Is morality objective, even without God?

[zippy2006]

Zoning laws aren't about harm....because laws aren't about morals.

@Bradskii - this is an interesting riff on related themes - "Laws can't be about harm because if they were, then laws would be about morals."

If you don't think that immoral acts that cause no harm should be made illegal then we generally agree. We get to the same point but we're approaching it from different directions.

Okay, but the point I've been arguing all along is that law and morality is about the same thing, and therefore law and morality are not two hermetically sealed spheres. That is what I want you to agree with.

 

[Ana the Ist]

@Bradskii - this is an interesting riff on related themes - "Laws can't be about harm because if they were, then laws would be about morals."

Why do you think I responded to him and not you lol?

It's an entirely wrong and pointless tangent. There's so many laws everyone would be completely indifferent to morally.

Okay, but the point I've been arguing all along is that law and morality is about the same thing, and therefore law and morality are not two hermetically sealed spheres. That is what I want you to agree with.

If you're claiming overlap....ok....but I disagree. Many people believe that there's nothing immoral in the death of a certain CEO of Healthcare despite fully agreeing it was illegal.

 

[Bradskii]

Okay, but the point I've been arguing all along is that law and morality is about the same thing, and therefore law and morality are not two hermetically sealed spheres. That is what I want you to agree with.

We got to the same point. But someone else may well argue that something that is immoral should therefore be illegal. If I agreed with your statement then I can't argue against them. They could reject any argument I'd use about harm being the determinant because they'd say it doesn't matter: "Immorality is sufficient because 'law and morality is about the same thing' ".

So I can't agree.

 

[zippy2006]

We got to the same point. But someone else may well argue that something that is immoral should therefore be illegal. If I agreed with your statement then I can't argue against them.

What you ought to say to them is, "Every illegal act is immoral, but not every immoral act is illegal. That which is prohibited or censured on the basis of harm is an immoral act. Every illegal act is prohibited or censured on the basis of harm, and is therefore an immoral act. But not every immoral act is an illegal act, because it is not the responsibility of the legal system to prevent every harm, but only the most grievous and pertinent harms."

 

[Ana the Ist]

What you ought to say to them is, "Every illegal act is immoral, but not every immoral act is illegal. That which is prohibited or censured on the basis of harm is an immoral act. Every illegal act is prohibited or censured on the basis of harm, and is therefore an immoral act. But not every immoral act is an illegal act, because it is not the responsibility of the legal system to prevent every harm, but only the most grievous and pertinent harms."

Slavery wasn't immoral when it was legal? How about proscription?

 

[zippy2006]

Slavery wasn't immoral when it was legal?

It was not deemed immoral. Were it deemed sufficiently immoral by the society, it would not have been legal. Indeed, once it was deemed gravely immoral it was made illegal. The basic argument was, "This should be illegal because it is grievously wrong."

 

[Ana the Ist]

It was not deemed immoral.

It wasn't?

Who did you ask? The slaves? Are you aware that the argument for slavery in the US originally was referred to as a "necessary evil"?

That's a moral judgement.

Were it deemed sufficiently immoral by the society,

You act like you have some say in the law lol. Nobody is consulting the public.

 

[zippy2006]

It wasn't?

Indeed, once it was deemed gravely immoral it was made illegal. The basic argument was, "This should be illegal because it is grievously wrong."

If you disagree that slavery was made illegal because it was deemed to be (grievously) wrong, then you will have to start thinking up a theory for why slavery was made illegal.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It was not deemed immoral. Were it deemed sufficiently immoral by the society, it would not have been legal. Indeed, once it was deemed gravely immoral it was made illegal. The basic argument was, "This should be illegal because it is grievously wrong."

I suppose you would argue the public's views on abortion have shifted back and forth over the past 80 years and the law reflects that? Is that what you believe?

 

[Ana the Ist]

If you disagree that slavery was made illegal because it was deemed to be (grievously) wrong, then you will have to start thinking up a theory for why slavery was made illegal.

I could come up with hundreds of reasons why slavery was made illegal...none have to do with morality.

Surely then...you imagine the trail of tears entirely justified in the pursuit of ending slavery. Those were slave owning tribes after all....moral good?

Is napalm and white phosphorous use in war a morally acceptable thing? Is declaring war (legal) which certainly does harm....make it morally good????

Edit- is this position getting easier or harder to defend?

 

[Ana the Ist]

But not every immoral act is an illegal act, because it is not the responsibility of the legal system to prevent every harm, but only the most grievous and pertinent harms."

The legal system declares war....to say that only harms our enemies is goofy, it's deeply harmed large numbers of veterans.

 

[o_mlly]

Slavery wasn't immoral when it was legal?

Moral objectivists would say that the morality of any act is independent of the law ... and for that matter, independent of the thinking mind of anyone.

The common law in the west has long recognized the inferior relationship of the law to morality. The law differentiates prohibited acts which are malum in se (evil in themselves) and acts which are malum prohibitum (wrong only because they are prohibited by law).

In the last century liberalism has also taught the west that laws which cannot, or are extremely difficult, to enforce ought not to be laws. Morally deviant sexual acts being the prime examples.

 

[J_B_]

Yes. Bentham for one. See here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1113015

'In order to apply the law of nature to which all human laws must conform, says Blackstone, it is necessary to have recourse to reason; but as man's reason is corrupt and blind, God Himself has discovered and enforced reason's law by divine revelation in the Scriptures. Upon this passage Bentham leaps with some ferocity proclaiming the impropriety of mixing theology and jurisprudence, and indicating how incompatible such views are with his own sovereign principle that utility is the only guiding principle of legislation, and that utility is to be determined only by observation and experience.'

But all we have here is Blackstone saying that divine revelation is the means by which we should determine the legality of an act and Bentham saying that we shouldn't. What I would like to see is a law based purely on 'divine revelation in the Scriptures' and not based on anything else. If there are none then saying that those who enabled the laws were guided by scripture is meaningless. The fact that they would be based on utility doesn't mean that Christianity was the cause of the law simply because it happens to align with scripture.

I'm not sure if Bentham pointed this out, but if a law was divinely influenced, then why has the law changed so drastically over the centuries? What was the Christian influence that would see a person hung for stealing a loaf of bread? What was the Christian influence on keeping slaves? What was (and still is) the Christian influence on the death penalty?

Thanks for the reference. I appreciate it. However, I think you misunderstand what I said because you're conflating my point with other elements. I'm aware of Bentham and his idea of utilitarianism. I never said that no one disagreed with Blackstone that Christianity is the proper basis of the law. I only said Christianity had an influence on the law. Nor was I ever trying to claim said Christian influence can be proven to come from divine inspiration. If it helps for me to be more explicit, I am saying that people who were Christians influenced English Common Law based upon what they believed to be Christian principles. As a result, English Common Law was different than pre-colonial law in places like India and Arabia.

In no way does that preclude that Bentham also had an impact.

To try to further explain what I am saying vs. what I hear you saying, consider this example. I like to write fiction. I was heavily influenced by Shakespeare. You could say I used to write Shakespeare fan-fiction, though I don't anymore. I was also heavily influenced by Isaac Asimov, who wrote idea-based stories as opposed to character or plot-based stories. If someone were to notice that my latest story has an idea-based tendency and concluded I was influenced by Asimov, they would be correct. But if they went on to say that since I was influenced by Asimov, it's impossible that I could have been influenced by Shakespeare ... well, I'd be very perplexed. I simply don't understand why someone would think it has to be 100% one thing or 100% another with no mixing allowed.

For you to accept Bentham's propaganda that utility is the only guiding principle of English Common Law is astounding. He may have wanted that to be the sole basis, but it never has been and never will be. Not only was Christianity an influence, but also Scandanavian paganism.

And whence comes the idea that divine revelation given to a Christian would preclude changes in the laws we write? It doesn't, and I said as much in other recent posts.

So, this thing about a law _only_ influenced by Christianity is not something I ever said, it's not an example I ever promised to provide, and it's not representative of my thinking on the subject. When I first posted a reply to you, I was noting my agreement with you, albeit from my Christian perspective. It's sad to see the conversation take this turn.

However, maybe this question would clarify a few things: Do you believe Christianity is wholly derivative without a single original idea of its own?

Links would be handy. But if you want to claim that Christianity had an influence then again I will ask for an example of a law that was determined only by that influence and not on practical matters.

No, I'll accept what you personally think might be harm or potential harm (so not necessarily 'after-the-fact') in me having sex with my partner of 40 something years that would justify it being illegal. Remember, we are looking at an act which you might consider could be made illegal for no other reason than you consider it immoral (presumably by reference to divine revelation in scripture).

Again, I can't provide this "only" example and never said I would, as it has nothing to do with my point. Nor was I insisting things should be made illegal "only" because I consider them immoral. I agreed to a discussion about laws attempting to prevent harm. It was other posters who were discussing the immoral aspect with you.

I will also repeat that it is unfortunate the conversation went this direction, but it was enlightening. You've been most gracious, so I'm not accusing you of anything malicious, but if you continue to rigidly insist on all these "only" conditions and continue to insert assumptions about my beliefs that are not correct such that I have to spend inordinate time cleaning up (I'd prefer you ask about my beliefs rather than assume), we are at an impasse.

So, I'll make this statement and then leave you to reply as you will.

From my perspective, the purpose of licenses is not cases where people have malicious intent, but for cases where people either need education to mitigate immaturity/ignorance (e.g. marriage and drivers licenses) or where they need to contribute to a public service (e.g. fishing licenses). A marriage license is not about preventing abuse (other laws cover that), but an attempt to educate and hold people accountable.

Suppose you and your partner are very mature and have a wonderful relationship. Fine. I assume a mature person wishes the best for those who are less mature but want to marry. As such, the mature couple has no reason to fear the education and accountability (after all, they're mature), and they wish to help the less mature by setting an example. In other words, they would follow the process of getting a license.

For those who are less mature, then, they are encouraged to submit themselves to the education and accountability that will give them a better chance of a good marriage.

Questions to accompany the above statement: 1) Do you believe sex has serious consequences, or is casual no-consequence sex possible? 2) Even if casual sex is possible, do you believe everyone who enters such a relationship is mature enough to handle it? 3) Do you believe the end of a relationship where at least one partner was deeply invested can cause harm, even if no one intended harm?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Moral objectivists would say that the morality of any act is independent of the law

I agree they would.

... and for that matter, independent of the thinking mind of anyone.

Which is a bit odd.

The common law in the west has long recognized the inferior relationship of the law to morality.

It's a relationship if it's there at all...it's unclear what is inferior.

The law differentiates prohibited acts which are malum in se (evil in themselves)

Uh huh.

and acts which are malum prohibitum (wrong only because they are prohibited by law).

One wonders how it does this.

In the last century liberalism has also taught the west that laws which cannot, or are extremely difficult, to enforce ought not to be laws. Morally deviant sexual acts being the prime examples.

Actually, I've never seen this anywhere nor do I understand where you're getting it from. Some of the hardest crimes to catch have been around for quite a long time. It's illegal for businesses to "price fix" in order to gain more profits instead of providing cheaper goods and services....but almost never prosecuted. It basically requires an informant in every business meeting between competiting firms. It's also extremely difficult to prove someone is lying under sworn testimony, as it not only requires that the subject has said something incorrect under oath....but has prior knowledge that what they said was incorrect.

 

[o_mlly]

I agree they would.

Which is a bit odd.

It's a relationship if it's there at all...it's unclear what is inferior.

A derivative is always inferior to its integral, right? Absent the latter, the former does not exist.

Actually, I've never seen this anywhere nor do I understand where you're getting it from.

Legal positivism is the theory that if it's the law then it is moral. The philosophy renders conceptions of morality to a derivative status.

Under legal positivism, if legal system A, claims that legal system B is immoral it must do so only from a reference to itself. System B does not recognize the validity of system A, so the criticism by system A of system B is correctly disregarded as baseless by system B.

The Nazis used legal positivism as their defense at Nuremberg. The Nazis granted that their legal system was different than the Allies and granted that fundamental German values were different than the Allies, one of which was the supremacy of the Aryan race. They incorporated their values into their laws that included the de-valuing of Jews relative to Aryans. The Nazis argued, therefore, that the systematic elimination of Jews was, in the German legal system, entirely valid. And, since, under legal positivism, the Allies could not judge the Nazis legal system as invalid, the Allies could not judge the defendants acts as criminal.

Jackson, the lead prosecutor, had to depart from the philosophy of legal positivism and proceed to a higher authority, a new and higher vantage point to prosecute the legal system of another country, ie., the natural moral law.

 

[zippy2006]

public's views

Here's your key:

namely the subset of perceived morality that the Sovereign deems fit to publicly promulgate and enforce

-

Edit- is this position getting easier or harder to defend?

At this point I think you've sufficiently undermined your own position with all the gish gallop. Thanks for that.

 

[Bradskii]

I only said Christianity had an influence on the law. I am saying that people who were Christians influenced English Common Law...

Those two sentences do not mean the same thing. I'm arguing against the first, but not the second.

The first means that specifically Christian beliefs were an influence. I reject that in the sense that the beliefs that you might say were an influence are not specific to Christianity. So one could say that a law has been written for whatever reason and it is a Christian belief (and a Muslim or Hindu or Jewish belief etc) as opposed to a law has been written because it is a Christian belief.

The second, as it stands as I've split it, doesn't say much at all. You might as well say that they were all right handed. So I've no problem with it. But adding this...

...based upon what they believed to be Christian principles.

...and it then says the same as the first. My point being that any law proposed by any given person might indeed align with their Christian beliefs, but they would propose the law even if they weren't Christian. If it was a law just based on Christian beliefs then we have a problem.

In some towns near where I was born in Wales there used to be local laws that said that shops and pubs were to be closed on Sunday (Wales alcohol restrictions: Temperance's long history). That was influenced specifically by Christian beliefs, Welsh non conformists who influenced the law 'based upon what they believed to be Christian principles'. From 2003 it's no longer the case. Because people rejected laws solely influenced by Christianity.

For you to accept Bentham's propaganda that utility is the only guiding principle of English Common Law is astounding. He may have wanted that to be the sole basis, but it never has been and never will be. Not only was Christianity an influence, but also Scandanavian paganism.

I'm not sure that his views could be considered 'propaganda'. But all laws have to serve some utilitarian principle. They have to be 'useful and practical' which is the very definition of utilitarian. They'd be pretty useless if they weren't.

So, this thing about a law _only_ influenced by Christianity is not something I ever said, it's not an example I ever promised to provide, and it's not representative of my thinking on the subject.

I've just given an example. Because it was the thinking of some people at the time. And I'd suggest that it still is the thinking of not an inconsiderable amount of people. But I accept that it's not the point for which you were arguing.

However, maybe this question would clarify a few things: Do you believe Christianity is wholly derivative without a single original idea of its own?

I believe that all religions have the same basis. There is an all too human need for answers to questions that we find difficult to resolve. And the belief in an afterlife is all but a universal religious concept. It's not too difficult to understand why. But every religion has it's own individual ideas.

Suppose you and your partner are very mature and have a wonderful relationship. Fine. I assume a mature person wishes the best for those who are less mature but want to marry. As such, the mature couple has no reason to fear the education and accountability (after all, they're mature), and they wish to help the less mature by setting an example. In other words, they would follow the process of getting a license.

I don't think that they're necessary. That's another argument for another thread. But to answer the questions...

Questions to accompany the above statement: 1) Do you believe sex has serious consequences, or is casual no-consequence sex possible?

Yes.

2) Even if casual sex is possible, do you believe everyone who enters such a relationship is mature enough to handle it?

No.

3) Do you believe the end of a relationship where at least one partner was deeply invested can cause harm, even if no one intended harm?

I take it that you're asking if a relationship comes to an end, can it cause harm? Well, yes. If you're fully committed and you find that your partner isn't...then that could be quite traumatising.

 

[Bradskii]

In the last century liberalism has also taught the west that laws which cannot, or are extremely difficult, to enforce ought not to be laws. Morally deviant sexual acts being the prime examples.

'I was thinking, dear. We could finish this wine, go to bed and we could whisper whisper whisper'.
'Allright! You go light some candles and put some mood music on and I'll check the Federal Register of Legislation'.

That's not a world in which we want to live.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

'I was thinking, dear. We could finish this wine, go to bed and we could whisper whisper whisper'.
'Allright! You go light some candles and put some mood music on and I'll check the Federal Register of Legislation'.

That's not a world in which we want to live.

If that's the case, then you atheists who want a legal priviso to hold Christians at bay might want to start quoting Revelation 22:11 more often.

Maybe that's get you some traction for the cause of your own moral and legal preference, at least until the Lord returns????

 

[J_B_]

Those two sentences do not mean the same thing. I'm arguing against the first, but not the second.

What is Christianity but the people of which it consists? That's a rhetorical question. I believe there's more to it, but I don't expect you do. I would expect you think it is no more than the creation of people. As such, Christianity IS the beliefs of those who call themselves Christian.

I'm not sure that his views could be considered 'propaganda'. But all laws have to serve some utilitarian principle. They have to be 'useful and practical' which is the very definition of utilitarian. They'd be pretty useless if they weren't.

He was arguing objectivism in utilitarian clothing. In essence, arguing he had found a way round the 'Who decides?' dilemma when in fact he hadn't.

I believe that all religions have the same basis. There is an all too human need for answers to questions that we find difficult to resolve. And the belief in an afterlife is all but a universal religious concept. It's not too difficult to understand why. But every religion has it's own individual ideas.

I think this means your answer is, no, you don't believe Christianity to be wholly derivative. What, then, would you say was unique about it?

I don't think that they're necessary. That's another argument for another thread. But to answer the questions...

Why wait for another thread? You have the floor, and I'd like you to fully state your case.