Should laws mirror morality?

[DarkProphet]

Should laws mirror morality (of the majority) or should laws simply serve practical ends?

 

[sidhe]

Laws should be practical. Enforced morality isn't real morality, and morality of the majority being given the force of law is tyranny of the majority.

 

[levi501]

Laws should be practical. Enforced morality isn't real morality, and morality of the majority being given the force of law is tyranny of the majority.

/agree

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as they are injurious to others."

 

[Spherical Time]

Laws should be practical. Enforced morality isn't real morality, and morality of the majority being given the force of law is tyranny of the majority.

I absolutely agree.

 

[sidhe]

/agree

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as they are injurious to others."

I absolutely agree.

Well, that settles that.

</thread>

 

[Chesterton]

Should laws mirror morality (of the majority) or should laws simply serve practical ends?

What or whose practical ends? How do we decide what they are? Do we listen to scientists, theologians...who?

 

[Spherical Time]

How about historians and politicians? The same people who currently decide.

 

[sidhe]

What or whose practical ends? How do we decide what they are? Do we listen to scientists, theologians...who?

I interpret that as things like:

No one likes having stuff stolen. Don't steal stuff.
Don't kill folks, as folks don't like dying.
You wouldn't like being raped. Don't do it.
Don't publicly defame the character of someone knowingly, that's just being a bastard.


Basically, if psychologists, theologians, and secular ethicists agree, on it, it's probably got some practical value.

 

[Verv]

Should laws mirror morality (of the majority) or should laws simply serve practical ends?

Great question to which I have a terrible response:

It depends on the nature of the society and how they have agreed to found their government.

In the case of the United States: "No."

 

[QuakerOats]

Should laws mirror morality (of the majority) or should laws simply serve practical ends?

Laws should serve practical ends. I agree with sidhe.

 

[BobW188]

Yes, but all are making moral judgments. You can't escape them.

You can argue that it is better to follow the morality of a majority, or that it is better to follow the morality of some better schooled and trained people, or to appoint a king...etc., etc., ad. inf., but in the end you are deciding what is right and what is wrong for a given society at a given place and time. All legislation is ultimately of morality.

 

[Spherical Time]

Yes, but all are making moral judgments. You can't escape them.

You can argue that it is better to follow the morality of a majority, or that it is better to follow the morality of some better schooled and trained people, or to appoint a king...etc., etc., ad. inf., but in the end you are deciding what is right and what is wrong for a given society at a given place and time. All legislation is ultimately of morality.

I disagree. Legality is not necessarily morality. And illegality is not necessarily immorality.

 

[sidhe]

Yes, but all are making moral judgments. You can't escape them.

You can argue that it is better to follow the morality of a majority, or that it is better to follow the morality of some better schooled and trained people, or to appoint a king...etc., etc., ad. inf., but in the end you are deciding what is right and what is wrong for a given society at a given place and time. All legislation is ultimately of morality.

Not really. Morality implies a right/wrong dichotomy. Laws have an allowed/not allowed dichotomy. For instance, you're allowed to kill someone in self-defense (given certain circumstances). You're NOT allowed to kill someone because they cut you off in traffic. You're allowed to have a beer. You're NOT allowed to have a beer while driving down the interstate.

 

[Chesterton]

I interpret that as things like:

No one likes having stuff stolen. Don't steal stuff.
Don't kill folks, as folks don't like dying.
You wouldn't like being raped. Don't do it.
Don't publicly defame the character of someone knowingly, that's just being a bastard.

Basically, if psychologists, theologians, and secular ethicists agree, on it, it's probably got some practical value.

Morality is practical then. As a Christian I'd agree with you; it's not either/or. Maybe the OP needs to be restated.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Yes, but all are making moral judgments. You can't escape them.

You can argue that it is better to follow the morality of a majority, or that it is better to follow the morality of some better schooled and trained people, or to appoint a king...etc., etc., ad. inf., but in the end you are deciding what is right and what is wrong for a given society at a given place and time. All legislation is ultimately of morality.

Not at all. It is entirely possible to keep issues of good and bad, that is morality, wholly separate from ideas of what is right and wrong within society. Such a distinction lies at the heart of every free nation in the world.

Everyone must be given as much freedom as possible to pursue whatever it is she considers to be good. Therefore, what is right is that which does not infringe on people's ability to pursue this (whatever it may be), and what is wrong is that which does.

They can conflict with one another in some ways. For example, if I believe the good in life is to ritually sacrifice as many people as possible in order to spiritually benefit from their death, I still cannot be permitted to do it, because doing so stops others' right to follow what they think is the good in their life. However, when society tells me I cannot do that it isn't saying my conception of the good is actually bad, just that it is wrong in society. So it doesn't matter if every single person in a sovereign nation-state believes ritual sacrifice to be good, it is still not right.

Until the day we can conclusively prove an absolute, comprehensive, perfect and unquestionable moral code for everyone, as far as any democratic society is concerned, within the civic sphere there is no such thing as good and bad. Those concepts exist within the minds of individuals, and between individuals there exist only rights not moral goods.

Even when people confuse the issues on this, the vast majority implicitly understand and firmly believe in it. Whether we know it or not, it is the fundamental reason that we consider, say, France 'free' but Saudi Arabia not. It is the reason we believe having sex in public can legitimately be criminalised, but having consensual sex in private cannot. It is the reason that slandering someone in the press can result in being sued, but swearing can't.

 

[Paulos23]

Yes, but all are making moral judgments. You can't escape them.

You can argue that it is better to follow the morality of a majority, or that it is better to follow the morality of some better schooled and trained people, or to appoint a king...etc., etc., ad. inf., but in the end you are deciding what is right and what is wrong for a given society at a given place and time. All legislation is ultimately of morality.

No, that is practical. It might go along with the society's morality, but it doesn't have to. We have learned by historical and practical experience that we should have leaders that are well educated and trained, since they get stuff done. We could elect a plummer to be President, and he could be a good leader, but we all know the odds are against it due to lack of education and training.

Some of our laws have been around so long that they have become part of the cultural morality (don't kill, don't steal, etc.). That doesn't make the laws moral (they are still practical) but it does mean that the society has excepted them as morals.

 

[DarkProphet]

Morality is practical then. As a Christian I'd agree with you; it's not either/or. Maybe the OP needs to be restated.

Morality CAN be practical but not always. Take adultery for example, most non-Christians would agree that adultery is "immoral" but does that fact alone make it practical to make adultery illegal? Enforcing such a law would violate peoples basic freedoms and add little value to society for the cost.