Veganism and Morality

51 - 56 of 56 posts 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Mel NSW • Posts: 289

51 20 Sep 2009

Scott said:

Mel said:

It's hard to disassociate ourselves from our emotions when we are human.
And when it comes to discussions about morality and ethics I really don't want to disassociate my feelings, I think that they count, I think that they indicate some wrongs with things or with me and should be taken note of.
But that is my opinion.
I just can't imagine a world revolving its ideas and results around reasoning that doesn't take emotion or emotional consequence into account.

Emotions cloud your judgment does not mean "dont ever use emotion in judgement", it means your emotions are getting out of hand. Emotion is a good thing but i think we can all agree that if we do 0% rational thinking and 100% emotional thinking nothing will be accomplished but the simple negation of what the other person said.

I said this because it appeared to me that the person was so caught up in their own beleifs he gave my option no merit watsoever and took no time to really understand it. Its like when your really pissed off at someone and rather then sort things rationally you just try to do something to get that person back, and in the process do something you wish you hadnt. Your emotions clouded your judgement in such a case.

Thank you. I can agree with you that a middle way of things would be the ideal way then? Of course, people are too complex for that to work perfectly in this world.
I agree that many people who have strong feelings about the animal issue do let their emotions cloud their judgement and it has indirectly caused me harm in my relationships.
People assume that because I support animal rights I believe I have an elitist view, or that I think they are morally wrong, without talking to me about what I actually think, because of some experience they have had with animal rights supporters in the past.

Everyone needs to practice a good balance of things.

Scott NSW • Posts: 44

52 20 Sep 2009

Mel said:

well said

Scott NSW • Posts: 44

54 20 Sep 2009

Biophiliac said:

Wait, what?

Laws exist to protect members of our society from the wrong doings of other members of society. If we take this out of context with morality than laws exist for no reason. Without morality with which to subject perceived wrong doings with, there would be no basis for a legal system at all.

How do you define morality?

happy

Ok, im not disagreeing with you thats the way the legal SHOULD be, but is by no means the way the legal system IS.
The legal system can effectively be looked at as as kind of function, punishments given from certain circumstances. Imagine this:

C is the commited crime
L is the set of laws
Court is the fucntion of the legal system

the punishment a person receives is equal to: Court(C,L)

This is the legal system, this is how it operates, there is no need for morality here. You are correct in saying that "there is no basis for a legal system" but only in the legitamacy of this system. If someone has power over you and that persons says "dont do x or ill do y" there need not be any basis of any kind for that person to assert this rule over you.

Your line of thinking reminds heaps of some of the guys i had to study last year for philosophy of law. There was some guy, think it was dworkin, who said "any law which isnt a moral law isnt a law", or something there abouts. Point is, those guys lost favour with modern jurisprudence a long time ago, there are far more better takes on law then those. The philosophers who take the same line as you have good points but they dont address how the law actually works, they focus on how it should work, i cant stress this enough to you.

For much better explanations on how the legal system soveriegnty works look up Michel Foucault and Giorgio Agamben. For Focualt look up "Society must be defended" and "Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at College de France". For Agamben look up "The state of exception", "what is a camp?" and "Security and Terror".

Jesse VIC • Posts: 1117

55 21 Sep 2009

Scott said:

yes we should respect your moralistic opinion. However, this does not stop us taking LEGAL action to stop the person from permitting such acts.

Your line of thinking reminds heaps of some of the guys i had to study last year for philosophy of law. There was some guy, think it was dworkin, who said "any law which isnt a moral law isnt a law", or something there abouts. Point is, those guys lost favour with modern jurisprudence a long time ago, there are far more better takes on law then those. The philosophers who take the same line as you have good points but they dont address how the law actually works, they focus on how it should work, i cant stress this enough to you.

So what you're saying is:
- Laws are our means of protecting society's collective morality.

- But laws do not and are not intended to reflect our collective morality.

Where does that leave us? Not an ideal situation! sad