Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
[snippers]
When I use positivism I am using it in the definition of the ideology that a law is a good law simply because it went through proper channels or that when a government does something it is right and proper or even that a majority rule is good rule, like prop 8.
I see where we have diverged. You are under the impression that I believe a law is a good law because it went through the proper channels; you should be careful here--the reason I say that is because if you are arguing that although the law went through the proper channel it isn't necessarily good then all laws are suspect. So how do we determine whether a law is good or not good: we can try and determine whether or not a law is moral or not moral. But if we do that we must start with a premise, that there are moral things, and not moral things. That still does not prove that there is anything Fundamental about any of our premises, assertions, or principles. So, how to we come to a Moral Truth, how do we discover a Moral Truth? Morality is a construct, Truth is a construct. We manufacture these things because the alternative will drive most of us mad.
You seem to be mistaking "good" "legitimate" "moral," and "proper."
The simple answer to your prop 8 question is: it is both good and not good, legitimate and not legitimate, moral and not moral, proper and not proper. Sorry, but that's all I have to give.
Just because I express something, doesn't mean I agree with it. Take for instance the Government making a law, whether it be moral or not moral. Now I can state that the law is moral if the Government has a set of principles that deemed something to be either moral or not moral, and those principles of 'moral' are met. Just because the Government states "this is moral, and this is not moral." I don't necessarily agree.