Aren't ALL laws the imposition of someone else's beliefs/morals/values?

Question

Whether it is who or what you may or may not marry, where and how fast you may drive, zoning regulations, building regulations, tax laws, etc. -- aren't ALL laws, rules, and regulations the imposition of someone ELSE'S beliefs/morals/values? Doesn't this render the cry, "you're trying to impose your beliefs/morals/values on me!" pointless, silly, and an overall poor argument?

Answer 1

The simple truth is that all civic law is legislated morality.
A nation of extreme believers in an amoral society would eventually pass some regulations or disappear at its own hands. Ironically, that would eliminate the amorality claim.

Answer 2

Not at all.

There are many laws that are simple common sense laws.

In this society - seat belts and child seats, but in a culture that does not have "cars" this would make no sense.

Another example zoning is for the protection of the populace - a manufacturing plant that has a high out put of excess poisons which could even under great safety hurt the people are not allowed to be in a residential area.

Morals are different in different places. What may float in NYC may not float in a conservative bible belt town. So the laws reflect the desire of the people. That is by the people and for the people - democracy. We are blessed to have a large and diverse country and we can leave or move to an acceptable area if where we are is unjust.

Taxes on the other hand is a pooling of money from the people to safe guard the people. Police, Fire, Roads, environment, and so forth. These may be to high or mis-spent but it is for the people.

Here is a site that has info that has been researched deeply that gives an idea of common or universal moral code:

Answer 3

You raise an interesting point. I see from the companion question that you are libertarian leaning. My suggestion is if you are deeply interested in this area to read some of the works by the late Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek. If you want the shorter material then look at "New Studies...", if you want the longer material, see the volume "Rules and Order" in the three volume book - "Law Legislation and Liberty".

The short answer to your question is that there are public liberties which conduce to the existence of wider spontaneous orders - such a markets - and these liberties to be effectually exercised have to involve mutual self-restraint on the part of others. The old statement that the freedom to swing my arm ends at the point where it would hit my nose.

These restraints have to be general and reciprocal and are discovered by the evolutionary process in relation to successful countries and systems. Marxism was an obvious and complete failure in an evolutionary sense.

On the other hand, there are private freedoms which exist because there is no attempt to curb them by the government, but which do not affect, except indirectly at most, those great public liberties such as those sustaining the market economy.

Traffic is a public liberty. People self-order and although there are some rules that people use that are prescribed, in reality people drive without using the statutory road rules. It s a spontaneous order. The reason that your speed limit rules was probably junked is that it is very hard for prosecutors to prove a violation. It would be expensive to record and keep the evidence.

On the other hand, praying in private to a different God from the one of which Mohammed was the prophet has often been a crime and still is today a crime. It is a private freedom that does not affect society generally and does not co-ordinate the conduct of others, like traffic rules. If people drove on any side of the road they wanted then the traffic would have to move very slowly.

In a free society, public liberties and private freedoms are respected. In a socialist State, public liberties are suppressed, but often private freedoms are permitted, as they do not affect other people and give the illusion of increasing freedom, when State control is - in fact - being extended. In societies that are heavily religious, it is quite possible for there to be a respect for public liberties that give rise to the market, but a suppression of private freedoms. Before the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in England, the Church Courts disciplined people for immorality - a bit like Massachusetts.

So I think that we can readily distinguish between rules that are reciprocal and universal (no special interest group exemptions) that protect the coordination of endeavor, which leads to benefits to all - private property, transfer of private property and the enforcement of promises AND the rules that deal only with private freedoms, so to that extent, it is possible to argue that a person is trying to impose his values on another, because it does not even affect him.

That having been said, a support for public liberties is a moral value, but there is a valid distinction between what directly affects you and what does not, but it is a hard line to draw in marginal cases.

As to marriage, I think that the old system in England until the late 19th century was the right one - different religious groups registered the births, deaths and marriages of their own groups and the State did not collect them together anywhere. The homosexual activist obsession with marriage would then just dissolve as an issue. It would be de-politicized. The marriage legislation should be repealed and the contracts of marriage entered by people should be enforced, preferably by private arbitration.

Hope this helps! You can look at the Laissez Faire Book website to explore these issues.

Answer 4

I have to stop at a red light, and drive through a green light. How is that related to morals and values? Did someone decide red is the right color for stopping based on morality?
All of us can think of laws that we don't agree with. Sometimes an unfair law is based on a lack of morality. There was nothing morally right about denying blacks the right to be free or the right to vote and yet they used to be laws. It is not a poor argument. Nobody should impose their idea of right and wrong on others, because the rule makers could very well be the ones who are wrong.

Answer 5

Whether it is/was purpose or not on your part, when you lump all laws together as you have, then you have create a 'black and white' (as in absolute) condition which is almost indiscussable.

There are many different kinds of laws--each with a purpose.

Some laws are needed to maintain 'good order' in a society; i.e., laws that punish and imprison those who rape, rob and murder for instance.

Other laws reflect the moral values of the/a majority--and these laws change as society change--so what is 'wrong' today may be 'right' tomorrow--and vice versa.

Many laws are simply unnecessary and, as you state are an imposition--but more towards 'forcing' one to 'be good'; or follow a rule that others believe is in their best interest to follow.

The general rule for ANY law is "maximum freedom with minimum restrictions".

However, we must also ensure that whether it be laws or actions of others--that they must not infringe on the freedoms of others--or the group--or the majority.

Here are some quotes on laws and freedom that may help those who are seriously interested in these topics:

http://www.freeread.com/archives/laws-quotes.php
http://www.freeread.com/archives/freedom_quotes.php

Regards,

Answer 6

Yes, you are right. Generally, laws are written based on what people think. Of course! But that's perfectly okay when we have the power to vote for or against the proposed law. That is our protection from the imposition of someone's faith/morals/values overtaking us and pinning us to the wall of their behavior. If we vote, we should have no fear. Besides, there are a very great many laws on the books that we can all agree whether atheist, christian, agnostic, buddhist, jew, gay, asian, black, latino, male, female, white: we can all agree on some basic laws on the governance of society. For example: we can all agree that murder should not be tolerated, and that there should be a penalty enforced for that behavior. Some laws must exist in order to keep chaos from wrecking society. And I do not fear an atheist or buddhist, or any other person I have any sort of theological or philosophical difference of opinion writing that kind of law. On that topic, I will applaud them for doing the right thing. And I don't fear when they oppose me either, as if it's the worst thing in the world... just vote! And then we don't have to worry about it. If we know we've done our part, we can be free do as as the bible says, "wherever possible, live at peace with all men." So yes, you are right, it exposes the cry of "you're trying to impose your beliefs/morals/values on me!" as an overall poor argument. Of course we are! That's what ALL interaction in a society is. The question is, what is the person who differs going to do about it?

Answer 7

Totally agree with PG here and most the other posts too. However,

Having a law passed through parliament, in civilised states, is not exactly a one person issue. It’s a very difficult and time consuming process. That don’t make it agreeable with everyone, and there will be those for, and against but not as you quote ALL. Perhaps you would consider all the laws, and there are quite a few, then return to your question; list all the ones you can live with, those you agree with, and those you don’t. Then add to that, those you can’t live with.

By the time you have completed just 1% of that challenge, you will realise the floor in your question and crawl back under your rock and, and wait for it,,,, Be well happy to be there!

Edx

Answer 8

There's quite a difference between traffic laws and marriage laws. Traffic laws are to protect the community; to keep people safe. Building/Zoning laws are also to keep the community safe as well. Tax laws, although unfiar at times, were initially put into place to benefit the community. All based on someone else's opinion? Maybe, but not a single one was implemented by a single person's decision.

Marriage laws are to protect tradition. Plain and simple.

Answer 9

Good point. Even those laws that appear to be 'natural law' and everyone can agree on generally tend to conform to Christian morals and principles. A common law, or natural law, tends to strengthen the argument for a common Creator otherwise the 'law of the jungle' would apply.

Cheers :-)

Answer 10

In a multi-belief secular democracy, it is unreasonable for any one religious view of morality to be ubiquitously enshrined in the legal system, one man's morality is too often another man's oppression. That is why we need to debate issues publicly and see if there is any good reason other than superstitious reasons for keeping certain legislation and laws that may be unfairly prejudiced or denying a minority it's civil rights and equality.