Our Government has laws that are made to satisfy a "moral" need often religious or puritan values. Our Goverment has laws that are made based on data and support from real events to solve real problems. In the ideal world the laws fucntion to meet the needs of society and keep it working. This arguably does not include the majority of moral laws but then covers many laws such as murder, theft, property damage, etc etc. So you could argue all of these laws are inconstitutional in ways that the only arguement for them comes from "right and wrong" which dont really have a scaling value and to this day is still a wishy washy idea that cannot be described entirely. When I posed the question to my father which is better Laws that everyone agrees on even if the are not completely scientific or supported logically OR All laws are based on evidence, logically sound, and based on need. Without laws that are only supported by right and wrong. my fathers answer which isnt an answer to my question at all in the scholar sense. " If you dont agree with the laws you do what you want as long as you are willing to deal with the consequences, does not matter what the laws are. If you have to do it, you do it and pay whatever price someone can extort from you for it when it comes to that." Maybe it wasnt the scholary answer I was looking for and it frustrated me as he kept repeating that as an answer to the question when it isnt. But it is the most functional answer and the most functional answer is the best answer in a real world sense even if it ignores the question entirely sometimes.
Posted on: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 02:46:53 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015