Should laws be based on morals?

Question

Is it right to enact legislation that is based solely on the moral beliefs of the lawmakers, or even of society? My philosophy is that citizens should be free to do as they please, as long as their actions or inactions do not harm another citizen physically, emotionally, or financially.

For a little reading on the topic, check out the book "Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do" by Peter McWilliams. http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/toc.htm

Answer 1

i would like to know what you think should be allowed.

murder is based on morality and common sense. at one point in our history people were murdered just for the fun of it. i think morality had a role to play in their protection
slavery was an immoral part of our nation's history

there are many things. the answer to your question is yes.

if no, then what standard will we use to base our laws on.

Answer 2

No.

In a secular country, where there is no state religion, codes of behavior based on religious or personal beliefs should not be enacted as law.

The first problem is, what moral codes should we use. If we try to make the legal distinction between religious doctrine and personal or cultural moral beliefs, then we get into a position where the law has to determine what is or is not a valid religion. We don't want to go there.

All laws should have objectively definable goals, and valid interests that are being protected independent of any religious or moral justification. Almost all of our criminal laws work that way.

Murder kills a human life, and without human life society ceases to exist. Assault, battery, rape, all these harm people, which causes physical pain and interferes with the normal operation of society by taking people out of the workforce. Theft and vandalism cause property damage. And so on. Each of these is an objective measurable harm, independent of any moral consideration.

Now, if the person sponsoring the law has some additional reason, that's fine. I have no problem with a law serving both a secular purpose and a moral or religious one. Thus, if some people want to prohibit murder because the Bible says murder is a sin, that doesn't take away from the objective harm caused by murder. It just adds another reason for people to support the law. That's fine. But religion cannot be the sole (or even primary) reason to enact a secular law.

Not in secular society. Because if we don't draw that line, we end up where we're currently headed -- one religion that happens to be in the majority gets to impose its beliefs as a matter of law.

And that's precisely what this country was founded to prevent.

Answer 3

It's immoral and irresponsible to base laws solely on a lawmakers morality. That being said there is a morality/humanity that pervades every country and culture. In educated more literate societies a more complex belief system is applied to the ideas that Govern. In Arab countries killing an adulteress is morally right and legal. In the United States it's not accepted as right or moral. Although both countries agree on some level that adultery is immoral. There is no way one separates morality from legislation the challenge in more civilized cultures is to balance this with tolerance. Tolerance for differing beliefs within reason and a democratic system of governing help promote the advancement of legislation tolerant of a diverse society. There was a time when slavery was legal but when it threatened the unity of the nation it was better to rid the country of the practice then let the nation be divided. The President of that time and many great political leaders owned slaves and for them it wasn't a moral issue it was a matter of preserving unity of the nation as a whole. It's good for the nation that criminals who murder for sport and perversion are eradicated from society. The idea that all citizens can do what suits them and are good judges of what harms another is naive at best and grossly selfish at worst. Our jail system is an example of people doing what suits them. It suits the drug dealer to build his bottom line selling drugs to others who become addicted is this harming them if they consent to buy the product ? Is it hurting the addicts child who goes without so the addict can have that fix ? Most of us are unable to function without some form of Government in our lives. There are some things that should not be legislated, I'm a proponent of legalized drugs let the people have them legally. I think it's far more moral to let people make bad choices and live with the consequences then be a surrogate father to those who refuse to be held accountable. That's the problem with overzealous moral legislation if you make the rules your forced to deal with the outcome. If you make to many rules then the rules you make really lose any credibility when you can't enforce them. Classic examples a penal system maxed, a welfare system maxed and numerous other moral ventures by Government into the bedrooms or lives of it's citizens.

Answer 4

The law (in England) is based on morality but not SOLELY.

Morality is used when there is a clear-cut answer e.g. it is immoral to kill someone therefore it is easily illegalised.

Citizens are thus free to do as they please - if we had a world where law was not based on morality - it really would not improve the world but destroy it.

I think the question we need to discuss is about preventing those from committing the heinous crimes? Where is their moral education? Everyone needs morals. It doesn't need to be religious mores - just the distinction between right and wrong.

Answer 5

With Freedom comes responsibility. I am in favor of the Morals
being law. If we all went by the mainstream morals of society,
our world would be a better place in many ways. I am mainly
talking about criminals. They know they can abuse the system.
Statue of Limitations needs to be abolished. It makes no sense.
Example: If a priest molests someone twenty years ago, they
pay the price ( so to speak). They can be prosecuted by law.
However,....if a person decides that they want to prosecute their
offender, 5-10-15-20 years later, because they were afraid back
then. Forget it. Our system doesn't want to protect innocent
citizens who, let's say, the "law" wants them to be a witness &
testify against a criminal, the "law" won't protect them. So many
people have been killed because of this. As far as personal
stuff, everything needs to be weighed. Justice is Blind~~Alot.

Answer 6

I think the only laws that should be made are to prevent people from hurting someone else, and to protect children, seeing as kids have a tendency to be naive and well, stupid in the sense that they do stupid things. It's natural of course.

What I mean is that I agree with the fact you have to be an adult to buy or drink alcohol, Smoke cigarettes, buy porno. You know, classic coming of age things.

Murder, assault, theft,fraud,rape...these are somehow violating the rights of people.

The age limit laws for sex...well that's one of those touchy subjects that I simply say....Well until your 18 you don't go to jail. So you don't get to make all the choices you do when you are an adult.

I live with that.

Answer 7

You answered your own question. Morals are "doing the right thing". Protecting our basic freedoms and trying not to offend the sensibilities of others. Sometimes lawmakers are self-serving. Sometimes not. How about when they take a vote to decide whether or not to give themselves a pay raise? Ethical? Probably not. But we elected them.

Answer 8

Who are law-makers in Democracy ? They are representatives of people or in othe r words the maximum no of voters.Their beliefs would mirror the beliefs of persons they represent.hence they know what is moral according to the people. Laws enacted by such law makers would always be moral.

Answer 9

In a free society all should be free to choose there own beliefs so ling as they do not infringe on the rights of others...Our forefathers believed in these freedoms unfortunately few truly believe this way today.

Answer 10

This is a very difficult question to answer, it is philosphical and real world based at the same time.

Law are already based on moral, all punishment from jail to death penalty is moral revenge.

it is whose morals that is the true question.

i need a day to reflect on the issue there is no simple answer.