Another example of actually not committing a crime but being charged anyway?

[sudden valley gunner]

mens rea?

Skipped in the wall of posts is that if she survived it is more than likely no one but her would have been charged.

 

[davidmcbeth]

Morality? I have seen this creep into case law ... but it has no business being anywhere in law.

Its not a quantifiable thing ... hence void for its vagueness.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Morality? I have seen this creep into case law ... but it has no business being anywhere in law.

Its not a quantifiable thing ... hence void for its vagueness.

I would disagree. Of course what we have anymore isn't law.

Natural law and the theories of justice would dictate that morality (not subjective value based morals) would have a large part in law.

Mal en se laws are very morally based; murder, rape, theft, etc very immoral.

 

[eye95]

Law is an agreed-upon minimum set of standards for morality and the systems for maintaining those standards. The only questions are how that agreement is reached, what level of morality is that minimum, and whether or not that agreement has sufficient support from the People to make it moral.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I accept a different theory of law as it applies to humans.

Lockean principles of negative and positive rights also apply to law.

It's like the law of gravity, you disobey it bad things happen.

When people insist upon laws based on personal values not innate morality it has a positive effect, or puts pressure upon what is natural and bad things happen.

Law and justice according to this theory would have a negative effect or negate the pressure upon what is natural and liberty will thrive.

A great synopsis of this is Bastiat's The Law. This writing got me to think about the lies politicians tell us about how their job is to be a "law maker". That isn't true, the way I look at it law comes from nature (or nature's God) so it is impossible for us to make laws. We can only rightfully pass legislation that would conform to what is natural or what is not natural. Slavery was doomed even after thousands of years of history because it isn't natural, and when men stood up for another mans natural rights we all benefited from that stand, although many argued it was the law and would use different rationalization to make it "moral".

 

[eye95]

Innate morality? Hooey. Man's natural state is selfishness. Empathy, socialization, the Golden Rule, morality, etc. are all learned. Some morality makes inherent sense. Some has to be puzzled over. You will never get two people to agree on a moral code completely.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Innate morality? Hooey. Man's natural state is selfishness. Empathy, socialization, the Golden Rule, morality, etc. are all learned. Some morality makes inherent sense. Some has to be puzzled over. You will never get two people to agree on a moral code completely.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Man don't naturally murder, rape or steal.

So you don't believe in natural law?

 

[eye95]

Yes, they do.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Yes, they do.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

And when they do they go against nature. Or are you saying your god created us with the natural inclination to murder rape or steal?

 

[OC for ME]

Careful.....this thread may be merged with the Darwin thread if you continue on down that path.

 

[eye95]

If you are going to bring Christian theology into this: God created Man with free will. He created him neither to be good nor bad, but to choose. Absent any teaching, Man will usually choose selfishness.

Without theology: Man is an animal capable of higher order thinking. In his natural state, he will care for himself. He can learn to empathize with others. Some men are capable only of understanding that their own selfish needs can be met by acting in ways that care for others. However, the starting point for man is selfishness. One way or the other, that selfishness has to be learned away.

The above is a postulate, just as your opposing POV is a postulate. If a reader accepts my postulate, your whole point collapses. If he accepts yours, your argument may stand. May.

I submit my postulate for consideration, confident that most people already or will come to agree with it, and I will move on.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Careful.....this thread may be merged with the Darwin thread if you continue on down that path.

+1

I'll redirect if I can.

Even without law most will recognize that certain laws are mal en se (bad within themselves), and that malum prohibitum is a different creature.

Most people innately recognize that it isn't good to kill, murder or rape.