A True Test of Morality

The point of this is surrounding the honoring of officers who upheld the law of slavery. If you agree with this and honor those officers, then you believe law is law and morality doesn't play into law. If you don't agree with this and don't honor those officers, then you believe morality sets a higher standard above the law, in which it becomes an unjust law, because of your moral feelings.

So which is it?

 

NO. The question is whether officers of the law should enforce the law/

Absolutely wrong. The law tends to reflect the morality of the times. Just because YOUR morality isn't exactly the same as MY morality, doesn't mean YOU are immoral.

If you feel your opinion of what OUGHT to be the law trumps what IS the law,you have no business being a law officer.

It's that there is no such thing as absolute morality. Nations go to war, with their soldiers willing to die to defend THEIR morality.Both sides absolutely convinced that morality is absolute, and THEIRS is absolutely right.

We each live our lives doing our best to live morally according to our own lights. But our lights are determined by our cultures and our times.

 

Morality sets a higher personal standard than law absolutely. I don't know how that relates to this award. If the gun running drug pimps at the DOJ want to pass out metals to other sleaze, and good officers at the same time that's their privilege.

None of that changes the fact that law is still law. You can argue whether something is right or wrong, but you can't say something is illegal just because it's wrong. Nor can you say something is legal just because it's right. They are two separate measures.

That's like measuring volume in grams.

 

Nazi prison camp guards should have been able to use that reasoning as a defense for being charged with killing Jews in concentration camps. After all, they were just following legal German laws at the time. They should have been given recognition for carrying out the law and not made scapegoats.

 

If people here can wave the Rebel flag then Germans should be able to wave the Nazi flag and Japanese should be able to wave the Rising Sun flag.

 

No, it's about morality. The premise of this thread is surrounding around slavery and if law is law, then you'd honor those fallen officers.

That's partly correct. Laws tend to be put in place because of the majority of the people call for it (Or corrupt politicians push some BS legislation in, but that's for a different thread altogether). Then it comes down to if you still believe that law is law, even if majority of the people believe it so. I tend to believe not, as if a law is unjust, it's immoral in my eyes. Thus, I believe civil disobedience, enacting my 1st amendment right, to protest against that law to bring the attention to the collective whole. Let them see what I think and make them begin to see my side of things.

No, you're missing the whole entire point of this thread It's not about what I believe should or shouldn't be law, it's about whether or not law is simply the law, regardless to how you feel about it, or if you believe laws tend to be moral or immoral. Thus, if you believe slavery should've been enforced by those officers, then you won't fight against the laws that you believe are unjust because you'll simply submit to the law, without utilizing your core feelings.

I don't think soldiers go to war, at least not in this country, to defend their morality. This is going off topic but I believe some, if not most, soldiers fight in a war to defend this country and the false flag some of the politicians wish to raise. Thus, if you're statement is correct, then there would be more Bradley Manning's in the military, that release information about the times of war that aren't being portrayed in the best light.

My light isn't determined by anyone. My wife believes in the Catholic religion and wishes to raise our children under that religious belief. My moral fibers tell me that any and all religions are BS (Take no offense, as I know folks take religion a lot deeper than politics, it's just my opinion). Thus, even in my own house hold, I don't believe in the Catholic faith.

If I don't care for within my family, do you really believe my opinion over it is going to change because the new Pope decided that 'gays are A-OK' with him? No, I've already stated my feelings on that area and it won't change because of someone else's moral opinions.

The only time, in my opinion, morals change for people is when they don't put their feelings into a law. They don't think about the moral implications when it comes to dealing with a law. Morality is everywhere, when folks are faced with the conundrum of deciding whether they believe a law is just or unjust, that's when they'll begin to think differently about each and every given law. Thus, that's when I expect people to recalculate their thinking, when it comes to the various laws.

 

This has little to do with the context of the honor, then it is your stance on whether or not law is law or morality plays the bigger role. Of which, you're first statement is exactly what I'm talking about.

So, with that in mind, if morality sets a higher standard, then the law, in which, these folks are being honored for should be considered unjust, by those who believe slavery is immoral. At which point, it becomes the aspect that you don't stand with the DOJ, to honor these officers, but instead believe it's immoral to honor such a thing.

Granted, at no point in time am I saying revolt against this. All I'm doing is using this a baseline to see how people feel about whether or not law is law, or if morality plays the higher role.

I'm not arguing whether or not something is illegal, that's a stupid argument. What I'm saying is if you don't believe a law is just, then do you find it immoral? Essentially, the bulk premise of this is do you believe law supersedes your morals.

As the quote I posted a little farther up, essentially gets into the premise of your above statement. It's not what I'm arguing here, it's about whether or not folks morals play a higher role than simply some politician telling you how to feel.

 

Slaves were property. They did their jobs. To suggest that they should be conscientious objectors to specific laws based on an as yet undeveloped social perspective of equality of races seems naive to me.

- Abraham Lincoln

Law enforcement are not lawmakers. They should be honored for doing their jobs, upholding the law of the time.

 

Well if we accept the premise that a police officer is bound to follow the laws, whether they like them or not, then a truly moral person would do one of two things; they would never become a police officer, or they would resign when faced with enforcing a law they find to be immoral.

You have to agree to one or the other, either the law is the law and must be followed, regardless of morality, or you put morals above all else and refuse. We, as people in a society, hope and work to the end that the laws reflect the accepted morality as a whole, but that is impossible as we know that everyone is different and in society, you will rarely, if ever have 100% of the population in agreement on anything.

This does not take into account what may, or may not have been considered moral during the time period. I believe morality is instinctive in all of us, a genetic code if you will, at least at the very basic level, but as we grow and mature we also tend to want to define it and therein lies our conflict. Someone will always want to value their moral code above someone elses'. It is easy for me to define a code for myself and then hold others accountable when they fail to meet its standards. It is just as easy to dismiss someone elses' code because who elected that person to define the code for me? It is, really, a struggle of power at the most basic core.

 

I'm not talking about this issue in light of a particular background nor equality, as both are stupid arguments. What I'm talking about is the aspect of is law the law or does morality play a factor into it. Simply a philosophical thread, as I'm bored with the current news.

The point of this thread is to see how people feel. Since you brought up Abraham Lincoln, then I'll bring a new context to this discussion. Do you side with the 'Fugitive Slave Act', that law is law, or do you side with Arthur Tappan, that the law is immoral?

Morals at that time didn't change anything. Folks still had laws tugged at their own very fibers, just as it should today. The problem is, too many people believe law is law and they should change their feelings based upon the law. I don't agree with that assessment, as at points in time, a law can be found unjust, if your morals are against it. That's the crux of this discussion.

 

Firstly, a very great assessment of the topic at hand. This is exactly the type of conversation I was looking for, thank you.

I absolutely agree that folks, who stand on a moral basis, will tend to refuse to be a police officer. I fit that mold and won't be a police officer because of that. If I believe a law is immoral, I won't uphold that law. Thus, I won't be able to do the duty I was tasked to do, and I'm not in a position to do something that I don't believe is right. So, it would go against my core beliefs, and it's something I refuse to do.

Laws are definitely swung by the majority. I think folks, sometimes, tend to want a law in place for the simple fact of believing it will protect them. I don't believe that some folks look at the moral implications of said law and how it could ultimately effect them. As such the case, if all guns were to be banned today, some folks wouldn't bat an eye over it because they don't like guns nor do they have guns. So, for them, it wouldn't matter to them if no one else had a gun. However, the moral implications of this is what happens when you need something to defend yourself with? Does law trump over your moral beliefs? Or do you break the law and uphold your morals?

With that, in the case of slavery, folks can believe they upheld the law and did their job. Fair enough, and I'm not going to argue against that, as I'm not looking to start any type of movement to stop them from honoring those cops. All I'm saying is that, because I find slavery immoral, let alone against every human right belief I have, I don't believe they should be honored. In my opinion, if they should be honored, then let's honor John Fairfield, who was a white conductor for the underground railroad and was killed because of it, let's honor Arthur Tappan, who flat out said he wouldn't obey the law and helped fund the underground railroad.

In the end, the point is morals will always exist, through out time. It's just a question of whether you will stand on your moral principles or mold them to the beliefs of everyone else. Essentially, where does your morals end and where does everyone else begins.

 

We have very different philosophies clearly.

The framers were slave owners. We should not honor them if we are to follow your train of morals. The Confederacy should never be honored for defending their states from Northern aggression, because a large part of that was about slavery. You, morally, may choose to find the aggression of the North the moral imperative giving justification for our bloodiest war. I do not.

What you are doing is lambasting law men for making the right ethical decision and the wrong moral one from a 21st century perspective.

If we stopped honoring those who came before us because of our societies current views, we might as well just level the monuments in DC... and I fear we would be in much greater danger as a nation.

 

Yes, the framers were slave owners (while also being criminals by breaking the law of over throwing the British government). Even during this time, you had folks who didn't believe in slavery. Are you to say that those folks, of that time, shouldn't be honored? Why does the officers of law get honored but those who didn't agree with it not?

The very point I'm getting at is not to destroy foundations, I just don't hold human beings as a deity or a god, like others might do. In the case of slavery, I completely understand the complexity of it and understand why the Southern states wanted/needed slavery to stay around. I also understand why the Northern states no longer wanted slavery. Thus, this power struggle lead into a civil war between the two sides. Morality played a role into this, neither side wanted to give up on their morals.

What I'm doing is simply stating that how can one honor one faction of a law, while not the other? In the case of Lincoln, he also stated that if he could keep slavery around, while retaining the union of the states, he would do it. To this day, the US is the only country that fought a war to abolish slavery, and yet, Lincoln has a monument? That's where my morals pull at me and I just don't agree with it. Nothing I can do will change that, but I don't have to agree with it either.

Then again, before this tips in one direction, I don't support the woman or whomever is deemed to be the person that defaced his monument, either. All I'm saying is folks believe in what they believe in and should be treated as such, not held up above anyone else. MLK is honored for standing up for civil rights, but the focus isn't on that he broke the law. Lincoln is honored for abolishing slavery, but the focus is lost that he believed whites were superior to blacks and that he would've retained slavery, if he could (Let's also not forget that Lincoln did support the Corwin Amendment, the original 13th amendment: http://ghostamendment.com/).

In the end, people will honor whom they feel best aligns themselves with their beliefs. I just don't believe that one person, over the others, warrants a reason for them to be honored. Uphold the law, fine, but what makes them different, under the same context of their honor, then those that were against it? That's a moral question you have to ask yourself.

 

From what I can tell this has been around for a while? Why are we bringing it up? Do you want it amended?

My feelings are slavery is wrong no matter what time in history it occurred . I think we should not dig up the past just to start trouble , it does nothing to heal anything IMHO. I wish I could find out what the purpose of dragging up old news would accomplish?

 

People who lay down their lives to uphold the law, even, and perhaps especially, laws they do not agree with, should be honored. The rule of law is very very important in our society. There should be no war on drugs, but agents who go into hostile gang territory to try and uphold the law should be revered IMO. It is brave, and it is the rule of law. I respect that... not revere it.

 

I'm not saying I disagree with rule of law or due process. Of which, I've already stated several times that I don't support a lawless land, nothing will become of it, even anarchists know that. In fact, the MLK quote that I posted, a few posts up, states exactly my point in this entire case:

MLK broke laws that he felt was unjust. Even deeper in his case, immoral. He acted his feelings & emotions, not pushed down because he felt it was the rule of law. A vast difference when you think about it like that, not in the terms of having no laws. Morality is always a code of ethics. I don't believe in murder or rape, thus, you'll never see me on TV committing one of those acts. It won't matter if it became legal, by law, today, I won't be a statistic in that.

However, rest assured that I will have a lot of toys waiting for those who wish to enact on that newly found law. At that point, ensure that I will be using my 'Stand Your Ground' right, that I believe I have, regardless of law.

 

The context of what I'm trying to get at is not the act of slavery. I think everyone can agree is it's wrong. As such, this isn't a flamebait thread, or anything of the sort. Moreover, the Reason blog was published July 29th, I started this thread yesterday, July 30th. Not old in that regards, but definitely around the context of the honor the officers are receiving.

The focus of this thread is to discuss whether folks believe morality plays a role in the law or if law is simply that, the law. Thus, these individuals of the law were honored because they upheld a law that I believe is immoral. Of which, I wanted to know if individuals believed that law is only based upon the law that's written or if they believe morality plays a part in the laws that they oblige by.

In short, would you simply submit to the law, regardless if it pulled at your every moral fibers, or would you enact civil disobedience to display your dislike for the law at hand?

 

I believe there is honor to be found on both sides of the law.

 

Sorry , I was asking as a member not a mod when I said it's been around a long time I meant the list of men killed in the line of duty, I am against slavery of course, one should not obey laws that are wrong I agree.

 

My apologizes, I read it under a different context (Was in an argumentative mode, at that point ).

Yeah, the list of men I believe was updated in 2006. I'm not truly sure why Reason would bring it up, other than to stir up controversy, like you were trying to get at. Either that, or just the simple fact that the DOJ decided to honor these officers for upholding the law. Thus, slavery, being immoral, will be honored, indirectly.

 

Not relevant. What people can do is completely different than what people should do. We are talking about ethics here, which deals with the latter.