When people try to say that laws are always about morality.

I left this somewhere else but felt like it was a valid argument. What makes people think a law always has to be morally justifiable? I'm sure some laws are but that's a few problems with the moral arguments generally. Abortion is a very complex issue with many underlying circumstances influencing individual decisions. It is not a popularity contest. People seek abortions for various reasons, and this is often driven by personal and socio-economic factors rather than a moral choice.

Laws do not need to be morally justifiable because morality is subjective and can vary widely between individuals and cultures. Morality changes with context. For instance, in a country without welfare, individuals might resort to extreme measures such as selling their bodies or joining a militia, to survive. These situations highlight the desperation and lack of choices that can shape decisions, including the decision to have an abortion.

Don't get me wrong, I am not equating these examples directly to abortion but rather illustrating that many of us cannot fully understand the personal circumstances others face. Most people do not "want" abortions, but they may find themselves in situations where it seems like the best or only option. For many, it might be the only option.

Moreover, in countries where there is free access to abortion, the rates of abortion are often lower. This suggests that providing access does not increase abortion rates but can contribute to better health and social outcomes. Therefore, framing abortion strictly as a moral issue is flawed. If the goal is to reduce abortions and support families, laws should reflect practical solutions rather than moral judgments.

You do not have to like the concept of abortion to recognize its necessity in certain situations. The focus should be on creating laws that support public health and individual circumstances, rather than imposing a singular moral viewpoint on a diverse population.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

BRUUH

People pass laws because they want to get at some outcome, or prevent some outcome. The outcome people want to create with the laws they pass or vote to be passed (or hope will get passed), is telling about either their morality, or lack thereof (some laws are just passed because lobbyist or bureaucrat wants power). Literally every law is based on some legal theory that is going to take a stand on morality, even when it claims it's being a-moral. For instance: If i'm a jeffersonian who says "your rights end where my rights begin" I am enforcing my morality on your, by saying that it's wrong for you to violate other people's autonomy. I am enforcing my libertarian enlightenment idea of freedom onto you. If i'm a fascists who thinks everything is for the state, and nothing is outside the state, I am enforcing my morals of collectivism on you. People can say "i'm a libertarian, and I don't beleive in forcing morality on people" but then you literally are taking a moral stand, saying it's wrong to use coercion. Whether you avoid using words like "right" or "wrong", it's the same exact concept mentally.

We can either strive to be upright and just, or not.

SatanBurger · 36-40, F

@BRUUH I'm not saying anything else besides that some laws can't be based on morality. I have no control over things, I don't delude myself into thinking I have control but it is what it is. For instance, you don't have to like abortion or even understand it but if the numbers point to things being beneficial for people, you can use that to make common sense laws. But too many people hurt others because of their feelings.

In countries that have abortion legalized, they've brought overall abortions down by a certain percent but also overall child and mortality rates are statistically better in those countries. This is easily found on Google. So if your goal is to save children, you would go with the number since that's what you care about. They care about bringing child mortality rates down yes? So, what's the problem? By making laws on the basis of their own biases, they're essentially saying they don't really care about the kids, they just want the control.

Honestly very few people are willing to admit that, we don't see everything that goes on in the people who make the law's personal lives but if you look behind closed doors, I'm willing to bet that their inner world is in such turmoil that controlling other people makes them feel better.

This is why at least certain laws that are based on so many different experiences shouldn't be based on morality but more so evidence that does the least harm. The least harm is kids dying less right? Well.... you have the answer.

It's the LEAST BIASED period, regardless of morality.

SatanBurger · 36-40, F

@BRUUH I edited my answer some but that was way after you checked that, just want to be clear.

SatanBurger · 36-40, F

@BRUUH Hmmm take psychedelics for instance. Psychedelics have been shown to rewire the brain in a good way when practicing micro dosing, therapy and meditation. There's a lot of evidence that it rewires the brain in a good way. In a bad way though, if you have any psychotic disorders then it could be very bad as it doesn't mix well with certain disorders, that's the hidden danger and there's still lots of unknowns.

But many would consider this immoral but it also has massively helped many. So what to do? Just keep making it illegally because they deem drugs immoral?

Studies also show that it's beneficial where medication isn't, this would be another example of more common sense laws. There's strong evidence for psychedelics so even if you don't like the thought, I think it should be available to people under certain circumstances.

If you were talking to people who are heavily anti drug though, they would go on about the drug war and all that. Another example of how a law shouldn't be based out of morality. You may NOT like it but you don't have to like it to see the help it brings some others.

Alcohol for instance is legal and so is cigarettes and they do far more damage, another reason that our laws make no sense because it doesn't go where the evidence goes. Too many people get that confused.

BRUUH

@SatanBurger But if someone votes for abortion because the overall number of abortions goes down, then they are basing that on morality;, in this case, utilitarianism, where the basis for that law is that it does the most good overall. They could be against abortion outright because they see it as murder, but they choose to end overall abortion.

The way I see it, is that apart from people who pass laws for selfish reasons, people all do this for their own moral reasons. Consider the motivations of everyone on this issue..
1)The pro-life individual who thinks abortion is murder wants it outlawed because he's against murder on principal (virtue ethics). 2)The pro-cjpoce person who wants abortion legal because he values a woman's right to choose does it because he thinks protecting freedom and the sanctity of the individuals is a priority (he values bodily autonomy; his values are his morals). 3)The pro-choce individuals who does so not because he values a woman's right to choose per se, but because he doesn't grant that abortion is murder, does so because he doesn't see a moral problem with it, meaning he uses his moral compass to give abortion a check. 4)The pro-life person who is pro-life not because he values fetuses, but because maybe he is an ethno-nationalist who wants his race to propagate, does so because he wants what's best for his people. Again, wanting his people to thrive is patriotism of a kind, and is a virtue in his mind.

Like, I think everyone who isn't a sociopath who's involved in politics does so to push their values.

SatanBurger · 36-40, F

@BRUUH You don't need morality to see where the numbers are, you only need to be able to read Google and accept that there's things you don't like out there that helps others, I think this is more of a logical position than a moral one.

BRUUH

@SatanBurger The same comment I made could work for psychedelics, but i'd have to edit my examples. You get the point tho.

Personally. my stance on psychedelics is that they should be partially legal. I don't think every moron on the street should be able to buy LSD. But part of my political worldview as a traditionalist is that we need various rites of passage, and a shaman or priest class. I think mushrooms, DMT, etc are something that should be taken as part of an initiation in one's spiritual journey. I think the problem is that people do them detached from the shamanic tradition, and so they taste a little bit of the christ consciousness without having the proper framework to understand it. I'm saving up money to go to Costa Rica and do Ayahuasca with a Shaman for this reason, funny enough haahaha. My current spiritual mentor and friend is Nicholas Schreck (anton laveys son in law, former member of "the first family of satanism"), and he's going to help initiate me soon... hopefully it will include drugs, as he's experienced with that.

Have you ever tried them? If so, which ones? I always love hearing about peoples' trips, especially ppl I'v known for years, and love, like you

BRUUH

@SatanBurger

You don't need morality to see where the numbers are, you only need to be able to read Google and accept that there's things you don't like out there that helps others, I think this is more of a logical position than a moral one

But isn't the desire to help people itself just compassion? And isn't compassion a virtue? Therefore, aren't we being 'virtuously' motivated? I'm not trying to be pedantic about words here either, i just really think it's important to see things in light of the virtues and principals we strive to live up to, that's why I think most everything that isn't aesthetic choices and mundane things have moral components if we look deep enough.

SatanBurger · 36-40, F

@BRUUH I agree that wanting to serve the greater good is a moral motivation, driven by virtues like compassion. However, the method of achieving these goals through evidence-based policies is distinct from purely moral reasoning which is my main point in saying that laws don't always have to be rooted on purely moralistic ideals.

While our motivations may be moral, effective laws should be grounded in empirical data to ensure they are fair and objective. This would be separate from morals, you talk about subjective morality but I'm talking about objectivity and pragmatism as a whole.

BRUUH

@SatanBurger I think that the brain and the heart are allies, and that when the two align we can achieve great things. If we are motivated by love, and guided by reason, we can't go wrong. I just say that employing logic and reason in service of a positive outcome motivated by pure intent is as virtuous and enterprise as I can imagine.