I will not answer the rest because I know as fact that Morals and Law are both seperate and distinct entities irregardless of whatever psuedobabble you wish to post.

Did you know that solitary confinement has been proven to have sometimes irreversable effects upon a persons psychology>>?? No?? Come on... you say you are so smart... your answer is bunk. Try again though.

I am kind of embarrassed I have to educate you but what the hell lets give it a try. I will post a link, kind of like I have been doing, in order to provide proof, something I am afraid you have a great fear of.

Read what follows--

http://www.libertyhaven.com/politics...ightslaw.shtml
Douglas B. Rasmussen
""Morality and Law
There is a fundamental difference between the concerns of morality and law, and an examination of the character of human moral well-being will reveal the basis for this difference.

1. Morality. The moral life is concerned with choices that necessarily involve the particular and the contingent. Knowledge of the moral virtues and true human goods may tell all of us what, abstractly speaking, we ought to do; but in the real world of individual human conduct, where all actions and goods are concrete, moral virtues and goods involve the particular and the contingent. This is why prudence-the use of reason by the individual person to determine what ought to be done in the concrete situation-is the cardinal virtue.

Determining what moral virtue and goods call for in terms of concrete actions in specific circumstances can vary from person to person, and certain virtues can have larger roles in the lives of some persons than in others. Determining the appropriate response to the situation faced is, therefore, what moral living is all about. A successful moral life is by its very nature something that is highly personal.

This, of course, is not to say that any choice one makes is as good as the next, but it is to say that the choice must be one's own and involve considerations that are unique to the individual. One person's moral well-being cannot be exchanged with another's. The good-for-me is not, and cannot be, the good-for-you. Human moral well-being is something objective, self-directed, and highly personal. It is not something abstract, collectively determined, or impersonal.

2. Law. Law, on the other hand, is neither concerned with determining the appropriate course of conduct for an individual in a specific circumstance nor with teaching him what he ought to do. Rather, law is concerned with the protection of the self-directedness or autonomy of individuals when they live among others. An examination of the character of human moral well-being will reveal why.

Before addressing the question of what people ought to think or how they ought to conduct themselves, an analysis of human moral well-being shows that people ought to act according to their own judgments. This is true, however, not because of the consequences but because of the character of human moral well-being. Self-directedness or autonomy is a necessary condition for and an operating condition of the pursuit and achievement of human moral well-being. It is necessary for any person undertaking any right action. It pertains to the very essence of human moral well-being and is, therefore, right for any individual regardless of the circumstances. The protection of self-directedness or autonomy must, then, be provided if human moral well-being is to occur socially. This point, of course, is of no great importance for determining personal conduct. A normative ethicist could not get very far with this information, but it is crucial for understanding the nature of law.

Since the self-directedness or autonomy of individuals must be protected if there is to be any possibility of their choosing as they ought, there needs to be an institution which protects the possibility of individuals being self-directed, an institution which states and enforces what must be the case.

The appropriateness of self-directedness or autonomy for human moral well-being is grasped only in abstraction from the specific virtues and concrete goods that a particular human being's intelligence determines as needed for the circumstances in which he finds himself. Thus, the institution whose aim is to protect the possibility of self direction should not be concerned with what is good for some individuals relative to concrete situations.

Protecting the self-directedness or autonomy of individuals is a concern only of community life, and thus the institution that is concerned with protecting self-direction should be concerned only with establishing and enforcing rules of community life which prohibit forms of action that use people for purposes to which they haven't consented. It should not be concerned with teaching individuals how to attain their well-being.

An analysis of human moral well-being, therefore, shows that there needs to be an institution which is concerned with what must be the case for any and all individuals when they live together, an institution concerned with the protection of only those things that are universally and necessarily good for any and all people no matter what their concrete condition or circumstance. This institution is law. Its function is to protect the self-directedness or autonomy of individuals. ""

I certainly hope that the above provides you with some much needed direction. Perhaps you can even be humble enough to admit that you are wrong

Dude, do you even read the things you post, or do you just kind of guess what words mean, or what? Nothing there disagreed with anything I said.

Well, the way you posed your statement in the preceding post it seemed as if you were agreeing with burningbush there. If you were not I apologize

He pretty much thinks that laws were born of morals. That is quite untrue.

It's untrue but it's got some truth to it. Sharia law, for instance, is based on a concept of morality. Many laws in the West have historically been based on morality, and even now things like laws against prostitution are based on morality.

One or two laws that can be directly traced to a moral scripture does not a truth make though.

Both of them have the same background and the same parent root and yet share very fine distinctions. One regulates personal thought and the other societal thought.

It has long since been concluded that the isolation of an individual for extended periods of time is considered to be an inhumane act.
Have you decided that murder is not acceptable, yet torturing individuals is alright?
I'm confused at what difference there is between the two to you personally..

Also, I must state that i believe that many of the personal rights of prisoners should be removed. todays society is way to lenient on hardcore criminals. And all of us taxpayers are doling out tax dollars for more and more of them everyday.
Throwing a switch on a convicted murderer who has repeated the offense more than once is better for the whole. I don't want him faking through all the psych tests and parole boards only to be released onto the streets that my child walks down..

So.... how about that war, eh?

I should report Dyshade for dragging my thread off topic, considering he's jumped down my throat so many times for doing it elsewhere.

Double post.... DF is a piece of shit recently.

That doesn't surprise me. Okay, here's a difference;

In the case of murder, someone dies.

Torture is something else completely different.

I hope this has been enlightening.

Besides, the supposition is bullshit. Leaving someone in a stone cell with nothing in it for a week is inhumane. Someone spending time not working in a cell by themselves isn't inherently so. They could read, for one thing. It's certainly far more humane than putting them in an enviroment where they can be beaten and raped.

This is a false dilemma. You are assuming that the only two options are,

1) The death penalty, and

2) A wishy washy parole system where they're back on the street in a couple years.

But other options remain.




fr0g: To answer your question, I think so, yes. People bitch about how we can't treat the enemy humanely, but they ignore the fundamentally profitable nature of democracy. If you look like a better alternative than your enemy, you're going to get converts from the other side.

Although realistically I'm not sure we were any less supernice in WWII than we are now. We weren't just killing German citizens left and right then, and now we're not really bending over backwards not to kill citizens when we need to to get at enemy fire either.


One thing we did that was much more humane then was, after we occupied Germany and Japan, we forced them to take a constitution based on Western ideals. Forcing Japan to let women vote, for instance, was controversial at the time. But certainly the countries are better off for it now; of the five most powerful economies in the world, three had constitutions written by Americans (America, Germany, Japan) and the other two just manage by dint of having around 20% of the world's population each (India and China).


Iraq, on the other hand... that constitution sucks. No law is allowed to contradict the laws of Islam, and free speech is only guaranteed so far as it doesn't hurt "public morality or order". Worthless rag....

It's still dragging on. Look for more U.S. soldiers to be sent to prison for trying to fight, with no actions to help them by that fucktarded, piece of shit, honorless pig George W. Bush.

I know, geez. You can't even commit criminally negligent homicide anymore without people getting their panties in a bunch.

Haha.

Judgment so casually tossed out. You would have been a hit at those Vietnam Era Anti-War parties

Maybe well over a year ago

You will notice things have changed quite a bit in the last year or so.

Says the guy who thinks people are liberals for not agreeing with him after fifteen seconds?

There's nothing anti-war about expecting an investigation into a case where soldiers kill nine family members and fail to hit their actual targets. Just because we're at war doesn't mean troops can or should have a carte blanche to do whatever they like without repercussions.

haha. I only called you one because you were pretty much stating the exact same liberal rhetoric most everyone gives almost by rote when dealing with th edeath penalty.

When you are in the heat o fthe moment and stuff is blowing up and people are shooting at you mistakes can and will be made. The enemy over there is not exactly wearing bright red uniforms declaring themselves the enemy.

Besides who is the criminal, the person who retaliates and accidentally kills civilians or those who are using the civilians as living meat shields?