do you revere people more for how lawful they are or for how moral they are?

for example,, slaveowners were within their rights to force themselves on women,,,,once upon a time

I believe husbands were once within their rights to force themselves on their wives,,,,once upon a time


to those women, being forced was just as traumatic and awful,, and today we have laws against it


do you tend to excuse those who did these things as long as they were 'legal'? or do you share any disdain or contempt for these types of men whether they were doing what was 'legal' or not?

I think most people are built in with a moral compass, and just because something is lawfull doesnt mean that it is morally right to do. But sometimes you might have to do bad things for good reasons (for example, hitting someone in self defence)

i know of someone who did a bad thing, and hit a woman for the right reasons. But is there a right reason for hitting a woman (or anyone for that matter?) Well you decide!

the woman in question had been drinking, and had started to be a bit of problem, first off to herself then others. Left the room, came back with a big VERY sharp knife, and started waving it around, saying she was going go kill herself! This woman was normally a very stable person, never acted like this before, but she wasnt used to drinking and never been drunk before. This party had a mixture of adults and children, the children were very close in proximity to the lady with the knife, who was swinging it about. Her husband entered the room, saw the situation and very quickly ended the situation by punching her and removing the knife. He had never hit a woman, before or since (this happened in the late 70s)
He felt very guilty and upset that he did this but he didnt do it to harm his wife, it wasnt out of anger. He wasnt a woman beater. He did it to diffuse a very urgent situation. His wife (who didnt remember anything the next day - thats booze for ya!) Wasn't upset about being hit, she thought that he had done the right thing, and was horrified at what she had done to cause the situation in the first place. All these years later he still gets down about what he did. No one held it against him, and he stopped a bad situation getting worse. Was it the right thing to do? Maybe he could of tried wrestling the knife away? But then in the struggle someone could of ended up stabbed or cut. Children were not even a foot away. At the end of the day he stopped something really bad happening by doing something that in any other situation would be bad itself.

I think each example should be judged on its own merits.
There was no excuse for how men used to be able to treat women. Legally Forcing themselves. I know times were different, people had a different mindset and behaved differently but surely they must have known right from wrong? If someone is begging and crying for you not to do something, then in your head you must know that the best course of action is to stop what your doing, not to carry on against their will? And how do you live with yourself after doing such things?
I mean, i felt horrible when i have shouted at the dog for leaving a giant turd on my new carpet, 5 seconds after I let the carpet fitter out of the front door! So how do those people feel? Did they have remorse? Or did they not give a **** and just carry on?

It makes me shudder knowing that there were (and still are) such people in the world today. People such as Jimmy savile (in the uk, a once as famous as you can get tv star and celebrity radio dj) who in his time raised millions and millions of pounds for charity all over the world, someone who saved hundreds of lives with the 'good' work that he did. Hosted a tv show where he made childrens dreams come true, arranging for them to meet there heroes or to fulfill an ambition they had etc.
As an 11 year old child, I remember running in a charity race with him, he was chatting to me as we ran.

A friend of royalty. He mingled with Famous stars such as Elvis. He is credited as being the first dj in the early 60s to use 2 record decks to mix songs, and its even said he created the "hip hop" clothing style trend, of wearing tracksuits and blinging gold jewelry, in the late 60s long before anyone else did.

All these things, acomplished by one man. A man who had everything and you would think his morals would be of a higher standard than most, you would think he would be such a caring man, helping disabled charities, hospital charities, underprivileged children... but it turns out he was the most depraved evil man who ever lived, he prayed on young children, took every opportunity to force himself upon them. He went to such disgusting lengths to keep his secret from getting out. How did he live with himself? Although we wont ever know, It seems that he justified these vile acts to himself by doing all the charity work etc. As if he thought it was his right, that he was allowed to do such things because he had bought a hospital wing or run a marathon to pay for a cancer unit. The worst thing is that 100s Of people knew what he was doing. Ok they may not have known the full extent, but a lot of people knew something. But they kept quiet, whether they were paid off, threatened or just didnt know what to do. A lot of people did say something. Told the authorities. But nothing hapoened. Sometimes losing there own job or being threatened becayse they had spoken up about him. Morally right people, doing what was right and being punished for speaking up.

There was always something about him. He gloated. He seemed weird. Even during my charity run with him I sensed something was off about him. I was only 11 years old. He didnt try anything with me thankfully, just chatted about music. But although I was 11, I knew there was something about him. But like i say, it was a different time. Things were different then. And now, he wont ever be prosecuted because he died before all his crimes came to light. Such a revered man, capable of doing such good things in life, ends up being someone capable of doing such bad evil things. I really dont know how that man lived with himself. But he seemed to not give a $hit, and if you watch interviews he did, he even seemed to give clues away about the vile things he did, as if laughing to himself and ridiculing what he had done, making light of it in his own mind.

You could say the world would of been better if he hadnt been here in the first place. But then, what of the 1000's (could be even more) lives that he is personally responsible for saving? Say you could go back in time and stop him being born. There are 2 outcomes.

First being, If he had not lived, not raised all that money there are cancer patients, lots of children, people who are disabled,who have been in accidents etc that are only alive today because of money he raised.they would no longer be here.

Second outcome is you let him live. His life plays out as it did, being a charity fund raiser saving lives, but sickeningly destroying children's lives in secret.

Its a no win situation. If hes here, he ruins 100s of lives by being the disgusting sick pervert he was. If hes not here, 1000's of people die because because the charities dont have the funding he supplied.

Just goes to show life isnt fair sometimes. And hes gotten away with it because he can never be brought to justice.

Sorry if it seems that ive gone slightly off the original topic, but it does still deal with the moral implications, the rights and wrongs.
I just dont understand how people like that can justify there own actions to themselves, let alone others!

Neither.
It's a bad juxtaposition.

Laws define what is criminal, not everything that is moral.
Not everything moral or immoral is considered within the purview of the law.
The law isn't just another term for bible.

"Within their rights" only means the government was not granted the power to punish people for doing it or to automatically label behavior "criminal."
It also used to be "in your rights" to punch someone or kick the living crap out of them for molesting their kids, raping and/or beating their wife (or dog, or livestock, or peeing in public, or swearing, or spitting, or working on Sunday, or all kinds of things).

"Once upon a time" there was a greater divide between what was a legal matter and what was a civil or social matter.


Maybe.
Trying to understand a wider context and attempting to remain objective can easily be seen as "excusing" them and all the connotations that word has when discussing a subject like rape.


No.
Neither disdain, contempt, nor reverence.
Understandable, or objectively understandable, at most.

Although I know a lot of people seem to feel if you don't have the same moral outrage they have about something then you're supporting it, and possibly planning to do it or foster its continued happening.
Look at anyone that says something like "you're for us, or against us." Or something like "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

I completely understand. Thank you for your response. I agree that people are so complex its hard to ignore the bad for the sake of the good, and equally hard to ignore the good just to focus on the bad.



Someone could save 1000s and they and their families will rightfully feel grateful for that person, but that same someone could take the life of one, and those who love that one will rightfully feel disdain for that person.


Perhaps that is why I believe only God can judge (the person) as he is the only one who knows the GOOD And the BAD(all of it) about each of us

I "revere" people who tell the truth no matter what, who care for the weak and stand for Christian values.
Being lawful is no feat in itself, it's an obligation.
Being moral is nothing incredible. I would hope most people have some kind of morality vis a vis others in society.

Morality and legality are only related, because they are both tools in the human toolbox, that people use to shape the character of their interactions. They overlap often, but are not interchangeable.

I am wary of many labels, including 'moral.' Primarily because, due to the importance of the concepts they name, many people are tempted to misapply them, sometimes in order to manipulate others in a way which frankly contradicts the very words they use.

At the same time, I think it's very important to describe things accurately. I oppose labeling someone as being a criminal when they have not been convicted of committing a crime, even if I consider them to be a despicable human being. Accuracy is important to me.

That might come across to some, as me DEFENDING the person, or even supporting them, but it's nothing of the kind. It's that I have repeatedly seen, that confusing or conflating morality with legality, has been the cause of some of the most severe injustice and destruction of liberty in all human history.

I would have to say both ... I remember a time with in our government they had a section for a ethics committee... but that has long passed ... and those in the past that where slaves in any culture ... was part of how people thought back then ... and there will always be racism becouse the KKK are not going away ... or others like them... that think our country ... should be all about what they are and believe ... and the same thing as the NRA ... they do not want to have any more restrictions then there already are on weapons... we are the largest arms dealer in the world go figure ... right the Democrats are going to take are guns away ... sure when H*ll freezes over ... I believe we have came from are past smarter and most have morals and most are passionate and most are not haters of other cultures ... an that is a lesson some learn in the USA ... more then some other country's that hate us ... becouse of our freedoms... to have a mind of our own ... and their are laws in our state from yrs and yrs ago about women ... but not a lot know about them ... and until they do... they will stay the law ... and women can still be abused ...

Neither.. people can make that stuff up. Look into a persons eyes, you can tell if they speak straight or are split.

Just because things are legal does not mean they are the right thing to do nor are all things that are illegal bad. Morality on the other hand is dictated mostly by up bringing and social acceptance and sometimes is no better or worse then the law of the land.

I have always maintained that when given a choice to do something you should ask yourself "Would I want to be the one getting the short end of this deal?"

I actually prefer it when there is a marriage between lawful and moral behavior wherever possible. But even so, I can't say I have ever reverred one over the other.

What I have always admired are people who are honest , principled and yet remain humble and relatable. I think its a healthy combo to have

Why should people either feel contempt, disdain, excuse or revere things that happened in the past of mankind?
Everything that has happened with/to mankind is a huge learning curve. There's no need to judge it, it's something that can be observed, studied, to see where we come from, to see growth, change and development in societies and culture.

The oppression of women and women being regarded as second-rate citizens is mostly -if not completely- due to Christianity/religion.
Most of the really nasty stuff in mankind's history was done in the name of god, allah or whatever name people chose to give him/her.
And unfortunately the same still happens today.

What I revere? I don't believe in putting ppl on a pedestal. I believe in love and respect and equality. We're on our way, but it'll still take time for mankind to get there. Oddly enough religion is the biggest obstacle to get there. (It's not odd really, but in the eyes of religious ppl it will be)

I would say moral vs legal.

I don't agree with all man-made laws.

I do, however, believe there is a universal moral law - some find it in religion, others from just trying to be a decent human being...

I was quite shocked to read something recently that, women were not legally allowed to refuse sex with their husbands (in all 50 states) until 1993.


Bottom line - treat people with dignity, respect and kindness. Don't do something to someone, you wouldn't want them to do to you.

The only people I revere are the people that follow the law of empathy

Laws are based on political agendas.
So, I'll pick the other one. What was it again? Oh okay morals.
Yeah, that sounds good.

PEOPLE TREAT US THE WAY WE ALLOW THEM TOO...THAT'S HOW WE TEACH PEOPLE HOW TO

TREAT US....THE BEST WAY TO DODGE NEGATIVE TREATMENT IS ''NOT BE

PREDICTABLE''.....THE BAD GUYS ALWAYS GO THE EASY ROUTE.....

Morals are essential so long they are with good intent & do not harm others or do any type of injustice to anyone

I believe I don't have to think to hard for this answer ... in either cases ... it is wrong to take a ...person male or female against their will ... that is rape ...

Ever since the Civil War ended slavery, there have been two opposing currents of political thought in the US.

One current is commonly identified with the winning side, the abolitionist side, the North. It holds that the Federal government is the rightful arbiter of morality and supreme seat of power.

The other current is commonly identified with the losing side, the slaveholding side, the South. It holds that the state governments are the rightful arbiters of morality and supreme seats of power, and the Federal government should not raise its hand against state governments.

The ethical dilemma which divides Americans to this day stems from the fact that the so-called "supreme law of the land," the Constitution, was carefully composed to define a Federal government which would remain accountable to the states. Which, ever since the Civil War, it has not been.

The unspoken dogma is that the outcome of the Civil War conferred such moral supremacy on the Federal government as to give it the right to be the supreme lawgiver forever.

On the one hand, obedience to the principle that the same law should apply for everyone means that the law has to be written down and its written form must be honored consistently.

On the other hand, the moral victory of ending slavery through Federal conquest in disregard of the rule of local law, set a powerful precedent. One which the would-be spiritual heirs of the abolitionist victors and the freed slaves continue to advocate for and act based on to this day.

I myself favor defined law over make-it-up-as-you-go do-what-feels-right morality.

But my preference for strict Constitutional law over de facto rule by Federal military conquest doesn't mean I'm a racist, misogynist, or bigot. It just means I prefer that government be locally headquartered and accountable.

In the main, I disagree with your analysis, though I appreciate some of what you have described.

Mostly, I think that although you are right that some concepts were all but written into religious texts, following the Civil War, the idea that they are other than peripheral distractions is where I take issue.

For one thing, the idea of how powerful the Federal Government needed to be, and especially WHY it needed to be either strong or weak, has gone on since before the Republic was conceived of and born. Although all sorts of pundits and historians have tried to make everyone believe that one side or the other was obviously entirely right, or entirely wrong, or somehow was more "in tune with the Natural Order," there has NEVER been an obvious better or worse solution to the concerns which drive the debate about this.

Right now today, we have two major political parties, who both talk out of both sides of their mouths about what the balance of power should be between Federal and State/local control. Both have repeatedly proven that they want a strong Federal government when THEIR personal interests are involved, and they want a stronger STATE government, when THAT benefits them more.

As for the actual history of the American government as it is under the Constitution, that is a much more complicated story than most people ever study. Most people have only a cartoon version of what happened and why, as the Constitution was being written.

As for what "Constitutional Rule" means, that is clearly a matter of interpretation. I prefer rule of written law myself. But written law is not always written by honest people who actually think things through as thoroughly as they ought, and so Rule of Law must include checks and limits as well.

And it is all VERY dependent on individuals NOT deciding they they PERSONALLY are the final arbiters on what the Constitution or other written laws mean.