If morals are a matter of personal preference than how can any legal limits on human activity be justified?

Question

Assuming that the personal morality theory is true, all law is an act of one person or a group of people imposing their ideas of morality on others.

The idea that one person's practice of their personal morality should not interfere with or harm others is itself a moral conclusion and disqualifies the argument that Morality is a matter of personal choice or preference.

Perhaps it is morally acceptable to me to rob my neighbors as long as I don't get caught (as is the practice in some Asian countries).

Maybe my moral code allows me to commit murder against someone who has dishonoured me (as is the case in many cultures).

Maybe I feel that it is morally responsible to lie and cheat to get the recognition I want even if it does mean that someone else is denied what they have earned.

What if my moral code allows me to beat up someone because I don't like how they look, where they live or their economic status.

Any question of right and wrong is ultimately a moral question. The creation of law is dependent upon the determination of right and wrong.

"Simply put, limitations on the behaviour of individuals has been determined to be in the best interests of society"

Who made this determination? Who gets to decide what is best for the majority and why is their moral judgement better than that of others?

Answer 1

Laws don't aim at enforcing morality, they aim for utilitarianism (what ever is best for the greatest number of people).

Answer 2

The premiss that morals are a matter of personal preference has been debated for thousands of years and is no closer to resolution now than it was in the days before Socrates. Nevertheless, a simple democratic or quasi-utilitarian answer might be the easiest to defend here.

Simply put, limitations on the behaviour of individuals has been determined to be in the best interests of society, so they have been imposed to protect the majority from the minority. Broadly, put, the utilitarian calculus just tries to assess what is the greatest good for the greatest number of people and legislates it.

It therefore ceases to be a moral issue and becomes a simple practical calculation. Of course, like everything else, the devil is in the details. The actual application of the calculus becomes problematic, but the aim is to benefit as many as possible and inconvenience as few.

Answer 3

You are asking quite a few question, but I'll stick to the main one.

"If morals are a matter of personal preference than how can any legal limits on human activity be justified?"

Based on the wording of your question, I'm going to define 'justified' as a state in which a legal system is perfect and beyond reproach. Namely that ones perfect adherence to said code would insure making morally correct choices 100% of the time. The way 'justified' it is used in the original question implies that system would also include ways in which to punish or coerce those who decide to not perfectly adhere to said code. These punishments or coersions would also be absolutely moral correct and their implementations would be absolutely morally correct.

To me, it seems that this question comes down to whether or not you believe in moral absolutism or relativism.

If you think that there is indeed an absolute right (correct) and wrong, then any part of that legal code that conforms to the absolute correct is morally right and justified, while anything opposed to absolute right is wrong and not justified. What you deem to be absolutely right and wrong would end up determining the ideals and methods of said legal system.

If there is no absolute right and wrong, then a legal code can't be justified under the definition I've given. The code would be based upon whatever the author or authors feels is prudent. If this code includes ways to enforce it, then these enforcements and the code itself would be presumably be justified to the authors, but not necessarily justified to to others.

Answer 4

Laws are set up with the idea of what is best for the majority of a society. With out them then anyone could do anything they wished regardless of what or how it effects someone else. For example here in America we have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As long as that pursuit does not violate another persons well being than it is OK. Note it does not say we have the right to happiness, just that we may pursue it. Laws are set up so that one group may not willingly violate another groups rights. I mean say someone in their 40's like girls or boys in their early teens, and wanted to engage in inappropriate conduct with them. To him he may feel that it is morally OK to do so. The moral code of this society does not agree, and he/she will have to answer to the judicial system for it. Why? Because one can argue that the child is not of the age where he/she can understand the consequences of their actions, even if they went along willingly. So yes laws are moral codes. They are codes that a society has set up to protect the other members of that group from any form of mistreatment or misconduct that another may feel is OK.

Answer 5

To answer your question, they can be justified through power. In the past, a ruler had enough power to make everything fit his own personal preferences. Now, through democracy, we've spread that power out so that most people get at least a little say- but it comes with a responsibility that if everyone else disagrees with you, you still have to support what they decide.

To help deepen your understanding of power and why power doesn't care about your personal morals. I'm a teacher and I kick kids out of class sometimes for a lot of different reasons. Almost always they argue that my reasoning is too weak to justify kicking them out of class. My reply is that it's not my reasoning that kicks them out, it's that I'm writing a short note on a piece of paper that they (God fearing) better take to the principle. Power escapes reason because reason holds no control over it.

Answer 6

Human beings evolved as social creatures. Survival was better gauranteed in groups so standards of right and wrong that tended to facilitate living in groups developed. People are not going to want to associate with and help someone they fear will kill them, steal from them and/or lie to them.
If human beings had been better suited to totally autonomous lives then maybe we would have developed a morality based on murder, stealing and lying (anything to get by as an individual would be considered moral.)

Not all morality is based on conscious personal preference. Much of it is sewn into our evolutionary history.

Answer 7

My best answer to this is, look at the Netherlands.

Now, if you're talking about "legal limits" to human behavior, here's a country that has legalized prostitution, controlled it, that allows the use of small amounts of cannabis, and the country has the LOWEST teen pregnancy rate on the planet!

That, and the country is a showplace, literally. The people take great pride in its appearance.

Something to be learned here...

Answer 8

Laws aren't created to protect morals. They're created to protect culture.

The defense of a culture, through laws, is frequently mistaken for defense of morality. But in reality, it's the other way around. Morality is actually a product of culture. It is an individual's way of contributing to and protecting his/her community.

As one's local culture changes, so does the morals and laws.

Think of culture as a large school of fish, swimming as one large cloud in unfamiliar waters. The school is the culture, the individual fish are morals and laws. Each individual contributes to the existance and actions of the school. Yet the school moves and changes with only minor affect from any given individual.

Answer 9

being a democratic society we are expected to share similar values and beliefs. when our ideas about these differ it is more or less held to an un-documented vote and therefore majority rules. as you stated in other countries (less developed we hope) things may or may not happen that would shock no less than 51% (being the least majority) on the civilized world.