Law and Morality

[Christian]

c4ts wrote:
Then there are no moral norms.

I'm sorry, you are mistaken. Let me give some examples:

1. I shall not think sexual thoughts of anybody but my wife.

2. I shall apologize when have forgotten a friend's birthday

3. I shall not lie to my friends about how much money I make.

4. Even though the legal loopholes exists to pay less taxes, I will pay at the highest possible bracket I can, as to contribute to my country.

5. I shall give a percentage of my earnings to charity.

Morals aren't rules, they're an ideal by which rules can be made.

You are confusing terms here. Yes, to every single concept, we have an epistemological part. But, clearly moral and morality deal specifically with rules of conduct. If you don't believe me, from Webster's:

Morality:
1 a : a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b : a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson
2 a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct
4 : moral conduct : VIRTUE

 

[c4ts]

Webster agrees with me. Look at definition 4, and how it relates to the others.

 

[CWL]

Does the "Golden Rule" imply morality? I think not. I think it is a good guide line for getting along with others.

Fair enough. Let me ask you this. Does the fact that a norm may be defended on practical/rational grounds deprive said norm of its "morality"? What then implies "morality"? Could you provide an example?

biblical times pork was a no-no. Good idea to stay away from it because there was no way to preserve it and not run the risk of sickness. Another good guide line but hardly "moral"

Good example of a norm that is exclusively based on practical grounds. I agree that this cannot be classified as a "moral norm".

Not so sure about the Golden Rule though...

 

[jimmygun]

It is my conviction that most people think of "moral" as an absolute. Yet at the same time they vote on what is moral or not moral. Therefore, in my mind, there is no such thing as moral. A thing cannot be both absolute and changing. There are only concequences to actions, good or bad. Those concequences occur here, not in some astrophysical plane or afterlife.

As for the golden rule...it is a good guide line. Simple as that. If you choose to label it as a morality you step outside the realm of the physical world and give it some spiritual meaning, depriving it of it own self evidence. Such is the argument for god. If it is good then it must be god (or moral). The golden rule stands by itself. It doesn't need external authority.

I have a b*tch of a cold so I might be rambling a bit.

 

[c4ts]

It is my conviction that most people think of "moral" as an absolute. Yet at the same time they vote on what is moral or not moral. Therefore, in my mind, there is no such thing as moral. A thing cannot be both absolute and changing. There are only concequences to actions, good or bad. Those concequences occur here, not in some astrophysical plane or afterlife.

As for the golden rule...it is a good guide line. Simple as that. If you choose to label it as a morality you step outside the realm of the physical world and give it some spiritual meaning, depriving it of it own self evidence. Such is the argument for god. If it is good then it must be god (or moral). The golden rule stands by itself. It doesn't need external authority.

I have a b*tch of a cold so I might be rambling a bit.

Morality is indeed self-evident, as it is integral to the survival of a civilization, but calling it absolute, in my mind, implies nothing involving magical deities or afterlives. Plato might disagree, but he can get a little woo woo sometimes, especially in Timeus.

 

[Christian]

c4ts wrote:
Webster agrees with me. Look at definition 4, and how it relates to the others.

No, it does not. You are wrong, you know. You should be able to see it. But if you just want to contradict for the sake of not accepting it, fine.

 

[jimmygun]

If morality is self-evident then why does it change from hour to hour, place to place and person to person? Or even within a single person?

It is "moraly" reprehensible for the west to okay the mutilation of 12-year-old girl's genitals but it is "moraly" fine and dandy over in Somalia.

Morality is not self evident. Because what is claimed to be moral changes constantly, it is only a perception.

Maybe your morality seems rigid and structured but it is only that as long as it suits your needs. Your morality can change in a moment as with any "morality".

"Morality" is such a weak notion that it must be propped up with laws and they must be enforced with threats.

 

[Christian]

Jimmy wrote:
"Morality" is such a weak notion that it must be propped up with laws and they must be enforced with threats.

Because of its qualities, you perceive it this way. Of the four systems it is the most subjective.

This norm system is autonomous (I am jugde and jury). It is unilateral (it is a rule by me, for me). It is internal (only I know if I'm following it). And it is uncoercible (no one can force me to comply).

Let's do neat trick. Let's convert a moral norm into a judicial norm.

The norm is: I will give 10% of my income to charity.

Excellent. I placed the norm on myself and decide if I'm following it (hey, if I only give 8% one month, I can always justify to myself), It is a norm of me for me. If one month I don't do it, I can set it up in a way that no one else will know I broke it. And finally, there is noone to force me to do it.

Ok, so one day a legislator come along an says. It would be in the best interest of this country that we enact a law that says every single working person must donate 10% of their income to a charity of their choice.

And the law is passed.

The exact same norm, now stop being a moral one and becomes a legal one. How can that be? Simple, the four characterists have changed.

Now the exact same norm is heteronomous (someone else has imposed it), it is bilaterial (there is an active subject who is obligating and a passive subject who is obligated). It is external, this behavior is known be all sides, and it is coercible, even if I don't want to, they can make me do it (for example, the employer can be ordered to deduct directly from the paycheck.)

So, you see, norms are not moral, social, religious or legal based on content by on what type of characteristics they have.

 

[c4ts]

If morality is self-evident then why does it change from hour to hour, place to place and person to person? Or even within a single person?

I don't know what you're talking about, but it's not morality.

It is "moraly" reprehensible for the west to okay the mutilation of 12-year-old girl's genitals but it is "moraly" fine and dandy over in Somalia.

Culture is not always moral. Didn't I say that law will fall short of morality, and that culture arises from law? Just because something is acceptible or unacceptable doesn't necessarily mean it has anything to do with morality. People do all sorts of things to their bodies, so what?

Morality is not self evident. Because what is claimed to be moral changes constantly, it is only a perception.

Again, it is perception which changes, for perception is what varies from one individual to another. The idea itself remains. It's like the periodic table of the elements. If one element on the list, gold, for example, were to somehow disappear from existence, gold would still be an element. It would have nothing to do with the inability to obtain or perceive a quantity of gold.

Maybe your morality seems rigid and structured but it is only that as long as it suits your needs. Your morality can change in a moment as with any "morality".

"Morality" is such a weak notion that it must be propped up with laws and they must be enforced with threats.

Again, morality is not law, so it cannot be strictly enforced. You might as well enforce a particular shade of blue. You can't enforce the color, but you can make a law that everybody has to wear blue uniforms, and enforce that law. I said it was self-evident in regards to the survival of a society. In every society with laws you will find at least one just law, and if this is not evidence of the self-evident, please explain. The laws will not be the same, since particulars vary, their enforcement may be just or unjust, but the basic idea will remain.

For example, take the idea of justice. It still boils down to equality in ratio, that is A:B::C. A:B is person 1, and C is person 2. If person 1 should obtain something from person 2, the exchange is unjust because there is no longer an equality in ratio, unless something of equal value is obtained by person 2 from person 1. If something is stolen, justice is getting it back. Finding a culture where stealing is legal, or one where the punishment for theft is an unjust exchange, does not affect the concept at all. Laws can be based on morality, but their most immediate reason to exist is to establish and maintain a status quo. The "social norm" is what follows the status quo, as specific circumstances follow an ideal.

 

[jimmygun]

In my own opinion...it is not moraly wrong to steal. There are only consequences for the act. The act itself has no meaning in and of itself. Only the consequences matter. If stealing goes on unchecked it has a negative effect on society as a whole and through laws set up by that society we deal with it.

If someone steals something that no one will miss ever, that there are no consequences to the act then what moral is being broken? As an example...I own land, if someone sneaks in at night and steals a handful of rocks from my property did they do a morally wrong thing? I don't think so. If the act escalates to where I am being harmed then that is the consequence and the law deals with it.

I guess we just have different definitions of moral. Again, to me, moral has always meant taking credit for common sense and giving it to some extra-physical entity. And that to me is unnecessary.

 

[c4ts]

In my own opinion...it is not moraly wrong to steal. There are only consequences for the act. The act itself has no meaning in and of itself. Only the consequences matter. If stealing goes on unchecked it has a negative effect on society as a whole and through laws set up by that society we deal with it.

If someone steals something that no one will miss ever, that there are no consequences to the act then what moral is being broken? As an example...I own land, if someone sneaks in at night and steals a handful of rocks from my property did they do a morally wrong thing? I don't think so. If the act escalates to where I am being harmed then that is the consequence and the law deals with it.

I guess we just have different definitions of moral. Again, to me, moral has always meant taking credit for common sense and giving it to some extra-physical entity. And that to me is unnecessary.

Sometimes you can steal and get away with it. Immoral behavior has long term effects that are detremental to society, but they may not harm you personally if you are not able to sympathize with your victims. A limited view of action and immediate consequence is the path to your own undoing, because you will not see what your actions are eventually leading to.

 

[CWL]

In my own opinion...it is not moraly wrong to steal. There are only consequences for the act. The act itself has no meaning in and of itself. Only the consequences matter. If stealing goes on unchecked it has a negative effect on society as a whole and through laws set up by that society we deal with it.

If someone steals something that no one will miss ever, that there are no consequences to the act then what moral is being broken? As an example...I own land, if someone sneaks in at night and steals a handful of rocks from my property did they do a morally wrong thing? I don't think so. If the act escalates to where I am being harmed then that is the consequence and the law deals with it.

I guess we just have different definitions of moral. Again, to me, moral has always meant taking credit for common sense and giving it to some extra-physical entity. And that to me is unnecessary. [/B]

Well, its not quite as simple as that. I agree with you that much that we call "morality" is in reality nothing but common sense - but that's far from the whole truth.

The fact is that all human beings (unless they are psycopaths) have an intrinsic empathy for other human beings. That's why we feel morally outraged when we hear of theft and murder and I belive that this is one of the reasons why we find similar prohibitions against such acts in all legal systems (other reasons being practical/rational as you yourself suggest).

This "intrinsic empathy" does not emanate from some "extra-physical" woo-woo entity, it is quite simply the result of evolution. Natural selection would clearly favour those individuals who have empathy towards others and who thus can co-operate to form societies.

The trick of it all is to extend that natural empathy towards other human beings than those belonging to the immediate family, group, country etc...

Anyway, could it not be said that this "intrinsic empathy" is equivalent with what we experience as (basic) human morality?

 

[jimmygun]

CWL...would you say that animals display moral behaviour? Pack animals such as wolves and dogs share much of the same social behaviour as humans. They get along for the good of the pack but even then there are instances of "murder" where dominant males vie for leadership or females for special status.

 

[CWL]

CWL...would you say that animals display moral behaviour? Pack animals such as wolves and dogs share much of the same social behaviour as humans. They get along for the good of the pack but even then there are instances of "murder" where dominant males vie for leadership or females for special status.

Interesting. The answer - again - depends on how we define "moral". Are you saying that there is no meaning to the word and that we should simply accept this?

 

[jimmygun]

Absolutely. I have said that all along.

Remove the controversy over morals and look only at the act and its consequences. If the consequences are deemed to be harmful to society, then restrict or ban the act. If the consequences are beneficial then encourage the act. If the act carries no consequences (such as thinking sexual thoughts about your neighbour) then ignore it. Blend in a respect for the individual's rights in society and you have a working plan.

The word moral has always carried with it the inference that some god or gods will be offended by such and such. Mix up common sense with the silliness of religious views and you give the religious views weight which it does not deserve.

 

[CWL]

Absolutely. I have said that all along.

Remove the controversy over morals and look only at the act and its consequences. If the consequences are deemed to be harmful to society, then restrict or ban the act. If the consequences are beneficial then encourage the act. If the act carries no consequences (such as thinking sexual thoughts about your neighbour) then ignore it. Blend in a respect for the individual's rights in society and you have a working plan.

The word moral has always carried with it the inference that some god or gods will be offended by such and such. Mix up common sense with the silliness of religious views and you give the religious views weight which it does not deserve.

I think you need to be careful about your use of the word "consequences". If I steal and get away with it, I could - from my point of view - claim that there were no consequences. This is clearly not what you meant, but I still felt the distinction was important to make.

I would again like to introduce the concept of proportionality. Law is in reality merely the weighing of different interests (the interest of the state, individual interests etc.) against each other. Good law strives to strike a fair balance between such interests.

 

[jimmygun]

Leaving the thief to rationalize his or her actions is never the right thing to do. Of course they will say no one was hurt so there is no crime. It is society's role (through judges and juries) to determine if there have been consequences and if those consequences are serious enough to bring about punishment.

Example 1

A few years ago an eleven year old boy was kidnapped and raped by his karate instructor. The instructor was caught and the boy was freed, however damaged. The father took it into his own hands and murdered the offender in an airport. Was it morally wrong for the father to kill this man? In my opinion, no. Was it illegal? Yes. Did a judge and jury determine his fate? As far as I know, yes (correct me if I am wrong).

Example 2

In my country a man killed his 12 year old severely handicapped daughter, claiming to put her out of her misery. Was he morally wrong? In my opinion no. Was he legally wrong? Yes. He was found guilty and sentenced to 10 years minimum by a judge and jury.

I agree that proportionality is important in law. That does not however change my attitude toward morallity.

 

[CWL]

I agree that proportionality is important in law. That does not however change my attitude toward morallity.

It appears we do not disagree in substance, merely as to the question whether or not one should attempt to give any meaning to the term "morality".