At 4/24/08 12:55 PM, Expl0it wrote:
DarkReality's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2004
Age: 21
Posts: 9,302
Default
And who decides what is "objective"? By what system should we base laws if not on our own morality and idea of a "just" society? I mean, I can see where you're coming from, but unless our governing body is an advanced AI capable of social management, there's going to be nothing apart from our own morals and ethics on which we can base laws.
Because what else is capital punishment "for the good of the society" but utilitarianism and a lack of faith in an individual concerning his resocialization? All our decisions are based on our own morals and ethics because as of the moment, there is no mathematical formula which can calculate the best laws, from an objective standpoint.
At least in my opinion, feel free to correct me.
You're absolutely right in saying that objectivism is impossible given the subjective nature of the human mentality. But the hope is that with so many differing opinions, the only ones that will prevail are the ones that some people might not agree with individually but see the benefits to society. While I said morality does not equate legality, I never said they weren't parallel in their goals. For the most part what we consider moral will be turned into law. My point was that there are some things some of us might not consider moral that need to be legal in order for our society to progress. Destroying all law will lead to a chaos that will not only hinder societal progression, but will even turn towards societal regression.
Now I never meant this to become a debate of capital punishment or abortion, but since you brought it up I feel the need to respond. You're 100% correct-- capital punishment is completely utilitarian. But it's not due to lack of faith in the resocialization of an individual; instead, it's due to lack of a better system. Look at the re-incarceration stats. Prison is NOT rehabilitating criminals, and those who commit crimes that can lead to societal regression (malevolent taking of one's life, etc.) need to be dealt with differently. I'm not saying it's the best option, I'm just saying it's an option that has its merits.
You concentrated on just one half of my argument, though. I said that killing in general is immoral, but two forms need to be legal in order to allow for societal progression. I'm just curious why you concentrated on one half and ignored the other half. But I didn't want to turn this into that debate, so this is the last I will talk of it.