KingFox wrote:
Hello Mosepa, and regarding the statement you made:
Law is not a preventative measure, it simply allows for punishment once and offense has ALREADY BEEN COMMITTED!!
You seem to overlook the utilitarian perspective of laws and punishment, that is of laws acting as a deterrent to crime, as espoused by the positivists JOhn Stuart Mill and Jeremy BEntham to name a few legal philosophers, and which is a tenet of the legal system in the WEst today.
Thinking of a law as a deterrent to crime is the same thing, I think, as viewing a bottle of hair dye as a deterrent to graying hair.
Simply because there is a law against something does not by any means stop that thing from happening.
There is a law against murder, murder still occurs on a daily basis and in great numbers. There is a law against rape, yet a woman is raped every six seconds in New York City alone.
To look at law as a deterrent to crime is to see it as a very poor deterrent. Law does not deter crime. In fact, anyone who will not commit a crime simply because there is a law against that act is copping out. They are using the fact that there is a law as an excuse to sidestep the fact that they personally feel that act to be wrong. They are refusing to accept the responsibility of their own moral judgment, and are instead assigning that responsibility to the people who made the law the will not break.
In short, they wouldn't commit that act even if there weren't a law against it, they just don't want to admit it out of fear of appearing to be a "goody-two shoes," or any one of a thousand other reasons that have nothing to do with a law.
Right now, as you read this, a woman is being raped, a child is being murdered, a man is being mugged, someone is breaking into someone else's house, someone is speeding in their vehicle on the road, someone is speeding on methamphetemine, someone is growing pot, a minor is drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes, someone is shoplifting.
Now, Kingfox...I ask you, WHY are these things happening when there are laws against these things?
Law is not a deterrent to the criminal element, only to "law abiding citizens" who most likely wouldn't commit crimes in the first place.
KingFox wrote:Similarly your statement 'attempting to legislate morality is immoral.'
Laws are made by a minority of people who claim to represent the majority. In this way, it could even be said (though this is admittedly an extreme,) that one man sets forth the code that all others are to abide by or else face consequences.
Let's say this one man decides that smoking marijuana is wrong. This is his subjective opinion, yet he decrees it morally wrong to smoke marijuana.
Morality is subjective; what one person thinks is moral may not be considered moral by another...the law should be objective.
How is it morally right for one man to tell me what I can and cannot put into my body?
Early in the Twentieth century, it was decreed that the manufacture, transport, possession and consumption of alcohol was immoral and therefore made illegal.
Sales of alcohol skyrocketed, crime involving alcohol boomed.
I state, again, that any attempt to legislate morality is in itself immoral.
It is wrong to force one's beliefs upon others, in other words.
KingFox wrote:That's a big statement, especially from a Buddha like yourself. Ultimately there is a degree of overlap between morality and secular law in any society, and furthermore it can be argued that human beings are themselves moral beings, and if no morality existed there would be no society as this acts as a sanction against wrong acts.
There should not be an overlap. Morality is largely considered a part of one's spirituality. In this country (the USA) there is a law of seperation of church and state. In a sense, legislating morality is against the law in this country. Quite a paradox, eh?
Morality is up to the individual, however. One's morality is based upon one's view of right and wrong which is shaped by one's experiences...which are personal. Granted, others may share one person's opinion of what is moral...but if they were to examine it closely enough, they would discover areas in which their agreement stops.
There is no single moral edict that ALL people agree upon. Therefore, it is useless to use law as a means of forcing morality. You might as well try to force all people to dress alike, to think the same, to eat the same food, to listen to the same music, to watch the same television shows.
KingFox wrote:However if you wish to transcend morality and become something akin to a Nietzschean Superman, then I applaud you as this takes a lot of guts, and one where you have to primarily overcome yourself, not others.
The debate of natural versus positivist law has gone on for centuries, I doubt very much if it will be resolved here!
A great man once said something to the effect of, "That government which governs best is that government which governs least. I agree with this and with it's logical conclusion which is 'That government which governs best is that government which governs NOT AT ALL.'" (Emphasis mine.)
The only correct function of a government is to protect it's citizens from hostile force and to settle legal disagreements.
It is not right for a government to use hostile force against it's citizens. Attempting to legislate morality is using hostile force.
I eagerly await your next post on this subject, Kingfox. I hope you still have the internet.