Morality can exist outside of the law but the law is not about morality. The law is/should be the "stable" version of morality because the latter is a lot more flexible than the former. And in a functioning systems the law should be adapted to the morals of society every once in a while.
Edit: Just imagine how some of your moral concepts conflict with those of your grandparents, and how many of them would conflict with those of your grandchildren. What would the law use as a compass at any time? The general consensus of the time or a possible random evolution from the future?
And wouldn't laws in a democracy explicitly reflect the views of that majority since they are created by the representatives of that majority?
To be fair, there is no such thing as the morals of society. Morality is individual to everyone and is developed throughout everyone's whole lives. So the law cannot possibly be a stable version of morality.
For example, in my morals it is not acceptable to imprison people for non-violent crimes, but most people are somehow convinced that it's ok. We can never agree on a stable version of morality on this.
Isn't it like saying "there's no image, only individual photons or pixels"?
For example, in my morals
But if you take a few steps back you notice individual morals blending into something that could be called society morals. Society overall considers something (un)acceptable or (im)moral regardless of whether you disagree.
Look at interracial or same sex marriages. Decades ago society saw them as immoral even if some individuals disagreed. Today society sees them as moral even if some individuals disagreed
This misses the point I was trying to make. We were further away from the Grand Unified Law back then. But not all of us. Some people even millenia ago were ahead of the curve and promoted progressivism even in the face of a government which did not recognize individual freedom. Just ask my patron saint, Joan of Arc.
The morals of society are a useless tool for measuring objective morality.
Some people at the top of the hierarchy push it and promote it, doesn't mean other people agree with any of it, they are just powerless against it. Why do you take it as society agrees I don't know, but I can understand why those at the top of the hierarchy would like you to think there's the morals of society.
Ok, this seems like a different argument from the one you made above, that morality is purely individual.
If the overall morals of society (as represented by the majority) don't get transposed into law then we go back to my original comment:
in a functioning systems the law should be adapted to the morals of society
In a democracy the top of the hierarchy is chosen to represent the views of individuals that elected them.
Edit: Whether the morals of society are dictated by the few (rulers) or by the many (people) it doesn't change the conclusion. At some point the balance regarding society's view on the morality of certain things tips. And as an individual you are still very much the product of society. Can we agree that there are things now where there is a societal consensus regarding their morality?
There are actually very few things where societies over time consistently agreed on their morality (like theft).
Like a parent angrily spanking his young for making a mess, the typical human has not been taught to separate justice from revenge, and so we settle for spiteful punishment.
Read the Letters from Birmingham Jail to gain some insight on the obligation to protest unjust laws.
This whole argument is ludicrous. In the US, it would be unconstitutional for the president to censor protest. So if your argument is that laws are morality, how do you square the conflict between these two nation's laws?
Re: Edit
>And wouldn't laws in a democracy explicitly reflect the views of that majority since they are created by the representatives of that majority?
My point was explicitly that the laws of a society catch up but they are inherently almost always behind the morality of that society. What you're describing is not only this delay but also the fact that you're talking about 2 different societies. And when the system above doesn't work it's not a democracy.
And wouldn't laws in a democracy
Not if dissent has been crushed.
If a democracy crushes dissent it's either not a democracy or the views of the majority demand that dissent be crushed. Again, the point was that if society overall changes it's views on morality of things, laws tend to eventually follow. Either by force (overthrowing the oppressive regime) or by vote. Take the examples of race and sexuality to see how laws were changes as the views of society changed.
Indeed. Doesn't this perfectly confirm my theory that morality can/does exist outside of the law, and that the law is usually behind, getting "synchronized" once in a while according to the morals of society?
Comments
Morality can exist outside of the law but the law is not about morality. The law is/should be the "stable" version of morality because the latter is a lot more flexible than the former. And in a functioning systems the law should be adapted to the morals of society every once in a while.
Edit: Just imagine how some of your moral concepts conflict with those of your grandparents, and how many of them would conflict with those of your grandchildren. What would the law use as a compass at any time? The general consensus of the time or a possible random evolution from the future?
And wouldn't laws in a democracy explicitly reflect the views of that majority since they are created by the representatives of that majority?
To be fair, there is no such thing as the morals of society. Morality is individual to everyone and is developed throughout everyone's whole lives. So the law cannot possibly be a stable version of morality.
For example, in my morals it is not acceptable to imprison people for non-violent crimes, but most people are somehow convinced that it's ok. We can never agree on a stable version of morality on this.
Isn't it like saying "there's no image, only individual photons or pixels"?
But if you take a few steps back you notice individual morals blending into something that could be called society morals. Society overall considers something (un)acceptable or (im)moral regardless of whether you disagree.
Look at interracial or same sex marriages. Decades ago society saw them as immoral even if some individuals disagreed. Today society sees them as moral even if some individuals disagreed
This misses the point I was trying to make. We were further away from the Grand Unified Law back then. But not all of us. Some people even millenia ago were ahead of the curve and promoted progressivism even in the face of a government which did not recognize individual freedom. Just ask my patron saint, Joan of Arc.
The morals of society are a useless tool for measuring objective morality.
Some people at the top of the hierarchy push it and promote it, doesn't mean other people agree with any of it, they are just powerless against it. Why do you take it as society agrees I don't know, but I can understand why those at the top of the hierarchy would like you to think there's the morals of society.
Ok, this seems like a different argument from the one you made above, that morality is purely individual.
If the overall morals of society (as represented by the majority) don't get transposed into law then we go back to my original comment:
In a democracy the top of the hierarchy is chosen to represent the views of individuals that elected them.
Edit: Whether the morals of society are dictated by the few (rulers) or by the many (people) it doesn't change the conclusion. At some point the balance regarding society's view on the morality of certain things tips. And as an individual you are still very much the product of society. Can we agree that there are things now where there is a societal consensus regarding their morality?
There are actually very few things where societies over time consistently agreed on their morality (like theft).
Like a parent angrily spanking his young for making a mess, the typical human has not been taught to separate justice from revenge, and so we settle for spiteful punishment.
Read the Letters from Birmingham Jail to gain some insight on the obligation to protest unjust laws.
This whole argument is ludicrous. In the US, it would be unconstitutional for the president to censor protest. So if your argument is that laws are morality, how do you square the conflict between these two nation's laws?
Re: Edit >And wouldn't laws in a democracy explicitly reflect the views of that majority since they are created by the representatives of that majority?
Not if dissent has been crushed.
My point was explicitly that the laws of a society catch up but they are inherently almost always behind the morality of that society. What you're describing is not only this delay but also the fact that you're talking about 2 different societies. And when the system above doesn't work it's not a democracy.
If a democracy crushes dissent it's either not a democracy or the views of the majority demand that dissent be crushed. Again, the point was that if society overall changes it's views on morality of things, laws tend to eventually follow. Either by force (overthrowing the oppressive regime) or by vote. Take the examples of race and sexuality to see how laws were changes as the views of society changed.
Changed through the civil rights movements which featured many illegal protests.
Indeed. Doesn't this perfectly confirm my theory that morality can/does exist outside of the law, and that the law is usually behind, getting "synchronized" once in a while according to the morals of society?