Gay wedding cakes
I brought this up, so to clarify, legal positivism does not imply that natural rights don't exist. Legal positivism is a theory about legal ontology. Alternatively, legal positivism gives a theory about the conditions necessary for something to be considered law. What is distinctive about legal positivism compared to natural law theories of law, is that legal positivists do not include include a moral component as a condition for something being law, and natural law proponents do. So a legal positivist would that say the CRA is the law of the land in the fullest sense, regardless of their view of its merits as law, whereas a natural law theorist who believes the CRA conflicts with our natural rights might say something like, the CRA is not well-formed law and so doesn't have any legal authority. Notice that this doesn't imply that the legal positivist doesn't believe that we have natural rights that are infringed upon by the CRA.
Also, while it is not quite accurate to call Hobbes a legal positivist, he is a clear forerunner of many of the same themes, including most pertinently the claim that the ontology of law is conventional, so I wouldn't appeal to Bentham coming after the Constitution as an argument here.
And again, don't turn a conditional into a biconditional. There are more than just two theories of legal ontology.
That said, the United states legal system is not positivist by definition, as there is no executive with ultimate authority to make, create and enforce laws. The government in the United states enforces laws, but the people elect representatives to create the laws for them.
The qualifier "legally relevant", in the OrP post that I quoted, is relevant here. There is no doubt that the idea of "natural rights" is important to the intellectual history of the constitution. But I asked whether there had ever been a case where a law was struck down because it violated natural rights because I'm interested in the actual functioning of the law. You yourself said that what matters is "how it really is". If it is the case that no court will accept a challenge to CRA on the basis that it violates a natural right then natural rights are not relevant to the actual law. Since I'm unaware of a court accepting any challenge to any law on such grounds, I doubt that such a challenge is legally possible, and thus that natural rights are legally relevant.
No.
You're contradicting yourself again here because as a legal positivist you should be perfectly alright with the segregationist norms of certain parts of southern society and laws derived thereof by the states that had authority over rules not laid out to the federal government in the constitution. The CRA had to be hidden in the commerce code, because an amendment was not possible due to conflict with other amendments.
Okay.
Also, don't be a coward. If you make an accusation, back it up:
A legal positivist would also believe that segregation, miscegenation laws and potentially secession were all laws of the land too, as well as manifest destiny and slavery, when looking at jurisdiction. You can't as a positivist make moral claims about what laws should be at all, without appealing to natural rights or absolute morality. I also have never heard about natural rights theory being compatible with positivism, considering positivism came into existence as an alternative to it.
For example, maybe you think the DH rule in baseball is a bad rule. Fine. However, it is still a rule. That is, everything that is required to make an official baseball rule has been met by the DH rule, and so it is a part of the game now, regardless of your view on its merits. Similarly for slavery laws. Everything that was required to make an official law of Georgia was met by the slavery law, and so it was part of the laws of Georgia, regardless of your views on its merits.
Lol sure you wouldn't because it destroys your thesis that the constitution isnt about natural rights, when it certainly is. At the very least it was inspired immensely more by Locke than by Hobbes.
I dont need to be totally comprehensive in my analysis to refrain from being biconditional. I left out interpretivism for brevity sake.
That said, the United states legal system is not positivist by definition, as there is no executive with ultimate authority to make, create and enforce laws. The government in the United states enforces laws, but the people elect representatives to create the laws for them.
You can replace nature with God if you're a theist; it changes nothing.
Now you can disagree with the state of natural rights, and say we don't have any. That's fine. What you cannot do is beg the question by saying 'laws should be this way because of this principle' in the same sentence as 'natural rights don't exist' because the principle you are appealing to is either a moral law or a natural law. About all you could say regarding how laws should be, 'the law should be this way because most people think it should be' which puts you in no better a moral stance than a segregationist or jew-excluding nazi.
Legal positivism is a theory about law, not morality. It doesn't imply that segregation is good or bad or that I should be alright with the prevailing norms of a society. That is just your own misunderstanding.
?
Legal positivism is about law, not morality.
Yes, segregation and slavery were legal, although not morally justified.
The CRA was meant to change the law so that segregation became illegal. That doesn't imply that segregation was good or justified previously, only that it was law.
1) Upon what basis/principle are you judging the moral goodness of the CRA?
2) How can you simultaneously be for absolute free trade and free association (in your words)
I think protecting these rights for everyone requires that the government should protect it for those people using them to do evil as well.
No, you just don't understand the theory. A legal positivist would acknowledge that segregation, miscegenation laws, slavery, etc could all be in principle law and in fact were law in at least parts of the US at various times. However, they deny that we can derive from their being law, that they are morally good law. They might in fact be quite morally evil (as these laws were).
For example, maybe you think the DH rule in baseball is a bad rule. Fine. However, it is still a rule. That is, everything that is required to make an official baseball rule has been met by the DH rule, and so it is a part of the game now, regardless of your view on its merits. Similarly for slavery laws. Everything that was required to make an official law of Georgia was met by the slavery law, and so it was part of the laws of Georgia, regardless of your views on its merits.
legal interpretivism is a variety of natural law.
...and the Constitution isn't about natural law? This is too easy.
You don't see how this conflicts? You are absolutely pro-free association and pro-free trade but also for constraining it? This is a contradiction. You claim legal positivism is your position, but borrow from the theory of natural rights to justify your moral claims about the law. Another contradiction.
Second, even though I don't accept natural rights as real, such rights in no way contradict legal positivism. Thus, it is not a contradiction for a legal positivist to borrow from a theory of natural rights to justify moral claims (although you'll have to tell me where I'm doing this for me to accept this assertion).
I'm not misunderstanding it. You are making moral claims about what the law should be whilst simultaneously claiming to be a legal positivist. Upon what basis are you making claims about what the law should be
?
?
Correct, so either you are a legal positivist and make no moral claims about the law as it stands or you do make moral claims about the law. Which is it?
Upon what basis are you making this judgement?
Correct.
<snip>
<snip>
and for constraining it?
Correct, it is socially constructed. You cannot say what the laws should be, as you would then be appealing to moral principes outside of the realm of law, as defined by what positivism is. It's up to you to justify how one does that without appealing to natural law and the natural rights derived from it. Go right ahead.
"Interpretivism refers to a doctrine of constitutional interpretation holding that judges must follow norms or values that expressly states or implies the language of the Constitution"
...and the Constitution isn't about natural law? This is too easy.
...and the Constitution isn't about natural law? This is too easy.
Also, you still haven't found even a single contradiction...don't let yourself be made a liar.
EDIT: We're getting to the point where I'm just repeatedly trying to explain to you what legal positivism is. Do yourself a favor, take a break, and read this brief intro to legal philosophy from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (especially the section on Analytic Jurisprudence) before commenting further. There are lots of good arguments to be made against legal positivism, but you clearly do not even understand the questions it (or Natural Law theories either) are even trying to answer about law, and this prevents you from raising challenges to my view.
Your manichean approach to this topic reads me as making this claim whenever I talk about a right to x, but I have stated from the start that I think all rights are limited.
Second, even though I don't accept natural rights as real, such rights in no way contradict legal positivism.
Thus, it is not a contradiction for a legal positivist to borrow from a theory of natural rights to justify moral claims
(although you'll have to tell me where I'm doing this for me to accept this assertion).
On a moral basis unrelated to the nature of law.
You can make moral claims about the law consistent with being a legal positivist.
What you can't do is claim that a "law" isn't actually law because it conflicts with our natural moral rights or with utilitarian principles or fairness
or God's will or any other moral claim.
or God's will or any other moral claim.
However, you can still argue that the law is an immoral law on these bases, and that we should get rid of it.
Hey, looks like you are a legal positivist as well.
Yes, and for constraining the government as well.
Utilitarianism says that laws should made to do the most good for the most people. J.S. Mill wrote a famous defense of laws protecting liberty on this basis. Along with Bentham and Sidgewick, the utilitarians developed a very popular way of analyzing the morality of law on this consequentialist basis. There is no appeal to natural rights in utilitarianism btw.
Poor attempt to slander my knowledge base
EDIT: We're getting to the point where I'm just repeatedly trying to explain to you what legal positivism is. Do yourself a favor, take a break, and read this brief intro to legal philosophy from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (especially the section on Analytic Jurisprudence) before commenting further. There are lots of good arguments to be made against legal positivism, but you clearly do not even understand the questions it (or Natural Law theories either) are even trying to answer about law, and this prevents you from raising challenges to my view.
1)
...it is a conceptual truth about law that legal validity can ultimately be explained in terms of criteria that are authoritative in virtue of some kind of social convention
2)
...principal distinguishing feature of a legal system is the presence of a sovereign who is habitually obeyed by most people in the society
3)
...Separability Thesis asserts that law and morality are conceptually distinct....any reference to moral considerations in defining the related notions of law, legal validity, and legal system is inconsistent with the Separability Thesis.
by 1) slavery was a social convention, or
by 2) slavery was a legally allowed practice that was not refused by a sovereign or
by 3) any moral objections to it were irrelevant, up to this point in history?
Are you then against the war from the northern point of view, fought to keep the union together, as the South seceded on the basis that they believed this legal right was under threat with the election of Abraham Lincoln?
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
The term "natural law" is ambiguous. It refers to a type of moral theory, as well as to a type of legal theory, but the core claims of the two kinds of theory are logically independent.
The term "natural law" is ambiguous. It refers to a type of moral theory, as well as to a type of legal theory, but the core claims of the two kinds of theory are logically independent.
Again, I could be misunderstanding you based on the language you're using. You claim that the CRA is justified because all men are equal under the law. I haven't heard your justification of this stance, which is a moral stance. You cannot borrow from natural law to justify it and remain a positivist.
Ok, so you are morally opposed to it. That's fine. What makes you justified in changing the law due to that moral stance, since as a positivist you attach no moral claims to laws?
You can make moral claims aside from legal claims. Bridging that with changing the law to suit your moral claims is what I'm asking you to do.
You can make moral claims aside from legal claims. Bridging that with changing the law to suit your moral claims is what I'm asking you to do.
What I can't do, or what legal positivists can't do? Because this is precisely what natural law theorists do. Moral claims are intimately attached to the legality of laws in natural law theory. If a law goes against the morality of natural law, it is an illegal law. Natural law is the supreme law by which man-made laws are judged.
Yes, for moral reasons.
Once more demonstrating your poor knowledge base. That sentences follows a description of three versions of legal natural law theory that the author refers to as "naturalism." I agree, legal positivism is opposed to all versions of natural law as a legal theory, but not as a moral theory (leaving aside maybe a few hybrid theories).
Ok, I have some time waiting for pizza
1)
OR
2)
OR
3)
So you'd be for the legality of slavery in 1861 then, especially if you were a member of a southern state, since, without debate,
by 1) slavery was a social convention, or
by 2) slavery was a legally allowed practice that was not refused by a sovereign or
by 3) any moral objections to it were irrelevant, up to this point in history?
Are you then against the war from the northern point of view, fought to keep the union together, as the South seceded on the basis that they believed this legal right was under threat with the election of Abraham Lincoln?
1)
OR
2)
OR
3)
So you'd be for the legality of slavery in 1861 then, especially if you were a member of a southern state, since, without debate,
by 1) slavery was a social convention, or
by 2) slavery was a legally allowed practice that was not refused by a sovereign or
by 3) any moral objections to it were irrelevant, up to this point in history?
Are you then against the war from the northern point of view, fought to keep the union together, as the South seceded on the basis that they believed this legal right was under threat with the election of Abraham Lincoln?
EDIT: Here we go. This section of IEP should be helpful for you in clarifying the distinction between natural law as a moral and as a legal theory.
Please quote this language.
You are conflating natural law as a legal theory and natural law as a moral theory. Natural law as a moral theory doesn't imply natural law as a legal theory. Legal positivists reject natural law as a legal theory, but has no implication about natural law theories of ethics (or vice versa). Here is IEP on the topic:
You are conflating natural law as a legal theory and natural law as a moral theory. Natural law as a moral theory doesn't imply natural law as a legal theory. Legal positivists reject natural law as a legal theory, but has no implication about natural law theories of ethics (or vice versa). Here is IEP on the topic:
No, I'm not.
A law that allows slavery is an evil law. I identify that not as a legal claim, but a moral claim. I'm not saying anything here about the law allowing slavery qua law, but rather made a comment about my moral appraisal of that law.
Well, I did say that all men (and women) should be equal under the law, but that isn't how I justified the CRA.
Rather, I justified it on the basis that it would alleviate some of the harm done by the bigotry and racism of some Americans against other Americans. As I said earlier, btw, I'm not a utilitarian really, but more of a Rawlsian political liberalism type of guy.
What legal positivists can't do.
Read more about legal positivism as I am fairly confident not a single one has made this claim.
Once more demonstrating your poor knowledge base. That sentences follows a description of three versions of legal natural law theory that the author refers to as "naturalism." I agree, legal positivism is opposed to all versions of natural law as a legal theory, but not as a moral theory (leaving aside maybe a few hybrid theories).
This is all wrong. Legal positivism is not a normative theory of law. It tells you what law is, not what laws should be enacted.
Legal positivism says that what laws are valid does not depend on their merits, but their source. If you are a legal positivist, you base your judgements about the validity of law based on the source of the law. I did not ask you a moral question. I have no doubt you are morally opposed to slavery, and I will give you the benefit of the doubt about being morally opposed to it if you somehow lived in 1861. There were a lot of people who considered slavery morally repugnant that fought for the Confederacy because of their belief in the legal validity of both slavery, and secession. Robert E. Lee was one of them.
I ask again, despite your moral objection and as a legal positivist, what is your position on the legality of slavery in the southern states in 1861?
Why should they be equal under the law?
By propagating and enforcing bigotry against religious views who see homosexuality as a sin?
Legal positivism says that what laws are valid does not depend on their merits, but their source. If you are a legal positivist, you base your judgements about the validity of law based on the source of the law. I did not ask you a moral question. I have no doubt you are morally opposed to slavery, and I will give you the benefit of the doubt about being morally opposed to it if you somehow lived in 1861. There were a lot of people who considered slavery morally repugnant that fought for the Confederacy because of their belief in the legal validity of both slavery, and secession. Robert E. Lee was one of them.
I ask again, despite your moral objection and as a legal positivist, what is your position on the legality of slavery in the southern states in 1861?
No, you just don't understand the theory. A legal positivist would acknowledge that segregation, miscegenation laws, slavery, etc could all be in principle law and in fact were law in at least parts of the US at various times. However, they deny that we can derive from their being law, that they are morally good law. They might in fact be quite morally evil (as these laws were).
For example, maybe you think the DH rule in baseball is a bad rule. Fine. However, it is still a rule. That is, everything that is required to make an official baseball rule has been met by the DH rule, and so it is a part of the game now, regardless of your view on its merits. Similarly for slavery laws. Everything that was required to make an official law of Georgia was met by the slavery law, and so it was part of the laws of Georgia, regardless of your views on its merits.
For example, maybe you think the DH rule in baseball is a bad rule. Fine. However, it is still a rule. That is, everything that is required to make an official baseball rule has been met by the DH rule, and so it is a part of the game now, regardless of your view on its merits. Similarly for slavery laws. Everything that was required to make an official law of Georgia was met by the slavery law, and so it was part of the laws of Georgia, regardless of your views on its merits.
I've answered this question every time you've asked it, so I am not sure why you keep asking it. I believe that slavery is wrong because it is wrong to cause suffering, eg beating, raping, killing, and so on. I also think it is generally wrong to take away people's autonomy, and slavery is an extreme and unjustified example of this, where slaves have little opportunity to govern their own lives. I also think slavery sears the conscience of the slaveholder as well, as reported by so many slaves and slaveholders of the time. Furthermore, societies without slavery work better economically, have lower crime, are less likely to have a rebellion, etc. If you want more detail on my moral views, I'll again refer you to our previous in-depth conversation on this topic.
Lots of reasons, I'll just pick one: because people are more likely to acquiescence to laws that they think are fair, and having laws apply to everyone equally is more fair.
Do you believe that in the 1960s and earlier that there was a problem in American society with racism and discrimination, where many white people held racist beliefs against black people and acted in discriminatory ways against them - including in various legal codes and in access to public and private goods?
I mean, fine, if you think the CRA was unconstitutional, but what is the alternative policy you would support?
If a private business wants to discriminate, I'm fine with it in any way. For example I don't think gays should be forced to serve Christians, or that sikhs should be forced to serve muslims, etc. I think interpersonal bigotry is much better solved by avoidance than involvement of the government. That is tolerance in practice. You have the right to speak, I do not have a claim on you to not speak---I simply don't have an obligation to listen.
I guess you are okay with religious people who discriminate against gay people on the merits (not saying you would do so yourself, just that you don't see this as a social problem). But surely you'll acknowledge that racism towards black people has been a problem in American history. So what is your proposed alternative policy?
Lee should have freed his slaves if he thought slavery was morally repugnant. It is morally wrong to fight to defend slavery. I know that Lee had many of the personal qualities people admired in the Southern ideal of manhood and honor, and I can recognize many of those as admirable qualities, but Lee should not have fought at all during the war if he could not fight against Virginia. His doing so is an irredeemable stain on his legacy. What should I think about him except that few men in American history tried harder to keep black men, women, and children in chains and under the lash of their white overlords?
Is this not clear enough?
If not, my position is that in the 1850s that slavery was legal in the southern states (1861 is more complicated as legitimacy became contested).
If not, my position is that in the 1850s that slavery was legal in the southern states (1861 is more complicated as legitimacy became contested).
What do you think about the legality of secession?
The qualifier "legally relevant", in the OrP post that I quoted, is relevant here. There is no doubt that the idea of "natural rights" is important to the intellectual history of the constitution. But I asked whether there had ever been a case where a law was struck down because it violated natural rights because I'm interested in the actual functioning of the law. You yourself said that what matters is "how it really is". If it is the case that no court will accept a challenge to CRA on the basis that it violates a natural right then natural rights are not relevant to the actual law. Since I'm unaware of a court accepting any challenge to any law on such grounds, I doubt that such a challenge is legally possible, and thus that natural rights are legally relevant.
It has never worked.
I'd just say regarding this that people terming themselves "sovereign citizens", "freeman on the land" and "Moorish" have tried defences (and continue to do so) based on the idea that they have natural rights and do not have to subscribe to statutes and acts with hilarious results. As far as I know from watching videos of them failing, it's been attempted in the US, UK, Canada, and even the Netherlands. They argue some variation of the claim that since they haven't violated natural law and haven't consented to any government that there is no basis or jurisdiction to try them.
It has never worked.
It has never worked.
These things of course seem very trivial to us on this forum, since most of us live in places where these are legal principles. However, you have plenty of legal systems in the world where none or only some of these principles apply.
I don't want to go too far into that aside because the sovereign citizen types are bat**** crazy conspiracy theorists. I just thought it worth mentioning in regards to WN's question as to whether any law had been struck down on such grounds because that challenge has been and is being made with fairly poor results.
If I were to make a more serious comment then my view of natural rights is that no amount of internally consistent philosophy breathes life into such abstract concepts. I certainly think that starting with some basic version of rights that we might deem "natural" is a good basis for constructing society and a legal system. I might even go so far as writing a document in which I profess to hold such rights as self-evident. Even if they aren't.
Where it seems I split from Do0rDoNot the most is that I am far less interested in the abstract philosophy than reality and pragmatism.
If he demonstrates that the CRA contravenes some version of natural rights then, fine, I'm no longer interested in that version of natural rights. What concerns is the clear benefit seen by literally millions of people.
If I were to make a more serious comment then my view of natural rights is that no amount of internally consistent philosophy breathes life into such abstract concepts. I certainly think that starting with some basic version of rights that we might deem "natural" is a good basis for constructing society and a legal system. I might even go so far as writing a document in which I profess to hold such rights as self-evident. Even if they aren't.
Where it seems I split from Do0rDoNot the most is that I am far less interested in the abstract philosophy than reality and pragmatism.
If he demonstrates that the CRA contravenes some version of natural rights then, fine, I'm no longer interested in that version of natural rights. What concerns is the clear benefit seen by literally millions of people.
I don't want to go too far into that aside because the sovereign citizen types are bat**** crazy conspiracy theorists. I just thought it worth mentioning in regards to WN's question as to whether any law had been struck down on such grounds because that challenge has been and is being made with fairly poor results.
If I were to make a more serious comment then my view of natural rights is that no amount of internally consistent philosophy breathes life into such abstract concepts. I certainly think that starting with some basic version of rights that we might deem "natural" is a good basis for constructing society and a legal system. I might even go so far as writing a document in which I profess to hold such rights as self-evident. Even if they aren't.
Where it seems I split from Do0rDoNot the most is that I am far less interested in the abstract philosophy than reality and pragmatism.
If he demonstrates that the CRA contravenes some version of natural rights then, fine, I'm no longer interested in that version of natural rights. What concerns is the clear benefit seen by literally millions of people.
If I were to make a more serious comment then my view of natural rights is that no amount of internally consistent philosophy breathes life into such abstract concepts. I certainly think that starting with some basic version of rights that we might deem "natural" is a good basis for constructing society and a legal system. I might even go so far as writing a document in which I profess to hold such rights as self-evident. Even if they aren't.
Where it seems I split from Do0rDoNot the most is that I am far less interested in the abstract philosophy than reality and pragmatism.
If he demonstrates that the CRA contravenes some version of natural rights then, fine, I'm no longer interested in that version of natural rights. What concerns is the clear benefit seen by literally millions of people.
But the entire discussion is a sidetrack to begin with. Modern democracies are very far cry from perfect, but they have very functional legal systems and the ideal is very much still to uphold the rights of citizens and have a fair system for all. To us that often seem so obvious that we forget that isn't even the intent of most legal systems in the world or in history.
And my experience is that you don't need to travel much or see some rotten places in this world to realize that "freedom" is not a natural state. It is a delicate agreement between people that is difficult to gain, hard to maintain and easy to lose. Maintaining it takes force, violence and even killing. Some might see irony in that, I say welcome to the real world.
To quote my favourite source of philosophy, The Simpsons, "Without law and order man has no freedom".
One of the things that Do0rDoNot misses in his analysis of the CRA is that there is a cost to freedom and order in the form of rebellion of the people. When portions of society are wronged to the point that they take to direct action there is a cost that is paid, often a literal economic one. I predict this will be seen as a threat, being that I'm already accused of tyranny, but creating a society that has no need for constant political uprising seems, on the face of it, a net benefit.
One of the things that Do0rDoNot misses in his analysis of the CRA is that there is a cost to freedom and order in the form of rebellion of the people. When portions of society are wronged to the point that they take to direct action there is a cost that is paid, often a literal economic one. I predict this will be seen as a threat, being that I'm already accused of tyranny, but creating a society that has no need for constant political uprising seems, on the face of it, a net benefit.
To quote my favourite source of philosophy, The Simpsons, "Without law and order man has no freedom".
One of the things that Do0rDoNot misses in his analysis of the CRA is that there is a cost to freedom and order in the form of rebellion of the people. When portions of society are wronged to the point that they take to direct action there is a cost that is paid, often a literal economic one. I predict this will be seen as a threat, being that I'm already accused of tyranny, but creating a society that has no need for constant political uprising seems, on the face of it, a net benefit.
One of the things that Do0rDoNot misses in his analysis of the CRA is that there is a cost to freedom and order in the form of rebellion of the people. When portions of society are wronged to the point that they take to direct action there is a cost that is paid, often a literal economic one. I predict this will be seen as a threat, being that I'm already accused of tyranny, but creating a society that has no need for constant political uprising seems, on the face of it, a net benefit.
I don't believe 1) me moralizing about what other people believe about others is legitimate 2) it's illegal to be racist or act discriminatory as a private person and 3) it's legal for governments to be racist and discriminatory.
I agree with (2) (with limits, at least for the US) and think (3) is true or false depending on the specific government.
Forcing state sanctioned racist institutions to abide by the constitution, for one. Challenging unconstitutional laws to the Supreme Court, for another. On a personal level, offering broad support to people who suffer from obvious injustices, including legal, financial and educational.
If a private business wants to discriminate, I'm fine with it in any way. For example I don't think gays should be forced to serve Christians, or that sikhs should be forced to serve muslims, etc. I think interpersonal bigotry is much better solved by avoidance than involvement of the government. That is tolerance in practice. You have the right to speak, I do not have a claim on you to not speak---I simply don't have an obligation to listen.
I'm ok with interpersonal bigotry in any way. I don't think it's possible to regulate it, and no matter what social policy you try to enforce, you will just create more virulent and violent strains attempting to get rid of it. My proposed alternative policy would be to support and educate blacks of the time to bring court cases against their states or any other public institution imposing discrimination against them in light of their constitutionally protected rights.
I'm not familiar enough with this topic to respond to your comments about legal challenges to white racism during the civil rights era and before. My general impression though was that the legal teams supporting civil rights were quite competent (NAACP, all those Jewish lawyers). I'll also say that as a general rule, I prefer that laws with such a significant impact on the social life of the country are handled through the legislature rather than the courts. The legislature has more democratic legitimacy, and I think that is helpful in enforcing these kinds of laws.
I try and put myself in the position of that time before I make judgements about people from a time and place so far removed from our own. I would suggest everyone else do the same. It's easy to judge. It's not easy to be impartial and fair to people long unable to defend themselves, and without the privilege of living, as we do, with 150 years between us. Slavery was a great moral evil, but so was Nazism and a lot of good Germans who were not anti-semites did nothing to depose Hitler. I don't believe this makes them as morally culpable as the people who actually operated the tank engines that killed millions of Jews.
That being said, look, if people view Lee as a tragic figure, whatever, I can see that. But the reason why is because he was one of the people who actually operated the tank engine that killed millions of Jews. Whatever his personal motivations for doing so, his legacy is exactly what I described. He fought harder to preserve the institution of slavery than just about anyone else. He's a famous guy - most educated Americans know who he is. And that is what he is famous for, fighting to keep black people in slavery. Not a legacy I would want.
Ok thanks, I change my opinion about your inconsistency. As a natural law theorist, I believe American slavery was fundamentally illegal. So too, I think, did Lincoln.
What do you think about the legality of secession?
I don't want to go too far into that aside because the sovereign citizen types are bat**** crazy conspiracy theorists. I just thought it worth mentioning in regards to WN's question as to whether any law had been struck down on such grounds because that challenge has been and is being made with fairly poor results.
If I were to make a more serious comment then my view of natural rights is that no amount of internally consistent philosophy breathes life into such abstract concepts. I certainly think that starting with some basic version of rights that we might deem "natural" is a good basis for constructing society and a legal system. I might even go so far as writing a document in which I profess to hold such rights as self-evident. Even if they aren't.
Where it seems I split from Do0rDoNot the most is that I am far less interested in the abstract philosophy than reality and pragmatism.
If he demonstrates that the CRA contravenes some version of natural rights then, fine, I'm no longer interested in that version of natural rights. What concerns is the clear benefit seen by literally millions of people.
If I were to make a more serious comment then my view of natural rights is that no amount of internally consistent philosophy breathes life into such abstract concepts. I certainly think that starting with some basic version of rights that we might deem "natural" is a good basis for constructing society and a legal system. I might even go so far as writing a document in which I profess to hold such rights as self-evident. Even if they aren't.
Where it seems I split from Do0rDoNot the most is that I am far less interested in the abstract philosophy than reality and pragmatism.
If he demonstrates that the CRA contravenes some version of natural rights then, fine, I'm no longer interested in that version of natural rights. What concerns is the clear benefit seen by literally millions of people.
I understand it comes from a genuinely caring place about people you see as having injustices committed on them, but if you don't apply the principles you're attempting to defend on everyone equally the only thing that will happen is people will directly confront the lack of integrity in your view.
You're thinking of classical legal positivism - JL Austin, Bentham, etc. Modern legal positivism takes as its point of departure HLA Hart, who offered a version of legal positivism in the context of modern democratic societies.
I find (1) confusing. What do you mean by "legitimate" in that context? How is this consistent with your views on free speech? Isn't this exactly what you've been doing here on 2p2, including in this thread, moralizing about what other people believe about others?
I find (1) confusing. What do you mean by "legitimate" in that context? How is this consistent with your views on free speech? Isn't this exactly what you've been doing here on 2p2, including in this thread, moralizing about what other people believe about others?
You favor a very activist court I guess. I think what I'd say is that your view doesn't have much place for democracy in it, at least not democracy understood as self-rule. The laws aren't legitimized by a democratic process - but by their correspondence to the natural law.
I don't know much about Lincoln's understanding of law - why do you think this?
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/vi...39&context=flr
I don't really have settled views on this topic, but my view is that secession should really be the subject of international law, as it relates to a dispute between (potentially) two sovereign nations, and international law is fairly weak. As a result, I am skeptical that there is law governing secession at all.
Ya and this is why we disagree so often. I'm sure you're not actually a tyrannical ******* in real life, but it certainly comes across that way when you're arguing that it doesn't matter when the group you don't care about gets trampled on, so long as the group you do care about gets what they want. You don't actually expect to get much support for this view, do you?
I understand it comes from a genuinely caring place about people you see as having injustices committed on them, but if you don't apply the principles you're attempting to defend on everyone equally the only thing that will happen is people will directly confront the lack of integrity in your view.
I understand it comes from a genuinely caring place about people you see as having injustices committed on them, but if you don't apply the principles you're attempting to defend on everyone equally the only thing that will happen is people will directly confront the lack of integrity in your view.
The whole thread is you trying to pass it off as though if you can loosely term some set of people a "group" or a "class" or whatever that therefore I must consider those sets to be similar enough to be treated equally.
And as has been put to you repeatedly, this is essentially saying that if water is a chemical and cyanide is also a chemical then in order to be rational I have to drink both.
I don't.
Edit: Also, yes, there's a lot of support for anti-discrimination laws.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE