-
Want to help us with this year's BoS Trials? Let us know before 30 June. See this thread for details -
Looking for HSC notes and resources? Check out our Notes & Resources page
Law and Morality: Is there a necessary connection? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Crobat
- Start date
kfnmpah
Well-Known Member
based on the fact that we can't know anything else
dis shit complicated so i've conceded that we are all clueless and our opinion is all we've got really. if lots of people share it, then youo[re right!
wannaspoon
ремове кебаб
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2012
- Messages
- 1,401
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2007
- Uni Grad
- 2014
An argument that you can put forward is that the law cannot be objective and functional when it is hindered by moral doctrines... morals govern on the basis of values, emotions, etc rather than a process from which the law can remain fair and impartial as it preaches... its failure to be objective would make law ineffective... however, you can argue that morals provide a human element to law... the element being, an understanding on how we should treat one an other which is based on values, emotions, etc
The paradoxes are unavoidable... dont bother avoiding them... just get something down... honestly, there is no real right or wrong answer... unless you write something completely absurd... eg: try to fill word count with the fresh prince of bel air theme lyrics
The paradoxes are unavoidable... dont bother avoiding them... just get something down... honestly, there is no real right or wrong answer... unless you write something completely absurd... eg: try to fill word count with the fresh prince of bel air theme lyrics
Last edited:
Lolsmith
kill all boomers
what is the justification for your "ergo"
kfnmpah
Well-Known Member
so I had consumed a number of beers when i posted what I posted.
The answer to this question can be argued from so many angled, and it all depends on like how you view the world.
My answer is my opinion and my opinion is purely subjective (as are all opinions). it gets mega complicated when you look at different philosophical perspectives and the more you read the more you realise there's no fuckin right answer because 'right' means whatever you want it to mean so just pick a point, argue it and back it up brah. (where your point is whatever you want it to be, obviously)
If you want to read more about ~~~philosophy~~~, read some Post Positivist stuff then read some Critical Theory stuff then some Constructivist stuff and see what you think is bull shit and what you think is reasonable and run with it.
Either morals are innate and the law reflects that or morals are whatever you(/society, really) want them to be and the law reflects that.
The answer to this question can be argued from so many angled, and it all depends on like how you view the world.
My answer is my opinion and my opinion is purely subjective (as are all opinions). it gets mega complicated when you look at different philosophical perspectives and the more you read the more you realise there's no fuckin right answer because 'right' means whatever you want it to mean so just pick a point, argue it and back it up brah. (where your point is whatever you want it to be, obviously)
If you want to read more about ~~~philosophy~~~, read some Post Positivist stuff then read some Critical Theory stuff then some Constructivist stuff and see what you think is bull shit and what you think is reasonable and run with it.
Either morals are innate and the law reflects that or morals are whatever you(/society, really) want them to be and the law reflects that.