[Mad_Michael]

It is taken as a given that the largest majority of people tend to follow the law the largest majority of the time.

On this basis, it is often asserted that the reason that people follow the law is because they are afraid of the legal punishments that may be brought to bear if they are caught violating the law.

I have always found this explanation to be inadequate.

A large number of people apparently follow the law because they believe that it is 'right and proper' to do so.

Some people follow the law because they believe it is immoral to break the law.

Some people follow the law because that's what their parents taught them to do...

Any thoughts or comments upon the topic?

[Korimyr the Rat]

I think the best analogy, if you'll pardon me for mentioning it again, is the Skinner box.

We get caught and punished when we are young-- sometimes not even by the law itself-- and we are conditioned to associate rule-breaking with punishment. This conditioning persists even when we are unlikely to get caught, and thus we "don't feel right" about breaking the law even when we can get away with it.

It's no more "fear of getting caught" than salivation at the smell of steak is "hunger".

A large number of people apparently follow the law because they believe that it is 'right and proper' to do so.

Some people follow the law because they believe it is immoral to break the law.

Some people follow the law because that's what their parents taught them to do...

All of these things are functionally identical-- they're just rationalized labels for conditioned responses.

[Der Freiheitsucher]

It is taken as a given that the largest majority of people tend to follow the law the largest majority of the time.

I don't know who you're talking about when you say that it is "taken as a given". Amongst lawyers and sociologists, it is a very common piece of interest to see how many people comply with the law and with what frequency. What you're saying isn't really true.

Any thoughts or comments upon the topic?

Well, the first though is that your title is misleading. You are dealing with questions of juridical sociology, not questions of juridical philosophy. Like Korimyr said, you're not really debating about anything, but just giving the same idea over and over and making it a really useless topic.

On the question of why people follow the law you'd have to think of sociology, not about speculative cheap philosophy.

[Paradigm]

Laws are often conflated with morality, whether rightly or wrongly, and as such, many people feel that to be law-abiding is to moral. Others like myself follow the law when it coincides with their morals, and when it doesn't, will only follow the law when there is a significant risk of getting caught.

I find drug laws to be particularly interesting in terms of their influence on people's perceptions of morality. People think smoking marijuana is immoral, but drinking beer is ok, even though they both usually bring about a comparable level of intoxication. But I'm not so sure that this double-standard can be attributed to the law alone. I think it was 50+ years of propaganda which manipulated people's attitudes in such a way.

Anyway, another interesting category of law is traffic laws. There is nothing inherently immoral about driving on the left side of the street, except insofar as everyone else drives on the right. Such laws merely serve to create a standard for people to conform to.

[Steven_K]

It is taken as a given that the largest majority of people tend to follow the law the largest majority of the time.

Good thing it's not that smaller majority...

[Subversive Rob]

It is taken as a given that the largest majority of people tend to follow the law the largest majority of the time.

Not necessarily. It might be given that there is some correlation between law and behaviour, but it doesn't follow that most people 'follow the law', as this implies the behaviour is primarily caused by the law. It might well be that the law both reflects and conditions broad material practices, and that laws which fail to reflect said practices fall by the way-side.

[HoniSoit]

I agree with what Korimyr said i.e. instrumental conditioning.
Partly because I'm a psychology student,I have become quite aware of what many of the findings in psychlogy can tell us when it comes to discussion of morality.

My position is that all morality is what is being accpeted generally by a given society at a given time.This approach emphasises that morality can be quite different across different societies/culturals and over time.Also,it doesn't have to be accpeted by everyone in the society.And if a certain behaviour deemed to be morally wrong has gained considerable support in the society,it can become morally right,and vice versa.

Because humans have to depend on other members of the society to survive,thus seeking others' approval.And a certain thing that becomes morally right/wrong often depends on whether it will benifit/harm the society collectively.And all is rooted in the survival of the humans from the evolutionaly perspective.