Reading Philosophy

For a long time, this question has been not answered completely... Out there in the real world there is something called law and morality dilemma in which we can hardly ditinguish between wrong or right. Here are some example of these...

Corporate Harm & Violence: the Tobacco Industry
In contrast to the previous sections arguing about decriminalizing acts currently prohibited by law, the reading on corporate violence raises the concern that more of harmful corporate acts should be treated as crimes if the criminal justice system is really interested in protecting us against all harmful behavior – and not just against the harmful behavior of poor people. In “A Crime by Any Other Name,” Jeffrey Reiman argues that many acts of corporations are not treated as criminals even though they cause more physical harm and death than the crimes of homicide and aggravated assault. Stanton Glantz presents a case study about what the tobacco industry really knew about the harmfulness and addictive nature of its product, in “Looking Through a Keyhole at the Tobacco Industry.”

Abortion
In a series of articles, philosophers Don Marquis and Jeffrey Reiman debate the question of the morality of abortion and its possible harms. In “Why Abortion Is Immoral,” Marquis argues that abortion is wrong because it deprives a fetus of a future life much in the way that killing an adult--even in her sleep--deprives her of a future life. One feature of Marquis’s defense of this position is that it accounts for most people’s belief that infanticide is as wrong as the killing of adults. In “Abortion, Infanticide, and the Asymmetric Value of Human Life,” Reiman holds that our beliefs about the wrongness of the killing humans only make sense if we assume that they are meant to protect the lives of people who are already aware of being alive and caring about continuing. He thus concludes that abortion, since it happens to a fetus who is not yet aware of being alive, is morally permissible. He contends that the killing of infants--who are also not yet aware of being alive--must be condemned on other grounds. In rejoinders, Marquis and Reiman defend their own views, and offer critiques of each other’s argument.

So shouldn't all laws be based on morality?? In my opinion, the answer is Yes. A more expository answer is necessary, however, so that "leaders" don't fall into the trap of writing law based on what they consider to be their god's opinion on some matter. Of all the religions you can think of, how many would you be comfortable living under, if their precepts weren't merely a matter of theology, but also of law?

This post was edited by Jaz on May 21, 2003.

I think that Law should be used only to prevent harm from one person to another(suicide would usualy be included in this, because most suicidal people, namely teens, become depresses through the actions of their peers, and feel the only escape from that intimidation is death), and to make sure that only the truth is professed as the truth, in that corporations should not be able to lie, and one person should not be able to tell someone else what is fact. The government should act as overseer, not as a moraly judgemental moderator.

In the case of abortions I agree with you, if something is not concious of life than there it will not realize that it is being killed. Same for animal rights activists, at least the ones who push for rights of mice and frogs and life forms of that level. Chimps and some higher mammals may be aware of life, but mice don't know there alive, they can be experimented on.

Do you like blue? I hope so, cuz thats the one thing about me that shall never change.

mice don't know there alive, they can be experimented on.

I don't agree with this. I think every animal has the right to live and is able to feel pain.

"Sie wollen nichts anderes. Sie wollen kämpfen! Sie sind Soldaten! Fucking Wahnsinnige!" - Noel G.

In my oppinion a very good aproach to that difficile topic. (yes Jaz, all again, but this time without having 2 per mille ;-) ).
You mentioned the law and morality dilemma but i think we should first define what law and morality is (although that would mean a complete new topic). Which law are u thinking off? And why is it possible, that we talk about "our" law and justice when every country has its own laws? How can it be possible, that here in germany a state of affairs has as a legal consequence a punishemnt while the same state of affairs is exempt of punishment in the States?

The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.

I think that there is a difference, though, between the discussion of the right to abortion and corporate earth-rape. I think that corporations, for example, should be held responsible for their actions when such are detrimental to either people or the environment. Eastman-Kodak has a major production-plant in Rochester (New Jersey or New York, I can't remember which), and that same area has one of the highest incidences of childhood asthma, cancer, and multiple respiratory-related diseases. Eastman-Kodak, I feel, should be held responsible for these problems (reimburse families for medical costs involving the plant, making the plant safer for people, etc.), since their plant produces tens of millions of tons of carcinogens every year.
Abortion is much harder to deal with, though. I find any abortion performed after the 49th day to be morally wrong, but at the same time, there are those who think an abortion at any point in the first or second trimester(s) is fine, and there are those who support the use of partial-birth abortions. At the same time, there are those who think that any abortion is morally abhorrent, regarldess of the circumstances. The manifold opinions people have on this subject make the attempt to create a morality-based law regarding abortion nearly impossible. Also, because an abortion has become a more easily-accessed procedure,there is the point of status quo: women can already get abortions, so if abortion becomes illegal, then some will continue trying to have the procedure done (in some dangerous ways, generally). Yet another problem is the fact that I, as a guy, don't have any of the prerequisite equipment; I don't understand what it's like to undergo any of the other stuff, or the problems women have to face when they get pregnant, or anything along those lines. As such, I believe that I have no right to enforce my morals in this subject, which are based in my quirky little religion, on every woman in this country.

I'll believe in anything if you'll just believe in anything

Law is far more about giving structure to society in order to enable it to function smoothly are far less about any shared moral values.

Tobacco - if you banned it for the moral arguement would you ensure a smooth running society? A great deal of money is tied up in tobacco and could only damage the economy if suddenly removed and hence destabalise society (not to meantion withdrawal symptoms amoung addicts). Generally most decisions by leaders in the past and present have been made more on what makes things easier rather than what they might consider moral.

Abortion - the best arguements for abortion has nothing to do with morality - it is practical. Unwanted babies, very young mothers, genetic diseases - all these things will increase with an outlawing of abortion - not to meantion that that it will still go on illegally as it always has in one way or another.

Big moral issues really do make up a tiny share of what actually makes up the law as a whole - the vast majority of it is historical (where the law seems to make no sense in modern contexts) or merely practical.

Any law may have knock-on effects - to only consider one criteria is to leave yourself open to such problems. Morality should be one criteria of many to produce a balanced judgement.

The government should act as overseer, not as a moraly judgemental moderator.

That depends on the government - ideally a democracy should implement the manifesto it was elected on - moral or not. If people choose to elect a government on the grounds of morality then that is the parogative of a democracy.
I'm not sure I want to be 'managed' as this is what an overseer would be - in which case you might as well just have an unelected civil service.

In the case of abortions I agree with you, if something is not concious of life than there it will not realize that it is being killed.

The problem is that people will, and can, argue about this because the concept of the concious is fairly open to interpretation.

I think every animal has the right to live and is able to feel pain.

Nothing has a right to live unless you have a religion that says so. In natural circumstances life is not particularly worried about fairness or equity.

To be honest i think the whole discussion has an undertone of having law or morality.
For example: the German Grundgesetz (Constitution) sees the human beeing as a independant and self-responsible being that can make mature decissions. The first article defines on what all german laws are build and what the superordinated principle is: the dignity of man.

And for the more interesting part (in this discussion):

Article 2 (Rights of liberty).
(1) Everyone has the right to the free development of his personality insofar as he does not violate the rights of others or offend against the constitutional order or the moral code.

That means that basically everyone can do whatever he wants and the state has only the right to clip this (and must do this).
And what might surprise, the moral aspect is explicitly mentioned. The right to do whatever u want is clipped by a law that is based on moral aspects - and by that way law is not against morality but in some cases is morality.

In my oppinion a very good theoreical aproach to that difficult problem, also we can argue about the implementation ;)

The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.

Law is far more about giving structure to society in order to enable it to function smoothly are far less about any shared moral values.

I agree with this. (Any lawyers out there? What would you say about this law and morality question?) My fiance's sister who works for a women's organization was baiting me one time about abortion. Knowing that i was an evangelical, she thought i supported the political maneuverings of pro-life movements. I don't, though. It's like this: Personally, i am anti-abortion. This is because my morality tells me that life is sacred and that the fetus has life. Fine. But laws define limits for everyone--including people who do not share my morality. It would be unfair to impose on them a piece of legislation based on a moral system that not everyone shares. The only thing that everyone in the state shares is--correct me if i'm wrong--the constitution. Laws cannot be ratified that contradict the constitution. It seems to me like the constitution establishes the mores accepted by everyone during the formation of the state. Perhaps the nearest thing to a shared morality?

For the longest time, i was very comfortable with my stand: Personally--pro-life, politically--pro-choice. However, i'm not so comfortable with this anymore after a friend told me she thought i was being a hypocrite. She said this was exactly the mistake of german christians during the time of hitler--as individuals, they probably thought genocide was wrong, but they didn't do anything politically to fight the persecution of jews.
In the same way, i personally thought abortion was wrong but didn't want anything legislated so people could be forced to stop doing it.

What do you guys think? Is she right or is there a flaw in her argument?

In connection to this, i'd like to ask our german friends in this community: Was there nothing in german law during hitler's time that would have stopped his genocide or was the law simply ignored?

My other question is for everyone: How do we solve this dilemma: If we base law on our morality, we are in danger of persecuting the marginalized who do not share our morality; but if we do not assert our morality, we are in danger of allowing what may be truly evil deeds to happen. The tricky part of course is determining what is "evil." The morality of abortion is still very debatable presently, but it is the general consensus now that hitler's genocide was wrong. Slavery was considered moral for a very long time, but it is considered immoral and evil now. Is abortion going to be considered truly evil two-hundred years from now? It seems defining "wrong" or "evil" is really difficult and perhaps even impossible during certain historical moments. But it doesn't change the
wrongness of the action or inaction of that generation when future generations from a more objective perspective later judge them. But this is a gordian knot--for after all, we do not and cannot have the perspective of future generations and can act only on the basis of what we presently can or cannot see.

This issue is a real mess.

“To God, there is no zero. I still exist.” Scott Carey, The Incredible Shrinking Man

What do you guys think? Is she right or is there a flaw in her argument?

It's pretty hard to justify genocide whereas justifying abortion is slightly easier - I don't see many blackmarket genocidists appearing as a result of preventing people carrying out genocide.

Was there nothing in german law during hitler's time that would have stopped his genocide or was the law simply ignored?

You have to remember how popular Hitler was for sorting out the economy - he wasn't elected on a promise to take over the world and kill all the jews. By the time anyone realised they couldn't do anything about it without sacraficing their personal safety.

Slavery was considered moral for a very long time, but it is considered immoral and evil now.

That depends. You have a slave - he lives a comfortable life. Another master may be abusive. Is it not the master who dictates the morality? Do we not all have masters internal and external?

Is abortion going to be considered truly evil two-hundred years from now?

I would hope those who are pro-life for an unformed life and clearly anti-life (considering the attacks on doctors in the US - bloody hypocrits) for those carrying it are considered truely evil.
This pro-life attitude seems to stem from the Catholic/Jewish idea that somehow every human life is supposed to occur - this is rubbish. We were designed to cope with the fact that procreation was incredibly difficult and had numerous measures built-in to increase success.
Why is masturbation evil? Because it was assumed the man gave life. His seed wasted - life also wasted. However, to still keep up that arguement seems ludicrous knowing that men massively overproduce the amount of seed they require. This stemmed from a biological ignorance that saw women as nothing more than soil.
In the same way abortion is a response to the fact that we simply no longer need to produce so many people - babies LIVE. Do you realise how common it was for mother and child to die during childbirth? How often a child would die at birth? How uncommon is that now?
Those who advocate that wasting seed and wasting proto-life is immoral in my opinion really need to get to grips with the fact a few things have changed in the last thousand years. We have gone forth and multiplied - now we need to stop.

If it's considered truely evil in a few hundred years then we will have failed society as a whole. Hence - morality is working against the pressures society requires for smooth functioning.

In the same way, i personally thought abortion was wrong but didn't want anything legislated so people could be forced to stop doing it.

What do you guys think? Is she right or is there a flaw in her argument?

I'd say it depends on how 'evil' you consider abortion to be. I think you're being honest to yourself with this, which IMHO is the most important thing, so I really wouldn't call you a hypocrite. Au contraire, when you're pro-life but act pro-choice, it means that you're not trying to impose your own ideals and morals upon everybody else, but are willing to let them make their own decisions. This puts you above the average 'idealist' in my eyes.

When life hands you a lemon, that's 40% of your RDA of vitamin C taken care of.