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.

I am arguing against the idea that morality is a matter of personal choice or preference.

My question is aimed at those who feel that there are no moral absolutes.

Answer 1

morals are subjective obviously,,,, but the golden rule still applies. "do unto others as you would have done to you".

Answer 2

Moral codes are indeed personal -- either based on individual beliefs, cultural traditions or religious dogma.

However, it is still completely reasonable to have laws that limit conduct, even if those laws are not based on moral codes. And allowing people to practice their own personal morality only to the extent of not interfering with others is not exclusively a moral conclusion, and doesn't automatically disqualify the argument. Personal freedom can be justified as necessary for societies to grow and survive, which is a goal that can exist entirely independently of any moral framework.

For example, laws can be based on common consensus of what is considered harm to society, even where there may be many different moral codes in play. Or they can be based on secular philosophies, like utilitarian ethics. The last seems the most practical, in my opinion, since the former is little more than mob-rule (democracy is might-makes-right majority rule -- I prefer a more logical analysis).

Under a utilitarian model, something can be made illegal where it causes an objective harm to society. Injury to persons and property are easy explain -- because they cause instability in the community, and cut down on the productivity of the community -- and taken to the extreme they could eliminate the community entirely. Another example are laws that prohibit dumping of waste or pollution, because of the environmental harm, which again translates as harm to people and/or property. Thus, to protect the existence and functionality of the community, those actions are prohibited for reasons that have nothing to do with morality -- it's purely a matter of logical necessity for the community to continue.

The more difficult areas are behaviors that don't cause direct harm, which fall into two categories -- those which are not directly harmful but increase risk of harm, and those which are considered personally offensive (usually based on personal morality).

For the former category, that would include things like laws against speeding or drunk driving -- to reduce the risk of harm to others, these activities are prohibited. Those laws can be justified (though I personally disapprove of them) still based on a utilitarian ethics model.

The last category -- offensive actions -- drops us back into the are of legislating morality, even if indirectly. But a very shaky (and I feel, insufficient) argument can be made that actions which upset others can be considered a form of objective harm, because those actions cause social instability due to people's reactions to them. So, it's not a matter of regulating the conduct directly based on morals, but rather regulating the conduct based on the effect it has on other people.

That's the core approach -- regulating the conduct based on the effect it has on other people. The more direct objectively measurable harm, the easier it is to justify the laws purely on utilitarian (non-morality) grounds.

Answer 3

Enlightened societies recognize a distinction between private and public morality, as history has proven that if such limits are not placed on a government's powers it will inevitably lead to tyranny and civil unrest. You can have any moral standards you want and run your own life as you wish, but if you do anything that harms other people or violates their rights (ones which "the people" have collectively determined that everybody is entitled to), then it will necessarily escalate to a public matter and must be handled as such to maintain public order. To put it another way, all public legal issues ARE ultimately moral issues. It's just that the reverse is not always true.

Answer 4

What you're saying would be true, except that it's selfish. It doesn't take into account the reactions of other people. For example, even though you may have no moral qualms about robbing or murdering your neighbor, he'd certainly frown on the thought of letting you. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find many people who don't mind being robbed or murdered. Morality isn't just about what everyone wants for themselves, it's about what everyone else doesn't want for themselves too. Long ago it was theorized that if everyone agreed to treat eachother with respect, the world would be a better place for everyone. The concept has taken several forms; "What goes around, comes around", "Kharma", "Reaping what you sew", "Justice", etc,. Essentially, everything you DO impacts what HAPPENS to you. That kind of harmony has yet to occur, but it's a goal worth striving for.

Answer 5

You have the wrong definition of "morals" and "morality"...... It doesn't refer to "choice", it refers to acceptable behavior......

Check the following:

Definitions of morals on the Web:

ethical motive: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Morality is a system of principles and judgments based on cultural, religious, and philosophical concepts and beliefs, by which humans determine whether given actions are right or wrong. These concepts and beliefs are often generalized and codified by a culture or group, and thus serve to regulate the behaviour of its members. Conformity to such codification may also be called morality, and the group may depend on widespread conformity to such codes for its continued existence. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morals

ethics, the codes, values, principles, and customs of a person or society.
www.carm.net/atheism/terms.htm

Modes of conduct that are taught and accepted as embodying principles of right and good.
www.ethicsscoreboard.com/rb_definitions.html

The accepted standards of right and wrong that are usually applied to personal behavior.
highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072480823/student_view0/glossary.html

Answer 6

That your moral codes do not impede others' fundamental human rights.