Posted on 04/15/2019 7:59:55 AM PDT by Great Awakening
It is evident that both law and morality serve to channel our behavior. Law accomplishes this primarily through the threat of sanctions if we disobey legal rules. Morality too involves incentives; bad acts may result in guilt and disapprobation, and goods act in virtuous feelings and praise. These two very different avenues of effect on our actions are examined in this article from an instrumental perspective. The analysis focuses on various social costs associated with law and morality, and on their effectiveness, as determined by the magnitude and likelihood of sanctions and by certain informational factors. After the relative character of law and of morality as means of control of conduct is assessed, consideration is given to their theoretically optimal domains – to where morality alone would appear to be best to control behavior, to where morality and the law would likely be advantageous to employ jointly, and to where solely the law would seem to be desirable to utilize. The observed pattern of use of morality and of law is discussed, and it is tentatively suggested that the observed and the optimal patterns are in rough alignment with one another.
(Excerpt) Read more at papers.ssrn.com ...
I think the best explanation of this is in Strauss and Howe’s “Generations.” While not perfect, it shows that “what you are now is who you were then.”
It is critical-—though not 100% axiomatic-—that we understand the impact of our familial surroundings, and how the generations before you greatly shape who you are.
The boomers, having been coddled (with good intentions-—the “Greatest” generation, or “GIs” did not want their kids going through what they went through)-—ended up thinking “no one could tell them what to do.” They resisted rules, boundaries and limitations. At times this was good. Only people who didn’t see limitations could put a man on the moon, or think racism could be eradicated.
But they, in turn, continued much of this with their Millennial kids. Strauss and Howe really detail these changes well.
Andrew Breitbart said “politics follows culture.” I believe that, but it’s also the case that, as Trump has now done, the placement of hundreds of judges has a key impact on how the law is perceive, then perception becomes reality.
Ask the Clintons about the gap between criminality and morality.
I remember the Fifties very well. I stand by my refusal to indulge in hair-on-fire conspiracy polemics.
As far as I can tell, the number one reason for people rejecting their Creator is they don’t want to follow his rules.
Morals are rules for living that in the long run will lead to a happier life.
Humans are pretty good at figuring out what makes them happy in the short run. It is much more difficult to figure out how to behave now so that 10, 20, 50 years from now you’ll be happy. Cultures and religions address these quest>ons.
A system of morality is a set of these rules for living.
Each religion and culture has its own set of values, often there is a big overlap among them. What we’re seeing today is a rebellion against many of these traditional values because they infringe, or discourage people’s desires for new lifestyles. These fools will soon pay for ignoring and destroying these time proven values.
I was feeling pretty good in 1963-4 ‘til I got drafted after dropping out of college. Missed Woodstock. Damn.
Ethics (reality) caught up to my immorality.
This was shortly after JFK assassination.
Most were not even born.
Is 9/11 more relevant today?
What have we forgotten?
Phaedrus
I like your fighting spirit.
But the Frankfort School, and whoever inspired them, infiltrated our society right after WWII, if not before.
“Richard Bernstein, a philosopher and contemporary of Habermas, embraced the research agenda of Critical Theory and significantly helped its development in American universities”
https://www.iep.utm.edu/frankfur/
One of these conspirators, Herbert Marcuse, successfully infiltrated popular culture, including Hollywood. The cowardly and deceptive slogan “Make Love Not War” was his idea.
As a side note—I believe a primary mission of the Frankfort School was to disseminate the lie that fascism is different from leftist ideology.
Plato wrote Phaedrus, right?
“Make Love Not War” was his idea.
If anything you could argue that the Sixties were a reaction
to the ‘repressive’ Fifties rather than an extension of them.
Respectfully,
IMHO, Legislation, should but does not always, comes from moral or ethical character.
I would argue that much of legislation is immoral, being unjust & preferential in it’s application. A two-tier form of justice.
Ideally, law is a codification of moral & ethical behavioral standards. Sadly, modern law has parted ways with these in many instances. i.e. Abortion, Economic opportunity assistance, Immigration, etc.
Millennials are in a state of muddled thoughts & behavior with the lack of clarity in social mores. It’s called cultural diversity but fast becoming a chaotic anarchy.
Founding Fathers warned that a moral government can only come from a moral people.
Thanks for your comment(s).
Example: Eating shellfish is forbidden in the OT
It’s not not in the NT
Jesus is quoting Moses.
And not to a Jew He doesn’t.
Totally.
Thanks for clarifying.
Law should be a reflection of morality. This is the presumption. But too often law is a reflection of immorality.
“If anything you could argue that the Sixties were a reaction to the ‘repressive’ Fifties rather than an extension of them.”
But this cliché is what we’ve been sold all along. It’s 100% propaganda.
Is man’s ‘free will’ in accord with God’s Law?
Also, Do you have a ‘working definition’ for ‘religion’?
And, a definition for the ‘purpose’ of religion?
Hopefully building a common understanding of terms.
I believe that language is the tool enabling our intellect.
Respectfully,
Thank you!
Great post.
Best regards,
The cliche is correct.
Consider this. Extensions of things usually involve a smooth transition from one state to the next.
Reactions are usually jolting because a radical change is involved.
I don’t see how anyone could say the Sixties were a smooth move from the Fifties. There was a jolt in, maybe, 1968, that kicked off what’s called the Sixties that had little foreshadowing before its arrival.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.