Thursday, October 15, 2009

Law and Morality

For me, it is way too complicated to even begin to consider law and morality. There are so many instances where law and morality are completely unrelated, such as traffic violations. Then, there are laws that clearly coincide with morals, such as those involving murder and other serious crimes. But, I think that many things that are illegal in our country cater to some people's morals and ignore others, such as prostitution and certain drug offenses. Because certain people think prostitution is wrong, it is illegal. There are so many examples of crimes that society may see as wrong but plenty of people's morals find to be acceptable. Morality is so different to each and every person that I think it is impossible to say that morality is related to law much at all. If we were to truly use morality as a criticism for legal rules, I think morality would have to be consistent and understood in the same way for everyone, which it definitely isn't. But, I do agree that moral criticism is a basis for changing law. However, the law caters to the morals of some citizens and not others.

4 comments:

  1. This is a very good point, that laws aren't completely consistent in the realm of morality. However, this brings up the fact that perhaps morals aren't really universal. People often do feel quite differently about certain laws. For example, the death penalty may seem completely valid to those proscribing in the belief of "an eye for an eye", while others may believe that their morality of "thou shalt not kill" would trump the penalty, and that it should not exist. The reason I bring up that morals may not be universal is that because there is not one defining set of morals, how can morality be used as a basis of changing laws? Again, some people may believe the change is valid due to their morals, but another persons set of morals may be completely conflicting with such a change.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I feel as though if you look into it enough morality is always at the core of the laws, even in things like traffic violations. One shouldn't speed so that they don't put others in danger. By speeding you make it more likely that you will get into an accident with another driver. Getting into an accident can cause the victim to be injured or even die. So in essence this law is put in place to protect the safety of others. Why do we want to protect the safety of others? Because it is morally right.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ok, I agree that morality is inconsistent and not normal to the degree of everybody's understanding, but at the same time, one cannot rule out the involvement of morality in laws. Sure morality is subjective, but morality is equivalent to "good" and "evil" and people know of both of these terms. Good is good, and people that argue that "what about cannibalism and those people that think they are doing right" is dumb because then general public of the world should know that eating other humans is stupid. Morality should be base on the world's point of view and not down to the individual.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I also agree that morality is inconsistent, but what other measures can be used to estalish laws? Morality is subjective, that is where the double edged sword lies. What one human being perceives as morally "good" or acceptable, can be interpreted as "evil" to another individual. In modern society, specific acts of violence are considered to be morally wrong according to a majority of American citizens including murder, rape, and homicide. However, in third world countries some violent acts are considered justified. How do we draw the line?

    ReplyDelete