Technicalities of legalities

[Avan]

Ok, so say that there was a modern nazi germany (in terms of the sorts of laws they would have)

Well, technically, it would be against the law to be jewish, not white, or gay, or disabled, or insane, in that nation.

So would we have to enforce rules that we wouldn't be able to talk about that sort of stuff? So what if they are stupid laws, you say; What defines a good law and what defines a bad one? Laws are arbitrary things; as much as a lot of you would just love to believe, there is nothing that is absolutely right or wrong in every situation without have picked words that intentionally refer specifically to something that is indeed non-permissable (if only due to the arbitrary nature of the words used in these languages).

Want a more relevant (to here), modern-day example?
What if the no-creating-human/non-human-hybrids bill passed? Technically it would be illegal to create that, so would certain types of furfic suddenly become not allowed?

Reason I'm bringing this up is that there are some people who think that some things are definitely wrong, without having the proof to show it necessarily is.

/IS/ it wrong to do X? Well, this law says you can't do X in place Y, but does that necessarily dictate what is right and what is wrong? No, it doesn't. It may have been based upon what one person, some people, or a majority merely /believe/ is wrong, but is it really harming anyone?

(ok, I'll be back later, likely sometime this evening)

Also:
This is probably a discussion that might push right up on the grey areas of the rules, but, considering what the discussion is about, I think it really needed to be said. Still, don't use it as an excuse to blatantly break the rules to cause trouble & such guys.

[Drake Blackpaw]

I have the feeling that you are talking about what some people refer to as  "victimless crimes".  Is what the person doing actually hurting anyone else.  Unfortunately, it's hard to really discuss these things in generic terms, because in the end, the discussion comes down to the definition of harm.

Is there a chance that someone other than the person will be physically, financially or otherwise harmed?  Some would also say it's legitimate to ask if society is harmed by the person harming themselves.  In my views, the line is drawn where an activity harms others who are not involved in the activity. 

[Yip]

We live in a cooperative society. Laws must exist so that peace between people can be maintained and for the betterment of society as a whole. But it can be very subjective. What works for one civilization won't necessarily work in another. However, I believe the rights of an individual should only be limited by the rights of others such that everyone's rights are equal. It's obviously more complex than that, but that's a good starting point.

[Avan]

Some thoughts:

In an ideal state (completely and totally hypothetical, seeing as... well, not going to happen), society would be engineered to create a minimal amount of self-harm (as in, harming the society, either by the society or those within it). Well, the people would be engineered in order to live like this... and then we'd just go up and up the pipeline, looking for flaws that can be fixed in order to build an optimal society. But when you try to do this on a pre-existing society, the results are so ridiculously disruptive to it, it doesn't end up working. Thus you would be forced to start anew, from the group up.

Also, to stay on the safe side, let's stick to discussing hypotheticals, as opposed to real laws, just to prevent things from getting out of hand.

[Narei Mooncatt]

When it comes to right and wrong, I think it would be impossible to have a completely closed off nation to try and build what you think is a perfect society. There's always going to be inter-mixing of ideas and cultures from other lands unless you completely shut out the outside world (and likely cause civil unrest in your own society by doing so).

Of course that doesn't mean you can't try to come up with better laws and such. But in fighting for those changes, it would be best to obey the laws as they are written so you can demonstrate respect for authority and not be seen as lawless rebels. I.E. no one would listen to you if you tried to protest in support for a peace making law by using violence.

[Avan]

Given I was dealing with hypothetical ideal stability & decision making within the constructed society, including a people tailored to live in such a society, the issues of being shut off from accepting destabilizing influences from the outside world would have presumably already have been planned for, among pretty much every other factor that could affect internal stability (external stability is impossible however. Any attempt to achieve this would have to be by force, and thus would result in a massive amount of counter-productive destabilization.)

[Foxpup]

"Virtually all reasonable laws are obeyed, not because they are the law, but because reasonable people would do that anyway. If you obey a law simply because it is the law, that's a pretty likely sign that it shouldn't be a law." - Anonymous

[Spirit]

"Virtually all reasonable laws are obeyed, not because they are the law, but because reasonable people would do that anyway. If you obey a law simply because it is the law, that's a pretty likely sign that it shouldn't be a law." - Anonymous

I was trying to think of something good to say in this thread, but you pretty much summed up my thoughts on this.

[Serra Belvoule]

Well I'm no lawyer here so I'll input this as my point of view as a psychologist that's been versed on humane ethics, philosophy and arts...
Laws are a social construct. They are not dictations of what's universally right or wrong, but rather a set of behavioral accepted and punitive acts that a large array of people agreed upon. Yes, nowadays we've stretched the intention of what a law originally intended to be -which was a way to regulate acts that were deemed harmful to the population- to what has been dubbed a profit stance. We have lawyers that look for loopholes to find a way to do things most people will frown upon, and some that will use them as a way to make profit (like the common "I will sue you" phrase).
Are laws necessary? According to Hobbes, absolutely. Of course, according to other philosophers, they're not as much needed but demanded, which in a way is a necessity itself... but I digress! The thing is we -as a society- have adapted out Law to our community, in such a way that it reflects what we are. Are we passing laws that will harm us because a politician saw benefit on it, or maybe we're denying a new bill because the majority of the community saw offense in homosexual couples adopting? It's just a reflect of what this society has become. The same applies to communities in which stoning is still an acceptable way of punishment, or some in which littering isn't even against the law.
We are what we made ourselves to be, I think.