Mixing
Why are legal and moral responsibilities said to be different?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
In fact, it seems which laws are adopted depends on what ethical views legislators hold. Therefore it seems the answer on my question seems "no". At the same time moral responsibility is assumed to be distinct from legal responsibility. There is seemingly a contradiction here.
Elaboration on the first two sentences: Indeed, we can think that morally someone ought do something. Same thinking goes for legislators. But they have more power in their hands and they can make others act how they want. If you think other people are doing something bad, you could use some kind of force too. If you think someone is cruel to animals, you could use force to stop him do it. And it seems, lawmakers merely have more force, while anything else seems to be the same. A considerable part of lawmakers thinks some kind of action is bad and they produce means to reduce these actions. So, laws are a product of ethical values a small part of people (which is not even large enough to be representative and someone might argue against democracy) holds. And you simply respond to them, to their moral values.
How is this issue resolved? Or where am I wrong?
ethics political-philosophy philosophy-of-law
asked 1 hour ago
rus9384
1,0032418
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
In fact, it seems which laws are adopted depends on what ethical views legislators hold. Therefore it seems the answer on my question seems "no". At the same time moral responsibility is assumed to be distinct from legal responsibility. There is seemingly a contradiction here.
Elaboration on the first two sentences: Indeed, we can think that morally someone ought do something. Same thinking goes for legislators. But they have more power in their hands and they can make others act how they want. If you think other people are doing something bad, you could use some kind of force too. If you think someone is cruel to animals, you could use force to stop him do it. And it seems, lawmakers merely have more force, while anything else seems to be the same. A considerable part of lawmakers thinks some kind of action is bad and they produce means to reduce these actions. So, laws are a product of ethical values a small part of people (which is not even large enough to be representative and someone might argue against democracy) holds. And you simply respond to them, to their moral values.
How is this issue resolved? Or where am I wrong?
ethics political-philosophy philosophy-of-law
asked 1 hour ago
rus9384
1,0032418
"Therefore" suggests a logical relation between the first sentence and the second, but I do not see it. Ethical views legislators hold are not identical with ethics, and for that matter they have no ethical views as a group, so what they end up adopting is not what any of them holds. Ethics applies to how people should behave individually as well, and it is not enforced by a justice system, etc. So the answer to the title question is trivially yes, beyond that I do not know what is being asked, maybe read Law versus Morality as Regulators of Conduct.
– Conifold
48 mins ago
@Conifold, not everything is that simple. Probably you got used to definitions you have on your mind. But even more probably I didn't get used to definitions you have on your mind. If you think ethical position and ethics are unrelated, you are already making some presupposition I can disagree with. What they end up adopting is something two thirds (varies from country to country) of them agree to some degree.
– rus9384
38 mins ago
I am not sure what the rest is about but I agree with the first sentence. Which is why the title should be changed to something more cogent, and the text expanded to explain what is being asked.
– Conifold
30 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
In fact, it seems which laws are adopted depends on what ethical views legislators hold. Therefore it seems the answer on my question seems "no". At the same time moral responsibility is assumed to be distinct from legal responsibility. There is seemingly a contradiction here.
Elaboration on the first two sentences: Indeed, we can think that morally someone ought do something. Same thinking goes for legislators. But they have more power in their hands and they can make others act how they want. If you think other people are doing something bad, you could use some kind of force too. If you think someone is cruel to animals, you could use force to stop him do it. And it seems, lawmakers merely have more force, while anything else seems to be the same. A considerable part of lawmakers thinks some kind of action is bad and they produce means to reduce these actions. So, laws are a product of ethical values a small part of people (which is not even large enough to be representative and someone might argue against democracy) holds. And you simply respond to them, to their moral values.
How is this issue resolved? Or where am I wrong?
ethics political-philosophy philosophy-of-law
asked 1 hour ago
rus9384
1,0032418
In fact, it seems which laws are adopted depends on what ethical views legislators hold. Therefore it seems the answer on my question seems "no". At the same time moral responsibility is assumed to be distinct from legal responsibility. There is seemingly a contradiction here.
Elaboration on the first two sentences: Indeed, we can think that morally someone ought do something. Same thinking goes for legislators. But they have more power in their hands and they can make others act how they want. If you think other people are doing something bad, you could use some kind of force too. If you think someone is cruel to animals, you could use force to stop him do it. And it seems, lawmakers merely have more force, while anything else seems to be the same. A considerable part of lawmakers thinks some kind of action is bad and they produce means to reduce these actions. So, laws are a product of ethical values a small part of people (which is not even large enough to be representative and someone might argue against democracy) holds. And you simply respond to them, to their moral values.
How is this issue resolved? Or where am I wrong?
ethics political-philosophy philosophy-of-law
ethics political-philosophy philosophy-of-law
asked 1 hour ago
rus9384
1,0032418
asked 1 hour ago
rus9384
1,0032418
edited 4 mins ago
asked 1 hour ago
rus9384
1,0032418
asked 1 hour ago
rus9384
1,0032418
asked 1 hour ago
rus9384
1,0032418
1,0032418
"Therefore" suggests a logical relation between the first sentence and the second, but I do not see it. Ethical views legislators hold are not identical with ethics, and for that matter they have no ethical views as a group, so what they end up adopting is not what any of them holds. Ethics applies to how people should behave individually as well, and it is not enforced by a justice system, etc. So the answer to the title question is trivially yes, beyond that I do not know what is being asked, maybe read Law versus Morality as Regulators of Conduct.
– Conifold
48 mins ago
@Conifold, not everything is that simple. Probably you got used to definitions you have on your mind. But even more probably I didn't get used to definitions you have on your mind. If you think ethical position and ethics are unrelated, you are already making some presupposition I can disagree with. What they end up adopting is something two thirds (varies from country to country) of them agree to some degree.
– rus9384
38 mins ago
I am not sure what the rest is about but I agree with the first sentence. Which is why the title should be changed to something more cogent, and the text expanded to explain what is being asked.
– Conifold
30 mins ago
add a comment |Â
"Therefore" suggests a logical relation between the first sentence and the second, but I do not see it. Ethical views legislators hold are not identical with ethics, and for that matter they have no ethical views as a group, so what they end up adopting is not what any of them holds. Ethics applies to how people should behave individually as well, and it is not enforced by a justice system, etc. So the answer to the title question is trivially yes, beyond that I do not know what is being asked, maybe read Law versus Morality as Regulators of Conduct.
– Conifold
48 mins ago
@Conifold, not everything is that simple. Probably you got used to definitions you have on your mind. But even more probably I didn't get used to definitions you have on your mind. If you think ethical position and ethics are unrelated, you are already making some presupposition I can disagree with. What they end up adopting is something two thirds (varies from country to country) of them agree to some degree.
– rus9384
38 mins ago
I am not sure what the rest is about but I agree with the first sentence. Which is why the title should be changed to something more cogent, and the text expanded to explain what is being asked.
– Conifold
30 mins ago
"Therefore" suggests a logical relation between the first sentence and the second, but I do not see it. Ethical views legislators hold are not identical with ethics, and for that matter they have no ethical views as a group, so what they end up adopting is not what any of them holds. Ethics applies to how people should behave individually as well, and it is not enforced by a justice system, etc. So the answer to the title question is trivially yes, beyond that I do not know what is being asked, maybe read Law versus Morality as Regulators of Conduct.
– Conifold
48 mins ago
"Therefore" suggests a logical relation between the first sentence and the second, but I do not see it. Ethical views legislators hold are not identical with ethics, and for that matter they have no ethical views as a group, so what they end up adopting is not what any of them holds. Ethics applies to how people should behave individually as well, and it is not enforced by a justice system, etc. So the answer to the title question is trivially yes, beyond that I do not know what is being asked, maybe read Law versus Morality as Regulators of Conduct.
– Conifold
48 mins ago
@Conifold, not everything is that simple. Probably you got used to definitions you have on your mind. But even more probably I didn't get used to definitions you have on your mind. If you think ethical position and ethics are unrelated, you are already making some presupposition I can disagree with. What they end up adopting is something two thirds (varies from country to country) of them agree to some degree.
– rus9384
38 mins ago
@Conifold, not everything is that simple. Probably you got used to definitions you have on your mind. But even more probably I didn't get used to definitions you have on your mind. If you think ethical position and ethics are unrelated, you are already making some presupposition I can disagree with. What they end up adopting is something two thirds (varies from country to country) of them agree to some degree.
– rus9384
38 mins ago
I am not sure what the rest is about but I agree with the first sentence. Which is why the title should be changed to something more cogent, and the text expanded to explain what is being asked.
– Conifold
30 mins ago
I am not sure what the rest is about but I agree with the first sentence. Which is why the title should be changed to something more cogent, and the text expanded to explain what is being asked.
– Conifold
30 mins ago
add a comment |Â
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
Yes. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as an unjust law.
answered 1 hour ago
elliot svensson
1,89115
This can be just where two incompatible systems of values meet. Two groups of people can argue against each others' values. So, your case is when one group is a government and another group are citizens.
– rus9384
1 hour ago
What is an unjust law?
– elliot svensson
1 hour ago
(sorry, previous question "what is an unjust law?" directed @rus9384.)
– elliot svensson
1 hour ago
Are you asking me what is an unjust law when you yourself involved this notion here? Justice is related to ethics, primarily deontological ones.
– rus9384
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
The distinction between something like legal culpability, and something like moral guilt, can be made by observing the distinction between local laws, e.g., the laws of the early Romans, say under Numa, at Rome, and, on the other hand, a philosophic inquiry into the nature of Justice as such. The laws of Rome have to do with what is good for Rome. What is Just simpliciter, without qualification, is Just in itself. For instance the theoretical statement: that which makes human beings better is just. This is not quite the same as a distinction between the expedient thing, what gets something done at all costs, and the moral thing. Since doing what is largely considered morally wrong brings shame on the country, on the local entity, and therefore is not (as it were, truly) expedient in many cases.
The question of the ethics of the legislator's could read: the universal values, as established by the lawmaker's art, i.e, by Political Philosophy as conceived under the influence of Plato, is brought to the legislative process, to the political process. For instance, consider the issue of the Federalists in the American founding, and the Anti-federalists, they had different ultimate views about what the best regime (politiea, i.e., the subject matter of Plato's Republic) was. This had to be put into actually existing laws which did not perfectly agree with the ethics of either group. The issue is thus resolved by the political process de facto, but not in any way satisfactory to the ownmost convictions of those who hold with regimes of ultimate values.
This is all complicated by the notion of "deliberation", as opposed to dealing and deal making, the contrast between so-called Liberal Democratic government (as imagined, for instance, by James Madison or Thomas Jefferson), i.e., rational deliberations towards the "good of the whole", as against an interest politics (i.e., political process, which speaks of a"political branch" and names the Federal Legislature, Article III, or the Parliament in most countries other than America), which is de facto always in play and means a contest between factions involving compromise (or, stated honorificly, as it were, a "coalition government", where all are invaded by inconsistencies) rather than rational persuasion.
These two disjointed notions would be almost the same in a theoretically perfect situation of rational deliberation towards Justice, with the issue added on of the cleavage of the local and universal, amidst the rising sense in which all deliberation is not local, because one has constant dealings with and news from all parts of the planet.
Carl Schmitt is good authority on these issues as a start.
Note:
A deeper investigation would have to treat with the following difficulty: There's a question about whether the subject matter of the Euthyphro, holiness, the gods, which basically corresponds to the personal conscience, the native sense of doing something wrong, can be brought into harmony with a rationally derived statement of Justice, as in the Republic, or, at length, in Catholicism which becomes Universal Human Rights under the sway of the secularist age. There's a double contrast with the positive law, i.e., with the law on the books here or there.
answered 1 hour ago
Dwarf
68617
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Law is necessarily the same for everyone (within its applicability limits), while ethics can be personal, at least in some aspects. While laws stem from ethical views of the legislators, they become independent from them once they receive their legal status. When laws are applied, it shouldn't matter whether people applying the laws share the original ethical views or not.
answered 20 mins ago
Dmitry Grigoryev
1914
"Law is necessarily the same for everyone" Only within given jurisdiction. "while ethics can be personal" A moral universalist would argue otherwise."When laws are applied" When applied, ideally - yes, their application should not be based on personal prejudices. But when adopted?
– rus9384
17 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
In the most trivial sense, they are obviously distinct because morality does not disappear when you enter an area with no laws. Similarly, ones personal morality does not change as they move between countries, nor is it necessary that my morality is aligned with some particular body of law.
We can also look at instances which are simply outside of the law. If I lie to my wife about sleeping with another woman, I probably have no broken a law (in my home country, anyway), but I think we can agree that there is still a moral component to my lie.
"it seems which laws are adopted depends on what ethical views legislators hold."
Maybe, if they believed in a unusual moral code that equated morality and legality. Laws can be made which are completely independent of the morals of any legislator voting for it. For instance, perhaps the law is designed to help large corporations, and the legislators vote for it because the corporations gave them money. Is your assertion that such a law indicates that all of the involved legislators see creating this law as a moral action?
Law simply isn't a system for defining morality. It's a system for regulating the actions of members of a community. Some laws may be based on morality, some may be purely bureaucratic, some may in fact be immoral, and there are many moral issues which laws simply don't account for.
answered 6 mins ago
Harabeck
1011
New contributor
Harabeck is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
Yes. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as an unjust law.
answered 1 hour ago
elliot svensson
1,89115
This can be just where two incompatible systems of values meet. Two groups of people can argue against each others' values. So, your case is when one group is a government and another group are citizens.
– rus9384
1 hour ago
What is an unjust law?
– elliot svensson
1 hour ago
(sorry, previous question "what is an unjust law?" directed @rus9384.)
– elliot svensson
1 hour ago
Are you asking me what is an unjust law when you yourself involved this notion here? Justice is related to ethics, primarily deontological ones.
– rus9384
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
Yes. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as an unjust law.
answered 1 hour ago
elliot svensson
1,89115
This can be just where two incompatible systems of values meet. Two groups of people can argue against each others' values. So, your case is when one group is a government and another group are citizens.
– rus9384
1 hour ago
What is an unjust law?
– elliot svensson
1 hour ago
(sorry, previous question "what is an unjust law?" directed @rus9384.)
– elliot svensson
1 hour ago
Are you asking me what is an unjust law when you yourself involved this notion here? Justice is related to ethics, primarily deontological ones.
– rus9384
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Yes. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as an unjust law.
answered 1 hour ago
elliot svensson
1,89115
Yes. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as an unjust law.
answered 1 hour ago
elliot svensson
1,89115
answered 1 hour ago
elliot svensson
1,89115
answered 1 hour ago
elliot svensson
1,89115
answered 1 hour ago
elliot svensson
1,89115
1,89115
This can be just where two incompatible systems of values meet. Two groups of people can argue against each others' values. So, your case is when one group is a government and another group are citizens.
– rus9384
1 hour ago
What is an unjust law?
– elliot svensson
1 hour ago
(sorry, previous question "what is an unjust law?" directed @rus9384.)
– elliot svensson
1 hour ago
Are you asking me what is an unjust law when you yourself involved this notion here? Justice is related to ethics, primarily deontological ones.
– rus9384
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
This can be just where two incompatible systems of values meet. Two groups of people can argue against each others' values. So, your case is when one group is a government and another group are citizens.
– rus9384
1 hour ago
What is an unjust law?
– elliot svensson
1 hour ago
(sorry, previous question "what is an unjust law?" directed @rus9384.)
– elliot svensson
1 hour ago
Are you asking me what is an unjust law when you yourself involved this notion here? Justice is related to ethics, primarily deontological ones.
– rus9384
1 hour ago
This can be just where two incompatible systems of values meet. Two groups of people can argue against each others' values. So, your case is when one group is a government and another group are citizens.
– rus9384
1 hour ago
This can be just where two incompatible systems of values meet. Two groups of people can argue against each others' values. So, your case is when one group is a government and another group are citizens.
– rus9384
1 hour ago
What is an unjust law?
– elliot svensson
1 hour ago
What is an unjust law?
– elliot svensson
1 hour ago
(sorry, previous question "what is an unjust law?" directed @rus9384.)
– elliot svensson
1 hour ago
(sorry, previous question "what is an unjust law?" directed @rus9384.)
– elliot svensson
1 hour ago
Are you asking me what is an unjust law when you yourself involved this notion here? Justice is related to ethics, primarily deontological ones.
– rus9384
1 hour ago
Are you asking me what is an unjust law when you yourself involved this notion here? Justice is related to ethics, primarily deontological ones.
– rus9384
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
The distinction between something like legal culpability, and something like moral guilt, can be made by observing the distinction between local laws, e.g., the laws of the early Romans, say under Numa, at Rome, and, on the other hand, a philosophic inquiry into the nature of Justice as such. The laws of Rome have to do with what is good for Rome. What is Just simpliciter, without qualification, is Just in itself. For instance the theoretical statement: that which makes human beings better is just. This is not quite the same as a distinction between the expedient thing, what gets something done at all costs, and the moral thing. Since doing what is largely considered morally wrong brings shame on the country, on the local entity, and therefore is not (as it were, truly) expedient in many cases.
The question of the ethics of the legislator's could read: the universal values, as established by the lawmaker's art, i.e, by Political Philosophy as conceived under the influence of Plato, is brought to the legislative process, to the political process. For instance, consider the issue of the Federalists in the American founding, and the Anti-federalists, they had different ultimate views about what the best regime (politiea, i.e., the subject matter of Plato's Republic) was. This had to be put into actually existing laws which did not perfectly agree with the ethics of either group. The issue is thus resolved by the political process de facto, but not in any way satisfactory to the ownmost convictions of those who hold with regimes of ultimate values.
This is all complicated by the notion of "deliberation", as opposed to dealing and deal making, the contrast between so-called Liberal Democratic government (as imagined, for instance, by James Madison or Thomas Jefferson), i.e., rational deliberations towards the "good of the whole", as against an interest politics (i.e., political process, which speaks of a"political branch" and names the Federal Legislature, Article III, or the Parliament in most countries other than America), which is de facto always in play and means a contest between factions involving compromise (or, stated honorificly, as it were, a "coalition government", where all are invaded by inconsistencies) rather than rational persuasion.
These two disjointed notions would be almost the same in a theoretically perfect situation of rational deliberation towards Justice, with the issue added on of the cleavage of the local and universal, amidst the rising sense in which all deliberation is not local, because one has constant dealings with and news from all parts of the planet.
Carl Schmitt is good authority on these issues as a start.
Note:
A deeper investigation would have to treat with the following difficulty: There's a question about whether the subject matter of the Euthyphro, holiness, the gods, which basically corresponds to the personal conscience, the native sense of doing something wrong, can be brought into harmony with a rationally derived statement of Justice, as in the Republic, or, at length, in Catholicism which becomes Universal Human Rights under the sway of the secularist age. There's a double contrast with the positive law, i.e., with the law on the books here or there.
answered 1 hour ago
Dwarf
68617
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
The distinction between something like legal culpability, and something like moral guilt, can be made by observing the distinction between local laws, e.g., the laws of the early Romans, say under Numa, at Rome, and, on the other hand, a philosophic inquiry into the nature of Justice as such. The laws of Rome have to do with what is good for Rome. What is Just simpliciter, without qualification, is Just in itself. For instance the theoretical statement: that which makes human beings better is just. This is not quite the same as a distinction between the expedient thing, what gets something done at all costs, and the moral thing. Since doing what is largely considered morally wrong brings shame on the country, on the local entity, and therefore is not (as it were, truly) expedient in many cases.
The question of the ethics of the legislator's could read: the universal values, as established by the lawmaker's art, i.e, by Political Philosophy as conceived under the influence of Plato, is brought to the legislative process, to the political process. For instance, consider the issue of the Federalists in the American founding, and the Anti-federalists, they had different ultimate views about what the best regime (politiea, i.e., the subject matter of Plato's Republic) was. This had to be put into actually existing laws which did not perfectly agree with the ethics of either group. The issue is thus resolved by the political process de facto, but not in any way satisfactory to the ownmost convictions of those who hold with regimes of ultimate values.
This is all complicated by the notion of "deliberation", as opposed to dealing and deal making, the contrast between so-called Liberal Democratic government (as imagined, for instance, by James Madison or Thomas Jefferson), i.e., rational deliberations towards the "good of the whole", as against an interest politics (i.e., political process, which speaks of a"political branch" and names the Federal Legislature, Article III, or the Parliament in most countries other than America), which is de facto always in play and means a contest between factions involving compromise (or, stated honorificly, as it were, a "coalition government", where all are invaded by inconsistencies) rather than rational persuasion.
These two disjointed notions would be almost the same in a theoretically perfect situation of rational deliberation towards Justice, with the issue added on of the cleavage of the local and universal, amidst the rising sense in which all deliberation is not local, because one has constant dealings with and news from all parts of the planet.
Carl Schmitt is good authority on these issues as a start.
Note:
A deeper investigation would have to treat with the following difficulty: There's a question about whether the subject matter of the Euthyphro, holiness, the gods, which basically corresponds to the personal conscience, the native sense of doing something wrong, can be brought into harmony with a rationally derived statement of Justice, as in the Republic, or, at length, in Catholicism which becomes Universal Human Rights under the sway of the secularist age. There's a double contrast with the positive law, i.e., with the law on the books here or there.
answered 1 hour ago
Dwarf
68617
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
The distinction between something like legal culpability, and something like moral guilt, can be made by observing the distinction between local laws, e.g., the laws of the early Romans, say under Numa, at Rome, and, on the other hand, a philosophic inquiry into the nature of Justice as such. The laws of Rome have to do with what is good for Rome. What is Just simpliciter, without qualification, is Just in itself. For instance the theoretical statement: that which makes human beings better is just. This is not quite the same as a distinction between the expedient thing, what gets something done at all costs, and the moral thing. Since doing what is largely considered morally wrong brings shame on the country, on the local entity, and therefore is not (as it were, truly) expedient in many cases.
The question of the ethics of the legislator's could read: the universal values, as established by the lawmaker's art, i.e, by Political Philosophy as conceived under the influence of Plato, is brought to the legislative process, to the political process. For instance, consider the issue of the Federalists in the American founding, and the Anti-federalists, they had different ultimate views about what the best regime (politiea, i.e., the subject matter of Plato's Republic) was. This had to be put into actually existing laws which did not perfectly agree with the ethics of either group. The issue is thus resolved by the political process de facto, but not in any way satisfactory to the ownmost convictions of those who hold with regimes of ultimate values.
This is all complicated by the notion of "deliberation", as opposed to dealing and deal making, the contrast between so-called Liberal Democratic government (as imagined, for instance, by James Madison or Thomas Jefferson), i.e., rational deliberations towards the "good of the whole", as against an interest politics (i.e., political process, which speaks of a"political branch" and names the Federal Legislature, Article III, or the Parliament in most countries other than America), which is de facto always in play and means a contest between factions involving compromise (or, stated honorificly, as it were, a "coalition government", where all are invaded by inconsistencies) rather than rational persuasion.
These two disjointed notions would be almost the same in a theoretically perfect situation of rational deliberation towards Justice, with the issue added on of the cleavage of the local and universal, amidst the rising sense in which all deliberation is not local, because one has constant dealings with and news from all parts of the planet.
Carl Schmitt is good authority on these issues as a start.
Note:
A deeper investigation would have to treat with the following difficulty: There's a question about whether the subject matter of the Euthyphro, holiness, the gods, which basically corresponds to the personal conscience, the native sense of doing something wrong, can be brought into harmony with a rationally derived statement of Justice, as in the Republic, or, at length, in Catholicism which becomes Universal Human Rights under the sway of the secularist age. There's a double contrast with the positive law, i.e., with the law on the books here or there.
answered 1 hour ago
Dwarf
68617
The distinction between something like legal culpability, and something like moral guilt, can be made by observing the distinction between local laws, e.g., the laws of the early Romans, say under Numa, at Rome, and, on the other hand, a philosophic inquiry into the nature of Justice as such. The laws of Rome have to do with what is good for Rome. What is Just simpliciter, without qualification, is Just in itself. For instance the theoretical statement: that which makes human beings better is just. This is not quite the same as a distinction between the expedient thing, what gets something done at all costs, and the moral thing. Since doing what is largely considered morally wrong brings shame on the country, on the local entity, and therefore is not (as it were, truly) expedient in many cases.
The question of the ethics of the legislator's could read: the universal values, as established by the lawmaker's art, i.e, by Political Philosophy as conceived under the influence of Plato, is brought to the legislative process, to the political process. For instance, consider the issue of the Federalists in the American founding, and the Anti-federalists, they had different ultimate views about what the best regime (politiea, i.e., the subject matter of Plato's Republic) was. This had to be put into actually existing laws which did not perfectly agree with the ethics of either group. The issue is thus resolved by the political process de facto, but not in any way satisfactory to the ownmost convictions of those who hold with regimes of ultimate values.
This is all complicated by the notion of "deliberation", as opposed to dealing and deal making, the contrast between so-called Liberal Democratic government (as imagined, for instance, by James Madison or Thomas Jefferson), i.e., rational deliberations towards the "good of the whole", as against an interest politics (i.e., political process, which speaks of a"political branch" and names the Federal Legislature, Article III, or the Parliament in most countries other than America), which is de facto always in play and means a contest between factions involving compromise (or, stated honorificly, as it were, a "coalition government", where all are invaded by inconsistencies) rather than rational persuasion.
These two disjointed notions would be almost the same in a theoretically perfect situation of rational deliberation towards Justice, with the issue added on of the cleavage of the local and universal, amidst the rising sense in which all deliberation is not local, because one has constant dealings with and news from all parts of the planet.
Carl Schmitt is good authority on these issues as a start.
Note:
A deeper investigation would have to treat with the following difficulty: There's a question about whether the subject matter of the Euthyphro, holiness, the gods, which basically corresponds to the personal conscience, the native sense of doing something wrong, can be brought into harmony with a rationally derived statement of Justice, as in the Republic, or, at length, in Catholicism which becomes Universal Human Rights under the sway of the secularist age. There's a double contrast with the positive law, i.e., with the law on the books here or there.
answered 1 hour ago
Dwarf
68617
edited 55 mins ago
answered 1 hour ago
Dwarf
68617
answered 1 hour ago
Dwarf
68617
answered 1 hour ago
Dwarf
68617
68617
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Law is necessarily the same for everyone (within its applicability limits), while ethics can be personal, at least in some aspects. While laws stem from ethical views of the legislators, they become independent from them once they receive their legal status. When laws are applied, it shouldn't matter whether people applying the laws share the original ethical views or not.
answered 20 mins ago
Dmitry Grigoryev
1914
"Law is necessarily the same for everyone" Only within given jurisdiction. "while ethics can be personal" A moral universalist would argue otherwise."When laws are applied" When applied, ideally - yes, their application should not be based on personal prejudices. But when adopted?
– rus9384
17 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
Law is necessarily the same for everyone (within its applicability limits), while ethics can be personal, at least in some aspects. While laws stem from ethical views of the legislators, they become independent from them once they receive their legal status. When laws are applied, it shouldn't matter whether people applying the laws share the original ethical views or not.
answered 20 mins ago
Dmitry Grigoryev
1914
"Law is necessarily the same for everyone" Only within given jurisdiction. "while ethics can be personal" A moral universalist would argue otherwise."When laws are applied" When applied, ideally - yes, their application should not be based on personal prejudices. But when adopted?
– rus9384
17 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Law is necessarily the same for everyone (within its applicability limits), while ethics can be personal, at least in some aspects. While laws stem from ethical views of the legislators, they become independent from them once they receive their legal status. When laws are applied, it shouldn't matter whether people applying the laws share the original ethical views or not.
answered 20 mins ago
Dmitry Grigoryev
1914
Law is necessarily the same for everyone (within its applicability limits), while ethics can be personal, at least in some aspects. While laws stem from ethical views of the legislators, they become independent from them once they receive their legal status. When laws are applied, it shouldn't matter whether people applying the laws share the original ethical views or not.
answered 20 mins ago
Dmitry Grigoryev
1914
answered 20 mins ago
Dmitry Grigoryev
1914
answered 20 mins ago
Dmitry Grigoryev
1914
answered 20 mins ago
Dmitry Grigoryev
1914
1914
"Law is necessarily the same for everyone" Only within given jurisdiction. "while ethics can be personal" A moral universalist would argue otherwise."When laws are applied" When applied, ideally - yes, their application should not be based on personal prejudices. But when adopted?
– rus9384
17 mins ago
add a comment |Â
"Law is necessarily the same for everyone" Only within given jurisdiction. "while ethics can be personal" A moral universalist would argue otherwise."When laws are applied" When applied, ideally - yes, their application should not be based on personal prejudices. But when adopted?
– rus9384
17 mins ago
"Law is necessarily the same for everyone" Only within given jurisdiction. "while ethics can be personal" A moral universalist would argue otherwise."When laws are applied" When applied, ideally - yes, their application should not be based on personal prejudices. But when adopted?
– rus9384
17 mins ago
"Law is necessarily the same for everyone" Only within given jurisdiction. "while ethics can be personal" A moral universalist would argue otherwise."When laws are applied" When applied, ideally - yes, their application should not be based on personal prejudices. But when adopted?
– rus9384
17 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
In the most trivial sense, they are obviously distinct because morality does not disappear when you enter an area with no laws. Similarly, ones personal morality does not change as they move between countries, nor is it necessary that my morality is aligned with some particular body of law.
We can also look at instances which are simply outside of the law. If I lie to my wife about sleeping with another woman, I probably have no broken a law (in my home country, anyway), but I think we can agree that there is still a moral component to my lie.
"it seems which laws are adopted depends on what ethical views legislators hold."
Maybe, if they believed in a unusual moral code that equated morality and legality. Laws can be made which are completely independent of the morals of any legislator voting for it. For instance, perhaps the law is designed to help large corporations, and the legislators vote for it because the corporations gave them money. Is your assertion that such a law indicates that all of the involved legislators see creating this law as a moral action?
Law simply isn't a system for defining morality. It's a system for regulating the actions of members of a community. Some laws may be based on morality, some may be purely bureaucratic, some may in fact be immoral, and there are many moral issues which laws simply don't account for.
answered 6 mins ago
Harabeck
1011
New contributor
Harabeck is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
In the most trivial sense, they are obviously distinct because morality does not disappear when you enter an area with no laws. Similarly, ones personal morality does not change as they move between countries, nor is it necessary that my morality is aligned with some particular body of law.
We can also look at instances which are simply outside of the law. If I lie to my wife about sleeping with another woman, I probably have no broken a law (in my home country, anyway), but I think we can agree that there is still a moral component to my lie.
"it seems which laws are adopted depends on what ethical views legislators hold."
Maybe, if they believed in a unusual moral code that equated morality and legality. Laws can be made which are completely independent of the morals of any legislator voting for it. For instance, perhaps the law is designed to help large corporations, and the legislators vote for it because the corporations gave them money. Is your assertion that such a law indicates that all of the involved legislators see creating this law as a moral action?
Law simply isn't a system for defining morality. It's a system for regulating the actions of members of a community. Some laws may be based on morality, some may be purely bureaucratic, some may in fact be immoral, and there are many moral issues which laws simply don't account for.
answered 6 mins ago
Harabeck
1011
New contributor
Harabeck is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
In the most trivial sense, they are obviously distinct because morality does not disappear when you enter an area with no laws. Similarly, ones personal morality does not change as they move between countries, nor is it necessary that my morality is aligned with some particular body of law.
We can also look at instances which are simply outside of the law. If I lie to my wife about sleeping with another woman, I probably have no broken a law (in my home country, anyway), but I think we can agree that there is still a moral component to my lie.
"it seems which laws are adopted depends on what ethical views legislators hold."
Maybe, if they believed in a unusual moral code that equated morality and legality. Laws can be made which are completely independent of the morals of any legislator voting for it. For instance, perhaps the law is designed to help large corporations, and the legislators vote for it because the corporations gave them money. Is your assertion that such a law indicates that all of the involved legislators see creating this law as a moral action?
Law simply isn't a system for defining morality. It's a system for regulating the actions of members of a community. Some laws may be based on morality, some may be purely bureaucratic, some may in fact be immoral, and there are many moral issues which laws simply don't account for.
answered 6 mins ago
Harabeck
1011
New contributor
Harabeck is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
In the most trivial sense, they are obviously distinct because morality does not disappear when you enter an area with no laws. Similarly, ones personal morality does not change as they move between countries, nor is it necessary that my morality is aligned with some particular body of law.
We can also look at instances which are simply outside of the law. If I lie to my wife about sleeping with another woman, I probably have no broken a law (in my home country, anyway), but I think we can agree that there is still a moral component to my lie.
"it seems which laws are adopted depends on what ethical views legislators hold."
Maybe, if they believed in a unusual moral code that equated morality and legality. Laws can be made which are completely independent of the morals of any legislator voting for it. For instance, perhaps the law is designed to help large corporations, and the legislators vote for it because the corporations gave them money. Is your assertion that such a law indicates that all of the involved legislators see creating this law as a moral action?
Law simply isn't a system for defining morality. It's a system for regulating the actions of members of a community. Some laws may be based on morality, some may be purely bureaucratic, some may in fact be immoral, and there are many moral issues which laws simply don't account for.
answered 6 mins ago
Harabeck
1011
New contributor
Harabeck is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 6 mins ago
Harabeck
1011
New contributor
Harabeck is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 6 mins ago
Harabeck
1011
answered 6 mins ago
Harabeck
1011
1011
New contributor
Harabeck is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Harabeck is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Harabeck is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f55785%2fwhy-are-legal-and-moral-responsibilities-said-to-be-different%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
"Therefore" suggests a logical relation between the first sentence and the second, but I do not see it. Ethical views legislators hold are not identical with ethics, and for that matter they have no ethical views as a group, so what they end up adopting is not what any of them holds. Ethics applies to how people should behave individually as well, and it is not enforced by a justice system, etc. So the answer to the title question is trivially yes, beyond that I do not know what is being asked, maybe read Law versus Morality as Regulators of Conduct.
– Conifold
48 mins ago
@Conifold, not everything is that simple. Probably you got used to definitions you have on your mind. But even more probably I didn't get used to definitions you have on your mind. If you think ethical position and ethics are unrelated, you are already making some presupposition I can disagree with. What they end up adopting is something two thirds (varies from country to country) of them agree to some degree.
– rus9384
38 mins ago
I am not sure what the rest is about but I agree with the first sentence. Which is why the title should be changed to something more cogent, and the text expanded to explain what is being asked.
– Conifold
30 mins ago