Ah, but that’s a situation where a primary moral standard is Might Makes Right.
(Most) Russians luuuuuuurve themselves a strongman. Having a Putin isn’t something they put up with, it gives them a hard-on.
Morality is about what a person thinks people should do. Law is about what the government thinks people should do. These things sounds like they should be in alignment, the bulk of laws, as best I can tell, have nothing whatsoever to do with what people consider moral issues, so it’s pretty clear to me that government and people have wildly different ideas about what people should do. Yes, there is some overlap, but to say that laws are based on morality is to say that the bulk of laws will have been based on moral issues. This is not the case, not even close, so I think that the case for laws being based on morality is very, very weak.
And the fact that politicians like to sell their desired laws as being moral issues for the purpose of manipulating the emotions of their electorate is not evidence that the laws in question are based on morals.
Historically, that would appear to be how the English Common Law emerged.
That was not killing people with impunity, laws govern wartime behavior as well.
No I don’t think it’s based on morality, but revenge. Though that is not hard and fast and sometimes morals will coincide with revenge. Morality is based in Love, law is based on punishment and fear. Polar opposites in intent.
And what do you think distinguishes allowable killing from unallowable killing? Some term for a general system of judging what’s right and wrong?
A general system for determining what is beneficial for the preservation/growth of a society. It is beneficial to make murder illegal. The breakdown of society wouldn’t come by way of sheer number of people killed (if murder wasn’t a crime). The functioning of that society would quickly deteriorate; all of the interactions that work together to allow society to function smoothly would be in chaos.
How exactly? People die all the time. How would their deaths by murder cause a breakdown of society?
Thats not exactly what I said. I didnt say, “if all the people who die by other causes were to die by murder it would cause a breakdown of society”. I said if murder was not illegal it would cause a breakdown in society. All those other deaths would still occur.
But lets say you dont feel like paying for a new car? Just kill the dealer and take it. Dont like the way that guy is looking at you in traffic? Shoot the fucker! Hate indiscriminately? Shoot everyone at your high school.
You are a smart guy, i dont need to tell you how, en masse, these types of unchecked behaviors would render a society unworkable.
Well, more accurately people would band together into groups where the people in the group would swear to exact vengeance upon anybody who kills one of the group. These groups would eventually expand into entire villages that had announced that they would exact vengeance upon those that murder, or steal, or disturb the peace.
And thus are laws born. Not from morality, but from a desire for public order/less murders.
Law is a mixture of morality, practicality and self interest. Any law you choose will likely fit into one or more of these categories.
Where we wander into real trouble is when folks claim that the law defines morality.
Or that their morals should be law.
Everyone thinks that their morals should be law, and it would be a very bad thing if people didn’t think that. The problems you’re referring to arise because some people’s morals are wrong, and people with wrong morals cause problems even if they haven’t managed to get them codified into law.
There should be laws against murder, because murder is morally wrong. There should not be laws against gay marriage, because gay marriage is not morally wrong. The people who think that gay marriage is morally wrong are incorrect.
No. Laws often purport to be about morality, but the actual implementation doesn’t follow a process of ‘this is a bad thing, let’s punish/restrict it’ but instead is a series of compromises and approximations based on what deals can be struck and how well it fits the mood at the time of passage. For example, in the US an 18 year old with nude pics of his 16 year old girlfriend who goes to the same high school is committing felony possession of child porn, even if the general consensus is that it’s at worst something he should get grounded for. Meanwhile a 40 year old who exerts pressure to get a marriage to a 12-year-old and has actual sex with her is acting completely legally as long as he does it in a state with no minimum age for marriage, even if most people would be horrified at the union. I am certain that no one set down and said ‘an 18 year old with nude pics of his 2-years-younger girlfriend is utterly terrible, but a 40 year old having sex with a girl 3 decades younger is fine’.
Gah.
(That’s right, Gah.)
You speak as though there is 1) objective morality, and 2) what’s objectively moral is obvious to all (except a handful of deviants maybe). I strongly disagree with both these ideas.
The notion that morals should be law is fraught with peril, for reasons that should be obvious when I point out that about half of our lawmakers have moral systems that are the diametric opposite of everything you value.
The reason that murder should be illegal is because rampant unpunished murder is bad for society. The reason that gay marriage should be legal is because gay marriage is not bad for society. Legislating from morality is how you lose gay marriage, not gain it.
I agree society would collapse. But I can explain why I think this. If people began murdering each other, it would be a breakdown in the moral order.
You’re agreeing society would collapse. But you keep saying it’s not a moral issue.
So what is it? Would it be because of the number of people dying? Do you feel society would break down if a new disease struck humanity and killed off tens of millions of people? I don’t.
I’ve said before that the laws are based on a moral consensus. It’s not one person deciding what they think is right or wrong.
I fully agree. That’s my whole point. Laws aren’t based on anything objective. If they were, then our laws would just be discovered by scientists. Somebody would collect the evidence, establish that slavery, for example, is counter-productive, publish the figures, and then everyone would enact laws ending slavery. The law would work like chemistry or physics. It would be a process of revealing objective truths.
But that’s not how it works. Our morality is completely subjective. And our laws reflect that.
Scientists don’t come up with laws because the laws predate the scientists and the people who make the laws don’t bother to ask the scientists opinions (and sometimes seem to hate science, even).
Laws get formalized because somebody wants the laws made - and only sometimes does their reason for it involve morality. In the case of murder I’m pretty confident it didn’t involve morality - the practical downsides of living in a murder-filled hellhole are so amazingly obvious that if you ARE in a murder-filled hellhole you’ll be actively working to create a bubble of civilization where murder (at least of you) isn’t allowed. Wanting not to be murdered isn’t a moral thing.
Similarly, criminalizing theft clearly had a lot less to do with theft being immoral and a lot more to do with people going all vigilante if the government isn’t doing the job.
Laws only can start involving morality when the bottom two levels of Mazlow’s pyramid are taken care of for the people doing the law-creation on the subject in question. Which is to say, people can only start worrying about the morality of slavery when they’re not overly concerned about being enslaved themselves. Prior to that point it’s not a moral issue; it’s a safety and comfort issue.
Which I guess is a long way of saying that law-based morality only comes into play when you’re telling other people what to do. So while some laws are based in morality, a whole lot of other ones aren’t. (And that’s not even mentioning stuff like traffic laws, which also aren’t.)
Ive said repeatedly, ever since your example of 80 million dying in WII and society not collapsing, that it would not be because of the number of people dying. It would be because the public trust in everyday transactional as well as emotional interactions would be destroyed.
And you really havent explained why society would collapse if murder was not illegal. You just asserted society would breakdown because the moral order had broken down. That almost sounds circular to me.