Law versus morality

[robvalue]

There seems to be some disagreement on the interaction between morality and (man made) laws. My position is that the morality people generally agree on at any given time is certainly a factor in deciding laws, but it is not the only factor, and the law itself is not supposed to represent morality.

In essence, laws are there to serve society in the best way that they can. That is of course a highly complex process, with no right or wrong answers, so it is ideally the result of debate and due process.

Let's consider a simple example. Imagine that a law says, "Murder is illegal. Anyone who is found to have committed a murder will be sentenced to 30 years in jail." This isn't explicitly saying murder is immoral. People are free to interpret it that way if they want, but it isn't part of the wording or the system.

Now let's look at a couple of different variations:

"Murder is immoral." - What does this even mean? As a law, this would be next to useless. It would just be an attempt to dissuade people from murder, by encouraging people to consider it to be wrong. Even in this regard it is pretty stupid, because it's simply telling them that it's wrong. The government doesn't get to decide people's opinions. It would be hoping that this declaration, without an actual objective cause of action if the law is "broken", would be enough.

"Murder is illegal and immoral. Anyone who is found to have committed a murder will be sentenced to 30 years in jail."- What does the bolded part add, in any practical sense, to the law? It looks a little stupid to me, to be blunt. Again, you can't dictate opinion, and this isn't going to change anyone's ideas about the morality of murder.

The law has to be stated in a way that can be enforced in a reasonably objective way, and moral judgements are an irrelevance. Of course, mitigating factors should absolutely be considered, and each case has to be taken on its merits. Morality probably will end up playing some sort of part in the actual court case. But including it explicitly as part of the law is pointless, in my opinion.

One can simply announce that the government is telling people that illegal acts are immoral and everything else is moral/okay, but I don't think this is supported or accurate. As a simple example, here in England adultery is not illegal. However, I'd fully expect 90%+ of people living here to consider adultery immoral.

[robvalue]

I realized that the above applies well to a secular society, but not to a theocracy. There, morality and law become intertwined with religious dogma, to the detriment of society (in my opinion). Such laws are far less negotiable over time, often brutal, and are not based directly on maximizing wellbeing.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The following chart pretty clearly lays out the law/morality conundrum, at least when it comes to Nazi-punching:



Boru

[vulcanlogician]

^^^ But I've always said fascists are lawful evil.

[chimp3]

I have broken many laws and carry no guilt. I have done things which are not illegal and are ashamed.

[Minimalist]

Law has nothing to do with morality and even less to do with justice.

[vulcanlogician]

This really says it all. There are moral issues that the law has no business enforcing. There are laws that have nothing to do with morality. Then there are places where the two overlap.

This issue is further confused by the fact that Christians fucked up the word morality for all of us by calling perfectly moral behaviors immoral. But I digress....

[Whateverist]

Nonetheless under a representatively responsive government shouldn't we expect the law to essentially represent a moral consensus?

---

This really says it all. There are moral issues that the law has no business enforcing. There are laws that have nothing to do with morality. Then there are places where the two overlap.

This issue is further confused by the fact that Christians fucked up the word morality for all of us by calling perfectly moral behaviors immoral. But I digress....

I agree with this but I think morality should be as minimally intrusive as possible.  In the best of all possible worlds people would pursue their interests without dwelling on what anyone ought to do.  I prefer that morality as well as the law emphasize what is forbidden over what is praiseworthy.  Otherwise we'll all end up sounding like MK.

[vulcanlogician]

I agree with this but I think morality should be as minimally intrusive as possible.  In the best of all possible worlds people would pursue their interests without dwelling on what anyone ought to do.  I prefer that morality as well as the law emphasize what is forbidden over what is praiseworthy.  Otherwise we'll all end up sounding like MK.

Interesting that what you say channels Plato. Plato thought that "justice is doing one's work and not meddling with what isn't one's own." It is because of Plato, that I am a moral objectivist in my ethics.

I think morality is an objective thing, wholly separate from one's personal opinions or the opinions of, say, the authors of the Bible. Much like Copernicus figured out that the earth revolves around the sun, we must also figure out morality. Ancient cultures thought that the sun revolved around the Earth. They were wrong. A modern mind with modern knowledge knows otherwise.   Ancient cultures thought that slavery and FGM were morally acceptable. They were wrong. A modern mind with modern knowledge knows otherwise. Certain things are obvious. Murder and theft are morally wrong. Both the ancient and the modern mind know this.

[Minimalist]

Nonetheless under a representatively responsive government shouldn't we expect the law to essentially represent a moral consensus?

If only we had a "representatively responsive government" maybe we could find out.  Right now, we have a plutokleptocracy.