Poll of the Day > Explain how law and morality aren't the same thing?

(+) Yeah! (+)

They're formed by the same process... only one is written and one is not.
---

Well... you can make laws that are immoral for one.
---

Look at nazi germany.

/topic
---

minervo posted...

Look at nazi germany.

/topic

And if they won, their way would be the moral way... so, ya - you proved by point
---

Lokarin posted...

minervo posted...

Look at nazi germany.

/topic

And if they won, their way would be the moral way... so, ya - you proved by point

lol no it wouldn't.
---

minervo posted...

Lokarin posted...

minervo posted...

Look at nazi germany.

/topic

And if they won, their way would be the moral way... so, ya - you proved by point

lol no it wouldn't.

Ya, if everyone on the planet was Nazi - they would think that it's moral to persecute.
---

Lokarin posted...

minervo posted...

Lokarin posted...

minervo posted...

Look at nazi germany.

/topic

And if they won, their way would be the moral way... so, ya - you proved by point

lol no it wouldn't.

Ya, if everyone on the planet was Nazi - they would think that it's moral to persecute.

Naw
---

Lokarin posted...

They're formed by the same process... only one is written and one is not.

lolwut? No, laws are created to maintain order or, in other cases, to benefit lawmakers and their friends. Morality is a system (or principle?) that selectively distinguishes good from evil. While there's some intersect, they're two very different things. More importantly, laws are far more concrete than morality.
---

Zeus posted...

Lokarin posted...

They're formed by the same process... only one is written and one is not.

lolwut? No, laws are created to maintain order or, in other cases, to benefit lawmakers and their friends. Morality is a system (or principle?) that selectively distinguishes good from evil. While there's some intersect, they're two very different things. More importantly, laws are far more concrete than morality.

Both are the rules of maintaining the social contract through a series of incentives, disincentives, and punishments.
---

Lokarin posted...

Zeus posted...

Lokarin posted...

They're formed by the same process... only one is written and one is not.

lolwut? No, laws are created to maintain order or, in other cases, to benefit lawmakers and their friends. Morality is a system (or principle?) that selectively distinguishes good from evil. While there's some intersect, they're two very different things. More importantly, laws are far more concrete than morality.

Both are the rules of maintaining the social contract through a series of incentives, disincentives, and punishments.

No, morality has no inherent incentives, disincentives, and punishments; doubly so when you consider that the amoral tend to reap greater benefits than the moral. Otherwise, the principle of moral deserts -- doing good for the sake of receiving benefit -- specifically contradicts what you're trying to claim because then people aren't doing things to be good but because they're receiving benefit. Likewise, the social contract doesn't necessarily factor into laws because laws are designed to benefit governments more than citizens.
---

shadowsword87 posted...

Well... you can make laws that are immoral for one.

And you can have social taboos and norms that aren't codified into law.



Lokarin posted...

Both are the rules of maintaining the social contract through a series of incentives, disincentives, and punishments.

In theory, yes. But countless political and legal systems have existed which pass laws for any number of reasons, be it business or personal or a powerful minority oppressing a weaker majority that straight up violate social contract.

Law and morality are two circles in a Venn Diagram with plenty of intersect, but also plenty of places where they're different.


---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

In theory, yes. But countless political and legal systems have existed which pass laws for any number of reasons, be it business or personal or a powerful minority oppressing a weaker majority that straight up violate social contract.

Law and morality are two circles in a Venn Diagram with plenty of intersect, but also plenty of places where they're different.

Also both of which circles are wiggling constantly.
Morality and law changes over time pretty regularly.
---

I'm going to clarify that I mean in a representative government such as a Democracy... cuz I retroactively realized that in a monarchy or dictatorship the government can pass purely self-serving laws with no moral basis.
---

Want me to start listing immoral laws passed by the United States?
I'm sure if we start looking at how we treated the Native Americans, things would get awkward fast.
---

shadowsword87 posted...

Want me to start listing immoral laws passed by the United States?
I'm sure if we start looking at how we treated the Native Americans, things would get awkward fast.

Was it considered moral at the time? I know it's immoral now and has been for hundreds of years... but was it moral then?
---

Eh, it was pretty shakey.

If we want to be more cut and dry, we can talk about slavery and the abolitionists.
---

shadowsword87 posted...

Eh, it was pretty shakey.

If we want to be more cut and dry, we can talk about slavery and the abolitionists.

Ehh, I think I had enough with the slavery topic for a while.

I remember hearing once that it was considered "wrong" that Columbus DIDN'T bring back slaves... is that true at all?
---

Lokarin posted...

Ehh, I think I had enough with the slavery topic for a while.
I remember hearing once that it was considered "wrong" that Columbus DIDN'T bring back slaves... is that true at all?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/columbus-sex-slaves/
Wabam
---

shadowsword87 posted...

Want me to start listing immoral laws passed by the United States?
I'm sure if we start looking at how we treated the Native Americans, things would get awkward fast.

Well, that goes into the issue of competing moral systems and philosophies. Morality can be used to justify things that sound horrific, such as viewing some people as subhuman who need to be "civilized" for their own good. Then the treatment of animals is a massive can of worms.

Which also goes into the fact that a society can have many moral systems, but you only tend to have one *legal* system.
---

Zeus posted...

Which also goes into the fact that a society can have many moral systems, but you only tend to have one *legal* system.

That's fair, I would argue that one focus of law is to follow and promote the morality of the land, and morality changes throughout time.
And since law isn't an immediate thing, and can't emulate morality 1:1, so there are going to be times when immoral things are legal.
---

Zeus posted...

Which also goes into the fact that a society can have many moral systems, but you only tend to have one *legal* system.

This is an acceptable answer. +1
---

Law is like sex and morality is like gender
---

You can also point out that morality varies depending on the purpose. Most serial killers or thieves think that they are moral in their actions otherwise they wouldn't commit the act. I think its wrong to kill someone, but I highly doubt that Charles Manson shared that belief. Everyone has their own moral system even the most immoral people on the planet, Hitler thought it was moral to exterminate those of the Jewish faith.

Just because 95-99% of people have morality one way doesn't mean everyone else does. Robin Hood is also a great example depending on which side you are on his actions look completely immoral or moral as heck.
---

Blighboy posted...

Law is like sex and morality is like gender

---

I gotta give props to Lokarin for putting his political topics on ice long enough for people to forget he's just trolling with them. Now they're effective again.
---

Veedrock- posted...

I gotta give props to Lokarin for putting his political topics on ice long enough for people to forget he's just trolling with them. Now they're effective again.

I am not trolling, why do you assume I'm trolling.
---

something can be immoral without it being illegal and vice-versa. they're not even kind of the same.

cheating on an exam is not illegal, but it is immoral.
slavery has been legal, though it was immoral.
drinking alcohol (really I guess, producing, selling, or purchasing alcohol) has been illegal, though it is not immoral.
etc.

a good example of an immoral law in Canada at the moment is that it is currently *illegal* to carry *any item whatsoever* for purposes of self-defence. (you can defend yourself, but you can't carry an object with intent to use it for self-defence.)
---

Sahuagin posted...

something can be immoral without it being illegal and vice-versa. they're not even kind of the same.

cheating on an exam is not illegal, but it is immoral.
slavery has been legal, though it was immoral.
drinking alcohol (really I guess, producing, selling, or purchasing alcohol) has been illegal, though it is not immoral.
etc.

a good example of an immoral law in Canada at the moment is that it is currently *illegal* to carry *any item whatsoever* for purposes of self-defence. (you can defend yourself, but you can't carry an object with intent to use it for self-defence.)

Some people also think drinking is indeed immoral. Idk how many times ive heard someone say alcohol is the devil.

Which brings me to my point that the law tends to be black and white. Morals not even close. Like most people agree killing is bad but many also feel if its self defense its justified. Many people think stealing is wrong but plenty would take pity on a homeless man stealing a loaf of bread to feed himself.

In the first example many places have laws to protect the person who killed to save their own life, but on the second the best hope the homeless man has is the shop owner or cop takes pity on him as the law doesn't exempt him just cause he's homeless and hungry.
---

Sahuagin posted...

something can be immoral without it being illegal and vice-versa. they're not even kind of the same.

cheating on an exam is not illegal, but it is immoral.
slavery has been legal, though it was immoral.
drinking alcohol (really I guess, producing, selling, or purchasing alcohol) has been illegal, though it is not immoral.
etc.

a good example of an immoral law in Canada at the moment is that it is currently *illegal* to carry *any item whatsoever* for purposes of self-defence. (you can defend yourself, but you can't carry an object with intent to use it for self-defence.)

I agreed with everything up until the last paragraph. Learn martial arts loser.
---

ReturnOfFa posted...

Sahuagin posted...

something can be immoral without it being illegal and vice-versa. they're not even kind of the same.

cheating on an exam is not illegal, but it is immoral.
slavery has been legal, though it was immoral.
drinking alcohol (really I guess, producing, selling, or purchasing alcohol) has been illegal, though it is not immoral.
etc.

a good example of an immoral law in Canada at the moment is that it is currently *illegal* to carry *any item whatsoever* for purposes of self-defence. (you can defend yourself, but you can't carry an object with intent to use it for self-defence.)

I agreed with everything up until the last paragraph. Learn martial arts loser.

Martial arts is nice and all but your still at a disadvantage if the opposer has a weapon. Especially if they are a skilled fighter themselves.

Plus learning martial arts takes time and money not everyone has that.
---

"Law" is something created and enforced by a government or something similar.

What is "Moral" is decided by each person individually.

Unless you believe in absolutes.
---

Morality is a concept argued upon between philosophers and their wannabe ilk. Law is made with or without regard to accepted morality.
---

Someone on reddit posted a good point;

Traffic laws can be seen as moral as a whole, but there is no morality behind if the law should be left or right side of the road
---

Lokarin posted...

Someone on reddit posted a good point;

Traffic laws can be seen as moral as a whole, but there is no morality behind if the law should be left or right side of the road

What I wanna know is why is the driver's seat always opposite of the side of the road you drive on. I don't see where it matters and if it was the other way around mail men would have it easier.
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

What I wanna know is why is the driver's seat always opposite of the side of the road you drive on. I don't see where it matters and if it was the other way around mail men would have it easier.

if the driver's seat was on the far side, then cars would be always clipping each other as they drove past
---

Sahuagin posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

What I wanna know is why is the driver's seat always opposite of the side of the road you drive on. I don't see where it matters and if it was the other way around mail men would have it easier.

if the driver's seat was on the far side, then cars would be always clipping each other as they drove past

I guess that makes some sense even though mail men seem to handle it just fine. Most mail men I know either have a modified car where they drive from the opposite side.
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

ReturnOfFa posted...

Sahuagin posted...

something can be immoral without it being illegal and vice-versa. they're not even kind of the same.

cheating on an exam is not illegal, but it is immoral.
slavery has been legal, though it was immoral.
drinking alcohol (really I guess, producing, selling, or purchasing alcohol) has been illegal, though it is not immoral.
etc.

a good example of an immoral law in Canada at the moment is that it is currently *illegal* to carry *any item whatsoever* for purposes of self-defence. (you can defend yourself, but you can't carry an object with intent to use it for self-defence.)

I agreed with everything up until the last paragraph. Learn martial arts loser.

Martial arts is nice and all but your still at a disadvantage if the opposer has a weapon. Especially if they are a skilled fighter themselves.

Plus learning martial arts takes time and money not everyone has that.

well, I look forward to the next time I'm stabbed by a skilled fighter. I'll give you a call.

paranoid american mindset looking to create confrontation imo
---

ReturnOfFa posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

ReturnOfFa posted...

Sahuagin posted...

something can be immoral without it being illegal and vice-versa. they're not even kind of the same.

cheating on an exam is not illegal, but it is immoral.
slavery has been legal, though it was immoral.
drinking alcohol (really I guess, producing, selling, or purchasing alcohol) has been illegal, though it is not immoral.
etc.

a good example of an immoral law in Canada at the moment is that it is currently *illegal* to carry *any item whatsoever* for purposes of self-defence. (you can defend yourself, but you can't carry an object with intent to use it for self-defence.)

I agreed with everything up until the last paragraph. Learn martial arts loser.

Martial arts is nice and all but your still at a disadvantage if the opposer has a weapon. Especially if they are a skilled fighter themselves.

Plus learning martial arts takes time and money not everyone has that.

well, I look forward to the next time I'm stabbed by a skilled fighter. I'll give you a call.

paranoid american mindset looking to create confrontation imo

I avoid confrontation. Nice try though.

Also imagine a 100 pound woman being attacked by 280 pound guy. She better be really fucking good.

Plus I've met people who knew martial arts and got their asses kicked by someone with no training. Real life experience tends to trump practicing.

Just love it when someone thinks just cause they took a class they are a bad ass and can fight there way out of any scenario with just their fists

If weapons didn't give people a clear advantage they would have never become a big thing.
---

DarkKirby2500 posted...

Unless you believe in absolutes.

I'm a sith so that's all I deal in.
---

Sahuagin posted...

something can be immoral without it being illegal and vice-versa. they're not even kind of the same.

cheating on an exam is not illegal, but it is immoral.
slavery has been legal, though it was immoral.
drinking alcohol (really I guess, producing, selling, or purchasing alcohol) has been illegal, though it is not immoral.
etc.

a good example of an immoral law in Canada at the moment is that it is currently *illegal* to carry *any item whatsoever* for purposes of self-defence. (you can defend yourself, but you can't carry an object with intent to use it for self-defence.)

The consumption of alcohol is widely viewed as an immoral act. Gambling is also immoral but can be legal in many contexts (online gambling, some forms of sports betting, etc).

As for something that's illegal but not really immoral, you can look at something like bans on selling raw milk to consumers.
---

Lokarin posted...

They're formed by the same process

What was the moral issue that made it illegal to own a pinball machine in California?
What is the moral issue to carrying an ice cream cone in one's back pocket?
---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

What was the moral issue that made it illegal to own a pinball machine in California?

Pinball machines were actually originally thought to be literal gambling.
Now, if gambling is immoral or not, I don't know, but that was the original thought.
---

It's law to not j-walk but would someone who did so be a bad person?

Also. Unjust laws existed in the past such as those dealing with slaves ownership. Morality doesnt always line up with what is legal.

Just think about abortion TC. People differ as to whether they think abortion is moral and in what circumstances it is moral. Some people want the law to reflect their moral views. In primitive societies, law and morality are hardly separate. But in modern societies, they have gotten way jumbled.
---

Zeus posted...

The consumption of alcohol is widely viewed as an immoral act.

doesn't matter, then alcohol is presently legal in spite of being immoral. the point is, law and morality are similar and related, but are really two different solutions to two different problems.

note that it IS possible to have the point of view that morality should directly lead to laws, and anything that is immoral should then be illegal, but that is specifically authoritarian and not the only option.
---

Sahuagin posted...

Zeus posted...

The consumption of alcohol is widely viewed as an immoral act.

doesn't matter, then alcohol is presently legal in spite of being immoral. the point is, law and morality are similar and related, but are really two different solutions to two different problems.

note that it IS possible to have the point of view that morality should directly lead to laws, and anything that is immoral should then be illegal, but that is specifically authoritarian and not the only option.

I was specifically responding to claim about it not being immoral. The argument isn't the previous law -- which policed morality -- but the permissive one today which doesn't police morality and is therefore a pretty good example of laws and morality failing to line up. (Not to mention that legal alcohol represents perhaps the greatest public safety hazard right now.)
---

Law is pragmatic, morality is emotional, but they both seek a boundary for correct behaviour.
---

shadowsword87 posted...

Pinball machines were actually originally thought to be literal gambling.

I wasn't aware you could win anything at pinball.
---

morality changes but laws reflect what was once considered morality. it's always behind the times, bro.
---

Zeus posted...

I was specifically responding to claim about it not being immoral. The argument isn't the previous law -- which policed morality -- but the permissive one today which doesn't police morality and is therefore a pretty good example of laws and morality failing to line up.

I am currently drinking a single Mike's Hard Lemonade with my dinner. I would love to hear an argument for how that could possibly be immoral.
---