I want to challenge Snipe - Page 12 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Insensitive PAP · 06-18-2007, 10:41 PM

Like I said before, I'm not against having and following the Consitution, I'm against using it as an argument for what is right and wrong. It's the equivalent of the "because God says so" argument. It's a stopper, that doesn't add to the argument.

I also have a problem with arguments that the rule of law is the end all. Surely we could contrive situations to get around a law. In fact, isn't that what we've done with Gitmo? Suppose we legalize torture there, are you going to flip around and say it was horrific yesterday, but it's fine today? No, there must be something that is above the law. There must be a right and a wrong. There must be room for moral judgements made in crunch time. Where will succeed or fail is whether or not those having to make these tough decisions choose wisely, and how we react if they don't.

Archaea · 06-18-2007, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Insensitive PAP

Like I said before, I'm not against having and following the Consitution, I'm against using it as an argument for what is right and wrong. It's the equivalent of the "because God says so" argument. It's a stopper, that doesn't add to the argument.

I also have a problem with arguments that the rule of law is the end all. Surely we could contrive situations to get around a law. In fact, isn't that what we've done with Gitmo? Suppose we legalize torture there, are you going to flip around and say it was horrific yesterday, but it's fine today? No, there must be something that is above the law. There must be a right and a wrong. There must be room for moral judgements made in crunch time. Where will succeed or fail is whether or not those having to make these tough decisions choose wisely, and how we react if they don't.

What are your acceptable sources for determining right and wrong?

Some say sources of natural law create the basis for determining it.

Some say normative law is the only method, incorporating traditions, customs and changing mores.

Others look to positive law.

Defining morality is NOT easy. What is your starting point?

06-18-2007, 10:41 PM	#111
Insensitive PAP Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 293	Like I said before, I'm not against having and following the Consitution, I'm against using it as an argument for what is right and wrong. It's the equivalent of the "because God says so" argument. It's a stopper, that doesn't add to the argument. I also have a problem with arguments that the rule of law is the end all. Surely we could contrive situations to get around a law. In fact, isn't that what we've done with Gitmo? Suppose we legalize torture there, are you going to flip around and say it was horrific yesterday, but it's fine today? No, there must be something that is above the law. There must be a right and a wrong. There must be room for moral judgements made in crunch time. Where will succeed or fail is whether or not those having to make these tough decisions choose wisely, and how we react if they don't.