I explicitly reject your premise, and I've written at length about why it's not the proper approach to this subject. As I indicated previously, it's better to think of our moral systems and our legal systems as separate from each other, but interacting in important ways. Law has to factor more than morality's rudimentary anxieties and prerogatives: the physical world, bottom-up economic phenomena, technology, changes in our knowledge about the world, etc. Sometimes moral concerns are crucial to law-formation, but at other times they should be secondary or tertiary or even less; social systems are complex. In any case, moral "codes" are NOT a well-formedness condition of any law or right. Your position seems to be that law MUST BE merely derivative of moral feeling, because you want to be sure that our system of laws is emblematic of some moral sense; and this position leads to intellectual and practical problems that Alan has been critiquing in his article.
You've made a statement, but given opposition to that statement, you've yet to make any supporting argumentation beyond the mere repetition of your claim as a single clause. If you want to hold this position in a public forum, you need to do the work of defending your argument and engaging with the material that is up for discussion in good faith -- or cede the floor.
1. Laws are just words, written down. How laws get implemented depends on institutions and the behavior of individuals, which is something different.
2. As I wrote previously, the particulars of individual laws have a variety of inputs, some of which have to do with morality, but many of which does not. The structure of laws in and of themselves have nothing to do with morality.
3. The core social concern of political systems, and, to a lesser extent, law, is: how does a society mediate competing values, interests, and claims, and then reconcile those things with reality? Law leans heavier on the latter. The difference between an "open society" and a "closed society" is a more fundamental category of difference in this problem than your or anyone else's emotional reaction to some genre of anecdote. This is what Alan wrote about in his essay, and you're attempting gloss over it by invoking "morality" as the source of all law, and then immediately focusing on anecdotes.
4. A rich theme in literature is the *conflict* between the letter of law and what is right or moral. A book like Les Miserables couldn't exist without this tension understood as a permanent condition of living in a modern civilization. The conceit of nearly every cop show is that some maverick policeman bends or breaks the rules to bring true justice for some wrong done. You're letting the words "based on" do a lot of work in your claim, and this is a topic that clearly requires a more sophisticated approach.
It doesn't appear that you've read anything that I have written that elaborates my objections to your claims. You've not substantively engaged with any of my arguments. If you don't understand what I'm saying, ask questions -- I'm happy to discuss. In an intellectual forum, you can't pass off assertions as "foundational truths" if you're unable to defend them; this is particularly egregious if the point of your argument is to carry water for illiberal politicians like Ron DeSantis.
I explicitly reject your premise, and I've written at length about why it's not the proper approach to this subject. As I indicated previously, it's better to think of our moral systems and our legal systems as separate from each other, but interacting in important ways. Law has to factor more than morality's rudimentary anxieties and prerogatives: the physical world, bottom-up economic phenomena, technology, changes in our knowledge about the world, etc. Sometimes moral concerns are crucial to law-formation, but at other times they should be secondary or tertiary or even less; social systems are complex. In any case, moral "codes" are NOT a well-formedness condition of any law or right. Your position seems to be that law MUST BE merely derivative of moral feeling, because you want to be sure that our system of laws is emblematic of some moral sense; and this position leads to intellectual and practical problems that Alan has been critiquing in his article.
You've made a statement, but given opposition to that statement, you've yet to make any supporting argumentation beyond the mere repetition of your claim as a single clause. If you want to hold this position in a public forum, you need to do the work of defending your argument and engaging with the material that is up for discussion in good faith -- or cede the floor.
1. Laws are just words, written down. How laws get implemented depends on institutions and the behavior of individuals, which is something different.
2. As I wrote previously, the particulars of individual laws have a variety of inputs, some of which have to do with morality, but many of which does not. The structure of laws in and of themselves have nothing to do with morality.
3. The core social concern of political systems, and, to a lesser extent, law, is: how does a society mediate competing values, interests, and claims, and then reconcile those things with reality? Law leans heavier on the latter. The difference between an "open society" and a "closed society" is a more fundamental category of difference in this problem than your or anyone else's emotional reaction to some genre of anecdote. This is what Alan wrote about in his essay, and you're attempting gloss over it by invoking "morality" as the source of all law, and then immediately focusing on anecdotes.
4. A rich theme in literature is the *conflict* between the letter of law and what is right or moral. A book like Les Miserables couldn't exist without this tension understood as a permanent condition of living in a modern civilization. The conceit of nearly every cop show is that some maverick policeman bends or breaks the rules to bring true justice for some wrong done. You're letting the words "based on" do a lot of work in your claim, and this is a topic that clearly requires a more sophisticated approach.
It doesn't appear that you've read anything that I have written that elaborates my objections to your claims. You've not substantively engaged with any of my arguments. If you don't understand what I'm saying, ask questions -- I'm happy to discuss. In an intellectual forum, you can't pass off assertions as "foundational truths" if you're unable to defend them; this is particularly egregious if the point of your argument is to carry water for illiberal politicians like Ron DeSantis.