Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 6914705" data-attributes="member: 53980">No basis in reality? Take a glance at some science news. There is a very real possibility that my hypothetical machine society could become a reality within our lifetimes. Whereas you can wait until the heat death of the universe (or Big Crunch if you prefer) but Santa will still be completely fictional. The two are not even in the same ballpark.Given that we've been discussing "western morality" for the bulk of this conversation, I don't see how the legality in non-western cultures is relevant to your point. If anything, it supports my claim that there is not a direct correlation between morality and legality. Note that I've never claimed that there isn't an indirect correlation; in fact I believe there is one.By that logic, it's immoral to operate a motor vehicle, because you are putting the lives of others at risk. A lot of people die as a result of automobile accidents every year after all.And really, it is possible to be 100% certain given appropriate conditions. Clear sight lines. A well lit roadway. You come to a full stop and take the time to survey your surroundings. You drive through the intersection at a slow pace once you ascertain that it is safe. Unless the invisible man is crossing the road, you're not going to hit anyone or anything. I actually used a real world example for that one. Back when I was in my 20s, we used to game at a friend's house until 2 or 3 am. Sometime around then, a light on a road I would take home would change from a normal timer to one that could take up to ten minutes to change (I timed it on numerous occasions). While stopped at the light, I had plenty of time to ponder the moral implications of running the red, including in terms of alignment given that I'd been playing D&D a few minutes earlier. You could see several hundred feet down every path of the intersection and the plethora of streetlights made it nearly as bright as day. While I never did run the red, I concluded that there was nothing immoral about doing so as there was simply no chance that I could put anyone's life in danger. Even if some drunken idiot were flying down the road at a hundred mph with his lights off, I would have still seen him from a mile a way (figuratively speaking). In fact, I saw several such idiots while sitting at that light. No, the only reason that I didn't do it was that I don't care to break the law if it can be helped. Waiting 5 to 10 minutes was marginally preferable.As for the rest, this is the first post of yours that I replied to:To paraphrase, you said that murder is illegal BECAUSE it is immoral. One was the direct result of the other. Merely being in compliance seems a very different thing to me.This is the conclusion from my second response to you:It seemed like some goalposts might have been shifting a little, so I thought it best that we both have a reminder of what we're talking about. As you can see, from the beginning I've never denied that some laws are in compliance with morality. Just that it isn't as simple as a direct relationship. Morality doesn't dictate or determine legality. While morality certainly is sometimes a factor, other times it isn't. It's never as simple as moral therefore legal (at least, thankfully, not in our society). As I stated in my first post to you, I believe that nothing good can come from legislating morality. Any minimally competent legislator will consider what consequences a law will have on society, not simply its morality. At least if they want a functional society.</blockquote>

Verification