Is lawfulness an intrinsic aspect of morality?

Post Reply New Topic

I'm curious what others here think about the difference between behaving in a moral manner and behaving in a lawful manner.

I think that there is no intrinsic reason why lawfulness is moral or immoral - which is to say that i think that laws may come from a basis of morality but law itself is amoral.

It is possible for the law to compel you to an action that is immoral, right?

sure and it does in pretty much all western countries in the world on a daily basis.

many places everyone breaks the law, either because its an old law that fell out of favor but never got removed,
or through laws no one sees any reason to follow.

in many countries the police themselves break the law routinely.

I see an unconditional respect for the law as being naive and gullible.

It's funny, but posing this question kind of reminds me of the D&D alignment system.

On a more serious note, I agree with you insofar as "the law" in and of itself is not inherently "moral." Then again, "morals" are a highly subjective thing depending on who you ask.

What do you offer instead; "Survival of the Fittest" (a.k.a. "Anarchy") or "Subjective Morality"?

"The law," believe it or not, is rife with inconsistencies and contradictions. Also, the only thing it really does is set forth consequences for actions which are deemed improper. It doesn't magically alter someone's free will beyond serving as a deterrent to those who take the time to weigh the risks against the potential benefits of prohibited behavior, and even then, it's not perfect in that regard.

The Law steps in where Ethics and Morality have failed to make a difference in favor of the public good.

Yes, that is entirely possible. There are many examples of immoral laws in the history of my country. As a result of this history, humanity has come to agree that "I was following laws / orders" is no excuse for immoral or unethical acts, which means that it is our moral obligation to disobey unethical laws.

At the same time, it is entirely possible to create a moral and ethical body of laws. A legal framework that is based on democratic majority decisions, and takes into account a set of inalienable rights, is a good start. But no legal system is ever perfect. There is always room for improvement.

Last edited by CrazyCatLord on 10 Feb 2012, 6:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Unfortunately, history has proven time and time again that virtue enforced is virtue corrupted.

i would prefer to be able to follow a rational or at least consistent legal system,

in the real world anyone can see that everyone breaks the law, sometimes they know it and sometimes they dont.

No. There are many immoral laws in many countries. "I'm just doing my job" springs to mind here.

Survival of the fittest is not anarchy. If you manage to procreate, you are one of "the fittest" (which actually means "those who are fit enough, i.e. sufficiently adapted to their environment"). Therefore, "survival of the fit enough" applies in every political system or environment.

In my opinion, the law only needs to prohibit actions that harm other, non-consenting parties (although there are situations where people cannot give consent and certain things that can't be consented to). If the law goes beyond that -- for example, by prohibiting legal adults from ingesting whatever they want -- it has crossed the line from necessary protection to unnecessary oppression.

Most assuredly not.

The law is an amoral, social framework that is intended to be universal in its application.

Morality is a personal framework that is relevant no farther than the individual.

My morals are my own. Acts that I consider moral are not, thereby, made legal. Similarly, the fact that I consider an action of yours to be immoral does not give me a cause of action against you.

I'd say its conditional to the law. If the law itself is inherently unethical then, to stand up to it is morally heroic, especially under the weight of much opposition by people who would take order over raw truth or raw morality.

No argument there.

The better the state, the more overlap there will be between what morality says and what legality says.

Most often that's not the case.