So, yes if you get whipped in Singapore for spitting out gum, that is wrong on their part. It is rude to spit gum but you don't deserve to be physically beaten for it.
There are things which we can be certain are wrong: murder, rape, etc. A law that punishes gum chewing to some extent or another is not one of them.
Why are the standards suddenly "the existence of an absolute moral law"? You can't demonstrate that there is an "absolute moral law" against murder.
What does an absolute moral law have to do with how well the law is publicized? Note that my awareness of a law is not related to its morality.
And finally, you take the whole point -- that being whipped is an extreme punishment -- and you shove it into this form "to some extent or another." The debate is not about whether we ought to punish chewing gum but about the severity of whipping.
Kant tried to.
I would say that the grand project he undertook (the critiques of pure reason, practical reason and judgement), although great works in their own right, and a clear articulation of what philosophy is, ultimately failed in their project. (To provide us with guides for what is good, true and beautiful).
That was my first post in this thread, so I’m not sure how I could have changed my position. I argued directly and solely against your claiming Singapore’s law is immoral; if by doing so I’ve somehow switched topics, the person solely responsible is you.
> Note that my awareness of a law is not related to its morality.
Not sure when I said this. I was, though, responding to your claim that “There are too many rules for people to keep track of all of them and they have to be interpreted and enforced with discretion.” Again, if anyone is trying to change the goalposts, it’s you.
> And finally, you take the whole point -- that being whipped is an extreme punishment -- and you shove it into this form "to some extent or another."
Presupposing that it is an extreme punishment for the crime is begging the question. My claim was that it is naive of you to think that you must be right in knowing what the correct penalty for a crime in a gray area like chewing gum, and that Singapore must be wrong.
On the other hand, apparently:
> You can't demonstrate that there is an "absolute moral law" against murder.
... so I am no longer even sure I come from a similar enough culture to attempt to relate Singapore’s to you.
The law mostly works because people follow it, voluntarily, most of the time.
And if enough people break the law (and take steps to prevent themselves from being caught and avoid all consequences, obviously), then eventually the immoral law may as well not be the law because it becomes effectively unenforceable.
"The rules are the rules" is never a good excuse. What matters is the underlying intent and reason for the law.
In this situation, the intent of the law is to prevent employees from being exploited. So a judge should look at it and say "obviously, this person wasn't being exploited, and it is not the intent of the law to deport them in this case".