The question of morals in law.

Can we make laws that oppose our morals but do not inflict harm on others? Many subjects have occurred lately that ask this question. Prostitution, drug abuse and one that has not been mentioned gambling. These human hazards may have victims but many aspects of life have casualties without resulting in their morals being judged by the law. Can we judge the individuals acts as illegal, simply because we do not approve of their morals or they are self harming? The use of statistics can be used for both points of view and has no value in determining if a crime has been committed. Adultery causes considerable hardship and pain, do we outlaw adultery? Alcoholics and gamblers can reduce families to poverty , should we jail them? Smoking causes more deaths than all the other drugs combined, should we outlaw the use of tobacco?

In my opinion morals should be taught not enforced with fear and retribution.

As observed:

- Not everyone chooses to be moral...
- Laws are part of taught culture
- Municipal action guided by law is for order and safety

- Anarchy practiced by a society of moral creatures is the best... However, it regretfuly only takes watching 30 minutes of news to illuminate that this society is partially composed of immoral entities.

- Laws and municipal systems are there to help keep the immoral people from profiting more than moral people, reproducing at a faster rate, displacing moral people, hence degenerating homo sapiens into creatures lower than chimps.

A theory is that morals are emergent from living systems of social and cooperative members. It is also noticed that fairness and justice also emerge. From this, there are many diverse cultures with varying degress of sucess and prosperity.

Using NetLogo, I setup several experiments to test root causes with group settings. I discovered that without some safe guard such as laws, immoral units had the upper hand, reproduced faster and wiped out the moral units. This left only the species of immoral units left.

In short, laws are a cultural by-product of emergent morality, fairness and justice from living systems of social and cooperative members.

So morals have authority enough to dictate our lives? I see greed in society that is immoral and damaging but it is not outlawed. I see adultery that is highly immoral but is not outlawed. Who decides what morals should be incorporated into the criminal system? I can understand theft or murder because it damages others but simple harming oneself, how can that be classified as illegal with moral authority? Smoking is classified as legal and moral but smoking cannabis is deemed as immoral and punishable by the law. A women can marry for wealth and sell her body for a fortune but a prostitute is considered immoral so deserves retribution. There is no logic in the ideological concept of morals.

What I tried to share, was that morals are an outcome of a stable society or are necessary for the society to be stable. Along with morals are fairness and justice. Without 'morals', society would break down.

Laws are only an agreed upon means to enforce morals, fairness, justice as well as a means to help organize the masses within a culture.

Sadly, at our present stage of social evolution, not all details are addressed, hence why the points you mentioned in the last post exist.

One point you mentioned is one that I have been having trouble getting a 'logical' grip on: social hierarchy vs morality. Historicaly, 'alpha' types grow to 'power', violate morality and get away with it. Historically, this sustained behavior does break down and prove out to be an unstable culture.

Sorry but morals can be driven by religion or cultural isolation. Should we stone adulterers or allow sex with nine year old. These are all someones morals. We require morals in society but not their dogmatic attention.

Sorry but morals can be driven by religion or cultural isolation. Should we stone adulterers or allow sex with nine year old. These are all someones morals. We require morals in society but not their dogmatic attention.

Apparently, we have to establish a common definition of "morality"

Your definition is loosely based on fads and culture. I have tried to dig under this and establish a more concrete base.

By the definition of what you call morals, all behavior can be justified, accepted, spurned and condemmed. With this wide birth, I cann't logically argue left or right.

I was proposing a definition that covers all cultures independant of propaganda from social hierarchy.

If this thread continues with your previous definition of morality, then "all rules barred", morals are in law and out of law pending the next best speaker, lobbiest, politician or dictator.

Sorry but morals can be driven by religion or cultural isolation. Should we stone adulterers or allow sex with nine year old. These are all someones morals. We require morals in society but not their dogmatic attention.

Apparently, we have to establish a common definition of "morality"

Your definition is loosely based on fads and culture. I have tried to dig under this and establish a more concrete base.

By the definition of what you call morals, all behavior can be justified, accepted, spurned and condemmed. With this wide birth, I cann't logically argue left or right.

I was proposing a definition that covers all cultures independant of propaganda from social hierarchy.

If this thread continues with your previous definition of morality, then "all rules barred", morals are in law and out of law pending the next best speaker, lobbiest, politician or dictator.

Exactly. That's why laws should not be based simply on morality. Laws should be based on defence. Defending the rights of the individual. It's morally wrong to harm yourself but you should not be punished for it.

Try giving Jeremy Bentham a read. He thought that laws were grounded in social convention, independent of morality (although the content of each can certainly and should overlap). Morality however, helps us determine if our laws and policies are good or bad. In effect then, law can be seen as a sort of tool of morality, but it derives it force through social convention.

It's an opinion I do not share. The history of morals influencing the criminal justice system is well documented. Prostitutes have always been demonised by religious morality. Certain unacceptable social behaviour can create laws but those are the laws that protect not like moral driven laws that simply condemn.

Exactly. That's why laws should not be based simply on morality. Laws should be based on defence. Defending the rights of the individual. It's morally wrong to harm yourself but you should not be punished for it.

Here we need a definition of law. There appears to be diversity in 'law': positive and negetive laws as well a jurisprudence.

Many laws are culturaly based with the intention of safety and order. Here your argument:
- 'based on defence' holds for safety and order, e.g. 'drive on the right side of the road' to avoid potential danger.
- 'should not be punished' may fall short as repeat criminals need to be stopped on behalf of the society.

Rights are legal implementations of morality. Here your argument fall short due to the very nature of rights-morality.

Back to the theme of the thread:
- By definition, rights are legal implementation of morals, hence some laws are dependant on morals
- Repeat offenders (by their choice) need to stopped for sake of the society

-- Updated 21 Dec 2011 10:56 to add the following --

It's an opinion I do not share. The history of morals influencing the criminal justice system is well documented. Prostitutes have always been demonised by religious morality. Certain unacceptable social behaviour can create laws but those are the laws that protect not like moral driven laws that simply condemn.

Xris,

I need to point out that given the definition of:
morality as in emergent from living systems of social and cooperative members

This morality is that basis of a stable society. In the deviation from it, fairness and justice emerge hence laws.

Superficial morality as poorly taugth in school, propaganda, speeches from some leaders (religious and political), here I understand your stand and have to agree up till it conflicts with emergent morality.

I do not doubt that certain laws are moral and give protection to the innocent. Victims who are victimised by the law are victims of moral judgement and those laws are to be condemned. We must not create laws for moral reasoning as each every one of us do not share the same moral standards. Just because one law appears to be based on moral standards should not infer that all laws be made using morals. We should not confuse morals with human rights.

I do not doubt that certain laws are moral and give protection to the innocent.

Victims who are victimised by the law are victims of moral judgement and those laws are to be condemned.
We must not create laws for moral reasoning as each every one of us do not share the same moral standards. By a definition of morals based on nature, these morals would apply to all. Based on the common definition of morals in this present culture, your statement holds

Just because one law appears to be based on moral standards should not infer that all laws be made using morals. here I can agree based on that not all laws are positive, negetive or jurisprudence

We should not confuse morals with human rights. Again, after looking up the definition of 'rights' and 'morality', it was displayed that rights are legal implementation of morals. Should the morals be based on nature, they hold for all. Should morals be based on propaganda, well.... all rules barred

I'm going to assume that you mean law as a codified prescriptive body which serves as a reference for civic procedure. In this case, it's an administrative tool or guide as opposed to morality, which implies something (different?).

The debate concerning whether morality is conditional or a priori continues on. In addition can I draw a distinction in moral quality between motivations that are conventionally prescribed and those that are individually reasoned?

Consider the act of murder. Why do I refrain from murdering my neighbor? Do I refrain from murdering my neighbor because:
1. it's illegal?
2. because the 10 commandments forbids it and, so, god commands me to refrain from it?
3. because if I'm caught I'll go to jail and possibly my life will be forfeit?
4. I understand the inconsistency and/or hypocrisy of murdering my neighbor and expecting that someone not murder me?
5. because I understand the pain that my neighbor's death will cause his survivors?
6. because I understand what it means to deprive another person of his life?
7. because I cannot envision, for myself, any prerogative to deprive another person of his life?
8. because I cannot envision, for myself, any prerogative to deprive another person of his life without his permission?

Law as a prescriptive body, on the other hand, is meant to codify procedures to remedy abrogation of the rights of others or to prevent (by dint of codified procedures aimed at recompense) abrogation. In some cases it is aimed at enforcing sensible conditions (such as a law against parking within a given distance from fire hydrants or excessive speeding or driving a vehicle that has not been inspected and certified to be safe to operate) so as to prevent accidents which could cause serious problems for third parties. It can be consistent with qualities of individually reasoned moral ideas. It's questionable whether it's necessary for it to be ONLY consistent with personally reasoned moral ideas.

-- Updated January 6th, 2012, 8:14 am to add the following --

There are certainly laws, the merit in any sense of which, is questionable. Who has the right to tell another person they can't smoke marijuana or exchange money for sex? do these laws actually serve any purpose other than to underpin religious/social conventions and political considerations based on adherence to them?

The social cost of some laws is far greater than any benefit society may derive and in some cases one has to wonder whether any benefit exists at all. The spread of venereal disease because sex workers are deterred from seeking health care consistent with their occupation and the corruption and violence attributable to artificial inflation of value of drugs as a function of risk are two ready examples.

In the case of consensual acts like drug use and prostitution, laws forbidding them actually lead to corruption as evidenced in working relationships between brothel owners/prostitutes/drug sellers and the police officers who profit from exacting levies in exchange for looking the other way under threat of punishment for non-compliance.