *I* personally view the courts is irrelevent. The role of the courts aren't subjective. It's spelled out in the Constitution. Basically what David just said. |
Well, just rephrase the question. Duh. Do you think the Constitution intends the court system to work in the manner of 1) 2) 3) or something else?
|
|
|
|
01/03/2010 10:35:17 PM · #3711 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
All of this is, of course, my humble opinion.
Morality is best defined on a personal level. You are free to define your own moral code as long as it doesn't infringe on any of the rights defined, in the US, in the Constitution. The old adage, "Your right to swing your fist ends at my face" comes to mind.
Of course, this is an over simplification.
Community morals are obviously defined by the community. Again, as long as what the community defines does not conflict with the defined rights of the individual, all is good.
The problem exists when one group of people define their morals and then wants others to conform to those morals.
They gay marriage issue is really an easy one as I see it.
The government gets out of the marriage business completely. The government grants civil unions in order to protect the rights of the people entering into the contract. Non-governmental groups can offer marriages as they wish to define them. Churches (or glee clubs, or bird watching societies) can offer ceremonial unions called marriages. If this non-governmental group wants to exclude certain people based on their collective moral code, then that is their right. But these non-governmental arrangements have nothing to do with granting legal rights.
All this talk about traditional definition of marriage and such is so much garbage. "Because that's the way it's always been done" is perhaps the worst reason to allow or disallow anything.
If there is a higher power, as has been debated here and in other threads, then that judgement will be passed when the time comes. Meanwhile, I respectfully ask that no one define what is right for me and I'll grant everyone the same courtesy. In fact, I will fight with all I have to protect your right to determine your own path. |
Awesome stuff! OK, a few follow-ups.
1) Do you think the guy who said, "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" meant this with regards to moral action, legal action, or both?
2) I agree with you that problems arise when one group defines proper action differently than another group. But would you agree that another set of problems come when something arises that the framers of the constitution could not forsee and only spoke to it obliquely or possibly only within a set of separate competing rights?
3) You didn't get at why you think it wasn't important for the court system to be charged with either defining or defending morality? Why would society choose this system?
Message edited by author 2010-01-03 22:36:03. |
|
|
|
01/03/2010 10:38:28 PM · #3712 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What, are you guys all yella? I'm open to a 4th option Richard, but try to make it simple and understandable. I don't understand your answer at all. |
The point was how *I* personally view the courts is irrelevent. The role of the courts aren't subjective. It's spelled out in the Constitution. Basically what David just said. |
Well, just rephrase the question. Duh. Do you think the Constitution intends the court system to work in the manner of 1) 2) 3) or something else? |
Obviously, number 3.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2010 10:38:57 PM · #3713 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What, are you guys all yella? I'm open to a 4th option Richard, but try to make it simple and understandable. I don't understand your answer at all. |
The point was how *I* personally view the courts is irrelevent. The role of the courts aren't subjective. It's spelled out in the Constitution. Basically what David just said. |
Well, just rephrase the question. Duh. Do you think the Constitution intends the court system to work in the manner of 1) 2) 3) or something else? |
Obviously, number 3. |
Follow-up? What is morality (where is it defined) and why would a society choose to not have its legal system either define or defend it? (I slightly reworded for clarity)
Message edited by author 2010-01-03 22:40:19. |
|
|
|
01/03/2010 10:48:10 PM · #3714 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What, are you guys all yella? I'm open to a 4th option Richard, but try to make it simple and understandable. I don't understand your answer at all. |
The point was how *I* personally view the courts is irrelevent. The role of the courts aren't subjective. It's spelled out in the Constitution. Basically what David just said. |
Well, just rephrase the question. Duh. Do you think the Constitution intends the court system to work in the manner of 1) 2) 3) or something else? |
Obviously, number 3. |
Follow-up? What is morality (where is it defined) and why would a society choose to not have its legal system either define or defend it? (I slightly reworded for clarity) |
How about this. You answer shutterpuppy's question from a while back and I'll answer your follow up?
For reference:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
What society would you design if you had no idea where you would be born, who you would be born to, what economic, intelligence, and/or social advantages you would inherit, etc? That is, going into the world blind, what system would you consider "fair." |
|
|
|
|
01/03/2010 11:00:24 PM · #3715 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
What society would you design if you had no idea where you would be born, who you would be born to, what economic, intelligence, and/or social advantages you would inherit, etc? That is, going into the world blind, what system would you consider "fair." |
|
I would create a society based upon two principles. Love God. Love others. I believe the Truths of the world would not change based upon my station in life, intelligence, social advantage etc.
The question, of course, could have dissertations written about it, so I'm not really going to be able to do any justice to it in a few sentences or a few minutes.
Message edited by author 2010-01-03 23:01:30. |
|
|
|
01/03/2010 11:21:28 PM · #3716 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Awesome stuff! OK, a few follow-ups.
1) Do you think the guy who said, "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" meant this with regards to moral action, legal action, or both? |
Most likely, legal. But there is a moral element to it. You could just easily say, "Your right to practice your religion ends at my door."
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
2) I agree with you that problems arise when one group defines proper action differently than another group. But would you agree that another set of problems come when something arises that the framers of the constitution could not forsee and only spoke to it obliquely or possibly only within a set of separate competing rights? |
Sure. That's why the framers were wise enough to allow for amendments to the Constitution. And they intentionally made it very difficult to add one. They also created a system that can address the ambiguities and conflicts. At times, the system moves painfully slow, but it does move.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
3) You didn't get at why you think it wasn't important for the court system to be charged with either defining or defending morality? Why would society choose this system? |
The court members are appointed, the Congress is elected. We the people choose our representatives to make laws on our behalf. The Judicial branch exists to ensure that the Congress doesn't enact laws that would conflict with the rights laid out in the Constitution. It's the checks and balances between the 3 branches that makes the US unique. Traditionally, the courts were the puppets of the Executive branch. We still see this in many countries today, particularly, the theocracies. This way is better.
The US Constitution is one of the more remarkable documents ever written. It is relatively brief, intentionally vague at times, and amazingly adaptable irrespective of time frame. The US was truly fortunate that those people were assembled at that time to create what they did.
I always encourage people to read the Constitution and the Federalists Papers (basically the sales pitch for the Constitution)
I keep a copy on my iPod! ;-) |
|
|
|
01/03/2010 11:40:17 PM · #3717 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Sure. That's why the framers were wise enough to allow for amendments to the Constitution. And they intentionally made it very difficult to add one. They also created a system that can address the ambiguities and conflicts. At times, the system moves painfully slow, but it does move. |
Would you allow the same for state constitutions? and what do you make of constitutions that have defined marriage as between a man and a woman? Fair game under option #3? |
|
|
|
01/03/2010 11:42:52 PM · #3718 |
Ok...
What is morality?
Morality is the concept which defines behaviors to be good or bad.
Where is it defined?
At the personal level and by oppressive societies (ex. theocracies).
Why would a society choose to not have it's legal system either define or defend it?
When a society values freedom? Since absolute morality doesn't exist to define it would undoubtbly oppress a large segment of the population who share a different view. The only way to approach absolute morality is to NOT define it.
|
|
|
|
01/03/2010 11:46:27 PM · #3719 |
See. Is this so hard? :) I don't bite.
Thanks for the answer. I'll ponder it and then get back to you at the most inopportune moment. Muahaha! |
|
|
|
01/04/2010 09:59:21 AM · #3720 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Sure. That's why the framers were wise enough to allow for amendments to the Constitution. And they intentionally made it very difficult to add one. They also created a system that can address the ambiguities and conflicts. At times, the system moves painfully slow, but it does move. |
Would you allow the same for state constitutions? and what do you make of constitutions that have defined marriage as between a man and a woman? Fair game under option #3? |
State constitutions cannot contradict the US Constitution.
My opinion is that defining a marriage as a union between a man and woman is unconstitutional as the US constitution currently stands. If it ever gets to the Supreme Court, I believe the state definitions would be struck down. This is why you see some movement to try to get a constitutional amendment to the US constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
I do not think that will ever work. Any time an effort has been made to use the constitution to limit the rights of the individual, it has generally failed.
The US Constitution, and in particular, the Bill of Rights, enumerates the rights of the individual and limits the rights of the state. Prohibition is fine example of having tried and failed to use the constitution to legislate morality.
We see it tried all the time, flag burning amendment attempts is another example.
These usually fall flat because once you start using the constitution to limit the rights of people you will open a flood gate of similar types of frivolous amendments.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2010 10:27:28 AM · #3721 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
OK, here's some good stuff for conversation. I don't think it's too far off topic, but I leave it purposely academic in it's phrasing:
How do you view the courts of a society:
1) They are charged with defining moral action. (ie. What the courts determine is allowed is deemed 'moral' by definition. What the courts determine is not allowed is deemed 'immoral' by definition.)
Follow up question: If the courts produced an opinion you disagreed with, would you either change your view or understand your opinion to now be immoral?
2) They are charged with protecting moral action. (ie. The courts attempt to protect what is 'moral'. The definition of 'moral' is derived in a place other than the courts. Courts can, therefore, get it wrong and deem an immoral action to be allowed or vice-versa.)
Follow up question: Where is morality then defined?
3) They are blind to morality. (ie. Morality is not defined by the courts and they have no particular calling to defend what is 'moral', only to define what is legal.)
Follow up question: What is morality and why would a society choose to not have its legal system either define or defend it? |
I have a different take to yanko and scarbrd – more based in history and reality. Option 2 is probably closer to the truth for the following reasons.
Morality has historically been at the centre of the British court system (and thus the US, Australian, Canadian etc court systems). The courts of law in the 12th Century were rigidly codified and as a result often gave unfair results. People threw themselves on the mercy of the kings to overturn the unfairness, and the kings gradually delegated their relevant powers to their chancellors who in turn slowly established an alternative equitable court system (the courts of Chancery).
The courts of Chancery initially gave judgments based on individual conscience alone. However, it quickly became necessary for the courts of Chancery to codify the rules being applied – otherwise they were inconsistent and unreliable. Principles have been established (eg one must come to equity with clean hands; equity will not deny a person acting in good faith without notice) and there is a huge body of precedents.
By the 16th Century it was established that equity took priority over the law. In the 19th Century, the two court systems were combined so that one set of courts adjudicates over both legal systems, though the legal distinction between equity and the law remains to this day.
The principles of equity are established, but their application is reasonably flexible and equity is still used (and abused) by judges to avoid unconscionable decisions at law.
Your follow-up question – The principles of equity provide a reasonably predictable and consistent foundation. Beyond those, I think that the source of the judges’ morality is the same as the rest of us – though perhaps more informed. We appear to be hardwired to think in terms of morality (evolutionarily) and we’re exposed to a complex society that establishes the social mores of our time. I’ll ask a judge next time I am talking to one socially.
Incidentally, the first chancellors were clergymen, but were soon replaced with trained lawyers as the body of law developed – the church was quickly supplanted as the moral arbiter by a more predictable and reliable source.
Message edited by author 2010-01-04 11:04:12.
|
|
|
|
01/04/2010 11:02:41 AM · #3722 |
| Ireland's new blasphemy law is an interesting attempt at legislating behavior, if not outright morality. |
|
|
|
01/04/2010 11:14:41 AM · #3723 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Ireland's new blasphemy law is an interesting attempt at legislating behavior, if not outright morality. |
I was going to reference that one, but decided not to. But yes, it is a prime example of attempt to legislate morality that has no possible chance of succeeding. There was a great link in a DPC thread on the topic that listed 25 historical quotes that run afoul of the new law in Ireland. Some form Jesus, Mohammad, the Pope, and others that if published in Ireland today would draw a stiff fine. |
|
|
|
01/04/2010 11:45:00 AM · #3724 |
| That was good stuff Matthew. I didn't know all that. I would tend to answer #2 as well, but that's my own opinion. Are there any takers for #1? |
|
|
|
01/04/2010 07:51:59 PM · #3725 |
If someone wants to be gay, is'nt that their business? And them getting married does'nt affect the fact that I still cant buy afford the canon 24-70mm f2.8L. Gays getting married dont infringe on anyones rights as far as I know.
BUT!
If Gays can get married, then prostitution should be made totally legal. Just how are two consenting adults having sex for money harming anybody?
And a man should be able to marry two three or even four women? :) :) :) :)
|
|
