Reply to Driving teenagers from a party to another house after they have been drinking

Forum Index » Tweens and Teens

Reply to "Driving teenagers from a party to another house after they have been drinking"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Drinking is not morally wrong.

There is a huge difference between laws and morals[/quote]

You don't think it is immoral to violate a law that is itself not immoral? Or do you think the legal drinking age is immoral and should be protested by teen drinking until it is abolished?[/quote]

Legal and moral are different.

The legal drinking age has changed over the year.

It’s not moral or immoral to drink. It has nothing to do with laws.

It’s legal to beat a suspect in custody, moral?
It’s illegal to go 45 in a 40, moral?

[/quote]

You are trying so, so hard to justify children violating laws, abetted by their parents. Why? Yes, lots of kids drink, but they don't pretend it isn't illegal or that violating the law isn't wrong.[/quote]

Nobody said it’s not illegal, it’s not immoral.

It’s not illegal to bang your neighbors wife but it is immoral.

You have clearly never studied ethics.[/quote]

Intentionally breaking the law when the law itself isn't immoral  is immoral. Helping and covering for children to break the law is immoral.  Helping  minors destroy their longterm health is immoral[/quote]
Breaking the law isn’t immoral. Most laws are arbitrary in nature and about controlling the population.
https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2016/04/08/practical-vs-moral-approaches-to-behaviors-deemed-problematic/[/quote]

The author you cite agrees that Americans generally believe that violating a just law is immoral. She just thinks laws should be easier to change, and if we weren't so hung up on obeying the law as a good in itself, we could ignore more laws without penalty instead of changing them. (In fact we do, but she ignores that).

We are not conflating malum in se with malum prohibitum. We are saying that morality extends to obeying laws. Violating a law is malum in se even if the law is about something that is not immoral in and of itself. The author argues that this means one must believe that "changing a law means allowing something immoral to be legal." Wrong. Changing a law means the behavior is no longer malum prohibitum.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics