Edward Snowden Discussion Thread

[Des-Bal]

Exactly. For instance, whether or not murder is wrong varies from person to person, and we can therefore make no decisions based on whether or not murder is wrong.

Except that's the exact opposite of what I'm saying. Ethics should not supersede the law, this is what I'm arguing.

[Frisivisia]

Exactly. For instance, whether or not murder is wrong varies from person to person, and we can therefore make no decisions based on whether or not murder is wrong.

Except that's the exact opposite of what I'm saying. Ethics should not supersede the law, this is what I'm arguing.

But isn't ethics how we determine the law?

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

I thought it sounded like a rather clever name for someone trapped inside a building by snow.

That would be "Charlie Sheen" or "Gary Busey".

He only had a dollar to last until next Sunday...

[Des-Bal]

No, some people may be wrong that this isn't legal or that isn't legal, just as some people may be wrong that this isn't ethical and that isn't ethical.

That just sounds like you don't understand how laws work.

[The Godly Nations]

Exactly. For instance, whether or not murder is wrong varies from person to person, and we can therefore make no decisions based on whether or not murder is wrong.

Except that's the exact opposite of what I'm saying. Ethics should not supersede the law, this is what I'm arguing.

Except, laws can be immoral and unjust. Apartheid, for example. Or this whole spying business.

[Des-Bal]

But isn't ethics how we determine the law?

In some small part, that doesn't change the fact that unethical is not a synonym for illegal.

[The Godly Nations]

No, some people may be wrong that this isn't legal or that isn't legal, just as some people may be wrong that this isn't ethical and that isn't ethical.

That just sounds like you don't understand how laws work.

If there is an universal moral code, then any argument of what is right and wrong would simply be like an argument over what is legal and illegal. You are still making an a priori assumption that your view is true.

[Des-Bal]

Except, laws can be immoral and unjust. Apartheid, for example. Or this whole spying business.

They can be depending on who you ask. A lot of those immoral laws were created by people who thought they were plenty moral.

[Des-Bal]

If there is an universal moral code, then any argument of what is right and wrong would simply be like an argument over what is legal and illegal. You are still making an a priori assumption that your view is true.

Except the law is written down quite clearly while the universal moral code is an abstract concept. When you want to know what's legal you can find out unambiguously very quickly, when you want to know what's moral you can read thousands of different and conflicting works from throughout the ages.

[The Godly Nations]

They can be depending on who you ask. A lot of those immoral laws were created by people who thought they were plenty moral.

And they were wrong- what makes them 'wrong'? If we are to accept your account, then there is no arguing against Apartheid, and accept it- condemning Mandela as a terrorist and a traitor- or accept this current affair, when Apartheid was obviously wrong, just as this is wrong.

[Des-Bal]

And they were wrong- what makes them 'wrong'? If we are to accept your account, then there is no arguing against Apartheid, and accept it- condemning Mandela as a terrorist and a traitor- or accept this current affair, when Apartheid was obviously wrong, just as this is wrong.

Again, I feel like I should point out I am not a relativist.

We have different interpretations of the UMC.

[The Godly Nations]

If there is an universal moral code, then any argument of what is right and wrong would simply be like an argument over what is legal and illegal. You are still making an a priori assumption that your view is true.

Except the law is written down quite clearly while the universal moral code is an abstract concept. When you want to know what's legal you can find out unambiguously very quickly, when you want to know what's moral you can read thousands of different and conflicting works from throughout the ages.

Yes, what is moral must work on some principle which makes it moral, which can be philosophised and argued over, and refined- and with which we can demonstrate that this and that action is right or wrong. Thus, it can easily be better used to argue over what is truly right and what is truly wrong.

[The Godly Nations]

And they were wrong- what makes them 'wrong'? If we are to accept your account, then there is no arguing against Apartheid, and accept it- condemning Mandela as a terrorist and a traitor- or accept this current affair, when Apartheid was obviously wrong, just as this is wrong.

Again, I feel like I should point out I am not a relativist.

We have different interpretations of the UMC.

Everything can be argued on moral grounds, which is higher, and more surer than legal grounds, as what is legal can be, in fact, unjust. Thus, condemning Edward Snowden and persecuting whistleblowers for the government's lack of transperancy- contrary to Obama's election promise- would be an injustice, but is perfectly legal, since all three branches are in on it.

[Des-Bal]

Yes, what is moral must work on some principle which makes it moral, which can be philosophised and argued over, and refined- and with which we can demonstrate that this and that action is right or wrong. Thus, it can easily be better used to argue over what is truly right and what is truly wrong.

Not to any end. For example the DCT simply says it's moral because god says it is and it's immoral because god said it is. There's nowhere to go from there.

[Des-Bal]

Everything can be argued on moral grounds, which is higher, and more surer than legal grounds, as what is legal can be, in fact, unjust. Thus, condemning Edward Snowden and persecuting whistleblowers for the government's lack of transperancy- contrary to Obama's election promise- would be an injustice, but is perfectly legal, since all three branches are in on it.

Is it ethical to commit adultery?

[The Godly Nations]

Not to any end. For example the DCT simply says it's moral because god says it is and it's immoral because god said it is. There's nowhere to go from there.

Plato's Euthyphro.

[The Godly Nations]

Everything can be argued on moral grounds, which is higher, and more surer than legal grounds, as what is legal can be, in fact, unjust. Thus, condemning Edward Snowden and persecuting whistleblowers for the government's lack of transperancy- contrary to Obama's election promise- would be an injustice, but is perfectly legal, since all three branches are in on it.

Is it ethical to commit adultery?

It is dishonest, and is morally wrong on account of its dishonesty.

[Des-Bal]

It is dishonest, and is morally wrong on account of its dishonesty.

Okay so adultery is illegal. How about lying? If you're saying dishonesty is unethical then obviously lying is dishonest so clearly lying must be illegal.

[Des-Bal]

Plato's Euthyphro.

Doesn't really apply when God is out there handing down judgement. Homosexuality, the eating of ham, remaining indoors after masturbating all unethical.

[The Godly Nations]

Plato's Euthyphro.

Doesn't really apply when God is out there handing down judgement. Homosexuality, the eating of ham, remaining indoors after masturbating all unethical.

It is relevant and does apply, because it addresses those very questions.

[The Godly Nations]

It is dishonest, and is morally wrong on account of its dishonesty.

Okay so adultery is illegal. How about lying? If you're saying dishonesty is unethical then obviously lying is dishonest so clearly lying must be illegal.

There is a difference between illegal and immoral, I am saying that we can criticise what is legal on moral grounds.

[Des-Bal]

It is relevant and does apply, because it addresses those very questions.

No it really doesn't.

[Des-Bal]

There is a difference between illegal and immoral, I am saying that we can criticise what is legal on moral grounds.

I'm arguing that we cannot treat "unethical" behavior the same way we treat "illegal" behavior. You're arguing against claims I never made.

[Malvoro]

Except that's the exact opposite of what I'm saying. Ethics should not supersede the law, this is what I'm arguing.

But isn't ethics how we determine the law?

Ethics aren't the only consideration when making laws. Many times, in fact I would claim a good half or more, are created out of necessity rather than morality. The idea is these laws are designed to prohibit behaviors which ideally prevent outcomes. Think motorcycle helmets .. there is no morality to it, they merely wanted to lower the death rate from accidents which then raised insurance rates astronomically. Coming from a cynical perspective, I believe a good majority, if not all, laws come from a "cover your ass" perspective rather than a position of actually caring about the welfare of the people.

[Maurepas]

He definitely committed Treason, and is certainly no Patriot.

But that doesn't make him any less a hero.