It seems like some people tacitly accept the first one.
2007-11-18 12:26:57 · 10 answers · asked by Burt Navarro 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
In reality, it's a little bit of both.
You have "mala in se", which is latin for "evil in itself" and "mala prohibitum", also latin, for "evil because prohibited."
We have some laws, like those against violence, that are examples of "mala in se", meaning that normal people don't need a law to tell them it is wrong to bash someone over the head with a brick.
However, there's clearly nothing about running a stop sign that any religion would consider a "sin", and in the absence of an accident, no one would attribute any moral significance to the act. It's considered bad (by whoever considers it so, judges, police, insurance companies) because it is against the law, not because it's evil.
You can't legislate morality, but a sound legal system can protect the average person from those whose morality doesn't pass the "what would it be like if everyone did it" test.
2007-11-18 12:48:53 · answer #1 · answered by open4one 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Most people have no moral foundation. Society trains us from infancy using praise so that our behavior will be acceptable. By the time we're adults, our conscience is just a set of trained feelings. This is not morality.
Since there is no foundation other than feelings, laws can change their moral opinions by changing what society teaches.
Morality is based upon a higher moral authority and that has to be God. Otherwise, it's just someones (or some groups) opinion.
2007-11-18 21:54:52 · answer #2 · answered by Matthew T 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Laws based on morals. That's how the current ones were created, anyway.
2007-11-18 12:30:28 · answer #3 · answered by Eisbär 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
One law that was based on "morals" that I can think of were the laws forbidding interracial dating. Some people think it is immoral to have extramarital sex and then lie about it and I agree. However next to creating fear and using lies to invade an unarmed country that posed no threat to the U.S. I think killing thousands of innocents is a tad worse. From a moral point of view that is.
2007-11-18 12:48:47 · answer #4 · answered by Michael S 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
All of the really fair, just and good laws are based on morals. However, Some laws just show how ditsy the lawmakers are.
2007-11-18 12:44:03 · answer #5 · answered by Herb W 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Our laws are mainly based on morals. I think they should stay that way.
2007-11-18 12:30:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Morals are a priori. Therefore, laws cannot precede morals.
2007-11-18 12:35:10 · answer #7 · answered by Doctor J 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
first comes morals then laws
2007-11-18 12:30:40 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends if the country is run by Democrats or Republicans. Big difference in morals.
2007-11-18 12:31:30 · answer #9 · answered by Robert J 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Sometimes one wonders.... and ask "They needed to make a law for *that!*"
2007-11-18 12:36:03 · answer #10 · answered by lordkelvin 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋