I think there are many examples in history where discussing morals was more important than discussing the letter of law. When women couldn't vote, was "what's right" or "what's legal" the more important question?
You speak as though the law is not subjective, but legal rules are ultimately subjective just like moral rules. Was the holocaust legal? Most people when faced with the holocaust think "who cares what the law was, this is morally wrong". I'm sure there's some arguments out there that the holocaust was in fact illegal, and that's a fine academic argument about the law to have, but at the end of the day the people in power did what they did, and so I guess the legality of it all wasn't that important.
Arguing morals is very important.
And so back to my point, the more interesting question is "what is morally right and how do we want to structure our society in the future?" But if one side is arguing about morals and the other side is arguing about legalities, and they don't realize they're talking about different things, then it's hard to make progress.
> Second best is to argue for addition or removal of rules.
And to answer your comment, arguing morals is pointless because there is no evidence that your morals are, in fact, any better than what you are arguing against.
None.
Arguing without evidence is pointless. You're simply saying "My opinion is better!", but in a more sophisticated manner.
Basically, you're doing the highbrow equivalent of "My God Is The Real God Only".
> Second best is to argue for addition or removal of rules.
What would we base our arguments for adding or removing rules upon? Financial incentives? Upon what will we base our assumption that financial incentives are important? Logical arguments are great, but after going down a layer or two we find there are only moral arguments. They are not pointless.
The above was going to be my first response, but then I took a step back and tried to address your argument as a whole.
I'm guessing you haven't spent much time considering moral philosophy, but even simplified toy examples, like the Trolley Problem quickly move past purely logical arguments and are firmly in the subjective realm. We won't be able to have a philosophical discussion here, but if you want I'd recommend the book "How to Be Perfect" as a relatively fun read on the subject and a good introduction.
> What would we base our arguments for adding or removing rules upon?
In practice we use a lot of things to attempt to convince a population to be for/against a law. We do it based on emotion (i.e. how much outrage/empathy/fear can be mustered on this particular crime), a sense of fairness sometimes.
But almost all the arguments using morals are poor ones - the against argument for female bodily autonomy is argued using morals, for example, and it didn't work.
Same-sex marriages weren't won by making moral arguments inasmuch the other side lost by making moral arguments.
When you see an argument based on morals, replace the word "morals" with "my god says so", because in practice that is all it is.
> if you want I'd recommend the book "How to Be Perfect" as a relatively fun read on the subject and a good introduction.
Thanks, I'll have a look for it. I'm afraid it seems that I haven't convinced you that arguing from morals is pointless, but I'm going to try one more time :-)
But, I respect your position, and it is not an uncommon one.
... so, parting thought ...
How can you continue an argument using your moral position as support, when the other party can dismiss your argument by saying that your moral position is inferior to his?
I think it's disingenuous to imply that it's impossible to separate legality from morality or ethics.
Saying "women shouldn't be forced to have medical procedures performed against their consent" is not just arguing about whose opinion is better. You are missing the forest for the trees.
> Saying "women shouldn't be forced to have medical procedures performed against their consent" is not just arguing about whose opinion is better.
Who's arguing that? I already made my position on that point clear: I think it's repugnant.
This thread (if you read back upthread) is literally only about the following sentence:
> I personally would rather discuss what is morally justifiable, since that is a more important standard.
But, while we're here anyway, I may as well ask why is the argument "women shouldn't have medical procedures performed against their consent"?
Why isn't the argument "people shouldn't have medical procedures against their consent"? Surely the notion that everyone should be treated equally is a morally superior position, so why focus on the less-moral argument?
You speak as though the law is not subjective, but legal rules are ultimately subjective just like moral rules. Was the holocaust legal? Most people when faced with the holocaust think "who cares what the law was, this is morally wrong". I'm sure there's some arguments out there that the holocaust was in fact illegal, and that's a fine academic argument about the law to have, but at the end of the day the people in power did what they did, and so I guess the legality of it all wasn't that important.
Arguing morals is very important.
And so back to my point, the more interesting question is "what is morally right and how do we want to structure our society in the future?" But if one side is arguing about morals and the other side is arguing about legalities, and they don't realize they're talking about different things, then it's hard to make progress.