Law and Morality

[BillyTK]

Sodom and Gomorah is another example. The sin being punished is inhospitableness, not sexual license. Then, again, that's a weird story no matter how you look at it.

You're not wrong there--especially with the twist where Mothra and Godzilla join forces to the save the day! Or am I getting confused again?

 

[CWL]

Just out of interest I'd suggest that all morals are based on practical/rational grounds (or practical/rational grounds relative to the culture which originated them) if you trace 'em back far enough; often a practical/rational consideration evolves into a moral through repetition and ritualisation.

Interesting. I agree. The problem is that morality has the tendency to become irrational once it has lost its touch with its original practical/rational grounds and such grounds are no longer valid, due to changed circumstances over time.

One difference that can be discerned is that morality thus tends to be static (not in the sense that it does not change over time - because it obviously does - but because it cannot be changed with the stroke of a pen) whereas the law can be said to be more dynamic (legislation that proves itself to be bad in practice can be easily changed).

 

[Q-Source]

Sure (not entirely true as to courts for most systems), but I still believe that it is the morality of the people who are officers of the courts and legislative bodies that is most influential - this morality may or may not coincide with the morality of "common people".

Of course, this is true in practice.

I don't think this is entirely true. The morals and ideals expressed during elections is something quite different to the decisions/problems politicials actually make/face when in office.

Yes this happens in reality, but in theory it should not be this way.

As you suggesting that one cannot diffrentiate between moral and practical/rational grounds?

I am not sure. There will always be a bit of morality on any rational ground.

Now, wouldn't you agree that a functional contractual law is necessary in order for a working market/society to exists?

Yes, I agree. But you cannot separate law from morality, because ultimately the people who is deciding what is wrong or right have to use moral standards.

Well, I think you are stretching it a bit. Again - don't you agree that there can be purely pracitical/rational reasons for a certain rule as opposed to reasons based on morality (legislation regarding daylight savings being an extreme example).

In the financial market, it is possible to make this distintion because, most of the decisions are based on statistics and mathematics. But the empirical data is provided by mere individuals' choices.

Now, why do you think that it is possible to make a distinction? How a law becomes a law?, what is the process it follows?

Q-S

 

[billydkid]

morality

This is how I look at it, for what it is worth. Morality is a personal matter and should in no way enter into law. For example, while we may all agree that murder and rape and whatever else are morally abomidable, the reason they are and should be illegal is because they deprive another person of their civil and personal liberty. If you look at it that way there should be no confusion. The confusion enters which stick morality into the equation. My morality may not be the same as yours. Should you have to conform to my morality or me to your's? Morality is how we end up with all of these "vicimless crimes" - an oxymoron if ever there was - vice squads, what an asinine concept. Police squads who's it is to go out an enforce some peoples sense of morality on other people.

It you base all criminal law on the preservation of the rights of citizens to their lives, liberties and pursuits of happiness and on nothing else, I don't see where you run into trouble. Interject morallity and all you have is trouble. Some people have the notion that things should be illegal because they don't like them or don't approve of them. There are all sorts of things I can't stand. Can you imagine a world where everything I can't stand was illegal? Why should I or you or anyone else have to live in accordance with moral foibles of other people, so long as we are doing nothing to harm or interfere with another person? Take "morality" out of the equation - Mine is not the same as yours and yours is not the same as a million other people. Base laws and the preservation of each our rights to live and be free.

 

[Q-Source]

billydkid

Could you answer the same questions I asked CWL?

why do you think that it is possible to make a distinction between law and morality? How a law becomes a law?, what is the process it follows?

I think that we must go to the beginning to understand how morality influences Law.

 

[billydkid]

Well

billydkid

Could you answer the same questions I asked CWL?



I think that we must go to the beginning to understand how morality influences Law.

I guess I believe, as did the founding fathers, that some truths are self evident and not really a matter of morality, per se. I suppose you could argue that human rights are a matter of morality. It is certainly immoral to deprive an individual of those rights. I guess I would have to say, that there is a "natural morality" that is not learned but it inherent in human beings. (not all of them of course, but I would argue that it is inherent in the sensibility of all normal human beings.)

I don't believe the inclination not to hurt (in both a broad and narrow sense) is natural in the human animal. I don't believe it is a conditioned inclination in general. I think of everything we generally call morality is, in fact, conditioned. I believe it is natural for human beings to empathize. I believe it is an evolved behavior.

I do not believe human beings (again, taken as a whole) are naturally disposed to harm each other under normal conditions. Therefore, I believe the laws that I believe are just spring from the natural inclination of humans to live and let live. Not all humans, mind you, but most humans. If it were not so, if cooperation were not evolutionarily part of our make up, mankind never would have survived. The morality I object too in the law is not the natural morality that is inherent in human beings, but that which has been supered on the animal.

 

[Q-Source]

Re: Well

I guess I believe, as did the founding fathers, that some truths are self evident and not really a matter of morality, per se. I suppose you could argue that human rights are a matter of morality. It is certainly immoral to deprive an individual of those rights. I guess I would have to say, that there is a "natural morality" that is not learned but it inherent in human beings. (not all of them of course, but I would argue that it is inherent in the sensibility of all normal human beings.)

Well, this is a moot point. I think that there are no self evident truths. We only change names to some actions that in other times were moral or ethical. In fact, as I mentioned before "capital punishment" is one of those acts where it is moral to deprive an individual of his most basic human rights.

In some countries, capital punishment is immoral.
That's why my objection.


Q

 

[c4ts]

Should morality influence the law and vice versa?

Morality should influence the law, but Thucydides' account of the Melian dialogues says it doesn't.

 

[CWL]

Morality should influence the law, but Thucydides' account of the Melian dialogues says it doesn't.

Well, it is quite clear that it does. One excellent example is the anticipated changes in the currently prevalent doctrines according to International Law regarding aggressive warfare against other Sates.

Internaional Law as it has developed in practice and according to the treaties surrounting the UN appears to be based on two major principles - which IMO are incompatible:

1) Human Rights; and

2) The Sovereignity of the State.

The prevalent doctrine basically boils down to the unsatisfactory result that a regime may more or less commit whatever atrocities it desires against its own citizens without fear of (military) retribution therefor - just as long as the regime does not attack another State.

Hopefully, the latest developments (tragic as some of its elements are) will lead to a world order where any regime which does not adhere to the basic principles of Human Rights can no longer hide behind the doctrine of Sovereignity. Yes, I know there are also practical reasons behind the allied interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, but there is undeniably a moral dimension as well (which I personally subscribe to).

I would personally like to see a world where any regime's right to stay in power is conditioned upon adhering and safeguarding basic Human Rights and the Rule of Law. But that's just moral old me...

 

[c4ts]

Are you saying there really is no morality because the few who are in power decide what's moral and what isn't?

 

[CWL]

Are you saying there really is no morality because the few who are in power decide what's moral and what isn't?

Nope. I believe that there is an objective morality based on reason - golden rule and all that. Further there is an intrinsic morality in all non-psycopats which we have inherited through evolution. In the long run it is simply more rational to behave decently against our fellow human beings.

NB - I'm talking about a basic morality. Once we get into the details it is much more complicated (read "subjective"). I would argue that any "moral law" must be based on the basic principle of proportionality between the subjective interests of individuals versues indivuduals, individuals versues the State, certain collectives (corporations associations etc.) versues collectives, individuals versues collectives, etc.

Striking a fair balance between such interests - avoiding placing excessive burdens on individuals - is IMO what law is (or rather should be) all about.

In some instances - such as the Saddam Hussein regime - it could be argued that there is law (albeit corrupt law not based on the principle set forth above, but nevertheless - "law"), but very little morality on account of few who are (were ) in power. To this extent law is but a suborder - a consequence or function of morality (and/or the lack thereof).

 

[jimmygun]

Morality is a ghost, a figment. Morality does not stand on its own, it is the flavour of the day, the fad of the month or the pet rock of the week.

Laws are sometimes used to give morality body, to give it a physical dimension. It is not enough to know that if you live together without marriage you will be punished by god, you must be punished by man too.

I have said it before and will say it again, as an example...

It is not immoral of me to take a dump in your swimming pool. It is unhealthy, ignorant, frowned upon, illegal, dispicable, confrontational and all the other tags you care to put on it but it is not immoral.

Some laws grow out of a desire to force morality on others, most are from a desire to protect those that need protection, that they may operate within society.

 

[CWL]

It is not immoral of me to take a dump in your swimming pool. It is unhealthy, ignorant, frowned upon, illegal, dispicable, confrontational and all the other tags you care to put on it but it is not immoral.

Hmm.... Let's toy a bit with words here. It all boils down to how we define "immoral". If I were to argue that any actions opposed to the Golden Rule are immoral, then surely your dump in my pool must be categorized thusly?

 

[jimmygun]

Does the "Golden Rule" imply morality? I think not. I think it is a good guide line for getting along with others.

In biblical times pork was a no-no. Good idea to stay away from it because there was no way to preserve it and not run the risk of sickness. Another good guide line but hardly "moral"

 

[Christian]

I think that the main problem in this discussion is that there is no theoretical framework being used. Maybe if such framework were to be used, the discussion could get more focused.

There are basically four types of *norm* systems: Moral, religious, social, and judicial.

When someone says morality, they are referring to the first norm system. Clearly, that norm system is different from the other three.

Why are they different? All norm system have four characteristics/dichotomies. These are:

autonomous/heteronomous
interior/exterior
unilateral/bilateral
uncoercible/coercible.


The moral norm system is autonomous, interior, unilateral and uncoercible.

At the other end of the spectrum (the two compared are the ones that have the least in common) is the judicial norm system.

The judicial norm system is heteronomous, exterior, bilaterial and coercible.

According to legal theory, the judicial system *borrows* from the other three to add to its inventory, particularly from social and moral norms.

 

[c4ts]

There are basically four types of *norm* systems: Moral, religious, social, and judicial.

At least he can seperate religion from morality, but I disagree that there are four norms. The "norm" system for a society of any kind is more like a kind of commie evolution, where the survival of the whole is placed before the survival of the individual, as the survival of a society depends largely upon its size (Civ. 2 players might say"no, its tech you fool!" but tech serves to increase population). Government arises when the few protect the many, but at the same time, morality arises as the structure of the ideal system which the society aims to achieve. Law exists in order for the society to remain intact, so the incorporation of the ideal will occur within law. Social and religious outcomes will typically serve law. Religion is either a set of mini-laws, or a political institution which is part of law. Social impacts come from how a society is governed. So we don't have four types of norm systems, we have two: law and morality. The two exist independantly from one another, which is why foreign policy is always so messed up.

 

[Christian]

c4ts wrote:
So we don't have four types of norm systems, we have two: law and morality. The two exist independantly from one another, which is why foreign policy is always so messed up.

You are mistaken. There are four norm systems. Let me give examples from the two you have omitted and that are clearly not legal or moral:

Three social norms:

1. For the party formal dress is required
2. Please turn off your cel phone in the class room
3. If you don't look cool, you don't get in the club.

Oh, one more. No women allowed at Augusta.

Three religious norms:

1. Pray
2. Read the Bible
3. Come to church to confess your sins to the priest.

 

[c4ts]

c4ts wrote:
So we don't have four types of norm systems, we have two: law and morality. The two exist independantly from one another, which is why foreign policy is always so messed up.

You are mistaken. There are four norm systems. Let me give examples from the two you have omitted and that are clearly not legal or moral:

Three social norms:

1. For the party formal dress is required
2. Please turn off your cel phone in the class room
3. If you don't look cool, you don't get in the club.

Oh, one more. No women allowed at Augusta.

Three religious norms:

1. Pray
2. Read the Bible
3. Come to church to confess your sins to the priest.

Those aren't norms, that's public orthodoxy!

 

[Christian]

c4ts wrote:
Those aren't norms, that's public orthodoxy!

Let's get our definition straight. Norms are rules of conduct.

When you, I or anybody else speaks of morality, we are speaking of a particular set of rules of conduct: moral.

There are four classes of rules of conduct. See above.

Moral norms are moral rules of conduct.
Judicial norms are judicial rules fo conduct.
Social norms are social rules of conduct
Religious norms are religious rules of conduct.

 

[c4ts]

c4ts wrote:
Those aren't norms, that's public orthodoxy!

Let's get our definition straight. Norms are rules of conduct.

When you, I or anybody else speaks of morality, we are speaking of a particular set of rules of conduct: moral.

There are four classes of rules of conduct. See above.

Moral norms are moral rules of conduct.
Judicial norms are judicial rules fo conduct.
Social norms are social rules of conduct
Religious norms are religious rules of conduct.

Then there are no moral norms. Morals aren't rules, they're an ideal by which rules can be made.