Is what is lawful always right and vice versa?
-
Came upon this topic in the Commonwealth Essay Writing Competition class A, which i dont happen to be in
Damn, class B topics are boring
Guys, share your views on the topic?
-
never heard of that... simi competition lai eh?
-
nvm thatOriginally posted by The Emperor:never heard of that... simi competition lai eh?
your views?
-
Let me rephrase that
Is every law morally defensible?
A good example is the death penalty. I think there was heck a lot of debate about this, whether death penalty is the right thing to do. -
wad is lawful may not be righteous.Originally posted by mystiv:nvm that
your views?
wad is righteous may only be wad's good or bad in someone's eyes.
so when law and orders are formed in the hands of the wicked, the laws will be unjust and wicked.
and vice versa.
-
just realized the topic is rather related to my unseen nick
-
y leh? too chim ar?Originally posted by mystiv:just realized the topic is rather related to my unseen nick -
huh, what thing too cheem?Originally posted by The Emperor:y leh? too chim ar? -
trueOriginally posted by The Emperor:wad is lawful may not be righteous.
wad is righteous may only be wad's good or bad in someone's eyes.
so when law and orders are formed in the hands of the wicked, the laws will be unjust and wicked.
and vice versa.
makes me wonder, when people say that things are'nt 'right',
is the 'right' arcording to the morales and virtues, or is it only 'right' when it benefits them? -
it is lawful for a company to foreclose on a mortgage and turn a tenant out to the streets because he is unable to service it due to a disability suffered on his job...
but is it right?
it is lawful for an insurance company to throw out the claims for disability by a man whose company has not paid his insurance premium.. yet he got disabled in the course of duty for his company...
but is it right?
it is lawful for the company to fire the man who just got disabled doing his job because he is "unproductive" and cannot do his job anymore..
but is it right?
vice versa...
it is not lawful to consume cannabis... but it allows HIV sufferers to be able to counteract the nausea from their cocktail of medication and allows them to gain the appetite to eat and be strong, to fight the virus..
but is it wrong?
it is not lawful to produce "patented medication" which allows sufferers from dread diseases a chance to get well, to live... without the inhibiting costs which causes them to unable to afford it (they will die) or stop taking the medication halfway (they will die and the disease becomes resistant to the medication)..
but is it wrong?
then we step into the murky waters of things like "right to die" and euthansia... it is illegal in most countries... but is it wrong for a terminally ill patient to choose that?
then in countries where it is legal.. is it right for the person to choose death?
lots to think about... enough to make philosophers in discussion come to blows
-
what is lawful, is simply not always right.
-
Bear got the topic going.
There are many times Right and Wrongs are no longer Absolutes.
Cheers -
one man's meat can be another man's poison
what is right to one, may be wrong to another
what draws the line when it comes to this?
in the 1st place, what is 'right' based on, and determined by? -
i suppose really, that in today's world, 'right' is based on who has more power and hence more 'bullying rights'Originally posted by mystiv:one man's meat can be another man's poison
what is right to one, may be wrong to another
what draws the line when it comes to this?
in the 1st place, what is 'right' based on, and determined by? -
where the biggest power decides the truth and right..Originally posted by HENG@:i suppose really, that in today's world, 'right' is based on who has more power and hence more 'bullying rights' -
exactly.Originally posted by mystiv:where the biggest power decides the truth and right.. -
and if you believe that, you've given in to cynicism and those who would keep repeating the lie that "might makes right" have won...
think about that -
it takes much effort from the masses to fight against the lies and 'rights' set by the superpowersOriginally posted by the Bear:and if you believe that, you've given in to cynicism and those who would keep repeating the lie that "might makes right" have won...
think about that
but yet, do many even care? majority of the people simply accept it and well, give in to cynicism -
and that is why asswipes like Bush are in the White House and GIs are dying needlessly in Iraq...
and that is why schoolgirls get hassled for selling t-shirts to raise funds...
apathy kills...Originally posted by mystiv:it takes much effort from the masses to fight against the lies and 'rights' set by the superpowers
but yet, do many even care? majority of the people simply accept it and well, give in to cynicism -
exactly!Originally posted by the Bear:and that is why asswipes like Bush are in the White House and GIs are dying needlessly in Iraq...
and that is why schoolgirls get hassled for selling t-shirts to raise funds...
apathy kills... -
haiz... all these fight between the good and evil.
being lawful isn't an issue already.. -
what is right and what is lawful.. and the conflicts...
here's an example of it being life and death...
click here => GIs to lose insurance payout if found to be wearing self-purchased bodyarmour
there's a dose of cynicism in there too... orders come from up high for the GIs to use an ineffectual body armour (Interceptor) they are given.. and word from the front says that they are usually not even given the body armour..
soldiers therefore go and buy body armour which is commercially available (Dragonskin)... and it seems that Dragonskin works better...
so now, the army there says that if anyone dies when wearing Dragonskin, their family will not be paid the insurance...
the cynicism bit would be that someone "high up" has vested interest in the Interceptor body armour..
just like the US went to war for Bush's Big Oil cronies and every contract was given to Cheney's Halliburton cronies...
so, does might make right?
what is lawful sure as hell isn't right here.. -
lawful may not be there, but the GI's cant do anything about the 'right' set by the govt, unless they plan to go on a major strike or something, which is not exactly feasibleOriginally posted by the Bear:what is right and what is lawful.. and the conflicts...
here's an example of it being life and death...
click here => GIs to lose insurance payout if found to be wearing self-purchased bodyarmour
there's a dose of cynicism in there too... orders come from up high for the GIs to use an ineffectual body armour (Interceptor) they are given.. and word from the front says that they are usually not even given the body armour..
soldiers therefore go and buy body armour which is commercially available (Dragonskin)... and it seems that Dragonskin works better...
so now, the army there says that if anyone dies when wearing Dragonskin, their family will not be paid the insurance...
the cynicism bit would be that someone "high up" has vested interest in the Interceptor body armour..
just like the US went to war for Bush's Big Oil cronies and every contract was given to Cheney's Halliburton cronies...
so, does might make right?
what is lawful sure as hell isn't right here.. -
it would be lawful for the insurance to not pay out the US$400,000
but would it be right?
insurance takes on moral hazard.. which means that the insurance takes on the risks that you will be injured or killed..
here, the GI lessens the hazard and risk that he'll be killed... yet, the insurance will not pay it..
it's lawful.. but is it right?Originally posted by mystiv:lawful may not be there, but the GI's cant do anything about the 'right' set by the govt, unless they plan to go on a major strike or something, which is not exactly feasible -
laws are made to protect the welfare of selected groups of people. if you belong to the selected group, then wad is lawful will be wad is right. if you belong to the selected group's anti thesis, then wad is lawful will be wad is not right.
alas, humans crave peace and will fight for it.