Join devRant
Do all the things like
++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatar
Sign Up
Pipeless API
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple API
Learn More
-
@YourMom
Of course you do. That's the democratic power. We both agree apparently that forced arbitration is bullshit, even more if it is hidden in a EULA. And in a different product. Disney Plus subscription? Really? For a Disney World restaurant?
So, we lobby for a new law, don't we? We tell others, write our representatives, donate money. At least a small subset of whatever we could do.
Those are all things we can do, that is just the renegotiation. But if you said if the Disney lawyer was a personal friend of yours and you're now cancelling the friendship, then I think you an intolerant asshole who tries to force her moral code on others without doing the required work of solidifying it as law. -
@retoor
But is it amoral or just competing stances of morality. Not being allowed to annoy a person limits someone's freedom. Not drinking alcohol does so, too. But allowing them to drink alcohol will lead to health issues and is therefore not moral as well. And annoying people leads to them being annoyed. D'uh.
We have two different sets or moral rules and as a society, we need to decide which one to follow. I might personally disagree with whatever we negotiate, but if I wouldn't hire a person for their stance that alcohol should be forbidden, I'd be an intolerant asshole. -
You are just ignoring the definitions of words, my friend.
Legality is NOT morality.
Each individual has a personal and probably unique understanding of morality.
Let‘s say you go to a different country with different laws. It means that what is legal differs from country to country. But you still have your own morality. Do you change what you think is moral by going to another country? Certainly not. So what you are saying makes no sense. -
@Lensflare
I am saying that laws by their very nature are negotiated, frozen pieces of morality and therefore morals. -
@TrayKnots Laws are not morality as they are not dictated by the common people. Otherwise, woke quotas would never have happened, as they are both against the law and immoral :D
-
@BordedDev
I don't like quotas. I have good arguments against it. But are you really trying to tell me that you believe that these ideas are not held by many for moral reason? That's my exact point, that my morality is your immorality. And laws are our baseline negotiated morality, to which we can return and reverse it if we aren't happy with it. -
@YourMom
I can see a moral argument for not regulating a company. It is de facto punishing a company for being too successful. Success comes with benefits, like market hegemony and cash flow, which grants powers. Punishing success seems immoral and counter-productive.
However, since those powers influence people negatively, limiting the very same company seems also to be moral.
Again, we have to decide for a baseline of morality and put it in law. Personally, I agree with your morality and would support it being put into law. -
@TrayKnots No, it goes against their own morality as it is by definition racist or sexist which they oppose :D
-
@BordedDev
I think that they make a mistake. They often take outcomes differences and then assert that these differences are proof of discrimination. Then they assert further, that if the outcome is corrected, discrimination could be defeated or at least reduced.
I think this is a highly moral and highly stupid take on how the world works. -
@TrayKnots
Something like the 10 commandments are indeed supposed to define what is moral.
But in civilized countries where we don’t practice the law of the bible, the law has nothing to do with morality.
The law defines what is legal so that society can function by knowing exactly what to do when we inevitably encounter disagreements about morality (like when a crime happens). -
@Lensflare
I mean, I argued why I think that is wrong. And all you can do is just reassert in a lecturing tone?
Laws are born out of morality. They are the moral values frozen in time. We think stealing is bad, therefore we froze that morality into our laws. And now our laws are obviously exactly that. Morality solidified. -
@TrayKnots I didn’t intent to assert or reassert. Just trying to give examples and perspectives to make you realize that you are making a mistake, imo.
While often it might seem like laws are trying to capture morality, they really aren‘t. You are reasserting this repeatedly and I try to explain why they are not.
Laws are there to make society function. This is often established by defining what is moral, but not always. Morality alone can not make a society work because there will be disagreements. We know that it cant work to dictate morality by law, so we don’t even try.
So, no. Laws are not born out of morality. -
@Lensflare That's the very reason we developed morality in the first place. An evolutionary adjustment as a form of proto-law to make society function.
-
@TrayKnots the law of defining stealing to be illegal is not because we think its wrong. It‘s because society wouldn’t work if it was legal.
It just coincides with also being immoral, for most people.
Most people think that killing someone is wrong and immoral, yet there are laws which require a person to be executed for some major crimes.
This is an example where morality and law don’t coincide. -
> That's the very reason we developed morality in the first place. An evolutionary adjustment as a form of proto-law to make society function.
Maybe. But then it evolved into something which isn‘t what it was before. Something related, but distinct. Different enough to have a distinct name and an own definition. -
@Lensflare
And most people do assume that defense is moral. You oversimplify to killing is immoral. Which it is not. Unjustified killing is. People always thought that killing in self-defense is moral. Or defense of our way of life. Executions are just a solidified version of this moral codex. In which we do it to people we are convinced we need to defend ourselves against.
But honestly, come on, your whole point can only stand when being pedantic and nit-picky. That would require me to define the borders as clearly as I'd do in a thesis. Even though we both know the core of my statement is clear and obviously true.
And no, it is no coincident that morality and law align so very often. -
@NotJeckel Since you agree it is a codified version of morality, riddle me this, how much codification would you have to add to remove it from being moral?
That's again just as nit picky. In the end, morality is not morality for being chaotic. That's now what makes it moral. -
@YourMom
But it also implies that the pertinent difference is in what cannot be expressed by the other media. E.g. the moans you mentioned. Not that the pertinence is in what they share, i.e. the communication. -
@TrayKnots I‘m not sure what you are claiming specifically.
You wrote that…
> Legality is morality
Your first comments were clearly implying you mean there is no difference and you said that it annoys you when people talk about those as if they were different.
But then when we pointed out that they are not the same things, you retreated to a more defendable position, that the law merely evolved from morality.
And your explanations shifted to the morale being the base for or the origin of the law.
But then you get annoyed that apparently, this is obvious and it’s nit picky to talk about those differences.
Either we have a major communication problem or you are being dishonest. -
not only is this a garbage take, the logic doesn't even check out internally.
some laws are morality put into writing =/=> legality is morality
Not even gonna engage with whether the first one is true, very basic knowledge about any form of governance that ever existed would tell you why it isn't, so even suggesting that it is tells me that the state is a sort of opaque black justice box to you.
Okay, I get so annoyed by all these comments I read everywhere akin to "just because it is legal doesn't mean it is moral."
Legality is morality. Claiming that it isn't, is amoral.
The problem with morality, I can easily decide on two completely contrary points of view. Can I take your stuff if you have more than I do? Morally? Sure, it is unfair that you have more. No, you earned it, you have a right to possessions.
Laws, at least some of them, are morality put into writing. A little more stiff, but still morals. Some laws just help us not bump into each other by telling us we have to drive on the left side of the road. But many of them are negotiations of a common morality.
If your personal morality doesn't align with that, you're free to take it and to start the negotiation process anew. Get support, change the law. It's arduous and annoying and work intensive, but possible.
But just fucking declaring that what was done is amoral despite being legal, not planning to do anything, just declare the other person amoral is fucking intolerant bullshit and if you do that, you're an asshole.
random
morality