No. Just because laws originate from moralis doesn’t mean they are the same.. That would be like saying a car and a train are the same since they are both vehicles.
So what about the laws like to not kill and steal and the morals to not kill and steal. Are they not the same? Many laws are either directly the same as the moral or underpinned by the moral because originally that is how we determined what was right and wrong from our moral values.
No because there will be disagreements on what constitutes “out of control”, and “bad behavior”
Normally out of control is just that, a situation begins to have bad consequences to the point where it is affecting others and causing problems for society so they bring in a law to stop it happening. But I can see that there would be situations where people disagreed on what is out of control and this may be the problem because there are often self-interest, bias, influences from money that can sway peoples views. The recent lockout laws in Brisbane are an example where the government wanted to stop the drunken behaviour where people were getting into fights and some were being badly injured or killed when the entertainment sector of the city closed at 3 to 5 am. So they brought the closedown time to 1 am to stop the extra drinking time and it seems to have worked.
But there were many from the entertainment and leisure industry that complained and said it was wrong because it was destroying their business. A bit like the legalisation of pot. Some say it will cause more harm and others who seem to mostly be involved in selling it say it will not be harmful. The problem is sometimes that the minority who have a lot of money and vested interest can sway the people who make the decision through good marketing and money put in the right people's pockets.
Because they don't agree the act is wrong. When you are protecting your family from a violent intruder, that is not wrong, it is not a lesser of two wrongs, it is not a compromise for a specific situation, protecting your family is the morally RIGHT thing to do; anything less is wrong.
Yes if you kill someone when protecting your family it is seen as an exception for not killing. That is because there is a greater moral involved which is as you said not protecting your family or innocents. It is a compromise for a specific situation which is not to kill. In fact the person who kills in self defence is often traumatised and needs therapy as they still feel guilty for taking another life even though it was justified which shows how the original moral wrong still has an impact on the situation.
Obviously we disagree here because even though you think it is wrong, I do not.
Objective means based on fact, not opinion. Facts can be demonstrated. If morality were objective, you could demonstrate why you are right and I am wrong.
I thought I had already done that. Once again without even going into examples, the simple fact that people have subjective moral views implies that there must be an objective moral view that those subjective views are being measured against. Every time a person says in my view that action is morality correct and the other person view is wrong they are implying that there is an objective moral they are using to make that claim.
Again; compromise is subjective, not objective.
If we are having to justify our actions, then we are admitting an objective moral fact. Therefore, the objective moral absolute is
“It’s never OK to kill or lie without proper justification.”
Our own human experience confirms these truths. Regardless of geographic location, place in history or form of culture, it’s never been morally acceptable to kill or lie without proper justification. Humans have historically recognized these two objective moral absolutes; these principles transcend culture, location and history.
If Moral Decisions Are Dependent on Circumstances, Are There No Objective Moral Truths? | Cold Case Christianity
Killing is easy. How about taxes? Is it morally fair for people with higher income to pay more? Is a progressive tax system where they pay a higher percentage fair? Should the rich be required to pay the health care coverage for those who are poor so they don’t die in the streets? How about if the poor’s illness is due to unhealthy lifestyle? Is it still fair?
Are you going to tell me everybody is going to agree on moral issues like that? I think not, and I can come up with a hundred more moral questions that everybody disagrees on.
No I don't think it is fair. All these examples have a moral underpinning. So is it fair for the rich to pay more taxes to help the poor. Yes, in other words is it morally right for those who are in a better position to help the needy. That is a basic moral that our societies live from ie the good Samaritan. It has only been compromised with the age of capitalism and neo-liberalisation which promotes individualism in being financially independent. But this policy has seen the growth of a small amount of rich and a larger and larger poor population who go without.
This is a good example of how money corrupts. Of course those with the money and especially liberal governments will say it is a good policy because it brings more wealth for all. But research has shown it does not work and in fact does the opposite. But subjective morality allows these types of corruptions and influences to dictate what is morally right and it is often the ones with the power and money that dominate what becomes morally acceptable in society.
If we believed that helping those in need was a moral objective it would trump all other views and be the guideline for how we live. I think money is one factor that can undermine all morals by corrupting peoples views.