Here’s a simple question with two difficult answers. Is it possible to have a moral society when social obedience (social adherence to the laws of the land) is enforced by further laws?
The subject came up last week during an uncomfortable conversation with my family in a car last week. Does creating new laws to ensure that people follow old ones (creating new punishment regimes, adding regulations, overlapping laws, sentencing enhancements, etc.) really promote moral society, or does it undermine that society? I know what I think, but I’ll wait for someone to chime in before I embarrass myself.
Loading ...
I’ll bite.
I say it isn’t possible to “have a moral society”. Is Canadian society moral? We want to say yes, but defining “why” gets into moral relevance. Others will say no, and others will attempt to qualify and say “mostly”.
Without a clear definition of what constitutes a moral society (that everyone can agree on), it becomes impossible to achieve in fact. Which is why laws that pertain to acts of morality only (as opposed to safety, or individual freedom, etc.) are continuously being challenged.
Comment by Closet Liberal — May 8, 2007 @ 10:04 am
Law != Morality.
The law is at times larger than morality (Is smoking marijuana immoral? How about driving too fast?). And morality is far larger than law (There’s no law against lying, for example).
Laws are more utilitarian. They help preserve and protect the well-being of citizens in groups. Along with custom, they sort of regulate the intersection between individual and community.
SO, murder is against the law not because it is immoral, but because it damages the fabric of society. We couldn’t have a society where people ran around killing with impunity, so we have a law against it. We’d also hope that our neighbours aren’t going around killing us only because it’s illegal. We hope they find it immoral.
Morals and ethics are not a science, so it would be impossible to create a legal code based on morality. Not that there aren’t attempts, of course. As CL says, these attempts to place morality in the legal sphere are challenged for exactly that reason.
Then, of course, there’s a more philosophical issue. Morality requires agency. In other words, if I do not do something because it is unlawful, did I make a moral choice?
Comment by Red Jenny — May 8, 2007 @ 11:34 am
Well, I feel like I was caught with my pants down…
Lets assume that by “moral society” I mean a society which adheres widely to the generally accepted morals of its citizens; not one which subscribes to a specific morality.
Comment by Joseph — May 9, 2007 @ 6:44 am
“I mean a society which adheres widely to the generally accepted morals of its citizens; not one which subscribes to a specific morality.”
I see what you are trying to say, but I fail to see the distinction. The only way to have a “moral society” is to have one that agrees with the morals of the majority of its citizens. Its circular reasoning.
For the sake of discussion, as that is the point, is it not? Let us say that we have a moral code of conduct that is well defined and entrenched in society. Said moral society has a law against oral sex. This law is enforced through video cameras in everyone’s houses where purity experts monitor all sexual activity.
The government surveillance is accepted as a moral act, an ends to a means that is acceptable to the majority. Thus we have a moral use of law to enforce a moral code of conduct.
To answer your original question, then yes it is possible. Would I want to live in this moral society? Hell No!
Comment by Closet Liberal — May 9, 2007 @ 10:26 am
Under the weird coincidence file:
Oral sex may increase risk of throat cancer: study
Comment by Closet Liberal — May 10, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
I thought about your article and could come up with instances both for and against increased social obedience.
Essentially what you are doing is legislating morality and on the surface you are bound to failure. The best law is one that is relevant to the people that curbs or promotes X behaviour without being excessive. Finding the proper balance is difficult because society changes and with it so do their needs.
All obvious stuff which you are familiar with. To mix things up further, are you placing obligation and enforcement more to the state or to a centralized federal power?
Comment by Trouble — May 14, 2007 @ 12:11 am