Why should law reflect social morals

[Wake]

Re: Why should law reflect religious morals

The US is not a democracy, it is a Republic.

I've heard otherwise. At least it's a democratic republic.

 

[Goshin]

Re: Why should law reflect religious morals

Yes I did but I still find the idea that the majority may have the edge on such laws no matter how well that are thought through they are not fair to the many. Morals are an inconsistent basis to begin with as they do change and more rapidly than most would think.Your post was well put together though and tempered to show fairness which I should have stated in my first post.

Thank you.

I believe that all law beings with some kind of moral judgement. Laws against murder are, for instance, not something that has always been universal throughout history. In many times and places, a person of higher status could kill a person of lower status with virtual impugnity, and "the law" didn't care. Making murder illegal is a moral judgement. Most laws are moral judgements of some sort, because someone believed it was "the right thing to do" for some reason. (Those "reasons" could be based on any number of personal biases, too.)

If the baseline for law is not to be in any way based on the morality of the large majority of the population... that is to say what the supermajority agree is right/fair/just... then what shall we base it on? Philosophy? That is simply religion with Reason in place of a god. Lots of philosophies wander far out into the wild places.... look at Sophistry for instance. Ideology? Well, that's politics, you can guarantee that's in the mix.

The Constitution? In my opinion yes, but the C was never intended to be a comprehensive codex of what should and should not be legal. 99% of that was actually supposed to be up to the States, originally.

Part of my point is that "moral" does not automatically mean "religion". People can have a moral code based on something other than religion. Whether someone's morals are religious-based or based on something else, I guarantee you thier morals affect the way they vote. Excluding all morality from law seems most impractical.

 

[katiegrrl0]

Re: Why should law reflect religious morals

I've heard otherwise. At least it's a democratic republic.

It is a Republic with democratic tendencies.

 

[katiegrrl0]

Re: Why should law reflect religious morals

Thank you.

I believe that all law beings with some kind of moral judgement. Laws against murder are, for instance, not something that has always been universal throughout history. In many times and places, a person of higher status could kill a person of lower status with virtual impugnity, and "the law" didn't care. Making murder illegal is a moral judgement. Most laws are moral judgements of some sort, because someone believed it was "the right thing to do" for some reason. (Those "reasons" could be based on any number of personal biases, too.)

If the baseline for law is not to be in any way based on the morality of the large majority of the population... that is to say what the supermajority agree is right/fair/just... then what shall we base it on? Philosophy? That is simply religion with Reason in place of a god. Lots of philosophies wander far out into the wild places.... look at Sophistry for instance. Ideology? Well, that's politics, you can guarantee that's in the mix.

The Constitution? In my opinion yes, but the C was never intended to be a comprehensive codex of what should and should not be legal. 99% of that was actually supposed to be up to the States, originally.

Part of my point is that "moral" does not automatically mean "religion". People can have a moral code based on something other than religion. Whether someone's morals are religious-based or based on something else, I guarantee you their morals affect the way they vote. Excluding all morality from law seems most impractical.

Law IMO is formed out of need. There was a need to limit the speed of a car on a crowded city street. As the society evolved there became more and more needs. I am not sure that most law is based on a moral code or ethic. It seems that some are. When they are influenced by religion I think that is wrong. I say that because all people do not follow the same religious practice and so would have a completely different set of standards. I think a nation gets far afield when they begin to govern in a moralistic sense. You create theocracy and we all see how well those are going.

I do understand that morals and religion are different. I think that few laws maybe under 10% have anything to do with anyone's moral compass.

The Constitution is in place to take law out of the hands of majority rule. The SCOTUS lays a law against the the Constitution to see if that particular law is in line with the ideals presented in the Document. If they are not compatible they do not become law no matter how many people would like it to be so.

 

[Goshin]

Re: Why should law reflect religious morals

Law IMO is formed out of need. There was a need to limit the speed of a car on a crowded city street. As the society evolved there became more and more needs. I am not sure that most law is based on a moral code or ethic. It seems that some are. When they are influenced by religion I think that is wrong. I say that because all people do not follow the same religious practice and so would have a completely different set of standards. I think a nation gets far afield when they begin to govern in a moralistic sense. You create theocracy and we all see how well those are going.

Oh dear, there's that T word again. A theocracy is when religion is government. Simply because some people vote based on religious or moral beliefs some of the time doesn't make a country a theocracy, any more than voting based on political ideology makes the country an Ideology.

I do understand that morals and religion are different. I think that few laws maybe under 10% have anything to do with anyone's moral compass.

Must beg to differ. WHY should there be a speed limit for cars on city streets? Because of moral judgements we've made about the value of human life; a very different society might see things completely opposite. Perhaps in the Oligarchy of Lexusborg only the upper class are allowed to drive, and they think that the damn peasant pedestrians should get outta their way, no matter how fast they are going.... and if they don't, oh well... :shrug:

The Constitution is in place to take law out of the hands of majority rule. The SCOTUS lays a law against the the Constitution to see if that particular law is in line with the ideals presented in the Document. If they are not compatible they do not become law no matter how many people would like it to be so.

Oh, if only that were true more than half the time....

 

[cpwill]

Re: Why should law reflect religious morals

Especially when America is SO diverse.

This thread specifically goes to the attempt by people of varying religions, but mostly Christian, to force lawmakers to reflect their personal belief system in legal decisions (such as whether SSM should be legalized, for instance).

gosh. that sounds almost like an argument for some kind of Federalism, where the central government would have defined and enumerated powers only, while the states or smaller governments would have broad reach to diversify and each represent their own particular population.

 

[cpwill]

Re: Why should law reflect religious morals

And again - what should their decisions be based on?

they are soveriegn - and hence are free to make their decisions based on whatever they like. we hope that they will make their decisions based upon Truth, Justice, Reason, The American Way, and Apple Pie.... but it's utterly up to them what value system they choose to espouse in forming their government.

What if "they" decide that it's in the best interest of females that they not go through an unwanted pregnancy?

then that is "their" choice, they are soveriegn. if you disagree and wish that the situation in their land be different you have two options: 1. convince them or 2. conquer them.

Or, as in China, that they should not go through a wanted pregnancy, because they already had their "one" that they are allowed

that's not popular soveriegnty, there. however, there too the makers of the law make it as they see fit. we disagree with them because we place rightful sovereignty elsewhere than a ruling cartel.

Or they wanted to revert whole-scale to every letter of the law in the Old Testament?

i seriously doubt you would ever get a supermajority of Americans to support that, but if they do.... :shrug: then the constitution remains available for amendment.