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 the…
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.
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.