It does, until the law is codified in legislation and regulations which takes precedent over common law rules. If there is no legislation, the common law carries the day. But the common law changes and some laws and legal principles are vastly different today than they were centuries before.
It is grounds for a divorce, but does not imply fault on either party. As i said, divorce in Canada implies no fault. You're argument claims it does (i.e. breach of contract)
The law is to settle issues of legality and illegality. Some laws are based on morality but the vast majority are not. Where is the morality in the law that says marijuana is illegal, or drinking at the age of 18 is legal, or that meat in restaurants must be cooked past 60 degrees celsius, or that going over 30 in a school zone is speeding. These are legal determinations rooted in a abstract and distant moral background.
Is drinking at 17 morally wrong? is doing cocaine at 45 morally wrong? who knows! but they are illegal. Try arguing morality when defending the above in court.
Is cheating morally wrong (this is a loaded question as morality and moral notions are subjective)? yeah! is it illegal? nope. Does it sway the distribution of assets in a divorce? nope.
Well, all legal arguments for or against drug and alcohol use are rooted firmly in moral perspectives. What you are essentially saying is that there is no rationality behind the law. That it is all subjectively based on what justices choose to "codify" or "feel" at different times.
Well, all legal arguments for or against drug and alcohol use are rooted firmly in moral perspectives. What you are essentially saying is that there is no rationality behind the law. That it is all subjectively based on what justices choose to "codify" or "feel" at different times.
The evolving view in legal theory is that marriage is effectively a contract. The English common law, for instance, affirmed marriage as a contract with certain duties attached to it. John Locke, a significant force in our legal discussions regarding marriage, also affirmed it as essentially a contract.
All the legislation does is affirm the type of contract that is legally possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
Yes, it does. This is why we have courts. This is why we have lawyers.
Yeah, you are clearly not among them... The evolving theory in law is that marriage is a contract? John Locke is a major source of modern legal theory? What on Earth am I reading?
You appear to have no understanding about the respective roles of common law rules and legislation, for a start, and I'd suggest you stop digging because this is now two threads where everyone is now looking at you like a crazy guy in a restaurant who suddenly started yelling at his surf & turf.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Outside of a few laws that revolve around moral principles, very few laws are based directly on our society's idea of morality.
Again, I raise an issue with using morality as a barometer as no two people would agree on what is morally righteous and what is morally reprehensible. Morality, i would argue, is subjective, therefore someone basing all laws strictly on a moral code would mean other people would view those laws as amoral.
Sure, murder is morally wrong and illegal. Stealing is morally wrong and legal. charging interest is... legal. Charging interest above 60% per annum is... illegal. The morality of interest is debatable; same for the amount that can be charged per agreement.
Drug and alcohol policies are not ground in morality. They are subjectively created by the government and the electorate. Some may base their decision on "moral grounds" but, as mentioned above, morality is completely subjective.
Drunk driving, morally reprehensible (in our subjective world). But what makes .08 blood alcohol level the bar for drunk driving? what statistics were provided that gave .05 more credence?
I am not arguing that laws are not ground in rationality, as you took that to a radical conclusion. I am saying they are not ground in morality. Morality and rationality are starkly different.
But, given my agreement, laws are created based on the subjective impulses of what justices/governments/voters choose the law to be.
Last edited by Cappy; 07-21-2015 at 05:01 PM.
Reason: Removed "Back on Topic" as I did not return...
The bar graph does. MSM are the traditional risk group for HIV/AIDS. Heterosexual women, as a combined group, have now overtaken IDUs as a risk category.
Biologically speaking, women are far more susceptible and vulnerable to viral transmission.
This article below emphasizes that only half of hetero women with HIV present significant risk factors, and you could infer that those women got it through an unfaithful partner.
So you are just ignoring the various MSM groups? No doubt it is a problem but saying hetero women overtaking IDU's as a risk category is different than what you stated:
The fastest growing population with HIV/AIDS is heterosexual women who catch the disease from cheating spouses.
That site indicated:
Women accounted for 20% of estimated new HIV infections in 2010 and 23% of those living with HIV infection in 2011. The 9,500 new infections among women in 2010 reflect a significant 21% decrease from the 12,000 new infections that occurred among this group in 2008.
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
Cappy, laws are generally based on a pragmatic consequentialism, which is a moral theory. It's a bad one, but if you're not trying to answer "what is right" but rather "what works for society", it seems to function more often than not. It's still a moral theory though - law can't avoid morality, because essentially all that morality is is the answer to the question, "how ought we to act".
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Peter12, I commend you for responding to the various issues raised by others, but your assertions on the law are not accurate. Firstly, you realize you are quoting a guy, John Locke, that has been dead for more than 300 years (John Locke; 29 August 1632 – 28 October 1704). The law (specifically common law) is all about being flexible and growing (the "living tree"). While Locke's philosophy was important historically, legal thought didn't just end with him.
Playing along for a bit though; If marriage is a contract between two adults, why can't two (of age) homosexuals consensually enter into a contract of marriage?
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
With respect to the debate re law and morality, I think we've essentially crossed the line into semantics. I expect that we all agree that (1) generally, the law is concerned with morality and moral questions; but (2) the jurisdiction of legislators is not bound by any concept of morality (i.e., parliament may pass "unjust" laws so long as they are constitutionally intra vires [R. v. Malmo-Levine, etc.]).
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
The Following User Says Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
Cappy, laws are generally based on a pragmatic consequentialism, which is a moral theory. It's a bad one, but if you're not trying to answer "what is right" but rather "what works for society", it seems to function more often than not. It's still a moral theory though - law can't avoid morality, because essentially all that morality is is the answer to the question, "how ought we to act".
I do not wish to get into a debate about legal philosophy as I did not go to my legal theory class all that often and outside of legal positivism, realism, and natural law, i could give you nothing else.
However, I emphasized in my last point that morality is completely subjective and varies from person to person. One may answer "how we ought to act" differently from the other. In fact, the Alberta Court of Appeal has discussed the wrongness of using moral values to determine judgments, in place of legally binding precedent. Isn't that why equity exists?
Side note, Corsi; When did you graduate? I suspect I know you.
With respect to the debate re law and morality, I think we've essentially crossed the line into semantics. I expect that we all agree that (1) generally, the law is concerned with morality and moral questions; but (2) the jurisdiction of legislators is not bound by any concept of morality (i.e., parliament may pass "unjust" laws so long as they are constitutionally intra vires [R. v. Malmo-Levine, etc.]).
Read a couple articles, haven't seen an official statement from the hacking group yet. What is their end game?
I once thought there was a legit use for doxxing/internet shaming. Naming ISIS members, naming pedos... but, overall, I'm starting to think doxxing/internet shaming should be taken off the table completely. More frequently now, these campaigns are used to push a debatable/subjective moral agenda via internet bullying. This is simply not the right way to achieve change.
The Following User Says Thank You to cracher For This Useful Post:
However, I emphasized in my last point that morality is completely subjective and varies from person to person.
This is a frankly dangerous mode of thinking because if you really believe morality is subjective, then you have no basis for any moral criticism. Jeffrey Dahmer was as moral a man as you are, by that standard.
Different people may have different moral views, but that doesn't mean those views can't be incorrect.
That being said, in the context of this discussion Makarov's post was pretty much spot on.
Quote:
In fact, the Alberta Court of Appeal has discussed the wrongness of using moral values to determine judgments, in place of legally binding precedent. Isn't that why equity exists?
Side note, Corsi; When did you graduate? I suspect I know you.
2010, the second time, if you're referring to university. 2007 for undergrad.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
This is a frankly dangerous mode of thinking because if you really believe morality is subjective, then you have no basis for any moral criticism. Jeffrey Dahmer was as moral a man as you are, by that standard.
Different people may have different moral views, but that doesn't mean those views can't be incorrect.
That being said, in the context of this discussion Makarov's post was pretty much spot on.
2010, the second time, if you're referring to university. 2007 for undergrad.
hmmm... 2013 for me. Perhaps you were in 3rd when i was in first.
Anyway, yes its probably a very dangerous view. I think that we, as people, can all agree on certain moral principles; however, that line slowly blurs the farther we get from the foundation (murder, theft, etc.) which could also be a contributing factor to the f***ed state of world affairs for the vast majority of human existence.
But yes, we all have different moral perceptions. I can say you are morally wrong for something that you think is fine. If we all lived under the same moral code, the world and our society would be drastically different.
