- 17 Mar 2015 20:29
#14537199
As a law student this is a question that has always bothered me and still goes unanswered - It will probably remain so, but I'm curious to hear everyone's perspective.
Argument for:
- Every law (or most laws) represent a moral imperative. Obviously, the question is not if all morality is legislated but which - And usually it's either the majority's morality or the moral standards based on society's values (such as western values, freedoms and rights, duties, etc.).
- Every society' possesses some kind of objective or inter-subjective morality that historically and culturally influences the laws being made - Even if people don't realize it, morality is the root of law.
- Some laws have no justification other than morality - For instance, walking around naked in public is harmless to the rest of society but it's still illegal.
Arguments against:
- Laws don't contain anyone's morality but merely a sect of rules that allow us to live peaceful, they're based on evidence, facts and the majority's will (assuming we live in a democracy) regardless of what motivates it. To provide an example - The reason we won't allow murder (with an amoral legal system) is because murdering others is dangerous and harmful to society's well being and compromises people's opportunity to live according to their individual rights, not because murdering is immoral. Another example - Theft isn't illegal because it's immoral to steal, but because it causes an unjustified patrimonial loss for someone and it's therefore unfair
- Some laws may be completely amoral, like the ones that regulate the method of paying taxes, economic and free market rules and permissive laws (i.e. Laws that allow you to have a certain behaviour if you want, like the right to freely circulate around town)
Feel free to add more arguments. For now, I lean slightly more on the laws are based on morality side.
Argument for:
- Every law (or most laws) represent a moral imperative. Obviously, the question is not if all morality is legislated but which - And usually it's either the majority's morality or the moral standards based on society's values (such as western values, freedoms and rights, duties, etc.).
- Every society' possesses some kind of objective or inter-subjective morality that historically and culturally influences the laws being made - Even if people don't realize it, morality is the root of law.
- Some laws have no justification other than morality - For instance, walking around naked in public is harmless to the rest of society but it's still illegal.
Arguments against:
- Laws don't contain anyone's morality but merely a sect of rules that allow us to live peaceful, they're based on evidence, facts and the majority's will (assuming we live in a democracy) regardless of what motivates it. To provide an example - The reason we won't allow murder (with an amoral legal system) is because murdering others is dangerous and harmful to society's well being and compromises people's opportunity to live according to their individual rights, not because murdering is immoral. Another example - Theft isn't illegal because it's immoral to steal, but because it causes an unjustified patrimonial loss for someone and it's therefore unfair
- Some laws may be completely amoral, like the ones that regulate the method of paying taxes, economic and free market rules and permissive laws (i.e. Laws that allow you to have a certain behaviour if you want, like the right to freely circulate around town)
Feel free to add more arguments. For now, I lean slightly more on the laws are based on morality side.