Should morality be divorced from law 100% and vice versa

Laws and morality should not be seperated because it is, in all honesty, not possible. Any just law is based upon morality, and is created for the embetterment of human kind. Many of them should be common sense because every person has a conscience.

When you attempt to seperate laws and the morality behind them you end up with stupid, idiotic, and useless laws such as "It's illegal to tie a giraffe to a lamp post in Atlanta, GA." It is not possible, and I don't see how you think that it could be.

Originally posted by Dawson
Laws and morality should not be seperated because it is, in all honesty, not possible. Any just law is based upon morality, and is created for the embetterment of human kind. Many of them should be common sense because every person has a conscience.

When you attempt to seperate laws and the morality behind them you end up with stupid, idiotic, and useless laws such as "It's illegal to tie a giraffe to a lamp post in Atlanta, GA." It is not possible, and I don't see how you think that it could be.

It's illegal for a woman to walk down a highway in Tennessee wearing a bikini unless she's either holding a club or being escorted by no less than two police officers.

Originally posted by Gregory
It's no use trying to define laws according to "morality," because nobody can decide what's moral and what isn't. Why is it illegal to kill people? Because society would collapse otherwise. Morality never enters into it.

From murder, stealing, and rape to intoxication in public, trespassing, and petty larceny, most laws seem to be justifiable by how well they assist the functionality of society. Is this merely a coincidental observation or do laws serve to maintain a society? Maybe "assisting the functionality of a society" is simply an extra effect of laws that were originally based on morality.

What does everyone else think?

Laws govern society, and look after the members of that society. This process arrives at the same destination as what we would call morality.

So basically, determining the reason behind these laws is impossible?

Originally posted by StyleTime
So basically, determining the reason behind these laws is impossible?

Not really, most laws are relatively easy to explain. TThey are based on human needs (or needs of a society as a whole).

Yes, but as Victor Von Doom pointed out,

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
This process arrives at the same destination as what we would call morality.

Originally posted by StyleTime
Yes, but as Victor Von Doom pointed out,

we could probably make an argument for laws being based off of morals or societal needs. How are we to know where it actually began?

Well. I think that VVD meant the same process that creates our laws (which can be determined rather easy in my opinion) also creates morals that are similar to the laws.

I understand what you mean, but it looks like a "chicken or the egg" scenario to me.

How can we know the morals did not come first and the societal upkeep was an afterthought and side-effect?

"Should morality be divorced from law 100% of the time and vice versa?"

Morality is the basis of law altogether.

^ Have you not read the last 7 or so posts?

You must be able to acknowledge that your point is debatable at best.

Fine then debate it.

That is what we have been doing........

Originally posted by StyleTime
Your post has actually given me pause. I have never considered this topic with your statement in mind. While I disagree that morality [b]never enters into the legal equation, it is still an interesting point my friend.

From murder, stealing, and rape to intoxication in public, trespassing, and petty larceny, most laws seem to be justifiable by how well they assist the functionality of society. Is this merely a coincidental observation or do laws serve to maintain a society? Maybe "assisting the functionality of a society" is simply an extra effect of laws that were originally based on morality.

What does everyone else think? [/B]

Would you care to join in The Black Ghost?

I apologize if I 'butted in' in the middle of this. I was only stating my beleif.

You didn't butt in lol. I am just asking you to at least say WHY you believe this.

Because that is true. If morality had nothing to do with law then there wouldnt be laws in the first place. It is only "morally" wrong to kill someone until someone makes a law to enforce it off of that beleif.

Originally posted by StyleTime
I understand what you mean, but it looks like a "chicken or the egg" scenario to me.

How can we know the morals did not come first and the societal upkeep was an afterthought and side-effect?

From where did they come, though?

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
It is only "morally" wrong to kill someone until someone makes a law to enforce it off of that beleif.

Very illogical thing to say.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Because that is true. If morality had nothing to do with law then there wouldnt be laws in the first place. It is only "morally" wrong to kill someone until someone makes a law to enforce it off of that beleif.

The purpose of laws is to establish and enforce social order.

Whether or not murder is wrong is an issue of ethics, not necessarily morals.

But if no one cared if people was murdered there could be social order- it would just be a very strange soicety.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
But if no one cared if people was murdered there could be social order- it would just be a very strange soicety.

- Hey, you die!!! Oh Hellow Mrs. Johnson, sorry about the mess. 😮‍💨

😆 😆 😆