Voltaire, writing on the general subject of cuissage (The right of first night), says the following:
It seems to me (the avg. Joe) that he is essentially saying that it is impossible to have a law which mandates an act that people object to on moral grounds. Or perhaps he means the inverse, summarized as “You can’t legislate morality”.
Is/was he correct? Do formal “laws against morals” not exist? If not, under what circumstances could they exist?
The law in question never existed, at any rate.
If he says that, he’s wrong. Many people object to military service on moral grounds. Nevertheless, many countries have draft laws, with or without exceptions for “conscientious objectors.” It might or might not be just, but it is definitely not impossible.
He’s in a bit of a pickle if he defines his wife as his property, and then objects to a law on moral grounds.
He’s in another pickle if he believes that laws which allow for the forfeiture of property are impossible. Taxes, for example, would cease to exist.
The arrest of people for drug offenses is immoral, yet it happens all the time, particularly if you are of the wrong color and have drugs.
One obvious problem here is that a state can have only one law for all, but moral standards are things about which people often disagree.
Um … yeah … I know. I think that this was the main point that Voltaire was trying to get across in the paper from 1762 that I linked to. Cecil even refers to this in his article. But, the question I am trying to pose (very badly, I suspect), has to do with Voltaire’s use of the phrase “laws against morals” and his conviction that none do or in fact could exist.
These were the first counter-examples that I thought of as well. But, certainly, I think, Voltaire in 1762 knew about both conscription and taxes. This leads me to believe that this was not the kind of thing he was refering to.
So, I guess my question could be better phrased as: What the heck did Voltaire mean when he says “Laws against morals” and why was he so sure that it was impossible to have one?
He defines “a law against morals” in the text, and you quoted his definition.
“I call a public law which deprives me of my property, which takes away my wife and gives her to another, a law against morals”
He’s saying that such laws don’t exist, and in those places where the practice occurs or occured (Lappland, Medieval Europe, the Roman Empire, Asia), it’s due not to law but to custom.
At some levels of civilization there is no distinction between law and custom.
I have no idea. His example is unambiguous. If he was speaking metaphorically, it is not apparent in the example provided, or in the text linked.
Perhaps an error in translation? No law is “impossible.” All it takes is for a legislative body to enact it. Said law may be found unenforceable, or unconstitutional, or inherently illogical, but not impossible.
That’s why he’s talking about places that are at least “semi-civilized”…places that have states that make statutory law.
I think he means that it’s impossible because no legislature ever would enact such a law; that actually enacting a law like that would go against human nature.
People enact laws that go against human nature all the time. They tend to be difficult to enforce, but they exist.
Don’t laws by definition go against human nature? If it is natural for us to do, wouldn’t we just do it without the necessity of creating guidelines and enforcing them by threat of violence? I think Voltaire is completely wrong. All laws by definition deprive us of something.
As it turns out, he was wrong. Slavery was legal in the United States. Women were taken from their husbands. Not, ostensibly, for the purpose of sexual intercourse, although clearly that happened often enough. They were considered to be property, and were treated as such. The disposition of their fates was determined with absolutely no consideration of their rights as human beings.
But, I don’t think that slavery was ever mandated by law. A law was eventually made which made it illegal but, no one was forced, by law, to have slaves.
(Is their a distinction between the type of law that prohibits something and a law which mandates something?)
Was Voltaire complaining that the law allowed this theft of property, or demanded it?
At any rate, the Supreme Court sanctioned slavery in Dred Scott v. Sandford, a decision that stood until overturned by constitutional amendment. Sure sounds like the law of the land to me.
As do the Virgina Slave Codes.
Perhaps even the New England Articles of Confederation.
Yes, that’s exactly what it is. In the original text, it says:
I’ve underlined the important word: moeurs. “Morals” is a poor translation, the closest English word is “mores”, however, while they are cognates, they don’t necessarily match up perfectly.
There are two definitions for this word: one general, the other specific. The general definition is that moeurs signifies “a set of behaviours specific to a group and considered with respect to a collective moral”. The word “collective” is important. There are people who argue that pedophilia is actually a good thing. They argue that it is not immoral to have sexual relations with a 10 year-old child. However, the social norms are so overwhelmingly against pedophilia that there is no doubt that it is against moeurs. The term is also used to talk about animal behaviour. In this sense, moeurs are much more basic than morals. Something that is against moeurs can be thought of as “against nature”.
The second definition is strictly sexual. For instance, in Montreal, the section of the police that deals with prostitution and such is called l’escouade des moeurs (moeurs squad). In this sense, moeurs can be defined as “sexual behaviour taken with respect to social norms”.
If you read the whole text, it is clear that Voltaire’s examples all pertain with sexual behaviour. The French text is actually somewhat cruder than the English translation. However, the topic of the entry has to be taken into context, also.
There is a very important expression in his text:
He acknowledges dictatorial decrees, but to him, these are not laws, at least, not public laws. He stresses this point earlier, by example:
He is simply stating that you could never pass a law, publicly, that went against social mores.
If you want to know exactly what he means, you need to turn to the entry on laws. He compares Fu Xi’s laws with Old Testament commandements, while he finds in the ancient Chinese laws “nothing but what is mild, useful and amiable”, he finds the Hebrew codes barbaric:
Here “manners” is of course, moeurs in the original text.
Laws that allowed slavery were not against mores; slavery was acceptable at the time. However, you could never pass such a law in America nowadays: mores have changed and slavery is out. There is no near-universal opposition to taxes. 60 years ago, it was not considered against social norms to go to war, that is why consciption laws could be passed. The moral position of individuals is irrelevent to his argument because he’s talking about social norms.