Philosophy Now Forum

bobevenson wrote:A moral obligation is in the eye of the beholder, but a legal obligation is in the eye of the law.

It can be both a subjective and an objective position in relation to ethics. One can hold a moral realist position in relation to law and ethics. In other words, you could have a obligation towards both.

thedoc wrote:We should have an open season for those in need.

we do every election

"vote for me and I'll take their stuff and give it to you"

-Imp

Impenitent wrote:"vote for me and I'll take their stuff and give it to you"

Not candidates of the American Energy Party (AEP).

No.

Morality is agreement between individuals.
As is the state.

The state exists to organise and regulate.
As does morality in its way.

'If the state is immoral' as in comintern of ussr in 20>50's or nsdap of germany in 40's.
IT is individual agreement between people.
Imposing action through power of state to be immoral.
The state is not a thing 'in itself' it exists as an idea.

letting the wrong people run the state is our crime.
fear is our crime

"All evil needs to flourish is for good men to do nothing"

Prill


_____________
Aside from culture in Iain banks fiction. empires fall
Danilov in enemy at gates said [paraphrase]
"We tried so hard yet ..envy. to rich in gifts to poor in gifts , too rich in love to poor in love"

we fell down. nazi germany fell a long way. maybe why they are so quiet for 70 years.

USSR did not and look at ukraine now. lets hope germany and russia don't meet again.. russia will get its ass handed to them. The germans are and will always be the
best soldiers on this planet.

the creed of the valkyrie never fades.
yes i have religion.. the norse draw power from my belief.

Communists & the christian papist proles of love and peace. fool themselves. to their ruin

"I hope you're not willing to that for the entire world"

'Have Gun -- Will Travel'

#

"Of course, you'd go broke on ammunition alone..."

I'm guessin' family and friends of the victims would be willing to pony up a buck or two for shells, cigarettes, coffee, and a burger.

Tax dollars not required.

henry quirk wrote: 'Have Gun -- Will Travel'

Just remember that those who live by the sword are likely to die by the sword, or shotgun in your case.

"those who live by the sword..."

Works for me...

bobevenson wrote:

henry quirk wrote: 'Have Gun -- Will Travel'

Just remember that those who live by the sword are like to die by the sword, or shotgun in your case.

fine by me. I look forward to it. Your position is weak as they come.
I will die.
Better on a sword [or shotgun] than in light green tiled room with tubes up my arse. to be handily packaged in box and removed.
do you want to die in bed in a bureaucratic institution of death.
Or doing something.maybe something that lets others live. those that protect the president think so.. what say you?
The norse say only those who die in battle go to heaven. huge beer hall with wenches and food a plenty. my sort of heaven.

prill

i go to my fathers .. in whose company i will not be ashamed. Be that human history or subjective,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34CqtpYE-1k

once 'insurance' did not exist. or electricity. rome ruled the world.. in 100 years our 'life' will be a fantasy for kiddies to watch on media.

henry quirk wrote:"those who live by the sword..."

Works for me...

In other words, you believe in total anarchy and the lack of any mutual understanding with others, right? Of course, that means you can't make any arrangements of any kind regarding standards of ownership, conduct, safety and defense, or agree to handle situations in a certain way. Good luck Superman (you'll need it without Clark Kent to bail you out).

*sigh*

No, Bob, it means: as a violent man, I accept the fact I'll probably die violently.

henry quirk wrote:*sigh*

No, Bob, it means: as a violent man, I accept the fact I'll probably die violently.

And maybe that's not such a bad idea!

tbieter wrote:I disagree. Only human beings have moral obligations. Governments have only those obligations that are defined by law, only legal obligations.

What do you think?

It's not clear to me whether the controversy here has to do with an attempt to anthropomorphize the state in speech, or something else altogether. If the former, then I would say that, to the extent we reject any anthropomorphization of the state, it has neither moral or legal obligations, inasmuch as "the state" is not itself a conscious entity. If, however, the disagreement is simply over legal versus moral obligations—regardless of the presence of anthropomorphic language—then I find it difficult to accept the claim that the state can have an obligation to one but not the other. My view of positive law is that it is often if not always an attempt to codify those things that we perceive to be the elements of natural law.

i_another wrote:

tbieter wrote:I disagree. Only human beings have moral obligations. Governments have only those obligations that are defined by law, only legal obligations.

What do you think?

It's not clear to me whether the controversy here has to do with an attempt to anthropomorphize the state in speech, or something else altogether. If the former, then I would say that, to the extent we reject any anthropomorphization of the state, it has neither moral or legal obligations, inasmuch as "the state" is not itself a conscious entity. If, however, the disagreement is simply over legal versus moral obligations—regardless of the presence of anthropomorphic language—then I find it difficult to accept the claim that the state can have an obligation to one but not the other. My view of positive law is that it is often if not always an attempt to codify those things that we perceive to be the elements of natural law.

If we leave aside the anthropomorphic nature of state, then it is clear it makes more sense to charge a solitary person with a crime than it does to charge an individual or a group of individuals that belong to a corporation with a crime. Why? Well, for a start there a far less negative consequences.

Charging important people within a corporation for a crime is fraught with problems. This is especially true if the corporation is a financial institution because there is the real possibility than millions of people will lose out. If there is a conviction (depending on the size of the institution) there could be a national and/or global crisis in the making.Would you like to be a share holder in that organization? On the other hand, charging a poor slob with stealing $3,000 from Social Security is inherently safe. In fact if we can send him/her to jail there is the possibility that this sort of justice actually increases employment opportunities for others.

The bottom line is that it it far too risky to charge white collar workers with a crime involving theft. The risks become increasing apparent the larger the organization and the type of business this organization carries out. Too big to prosecute really means too risky to prosecute.

If you subscribe to this idea then there is no moral dilemma. It is a perfectly reasonable and sensible position to take. If on the other hand you suspect there is something inherently morally reprehensible with this scenario then you have acknowledge there is an ethical problem that needs to be addressed. If so, then in this respect the state does have a moral obligation when it comes to justice.

I agree with you, Tom.

Maybe Taibbi meant something like "the government prosecution lawyers' moral obligation to prosecute the banker/crooks" to the fullest extent of the law.

mickthinks wrote:I agree with you, Tom.

Maybe Taibbi meant something like "the government prosecution lawyers' moral obligation to prosecute the banker/crooks" to the fullest extent of the law.

I agree, but it probably won't work unless there is an institutional change in the culture coming from the Attorney Generals Department. In other words, it needs to be filtered down.