Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
The whole point of the legal system is to constantly change it so it conforms to a higher law. "We change the laws all the time so they can conform close do our idea of justice. Our rights come from our creator, but we need the government to enforce them. Some criticism of the Bill of Rights was that if you write them down, someone will assume that what you right down is all there is when there are clearly more.
When someone says that a law is unjust, they are saying that the law does not conform to what is right and wrong. It does not conform to the concrete universal code that we all assume exists. We expose our beliefe in this universal right and wrong when we say a law is unjust so it needs to be changed. We don't say it is wrong so it needs to only apply to some people and not others. We always argue that law should be applied equally to all men and women and that such laws should be just. In other words conform to the universal moral code.
Are you arguing that against the idea that Jefferson invoked the universal moral code when he justified our separation from England?
|
I would have thought that I made this much clear if nothing else in my debate with Penske this week. I don't believe there is a universal moral code. I believe that there are some basic universal principles upon which the relations between humans must balance. But, if there can be no black and white line on somethiing so simple as whether or not life is absolutely sacrosanct, then how can anything else be absolute?
