Question about laws based on morality?

Question

Barack Obama, in his book " The Audacity of Hope " said on page 218, " our law is by definition a codification of morality , much of it grounded in the Judaeo-Christian tradition . "

What are your opinions on that statement ?

I'll start the ball rolling with the comment that, although some may think this is true , and a good thing , I believe that our law must NOT be a codification of morality . It must be based on purely utilitarian reasons .

Any comments ?

Answer 1

We must have law against those acts that are transgressions against others; Theft, Murder, Fraud, property destruction, etc.

We must have laws against acts that are transgressions against the state: e.g. Not paying taxes, treason

We must have laws to ensure some level of order: Traffic laws, zoning laws, regulations, building codes, etc.

The big debate then is what of laws that are based on sin that don't meet the criteria above. Prostitution, drug use, co-habitation, gay sex, obscenity, blue laws, etc. Most of these do not belong in our statute books (and many have been removed or are not enforced) .

But there is an argument for some of them being on the books. Community standards contribute to an 'Orderly Society' and some of these laws would enforce the standard. Additionally, some 'victimless' crimes create secondary victims. For example, drug users sometime steal to get money to buy drugs. Making drugs legal does not resolve that issue.

The bottom line is that if codifying morality ensures justice, peace and order there is a place for it. If Codifying morality is just a mechanism for one group to control another, then there is no place for that.

Answer 2

I do not feel laws are based in morality. Laws are based on the greatest good for the greatest number of people or like you states utilitarianism. Everyone lives up to different codes of morals and while some might be the same you cannot base laws only on morality.
For example take abortion laws, it goes against some peoples morals, however, it is still legal to get abortions. Therefore, laws are made in a utilitarian view.
Here is a good saying morals are not always laws and laws are not always moral.

Answer 3

I would agree with the first half of his statement. Every law requires, permits or prohibits some action. Accordingly, those who make the laws have to decide certain courses of action are better than others. The purpose of law is to provide rules of action for the community. How could the law be morally neutral?

I disagree with the second half of his statement. Much of our law is based on English Common Law, law that existed before Christianity ever arrived in England.

Answer 4

Okay, beyond the moral implications, what do you feel the utilitarian reasons for murder laws are? Abandoning those could be useful to thin the weak from the herd. How about property laws? After all, if the thief truly needs the property more than the victim, isn't it more utilitarian to let him take it?

Answer 5

I rarely agree with Obama, but that statement is completely true. We protect in law what we value. There is no such thing as total freedom in a society. We decide what we value more and we limit what we don't. For example, we value life so we limit the freedom of a person to kill to protect the freedom to live. We value our sleep so we pass laws that limit the freedom of those to play loud music at midnight.

Our values are grounded in our morality. The rights the founders placed in the Constitution were rights they considered God given to every (well every white male at the time) human that was born into the US. They felt it was our God given right to have certain freedoms of speech and religion and protections. Those rights have been protected for all US citizens but pretty much every other freedom was to be determined by the local gvts, mostly at the state level.

When we vote on laws we vote based on our own personal morality and value system. There is no right in our society to smoke so local gvts and communities must either leave the issue alone or vote on where they wish to stand on those issues. If the society wishes to limit the freedom of smokers because they feel the freedom to be smoke free is more important then they have that right. Issues like prostitution where it pretty much is grounded purely in morality is, also, a state issue, in which we must decide at the local level, if we want to live in a society that protects the freedom to sell yourself for money since it is considered a "victimless" crime or if we want to limit that freedom to give others the freedom to raise their kids in a society where that is not ok or acceptable behavior.

I have no problem with letting local communities decide laws based on morality because what we find acceptable defines who we are. Noone has to live in any particular state or city. If you don't like the laws then you can leave. As long as our Constitutional rights are protected no matter where we move to in the US then I think local communitites can determine for themselves, based on their own moralities, what kind of community it is they want to create.

Answer 6

What utilitarian reasons would those be? I believe that he is correct in the statement that laws have been made based on morals. Good or bad, it is correct. I myslef am of a mind that no law restricting people should be made, unless it infringes on another's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness.

Answer 7

It should be based on , Truth , honesty , ,fairness and integrity.
Moral or not , there is a way to treat people and expect them to obey the laws of this nation .
Without laws there is insanity

Answer 8

utilitarian reasons? Imagine laws without morals.

machivellian?

anarchistic?

ignorant selfishness?

law of survival?

golden rule? (he who owns the gold makes the rules)

The Common Law did not form out of a vacuum. the commonality of what the people value necessarily place limits on the behaviors of others... the exact nature of what bahviors are governed and how remain malleable i.e. prohibition of alcohol in America.

Answer 9

true and more so regarding trials of accused defendents.

Our legal system is a travesty of one emotional appeal after another with little of it based upon scientific evidence - the laws should be the same but will always pretty much jive with any culture's moral code.

Answer 10

For whatever practical reasons why our laws are rejected or embraced, can we really make any judgment or decision in life apart from our own, innate moral standards? I don't think so. Even everyday, run-of-the-mill decisions are at least subconsciously sifted through our individual/and or collective moral compass.