In case this cartoon doesn't make any sense to you at all, please read here for some context.So, what say you? Are some legal codes simply "better" than others? And if a legal code is a reflection of a society's values, morals and ethics, can we say that there are some societies that are objectively more moral than others?
And if you don't want to comment on any of those questions, expressions of indignation are certainly welcome.
I don't even know what it means to be snarky... Those were honest questions.
ReplyDeleteI'd say that the answer to both questions is 'yes,' some legal codes are better and some societies are better in an absolute sense (I mean, can I bring up the 13th article of faith here?). However, I realize that in a general sense, the goodness of a law is in the eye of the beholder. But a lot of beholders are wrong. We are ALL children of God and therefore deserve equal treatment before the law. Women needn't be oppresses (as in the linked article) just because the men are insecure.
I'm not saying I think we should adopt laws like this here, but take a look at what it says and not the spin that's being put on it through translation.
ReplyDeleteI'll probably get flamed for saying this, but there are definitely different levels of rape. Flame on!
You can't tell me that sex between a consenting 18yo and 17yo is the same thing as 4 men attacking one in a shower in a prison. Oh and just to throw a monkey wrench into the mix, the 18yo is a woman.
Or that a married woman, forcing herself on her husband, is the same thing as a creepy uncle ... fill in the blank.
What I see is a power struggle between men and women, and a defining of roles for married folks.
If the law were to be reversed and say a man "is bound to preen for his wife as and when she desires" would there be any indignation at all?
Personally, I think that would be a good rule to go by anyway. When one spouse feels like it, the other is required. So long as it goes both ways.
Rule of thumb for me, if Hillary is opposed to something, there is likely some moral merit to it. She's evil.
@Dane: you can definitly bring up the 13th AoF, but not without losing all credibility of being objective.
More to the topic that you were actually asking about though. One of the great travisties of the concept of "Separation of Church and state" that has become so prevelant and called upon in our American society, is that the concept has been taken to such an extreme that some take it to mean, 'the separation of a concept of right and wrong has no place in the creation of law'.
ReplyDeleteIf a group of people are moral, and base their morality on a code of conduct that is based on the doctrines of a religion, does it therefore make the involvement of that group in civic affairs completely disallowed by the 'separation of church and state' manifesto?
I submit that promoting this ideology is the goal of atheists and moral relativists. Ironically, if you ask an atheist where religious code evolved from if not set by God, they'll often come back with 'tribal instinct' or something like it. In other words, the God concept came out of the need for groups to create a civil code. Chicken Egg anyone?
Morality is tough. There is absolute morality when God is involved. But there are so many gods...
ReplyDeleteWithout God, morality is relative. So much can and will be made legal. Who's to say that the sheep doesn't enjoy it? Or that an eight year old can't be 'consenting?' Or that someone can't stockpile heavy weapons, or perhaps just assault rifles and RPGs? Or that someone can't peddle hard drugs? If the person taking the drugs is an adult, who is to say their decision is wrong? What about suicide, incest or cannibalism? If the people are 'adults', how can they be limited? Or, as in the article, institutionalized rape and 'preening.' And, in response to Chuck, what makes it wrong if it's just the man or the woman who has the power in the relationship? Who decides that the preening-on-demand power has to be shared evenly?
Perhaps most can agree that some justice, at least, can be found where religion and secular humanism overlap.
Dane, apologies for the "snarky" comment. I must have read your post while in a bad mood. I'll try not to be so defensive in the future.
ReplyDeleteBTW, great debate between Chuck and Dane. And just so you're both aware, you would totally be friends if you actually knew each other.
I'll try to chime in a bit more tonight after I formulate a response.
To continue on my earlier thought, if morality is relative, then it's not just activities that libertarians would approve of legalizing that become 'acceptable.'
ReplyDeleteBoth Maoism, with its enforcement extreme equality (we all get to wear the same green jumpsuit and have the same haircut!) and its oppression of independent thought (cultural revolution, anyone?) and Islamic fundamentalism, with its indiscriminate and often horrific murder of civilians and oppression of most anything modern, could be considered legitimate systems of belief.
I'm not sure where to begin. There are a whole lot of points being made here.
ReplyDeleteHere's my take on objective morality. If there are deeds and beliefs that are universally accepted as being "good," then why is there so much debate that there is an opposite end to this spectrum? Intuitively there should be. Or am I being naive?
I don't have a background in Law, but from what little I've seen legal systems from antiquity are remarkably similar to those of the present in the morality they express, though they differ greatly on the punishment they dole out.
Glancing through a translation of Hammurabi's code, most of the laws deal with protection of property, discouragement of dishonesty and ensuring that the government and religious apparatus remain in power.
Here are a couple examples of laws from Hammurabi's code:
" If any one steal cattle or sheep, or an ass, or a pig or a goat, if it belong to a god or to the court, the thief shall pay thirtyfold; if they belonged to a freed man of the king he shall pay tenfold; if the thief has nothing with which to pay he shall be put to death."
"If a man violate the wife (betrothed or child-wife) of another man, who has never known a man, and still lives in her father's house, and sleep with her and be surprised, this man shall be put to death, but the wife is blameless. "
Also, the Ten Commandments prohibit similar activities, though in a simplified Cliff's Notes way. I imagine other societies had similar laws. Don't steal, don't kill (except under certain circumstances), don't lie in court, and do NOT incur the wrath of the governme....I mean gods... do not incur the wrath of the gods.
This consistency tells me that there is an intuitive aspect to morality. It seems to boil down to the golden rule. Stealing from someone is bad, because you wouldn't like it if it happened to you. Same goes for murder. And for rape. I know this sounds like I'm oversimplifying this issue, so please feel free to disagree.
At the end of the day we humans are violent, tribal creatures that very quickly resort to violence to get their way, be it intimidation, murder, robbery, or rape. A "good" legal system, and strong moral fiber in society seem to mitigate these tendencies, rather than encourage them through legitimization.
Back to one of Chuck's comments. Indeed there are different kinds of rape. Statutory and actual. I think spousal rape falls squarely in the latter category.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think that a wife's raping of her husband is wrong. However, this doesn't seem to be an actual problem overall.