Is lawfulness an intrinsic aspect of morality?

Post Reply New Topic

Laws, as written by mere humans, can be moral, morally neutral, or immoral. If a law requires or condones immorality then it is an immoral law and ought not to be followed, but laws which are moral or morally neutral ought to be followed.

Laws have very little to do with morals.

Morals provide what could be called a set of internal laws. Many of these will likely correspond to regional laws assuming sane and balanced legal systems and individuals.

Laws are written to be impartial. We're all bound by laws, but not legally bound by morality.

Can a law compel anyone to immoral action? Your compulsion driving you to immoral behavior will only be restricted by laws, that is to say you can legally do certain immoral things, but not immoral everything without legal consequence.

anarchy doesn't imply survival of the fittest. it's rather tiresome hearing this faulty notion endlessly come up.

surely this undermines the notion of having a structured, authoritarian legal system at all, if you simply obey the laws that you - subjectively - believe to be moral and ignore the rest?

This is a problem, only if we accept that morality is subjective, I for one would not agree with that statement. It also does not follow that one should not follow the law just because you do not agree with it. As a Christian I will answer for myself; Christianity specifically teaches render unto Caesar. St Paul gives a very good sermon on the subject in Ephesians. It lends me to think that there is a certain legitimacy to the authority in our lives: Obviously there are limits but as a general rule I would agree that it is ethical to give legitimate authority the benefit of the doubt.

In my moral code, I recognize no legal authority over my actions. I have not agreed to the laws, I have not enacted them, or been part of their creation. I feel no obligation to abide by the law whatsoever. I break the law on a daily basis. And don't give it a second thought; well...I usually don't give it a first thought either.

I have a very strict, and demanding moral code however. In many aspects, my inner guidance goes far and above the law in doing what is good for the people in my society. But there are many, many places that my inner guidance, what I deem as right, is at odds with the law, and I feel it would be immoral to change my behavior to accommodate a set of codes of conduct that I have never agreed to, and should not be bound to. To cave and obey this system would be to allow myself to be oppressed, and I will not allow that, regardless of the personal cost I may someday pay for it.

In reasonable and sane societies the Law attempts to encapsulate some aspects of morality, particularly those activities that take place in the Public Domain or impact the Public Domain

ruveyn

The trouble come in when lawmakers attempt to legislate a morality that is based on religious principles.

Have any other Yanks studied the effects of Prohibition? It was "... an intrusion of white, mainly rural, Protestant ideals on a central aspect of urban, immigrant and Catholic everyday life."

In other words, Prohibition was religious morality made into secular law.

Furthermore...

Now, who wants a drink?

Prohibition was a nightmare. It not only used government power wrongfully, but it led to the grow of organized crime. The Mafia would have been a minor Italian or Sicilian nuisance were it not for Prohibition.

Those Protestant female nightmares and witches like Carry Nation and Annie Willard were an abomination. By the way the Prohibition Amendment was the first amendment to the Constitution the made certain private behavior illegal (drinking booze and making booze). All the other Amendments to that time limited the government or altered how representation was to be voted on.