(no subject)

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

Comments

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

You wrote: " I take 10 commandments as basic postulates. Everything is driven on this fundament."

If you think these are basic postulates, then surely you think they should be enforced by law. If not, why not?

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

I already said, those are fundamentals of moral code, morality is not the law. The laws are more specific and more descriptive, and have to be - breaking the law involves punishment and people have to know the exact relation between behavior and punishment. Morality, on the other hand is vague, and therefore subject to interpretations.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Vague? You're calling the Decalogue vague? Thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not steal... Doesn't seem to particularly vague to me.

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

It is very general. While the law describes first degree, second degree, etc...
What is your point?

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

My point is that law provides prescriptive implementations of moral principles. If you think that the Decalogue are the fundamental principles, do you think they should be implemented in law - if not, why not?

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

I have no idea what Decalogue is. And why are you so interested in my opinion about this?

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

I have no idea what Decalogue is.

Yes you do. It's been linked in this thread and the term has been used multiple times. Plus, you could enter it into a search engine.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=decalogue

And why are you so interested in my opinion about this?

As just explained, laws are the prescriptive implementations of moral principles.

More to the point, why do you keep avoiding the question?

[madam-shapo.livejournal.com]

Because I don't understand what you are asking, and also what your point in general.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

http://politicartoons.livejournal.com/4311268.html?thread=97648100#t97648100