Law versus morality

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

That's where notions like duty come in.  We have a hard duty not to do harm.  It's simply nice when we help. One is a compulsion, the other is elective.

A guy who doesn't do bad things but doesn't help is a moral person, but not a nice guy. Definitely wouldn't want him marrying my daughter, but she could do worse.

[Whateverist]

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.

That's where notions like duty come in.  We have a hard duty not to do harm.  It's simply nice when we help.  One is a compulsion, the other is elective.

A guy who doesn't do bad things but doesn't help is a moral person, but not a nice guy.  Definitely wouldn't want him marrying my daughter, but she could do worse.

It isn't that I'm against being helpful, kind or merciful.  But unlike Kant I prefer when those things flow from human feeling and not a sense of duty.  A person who is well brought up is going to care about others.  A person devoid of those feelings isn't going to give a damn about duty either.  Exhibit A: #45

The pursuit of moral execptionalism is a little unseemly to my way of thinking.  It would interfere with a person realizing their potential, a loss for the whole community.

[robvalue]

Maybe it would be interesting to list some things that would change, if law took on moral consensus. I mentioned one already, adultery. I think this represents government not being involved in who you have sex with, as long as it's a consensual adult. The first part is giving you maximum liberty, and the second is protecting the vulnerable.

So if this changed, what would happen? Rape cases are hard enough to prove, so consensual sex with a third party complainant would be even harder. Making accusations would be extremely easy on the flimsiest of grounds, and would take up a whole lot of police/court time. I think this shows how practicality enters into the equation as well.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Maybe it would be interesting to list some things that would change, if law took on moral consensus. I mentioned one already, adultery. I think this represents government not being involved in who you have sex with, as long as it's a consensual adult. The first part is giving you maximum liberty, and the second is protecting the vulnerable.

So if this changed, what would happen? Rape cases are hard enough to prove, so consensual sex with a third party complainant would be even harder. Making accusations would be extremely easy on the flimsiest of grounds, and would take up a whole lot of police/court time. I think this shows how practicality enters into the equation as well.

I think the legal strictures against theft might change, if laws were based on moral consensus.

If I steal your car for no other reason than it happens to be a mad whip and I really, REALLY want it, that would be immoral.  If I were to steal bread for no other reason than to feed a starving child, it would be a right hard bastard that would judge me immoral. Yes, under the current system, both thefts are illegal.

Boru

[robvalue]

That's a good point. Deciding when the theft is and isn't moral would be way too subjective for a justice system to work, so practicality has to win out again.

Most people would consider lying to be immoral, I would guess. But policing this would be a disaster. Of course, it is illegal in particular circumstances.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

That's a good point. Deciding when the theft is and isn't moral would be way too subjective for a justice system to work, so practicality has to win out again.

Most people would consider lying to be immoral, I would guess. But policing this would be a disaster. Of course, it is illegal in particular circumstances.

The trouble is that moralism tends to deal in absolutes - all theft is immoral, it is always wrong to lie, and so on.  The law, at least, makes gradations for certain acts - simple vs. aggravated assault, grand vs. petty theft, etc.  To refer back to the example above, I could easily get years in prison for stealing your car, but only pay a small fine for nicking a loaf of bread.

I agree that most people would consider lying to be immoral, but it's lucky that lying isn't always illegal.  If I lie in court, the hammer falls.  If I lie to a new mum by telling her that her baby is beautiful when I actually think it looks like a poorly shaved ape, I can't get in trouble for it (unless she reads this - sorry, Lucy).

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

All theft is illegal, even though theft falls along a wide range of moral designations.  It's always illegal to perjure yourself, even though lying, like theft, falls on a range. In law, both of these things fall on a range of illegality, but in an objective moral system..it's at least possible for both theft and lying to be good things (even if they commonly aren't).