What laws can be enacted completely separate from moral judgments?

Question

Even a law that requires drivers to follow rules of the road are based in a moral system. Here's the reasoning:

It is wrong to act in a way that could potentially cause the death or injury of an innocent other. (moral statement)

Absent of rules of order on the roads drivers will act in a way that could potentially cause the death or injury of an innocent other. (statement of fact)

Therefore, in order to protect innocents from unnecessary death or injury we should enforce rules of order on the roads. (Ethical statement)

Capt Weez

Traffic laws are procedural laws also.

The moral judgement is not in that one country's procedure is more moral than another country's procedure.

The argument is basically the same:

allowing unnecessary chaos in society is wrong. (moral statement)

Procedural laws help prevent unnescessary chaos in society. (factual statement)

Therefore, in order to prevent unnecessary chaos in society we should establish and enforce procedural laws. (ethical statement)

The same argument applies to all procedural laws although the type and level of chaos involved varies.

coragryph

Your argument relies on the premise that it is wrong to cause economic or logistical harm to the community.

Big Dawg

The answer to your question is that you won't make everyone happy.

As for morals you have three choices:

There are some thoughts and/ or actions that are absolutely right and others that are absolutely wrong (this does not mean that all decisions involve a moral delimma) we have naturally existing instict to recognize which is which. Because of this we are responsible for our actions and are fit to face the consequences of those actions. In this case laws are made based upon our knowledge of right and wrong.

There are some thoughts and/ or actions that are absolutely right and others that are absolutely wrong (this does not mean that all decisions involve a moral delimma). We have no naturally occuring knowledge of right and wrong (or we do but do not listen to it) and thus laws must be made by those who do have that knowledge.

Ideas of right and wrong are relative and thus we should not regulate morality (ie abolish all laws)

"You claim that allow chaos into society is morally wrong."

Please note that I did not make this claim. I stated it as a premise upon which the argument in favor of procedural laws is based. I in no way implied that I agreed with the premise. Nor am I now claiming to disagree with that premise.

Answer 1

Off the top of my head...
What about procedural laws that established standards? There is probobly a law that says gasoline must be measured in gallons, and that standard household electricity is 110 volts. Saying these regulations have a moral basis is a stretch. Is 220 volts or whatever they have in Europe immoral vs our 110? What about laws specifing the format for how our tv signal is broadcast. In Europe they use a diffrent system, nothing to do with morality, just standards.

In a bigger sence who's morals are we talking about? For instance is it more moral to have seperation of church and state? That's debatable.

Interesting question!

1) Prove that having different standards or lack of standards would cause harm to society.

---

What about bankruptcy? Where is the moral basis in letting someone skate on back debts they've legitimately accumulated?

Answer 2

Any valid secular laws can be enacted independently of moral judgments, based on objective measurable effects.

You claim death or injury of a person is morally wrong. Fine. But whether it is or not, it can also be described objectively without any reference to morality.

Our society, to function, requires people. Same with any community. Take away all the people, and the community breaks down. Injure many people and the community loses productivity, resources, skills. So, harm to people directly impacts the economic and logistical effectiveness of the community.

Property damage or theft also causes logistical and economic harm. Steal someone's car and they cannot get to work. Cannot go shopping to feed the family. Cannot contribute to society. Burn down their house and you displace them. Again, the community loses the resource, temporarily or permanently.

You claim that allow chaos into society is morally wrong. By what standard? Many religions and many moral codes believe that chaos is better than rigid structure. But even ignoring that, chaos that disrupts a society or impedes the normal functioning of a community causes an objective measurable harm.

So, independent of any moral considerations, we can impose most if not all of our current laws based on purely practical objective considerations.

The problem with using moral considerations as the basis for secular laws is figuring out which morals to use. Most moral codes are based on religious doctrine. So, are we going to start allowing the religion with the most people to define what is legal and what is illegal?

And trying to separate personal/cultural morals from religious morals is almost impossible from a legal standpoint. It gets the government back into the business of deciding what is a religious imperative and what is not, and which ones are valid. We don't want to go there.

The only alternative to a legal system based on religious doctrine, therefore, is to have legal system based purely on objective rational harms that can be measured by their impact on the functioning of society.

Anything else is a slippery slope down into theocracy.

Answer 3

Right on. But what morals and ethics do you make the laws by so everyone is happy?