analyze one or two current laws that you feel are morally wrong and why you feel they are morally wrong.?
352379
Vagrancy law not every one has a place to stay or money....It just gives the cops the right to harass the homeless..\n2)The law that removed entrapment laws.... Now cops can set you up even when you are doing nothing wrong....\n\nA law I have already broken is murder and I felt very justified ....I killed a sorry child molester ...And I was very ready to do the time for breaking that law...\nBut the Jury agreed it was justified I only did 30days in jail and got a fine....But I was willin to do life for that cause...\nDon't you just love plea bargans
241856
This may not be helpful for your homework, but it seems like ALL laws curtail personal freedoms, while being intended to protect society in some way.  It seems like the only laws that would NOT make your list would be laws that you believed were wrong because they actually did nothing useful to protect society.\n\nMaybe your teacher has something grander in mind, but from the way you described the question, it seems like you could pick any 4 traffic laws or parking ordinances even.
967985
A liberal worried about morals? give me a break!
1180267
It could be if you break a law or cover up his crime. It does mean you support crime by not speaking out against it weather you like it or not-which makes that person less moral. \n Laws were made to protect the majority of the people living in an area. Those who don't support them due to a selfish feeling of their own (and that would include what you want) are encouraging lawlessness.\n Throughout history where lawlessness prevailed many innocent got hurt-that is why we made laws. If you don't like the laws than get the majority to change them\nlegally. This is the right way to protect all. So yes-supportors are hurting many.
998783
gravesendian said it perfectly as far as I'm concerned.  I agree 100%.  \n\nMorality is a purely human construct.  What is "moral" or lawful in one part of the world, can be immoral or illegal in another part.  Take prosititution...in some countries it is legal, in others not.  What makes the difference?  Difference in human perception...difference in what is considered an acceptable standard of behaviour.
258264
I concur.  I feel like adherence to a prescribed moral principle removes personal responsibility.  I've felt that way (only perhaps less eloquent!) since I was eight.  If you are a good person because you adhere to the Bible / church values unquestioningly, you aren't actually a good person.  You are only truly good if you are the person choosing your own behavior.  I think fundamentally it boils down to manners - in greater or lesser dimensions.
978301
Death penalty laws are social engineering. I cannot subscribe to the ethics of social engineering. As a nurse who has worked in the system with pedophiles, I know also that episodic imprisonment is ineffective. They are relentless. I support the only known ethical solution which is chemical castration.  But, then again, I believe in that for Conservatives, too.
499159
People now-a-days have no morals. It's sad really, a lot are influenced by media, and everyday life. But if people consciously know right from wrong, then it's all in their mind and their decision whether or not to do wrong-doing.
706782
If you badly cheat an atheist, he will be upset. He appeals to a natural moral law that he expects everyone, including the cheater to know and obey. "That's not right, or that's not fair" are acknowledgements that there is a standard of right and fair that everyone should know. It is not subjecive in moments like that. Moral law is very absolute at times like these. The atheist demands justice. Blind to his own behavior that well establishes the natural moral law common to man, he then says morals are subjective.  He bullsh*ts himself. A hedonist likes to say morals are subjective because if morals are relative then there are no morals at all. Punch him in the nose and suddenly morals become absolute again.
165776
what in who?! ethics in action. there is no morality in government.
252430
This is the way I view things.  I wasn't around when they made the laws therefore I don't think it's fair that I have to abide by the ones I don't agree with.  If I feel like a law needs to be changed or if I want to make something made legal that isn't then I will try for it.  I will fight and get petitions and go to meetings for my cause.  However, if I still don't get my way I'll do what I want. I will continue to do illegal acts or whatever the circumstance may be.  I would never put anyone in harm's way but if I feel there is a stupid law I shouldn't have to abide by then I don't.  I may have to suffer the consequences but I will fight for my beliefs.
814721
If you are being asked to do something that you believe to be morally wrong.
307575
nope. how would lying and cheating be morally correct? people go to jail for those things. you lie, you go to jail, you cheat on a test, u get expelled. you cheat on your taxes, fine and jail, same principles, different situation
138228
Why would you jeprodize your morals and ethical beliefs for someone elses benefit?  No amount of $ is worth legal consequenses.
898356
At least you have to integrity to notice hypocrisy and are not afraid to speak how you feel....I applaud you for that.....You separate the two issues, one issue is the legality and the other issue is racism.....You can still manage to recognize there is a human element....Despite the laws....
883223
Unless morality is based on the Law of God, the definition of "morally right" simply becomes "whatever I think is morally right", and "morally wrong" becomes "whatever I think is morally wrong". Of course, that would only define my own personal subjective morality, since there would be no such thing as objective morality. Your definition of "morally right" would be "whatever YOU happen to think is right", which might be completely opposite to my definition of "morally right". If morality is completely subjective, why even speak in terms of morality? Morality would consist of "you do whatever you feel like doing, and I'll do whatever I feel like doing". I couldn't judge any action of yours to be immoral, nor could you judge any action of mine, or of terrorists, or of governments, to be immoral. "What's right for you may not be right for me" would be the foundation of morality, whether we werespeaking of murder, rape, child molestation, or any other act. All acts would be morally neutral, and would become "right" or "wrong" only in the minds of individuals. Morality is meaningful only when there is an objective standard against which to compare subjective ideas of morality. An act is objectively moral when it fits the objective standard of morality.
865822
I'm not sure I exactly understand the supposition you're making.  In general, however, I would argue that moral and legal can be viewed as a Venn diagram - an act can be both, one of the other, or neither.  We probably wouldn't want it any other way, actually - hence the saying that "you can't legislate morality."