Law and Morality

[CWL]

Is there a difference?

If so, what is it?

Should morality influence the law and vice versa?

Questions, questions, so many questions.

 

[Q-Source]

Is there a difference?

No

Should morality influence the law and vice versa?

It shouldn't but in reality there is a feedback relationship between them. Laws are completely determined by the society's morality. People decide what should be punished according to many socioeconomic factors and depending on the level of cultural development.

 

[CWL]

No

Interesting. Why do you feel that there is no difference? One difference I could think of is that laws are formally sanctioned by the state whereas morality is not. Further, laws are (or should at least be) based on rational grounds (assuming we speak of secular democratic states) whereas morality is often based on emotional or historical/cultural grounds.

It shouldn't but in reality there is a feedback relationship between them. Laws are completely determined by the society's morality. People decide what should be punished according to many socioeconomic factors and depending on the level of cultural development.

I agree. I also note that within that statement of yours lies a partial answer to my question above. I do not think that the relationship you mention can be eliminated, but I do feel that the legislative bodies could (and should) be more aware of it. I think a good idea would be to introduce more discussions on morality (and the rational grounds therefore, assuming morality can have rational grounds) in the legislative process.

 

[Q-Source]

Interesting. Why do you feel that there is no difference? One difference I could think of is that laws are formally sanctioned by the state whereas morality is not. Further, laws are (or should at least be) based on rational grounds (assuming we speak of secular democratic states).

Wait there..., you mean that laws are not the result of society's moral values?

What do you understand by morality then?

Actually, what Laws do is to translate and interpret those actions that society condemns into the most objective and rational rules for everybody.

Who do you think decides what should be punished?

I agree. I also note that within that statement of yours lies a partial answer to my question above. I do not think that the relationship you mention can be eliminated, but I do feel that the legislative bodies could (and should) be more aware of it. I think a good idea would be to introduce more discussions on morality (and the rational grounds therefore, assuming morality can have rational grounds) in the legislative process.

Again, what do you understand by morality?.

Laws against rape, murder and robbery are based on morality.

Q-S

 

[CWL]

Wait there..., you mean that laws are not the result of society's moral values?

To a great extent I agree. However the legislation of modern democratic states is to a very much based on rational grounds in the sense that it is often the result of extensive research and of years of traveaux preparatoires. This is not the case for moral values.

What do you understand by morality then?

Probably the same as you do. Would you care to venture a definition?

Actually, what Laws do is to translate and interpret those actions that society condemns into the most objective and rational rules for everybody.

Again, to a great extent, I agree.

Who do you think decides what should be punished?

In a democratic society based upon the rule of law, the courts and ultimately the pertinent legislative body. And yes, those bodies are made up of individuals, each of whom has a certain moral code. However, a great part of legal training is about learning to disregard one's individual morality when trying a case (although I must admit that this is unfortunately not always possible as the Law is full of "soft requisites" which are subject to interpretation).

Again, what do you understand by morality?

See above.

Laws against rape, murder and robbery are based on morality.

Q-S

Those are good examples of laws that are to a great extent based on morality - but also on rational and purely practical grounds. Would society function in a desirable way if rape, murder and robbery was permitted?

We should consider however that the Law of a particular legal system is much more than its penal system.

Can you say that laws regulating the stock market or daylight savings are based on morality?

 

[Ladewig]

Is there a difference?


If so, what is it?

Yes. Slavery cannot be defined as moral yet 18th century laws permitted it. The systematic murder of a group of people based on religious beliefs, ethnic background, or political beliefs cannot be defined as moral, yet several 20th century countries legalized such practices.

 

[Akots]

If you kill yourself, or intend to kill yourself, there's not a whole lot the Law can do about it. Morally, however, it can be wrong to commit suicide (though, of course, not everybody shares that moral).

Actually, I'm gonna call myself on this one... ARE there any laws against suicide?

 

[CWL]

If you kill yourself, or intend to kill yourself, there's not a whole lot the Law can do about it. Morally, however, it can be wrong to commit suicide (though, of course, not everybody shares that moral).

Actually, I'm gonna call myself on this one... ARE there any laws against suicide?

Well, at least there used to be. I am not aware of any state that imposes any penalty for attempted suicide. However my knowledge is very much limited to the jurisdiction in which I practive myself (Sweden). Given how suicide has been looked upon historically I would however not be the least bit surprised to find states who have laws against it.

I do for instance know that suicide used to be a criminal offense in England where the "crime" in question in fact led to the creation of the insanity defense. Suicide (or "self-murder" was a long considered a deed even more heinous than murder, punished by both ecclesiastic and secular penalties. The suicide was denied religious burial and his estate was forfeited to the Crown's Almoner.

I would argue that this was due to the common religious morality of the time, according to which suicide was a despicable act (not only against society, but against God).

 

[Tricky]

Yes. Slavery cannot be defined as moral yet 18th century laws permitted it. The systematic murder of a group of people based on religious beliefs, ethnic background, or political beliefs cannot be defined as moral, yet several 20th century countries legalized such practices.

Ladewig makes a good point, but I think it mostly shows that laws and morality do not follow in lock-step. What a society calls moral can change rapidly, but the law moves more ploddingly. For many years slavery was not cosidered immoral. There are whole sections of The Bible dedicated to how to treat slaves. Only in fairly recent times has the morality changed. The laws changed some time after that (in the US).

But clear cut issues like murder, rape and slavery show a marked similarity between the laws and morality. When the issue is highly debatable, the morality issue is swept under the table in the wake of blatent self-interest. A good example of this is the so-called "marriage penalty" which was recently debated in the US.

The observation was made that a couple paid more taxes if they were married than if they were single, which was immoral because it encouraged people to cohabitate without the benefit of marriage. A closer examination of the actual tax code showed that this was normally only the case when both partners were earning very high incomes. The law that changed the marriage penalty was actually a way for high-income couples to avoid the progressive tax structure by putting each of them in a lower tax bracket. I know (from personal experience) that lower income people have almost always benefitted from marriage when it comes to taxes. The so-called "morality" issue was truly nothing more than a ruse to cover for naked self-interest.

 

[bjornart]

If you kill yourself, or intend to kill yourself, there's not a whole lot the Law can do about it. Morally, however, it can be wrong to commit suicide (though, of course, not everybody shares that moral).

Actually, I'm gonna call myself on this one... ARE there any laws against suicide?

Don't know. But there have been: Suicide and the Law

The is certainly a difference between morals and law. At least in my opinion, which is what morals are, opinions. Everything that I consider immoral shouldn't be illegal, and vice versa. There might be people who's morals have a one to one relationship with the local laws, but they are undoubtedly rare.

 

[bjornart]

Yes. Slavery cannot be defined as moral yet 18th century laws permitted it. The systematic murder of a group of people based on religious beliefs, ethnic background, or political beliefs cannot be defined as moral, yet several 20th century countries legalized such practices.

Of course slavery can be defined as moral, many slave owners undoubtedly did. I could make a case for keeping drug-addicts as slaves:

• They cannot run their own lives
• They are a burden to society if I do not control them
• Under my control they benefit society

A certain mind set would be required to believe this, but that is true of all moral judgements.

Edited before posting to add: Right, someone beat me to this as well. You're no fun anymore, posting smarter and sooner.

 

[Akots]

The most distinguishing feature of law above morality is that it's totaly, and completely quantifiable. It does require analasys and interpretation to cary out the Law, but morality has no such literal terms and practices. A Law is just a Morale that is enforced on a large group of people, hopefully for the benefit of that people.

You can be expected to follow your own morals, but you are obligated to obey other people's laws.

 

[BillyTK]

Law is the political authority to enforce a moral, so morality must come first to inform that law, and that is the difference between the two. However, law affects morality; new morals come into being as a (generally unintended) effect of law which then directs new laws. See for instance, the history of gun prohibition in the UK.

Umm... social construction of reality, anyone?

 

[Thanz]

Very interesting topic.

I notice that the focus of what people are referring to as the "law" is criminal law. There is (much to shanek's chagrin, I am sure) a huge body of law that is not criminal in nature, and it is much harder to make a moral case for some of the other laws.

For example, in Ontario there is a Bees Act. It regulates swarms of bees and their keepers. It does things like allow a beekeeper to enter your property if he is chasing his swarm of runaway bees.

So, I would say that the purpose of laws are for an ordered society. Morality certainly informs many of those laws, and indeed, what we conceive of as an "ordered society". Like many here, I agree that the law lags behind morality.

 

[Akots]

So, I would say that the purpose of laws are for an ordered society. Morality certainly informs many of those laws, and indeed, what we conceive of as an "ordered society". Like many here, I agree that the law lags behind morality.

Strangely, i don't think that people's ideas of what is right and wrong change as fast as laws on the subject... there is simply so much dissent, and so few morals that people can agree on unanimously.

I guess Law is man's attempt to document morality. Though law is decidedly more functional... building codes, rules for staging parades and public events, the right to distribute printed information... the morality of these things is simply that it is moral to obey the law, for the greater common good.

 

[Q-Source]

CWL,

Would you care to venture a definition?

A common definition of morality is “a personal or social set of standards for good or bad behaviour and character, or the quality of being right, honest or acceptable".

In a democratic society based upon the rule of law, the courts and ultimately the pertinent legislative body. And yes, those bodies are made up of individuals, each of whom has a certain moral code. However, a great part of legal training is about learning to disregard one's individual morality when trying a case (although I must admit that this is unfortunately not always possible as the Law is full of "soft requisites" which are subject to interpretation).

Yes, but who chooses the court and the legislative body?. Answer: common people.

It is not about the moral codes of those people who legislate, but the moral code of the whole society who chose to put those individuals in that position.
Of course, assuming that we are talking about a democratic nation.

Me:
Laws against rape, murder and robbery are based on morality.

CWL
Those are good examples of laws that are to a great extent based on morality - but also on rational and purely practical grounds. Would society function in a desirable way if rape, murder and robbery was permitted?

It looks rational and practical from our points of view. Maybe in other times, stealing to the richest man in a town was morally valid.
I think that it all depends on how society’s morality changes over time. What we now call “rape” had another name in ancient times.
We still call “capital punishment” to a vile act of killing another human being.

We should consider however that the Law of a particular legal system is much more than its penal system.

Of course, but it seems that in the penal system, morality has a stronger influence.

Can you say that laws regulating the stock market or daylight savings are based on morality?

I don’t know, it could be possible.

For example, the stock market is determined by speculation, political affairs and credibility, among others. All of them are subjective issues, so there is a thin line between subjectivity and morality.

Q-S

 

[BillyTK]

Well, the thing with morality is that it can be about what you should do/who should do it as well as what you shouldn't do. Interestingly, certain prescribed practices outlined in the bible are the result of *problematic* interpretations of very specific cultural mores; for instance in the case of Onan (hence onanism) whilst popular interpretations of the bible see it as condemnatory of masturbation, it seems that the original moral is that it is wrong to indulge in certain practices to avoid impregnating your dead brother's wife when it is your duty to do so; not that indulging in those practices per se is wrong. But looking back over what I have writ, I can see why translators may have gone for the modified version!

Anyway--similarly with homosexuality; from what I understand the bible didn't originally ban the practice, but did say that it shouldn't happen in the matrimonial bed as this had special cultural siginificance.

I guess that Thanz's bee law would be based on some kind of moral that recognises the claim of the beekeeper over the bees, and also acknowledges that they are probably the best person for the job of bee-wrangling (is there such a thing?). But I also suspect that as we have the same law in the UK there's some association with the monarchy, possibly that all bees used to be "owned" by the king/queen (as in royal jelly?). But I digress...

 

[Ladewig]

certain prescribed practices outlined in the bible are the result of *problematic* interpretations of very specific cultural mores;

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.

 

[CWL]

A common definition of morality is “a personal or social set of standards for good or bad behaviour and character, or the quality of being right, honest or acceptable".

Ok. Let's work with that.

Yes, but who chooses the court and the legislative body?. Answer: common people.

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".

It is not about the moral codes of those people who legislate, but the moral code of the whole society who chose to put those individuals in that position.
Of course, assuming that we are talking about a democratic nation.

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.

It looks rational and practical from our points of view. Maybe in other times, stealing to the richest man in a town was morally valid.
I think that it all depends on how society’s morality changes over time. What we now call “rape” had another name in ancient times.

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

We still call “capital punishment” to a vile act of killing another human being.

In those states where "capital punishment" is still practiced...

Of course, but it seems that in the penal system, morality has a stronger influence.

Not really. It is just that the media tends to focus on the penal system. For instance, it could be argued that many (some would say most) imporant principles within contractual law are based on moral grounds. Now, wouldn't you agree that a functional contractual law is necessary in order for a working market/society to exists?

I don’t know, it could be possible.

For example, the stock market is determined by speculation, political affairs and credibility, among others. All of them are subjective issues, so there is a thin line between subjectivity and morality.

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).

 

[BillyTK]

[...]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).

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.