the law is a moral agent in itself

( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 14:53, archived)

I read some Nietszche recently
he was saying something along the lines of 'pride will always overcome memory' basically suggesting that if we do something that people consider 'evil' whilst our memory initially remembers the events as they were, i.e. you performing the 'evil' event, but these memories will be overwritten with your own pride.
( GrandmaOfShoes, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 14:57, archived)

I don't know if that's philosophy or psychology.
Sounds more like psychology to me, though. People do get defensive, and confabulate.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 15:02, archived)

It was philosophy
it's been confirmed by psychology. I forget what it's called, I think it was a Kahneman and Tversky bias.
( Flapjack I spay a little mare for you, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 15:07, archived)

I'd see it as a structure consisting of what the majority think of as being immoral, roughly.
A common agreement on what is immoral and what punishment should result from it.
If the majority change their ideas of what is moral then the law will, or at least should, adapt to that.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 15:00, archived)

ah ahh "should".
the law "should" do this or that because it is a moral agent. but I don't think it necessarily should be swayed by the will of the mob, fortunately it isn't otherwise homosexuality would still be illegal for instance...

The law, as a moral agent, has the moral duty to do what IS right, irrespective of what the people affected by it think is right, and even, confusingly, irrespective of what the moral agent itself thinks is right. This is why all moral agents have a primary duty to think about what they're doing and to formulate good reason for their moral beliefs before their moral duty to do what they think is right can become manifest. That is, in order to do right, one must try one's best to align what one thinks to what actually is.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 15:05, archived)

And how do you define what actually is right, rather than what the majority think is right?
I'm not necessarily disagreeing. I have heard of polls claiming that the majority of people want to reintroduce the death penalty.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 15:08, archived)

well this is the problem outlined above,
nobody seems to have a definition of it. Everybody seems to have a vague woolly sense of what it is in everyday practice, but nobody, when asked, can actually say what it is.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 15:12, archived)

Well, down there I said 'will doing this harm anyone else?'
But I suppose that's no help when dealing with punishment. Personally I'd like to see punishment much more about rehabilitation than just revenge.
( my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 15:17, archived)

oh yes,
me too, I see no moral value in punishment at all unless it's intended to change someone for the better. Otherwise it's just self-satisfaction.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Tue 16 Jun 2009, 15:30, archived)