Talk:Laws without ethical content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Ethics Social and political philosophy

Is it really needing a clean up?

I would say yes. It sounds like a debate between a Legal Positivist and a Natural Law advocate and the result is, in my opinion, rather confusing. The title also implies that it should contain examples of more than one such law. --Mayrel 17:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

So I rewrote it. The paragraph on moral dilemmas seemed irrelevant -- the article isn't claiming that no laws have ethical content, merely that some don't -- so I left it out. --Mayrel 20:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, hmm, hmm... I'm not sure... I'll think about it tomorrow. Velho 04:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

LOL Now I read your changes! You left out every information from the previous article, changed the introductory definition (!) into a PoV and, as I see it, misunderstood the whole thing. At least we had a debate (instead of a PoV). You even wrote that "a law may be said to have no ethical content if it represents a choice between two or more ethically equivalent options"! And that "the law exists to form a consensus"!! Velho 01:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe the introduction is PoV. I changed most of what was written (although I not not leave out every information, as you claim) because it wasn't very well written. If you know of a better way . --Mayrel 21:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph on moral dilemmas was the obvious example to show that whenever there are two morally acceptable and equivalent solutions (as with the duty to keep left or right) there is still a morally content in any of those. Velho 01:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that most people think that the choice of keeping left or right is a moral choice, which is why I pointed out that it isn't usually considered immoral to drive on the wrong side when there are no other road users. Additionally, the paragraph on moral dilemmas had nothing do with laws, whether with or without ethical content, and as such it didn't belong in the article. --Mayrel 21:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I confess I don't care enough to rewrite it again (keeping the information you brought)... Velho 01:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

"I don't believe that most people think" isn't encyclopedic. And you cannot delete information "because it wasn't very well written". The moral dilemmas issue should be kept so that the reader can judge whether that is or is not the same problem as with traffic rules. But I must confess that you made me believe, for a nanosecond, that you didn't want a pov-article. Best wishes, Velho 04:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Huh?

As a casual passerby, I enter the discussion with some trepidation. Presumably this is a matter already been carefully sifted by experts. Yet I can't escape the impression that these 'experts' deliberately and disingenuously chose to miss the point.

The purpose of a law for driving on the right side of the street is, quite transparently, not to express an ethical or cultural preference for one given side. Instead, the choice of left or right is an arbitrary convention made needful in order to avoid chaos on the roads. Claiming that this law has no moral content amounts to the absurd notion that massive traffic deaths and chaotic transport are ethically indifferent categories. Much the same applies to the example of weights and measures; a set of arbitrary conventions to meet the requirements of trade and industry.

Life is full of such arbitrary and needful conventions. Mostly we don't give them any thought. The conventions of standard English vocabulary allow us to reach each others minds through this medium. But I get the feeling that you would argue that there is no ethical validity in the convention that legal proceedings take place in a generally comprehensible language.

--Philopedia 22:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, some of the people (like me) working in this article think that most conventions have extreme ethical validity. But not everybody thinks the same way.
Anyway, Philopedia, I'm not sure that you're totally clear when you write that "The purpose of a law for driving on the right side of the street is, quite transparently, not to express an ethical or cultural preference for one given side." Say that we agree that there would be enormous costs if traffic in England would be changed so that cars would be driven on the right side. Aren't we expressing an ethical preference for traffic (in England) on the left side? Velho 02:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] established term?

Is "Laws without ethical content" an established term in the field of law? Could we have some references please? RJFJR 17:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with this suspicion. "Law without ethical content" is not a proper term in law that I can tell. It seems to be an novel inference based on positivist theory and so looks a lot like original research. --PullUpYourSocks 14:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. It doesn't appear that this is an established term, but I don't deny that it is an important topic, but I don't think it is a sole term or topic I would find in an encyclopedia. However, I think this would fit nicely into legal positivism, as there is already a section discussing this topic. -Barkeep 16:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that while the content is (or if sourced would be) acceptable-ish, the article shouldn't be stand-alone. BeL1EveR 22:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)