Law and Morality

[CWL]

Is there a difference?

If so, what is it?

Should morality influence the law and vice versa?

Questions, questions, so many questions.

[Q-Source]

Quote:

Originally posted by CWL
Is there a difference?

No

Quote:

Should morality influence the law and vice versa?

It shouldn't but in reality there is a feedback relationship between them. Laws are completely determined by the society's morality. People decide what should be punished according to many socioeconomic factors and depending on the level of cultural development.

[CWL]

Quote:

Originally posted by Q-Source


No

Interesting. Why do you feel that there is no difference? One difference I could think of is that laws are formally sanctioned by the state whereas morality is not. Further, laws are (or should at least be) based on rational grounds (assuming we speak of secular democratic states) whereas morality is often based on emotional or historical/cultural grounds.

Quote:

It shouldn't but in reality there is a feedback relationship between them. Laws are completely determined by the society's morality. People decide what should be punished according to many socioeconomic factors and depending on the level of cultural development.

I agree. I also note that within that statement of yours lies a partial answer to my question above. I do not think that the relationship you mention can be eliminated, but I do feel that the legislative bodies could (and should) be more aware of it. I think a good idea would be to introduce more discussions on morality (and the rational grounds therefore, assuming morality can have rational grounds) in the legislative process.

[Q-Source]

Quote:

Originally posted by CWL

Interesting. Why do you feel that there is no difference? One difference I could think of is that laws are formally sanctioned by the state whereas morality is not. Further, laws are (or should at least be) based on rational grounds (assuming we speak of secular democratic states).

Wait there..., you mean that laws are not the result of society's moral values?

What do you understand by morality then?

Actually, what Laws do is to translate and interpret those actions that society condemns into the most objective and rational rules for everybody.

Who do you think decides what should be punished?

Quote:

I agree. I also note that within that statement of yours lies a partial answer to my question above. I do not think that the relationship you mention can be eliminated, but I do feel that the legislative bodies could (and should) be more aware of it. I think a good idea would be to introduce more discussions on morality (and the rational grounds therefore, assuming morality can have rational grounds) in the legislative process.

Again, what do you understand by morality?.

Laws against rape, murder and robbery are based on morality.

Q-S

[CWL]

Quote:

Originally posted by Q-Source
Wait there..., you mean that laws are not the result of society's moral values?

To a great extent I agree. However the legislation of modern democratic states is to a very much based on rational grounds in the sense that it is often the result of extensive research and of years of traveaux preparatoires. This is not the case for moral values.

Quote:

What do you understand by morality then?

Probably the same as you do. Would you care to venture a definition?

Quote:

Actually, what Laws do is to translate and interpret those actions that society condemns into the most objective and rational rules for everybody.

Again, to a great extent, I agree.

Quote:

Who do you think decides what should be punished?

In a democratic society based upon the rule of law, the courts and ultimately the pertinent legislative body. And yes, those bodies are made up of individuals, each of whom has a certain moral code. However, a great part of legal training is about learning to disregard one's individual morality when trying a case (although I must admit that this is unfortunately not always possible as the Law is full of "soft requisites" which are subject to interpretation).

Quote:

Again, what do you understand by morality?

See above.

Quote:

Laws against rape, murder and robbery are based on morality.

Q-S

Those are good examples of laws that are to a great extent based on morality - but also on rational and purely practical grounds. Would society function in a desirable way if rape, murder and robbery was permitted?

We should consider however that the Law of a particular legal system is much more than its penal system.

Can you say that laws regulating the stock market or daylight savings are based on morality?

[Ladewig]

Quote:

Is there a difference?


If so, what is it?

Yes. Slavery cannot be defined as moral yet 18th century laws permitted it. The systematic murder of a group of people based on religious beliefs, ethnic background, or political beliefs cannot be defined as moral, yet several 20th century countries legalized such practices.

[Akots]

If you kill yourself, or intend to kill yourself, there's not a whole lot the Law can do about it. Morally, however, it can be wrong to commit suicide (though, of course, not everybody shares that moral).

Actually, I'm gonna call myself on this one... ARE there any laws against suicide?

[CWL]

Quote:

Originally posted by Akots
If you kill yourself, or intend to kill yourself, there's not a whole lot the Law can do about it. Morally, however, it can be wrong to commit suicide (though, of course, not everybody shares that moral).

Actually, I'm gonna call myself on this one... ARE there any laws against suicide?

Well, at least there used to be. I am not aware of any state that imposes any penalty for attempted suicide. However my knowledge is very much limited to the jurisdiction in which I practive myself (Sweden). Given how suicide has been looked upon historically I would however not be the least bit surprised to find states who have laws against it.

I do for instance know that suicide used to be a criminal offense in England where the "crime" in question in fact led to the creation of the insanity defense. Suicide (or "self-murder" was a long considered a deed even more heinous than murder, punished by both ecclesiastic and secular penalties. The suicide was denied religious burial and his estate was forfeited to the Crown's Almoner.

I would argue that this was due to the common religious morality of the time, according to which suicide was a despicable act (not only against society, but against God).

[Tricky]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ladewig

Yes. Slavery cannot be defined as moral yet 18th century laws permitted it. The systematic murder of a group of people based on religious beliefs, ethnic background, or political beliefs cannot be defined as moral, yet several 20th century countries legalized such practices.

Ladewig makes a good point, but I think it mostly shows that laws and morality do not follow in lock-step. What a society calls moral can change rapidly, but the law moves more ploddingly. For many years slavery was not cosidered immoral. There are whole sections of The Bible dedicated to how to treat slaves. Only in fairly recent times has the morality changed. The laws changed some time after that (in the US).

But clear cut issues like murder, rape and slavery show a marked similarity between the laws and morality. When the issue is highly debatable, the morality issue is swept under the table in the wake of blatent self-interest. A good example of this is the so-called "marriage penalty" which was recently debated in the US.

The observation was made that a couple paid more taxes if they were married than if they were single, which was immoral because it encouraged people to cohabitate without the benefit of marriage. A closer examination of the actual tax code showed that this was normally only the case when both partners were earning very high incomes. The law that changed the marriage penalty was actually a way for high-income couples to avoid the progressive tax structure by putting each of them in a lower tax bracket. I know (from personal experience) that lower income people have almost always benefitted from marriage when it comes to taxes. The so-called "morality" issue was truly nothing more than a ruse to cover for naked self-interest.

[bjornart]

Quote:

Originally posted by Akots
If you kill yourself, or intend to kill yourself, there's not a whole lot the Law can do about it. Morally, however, it can be wrong to commit suicide (though, of course, not everybody shares that moral).

Actually, I'm gonna call myself on this one... ARE there any laws against suicide?

Don't know. But there have been: Suicide and the Law

The is certainly a difference between morals and law. At least in my opinion, which is what morals are, opinions. Everything that I consider immoral shouldn't be illegal, and vice versa. There might be people who's morals have a one to one relationship with the local laws, but they are undoubtedly rare.

[bjornart]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ladewig

Yes. Slavery cannot be defined as moral yet 18th century laws permitted it. The systematic murder of a group of people based on religious beliefs, ethnic background, or political beliefs cannot be defined as moral, yet several 20th century countries legalized such practices.

Of course slavery can be defined as moral, many slave owners undoubtedly did. I could make a case for keeping drug-addicts as slaves:

• They cannot run their own lives
• They are a burden to society if I do not control them
• Under my control they benefit society

A certain mind set would be required to believe this, but that is true of all moral judgements.

Edited before posting to add: Right, someone beat me to this as well. You're no fun anymore, posting smarter and sooner.

[Akots]

The most distinguishing feature of law above morality is that it's totaly, and completely quantifiable. It does require analasys and interpretation to cary out the Law, but morality has no such literal terms and practices. A Law is just a Morale that is enforced on a large group of people, hopefully for the benefit of that people.

You can be expected to follow your own morals, but you are obligated to obey other people's laws.

[BillyTK]

Law is the political authority to enforce a moral, so morality must come first to inform that law, and that is the difference between the two. However, law affects morality; new morals come into being as a (generally unintended) effect of law which then directs new laws. See for instance, the history of gun prohibition in the UK.

Umm... social construction of reality, anyone?

[Thanz]

Very interesting topic.

I notice that the focus of what people are referring to as the "law" is criminal law. There is (much to shanek's chagrin, I am sure) a huge body of law that is not criminal in nature, and it is much harder to make a moral case for some of the other laws.

For example, in Ontario there is a Bees Act. It regulates swarms of bees and their keepers. It does things like allow a beekeeper to enter your property if he is chasing his swarm of runaway bees.

So, I would say that the purpose of laws are for an ordered society. Morality certainly informs many of those laws, and indeed, what we conceive of as an "ordered society". Like many here, I agree that the law lags behind morality.

[Akots]

Quote:

Originally posted by Thanz
So, I would say that the purpose of laws are for an ordered society. Morality certainly informs many of those laws, and indeed, what we conceive of as an "ordered society". Like many here, I agree that the law lags behind morality.

Strangely, i don't think that people's ideas of what is right and wrong change as fast as laws on the subject... there is simply so much dissent, and so few morals that people can agree on unanimously.

I guess Law is man's attempt to document morality. Though law is decidedly more functional... building codes, rules for staging parades and public events, the right to distribute printed information... the morality of these things is simply that it is moral to obey the law, for the greater common good.

[Q-Source]

CWL,

Quote:

Would you care to venture a definition?

A common definition of morality is “a personal or social set of standards for good or bad behaviour and character, or the quality of being right, honest or acceptable".

Quote:

In a democratic society based upon the rule of law, the courts and ultimately the pertinent legislative body. And yes, those bodies are made up of individuals, each of whom has a certain moral code. However, a great part of legal training is about learning to disregard one's individual morality when trying a case (although I must admit that this is unfortunately not always possible as the Law is full of "soft requisites" which are subject to interpretation).

Yes, but who chooses the court and the legislative body?. Answer: common people.

It is not about the moral codes of those people who legislate, but the moral code of the whole society who chose to put those individuals in that position.
Of course, assuming that we are talking about a democratic nation.

Quote:

Me:
Laws against rape, murder and robbery are based on morality.

CWL
Those are good examples of laws that are to a great extent based on morality - but also on rational and purely practical grounds. Would society function in a desirable way if rape, murder and robbery was permitted?

It looks rational and practical from our points of view. Maybe in other times, stealing to the richest man in a town was morally valid.
I think that it all depends on how society’s morality changes over time. What we now call “rape” had another name in ancient times.
We still call “capital punishment” to a vile act of killing another human being.

Quote:

We should consider however that the Law of a particular legal system is much more than its penal system.

Of course, but it seems that in the penal system, morality has a stronger influence.

Quote:

Can you say that laws regulating the stock market or daylight savings are based on morality?

I don’t know, it could be possible.

For example, the stock market is determined by speculation, political affairs and credibility, among others. All of them are subjective issues, so there is a thin line between subjectivity and morality.

Q-S

[BillyTK]

Well, the thing with morality is that it can be about what you should do/who should do it as well as what you shouldn't do. Interestingly, certain prescribed practices outlined in the bible are the result of *problematic* interpretations of very specific cultural mores; for instance in the case of Onan (hence onanism) whilst popular interpretations of the bible see it as condemnatory of masturbation, it seems that the original moral is that it is wrong to indulge in certain practices to avoid impregnating your dead brother's wife when it is your duty to do so; not that indulging in those practices per se is wrong. But looking back over what I have writ, I can see why translators may have gone for the modified version!

Anyway--similarly with homosexuality; from what I understand the bible didn't originally ban the practice, but did say that it shouldn't happen in the matrimonial bed as this had special cultural siginificance.

I guess that Thanz's bee law would be based on some kind of moral that recognises the claim of the beekeeper over the bees, and also acknowledges that they are probably the best person for the job of bee-wrangling (is there such a thing?). But I also suspect that as we have the same law in the UK there's some association with the monarchy, possibly that all bees used to be "owned" by the king/queen (as in royal jelly?). But I digress...

[Ladewig]

Quote:

certain prescribed practices outlined in the bible are the result of *problematic* interpretations of very specific cultural mores;

Sodom and Gomorah is another example. The sin being punished is inhospitableness, not sexual license. Then, again, that's a weird story no matter how you look at it.

[CWL]

Quote:

Originally posted by Q-Source
A common definition of morality is “a personal or social set of standards for good or bad behaviour and character, or the quality of being right, honest or acceptable".

Ok. Let's work with that.

Quote:

Yes, but who chooses the court and the legislative body?. Answer: common people.

Sure (not entirely true as to courts for most systems), but I still believe that it is the morality of the people who are officers of the courts and legislative bodies that is most influential - this morality may or may not coincide with the morality of "common people".

Quote:

It is not about the moral codes of those people who legislate, but the moral code of the whole society who chose to put those individuals in that position.
Of course, assuming that we are talking about a democratic nation.

I don't think this is entirely true. The morals and ideals expressed during elections is something quite different to the decisions/problems politicials actually make/face when in office.

Quote:

It looks rational and practical from our points of view. Maybe in other times, stealing to the richest man in a town was morally valid.
I think that it all depends on how society’s morality changes over time. What we now call “rape” had another name in ancient times.

As you suggesting that one cannot diffrentiate between moral and practical/rational grounds?

Quote:

We still call “capital punishment” to a vile act of killing another human being.

In those states where "capital punishment" is still practiced...

Quote:

Of course, but it seems that in the penal system, morality has a stronger influence.

Not really. It is just that the media tends to focus on the penal system. For instance, it could be argued that many (some would say most) imporant principles within contractual law are based on moral grounds. Now, wouldn't you agree that a functional contractual law is necessary in order for a working market/society to exists?

Quote:

I don’t know, it could be possible.

For example, the stock market is determined by speculation, political affairs and credibility, among others. All of them are subjective issues, so there is a thin line between subjectivity and morality.

Well, I think you are stretching it a bit. Again - don't you agree that there can be purely pracitical/rational reasons for a certain rule as opposed to reasons based on morality (legislation regarding daylight savings being an extreme example).

[BillyTK]

Quote:

Originally posted by CWL

[...]don't you agree that there can be purely pracitical/rational reasons for a certain rule as opposed to reasons based on morality (legislation regarding daylight savings being an extreme example).

Just out of interest I'd suggest that all morals are based on practical/rational grounds (or practical/rational grounds relative to the culture which originated them) if you trace 'em back far enough; often a practical/rational consideration evolves into a moral through repetition and ritualisation.

[BillyTK]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ladewig


Sodom and Gomorah is another example. The sin being punished is inhospitableness, not sexual license. Then, again, that's a weird story no matter how you look at it.

You're not wrong there--especially with the twist where Mothra and Godzilla join forces to the save the day! Or am I getting confused again?

[CWL]

Quote:

Originally posted by BillyTK


Just out of interest I'd suggest that all morals are based on practical/rational grounds (or practical/rational grounds relative to the culture which originated them) if you trace 'em back far enough; often a practical/rational consideration evolves into a moral through repetition and ritualisation.

Interesting. I agree. The problem is that morality has the tendency to become irrational once it has lost its touch with its original practical/rational grounds and such grounds are no longer valid, due to changed circumstances over time.

One difference that can be discerned is that morality thus tends to be static (not in the sense that it does not change over time - because it obviously does - but because it cannot be changed with the stroke of a pen) whereas the law can be said to be more dynamic (legislation that proves itself to be bad in practice can be easily changed).

[Q-Source]

Quote:

Originally posted by CWL


Sure (not entirely true as to courts for most systems), but I still believe that it is the morality of the people who are officers of the courts and legislative bodies that is most influential - this morality may or may not coincide with the morality of "common people".

Of course, this is true in practice.

Quote:

I don't think this is entirely true. The morals and ideals expressed during elections is something quite different to the decisions/problems politicials actually make/face when in office.

Yes this happens in reality, but in theory it should not be this way.

Quote:

As you suggesting that one cannot diffrentiate between moral and practical/rational grounds?

I am not sure. There will always be a bit of morality on any rational ground.

Quote:

Now, wouldn't you agree that a functional contractual law is necessary in order for a working market/society to exists?

Yes, I agree. But you cannot separate law from morality, because ultimately the people who is deciding what is wrong or right have to use moral standards.

Quote:

Well, I think you are stretching it a bit. Again - don't you agree that there can be purely pracitical/rational reasons for a certain rule as opposed to reasons based on morality (legislation regarding daylight savings being an extreme example).

In the financial market, it is possible to make this distintion because, most of the decisions are based on statistics and mathematics. But the empirical data is provided by mere individuals' choices.

Now, why do you think that it is possible to make a distinction? How a law becomes a law?, what is the process it follows?

Q-S

[billydkid]

This is how I look at it, for what it is worth. Morality is a personal matter and should in no way enter into law. For example, while we may all agree that murder and rape and whatever else are morally abomidable, the reason they are and should be illegal is because they deprive another person of their civil and personal liberty. If you look at it that way there should be no confusion. The confusion enters which stick morality into the equation. My morality may not be the same as yours. Should you have to conform to my morality or me to your's? Morality is how we end up with all of these "vicimless crimes" - an oxymoron if ever there was - vice squads, what an asinine concept. Police squads who's it is to go out an enforce some peoples sense of morality on other people.

It you base all criminal law on the preservation of the rights of citizens to their lives, liberties and pursuits of happiness and on nothing else, I don't see where you run into trouble. Interject morallity and all you have is trouble. Some people have the notion that things should be illegal because they don't like them or don't approve of them. There are all sorts of things I can't stand. Can you imagine a world where everything I can't stand was illegal? Why should I or you or anyone else have to live in accordance with moral foibles of other people, so long as we are doing nothing to harm or interfere with another person? Take "morality" out of the equation - Mine is not the same as yours and yours is not the same as a million other people. Base laws and the preservation of each our rights to live and be free.

[Q-Source]

billydkid

Could you answer the same questions I asked CWL?

Quote:

why do you think that it is possible to make a distinction between law and morality? How a law becomes a law?, what is the process it follows?

I think that we must go to the beginning to understand how morality influences Law.

[billydkid]

Quote:

Originally posted by Q-Source
billydkid

Could you answer the same questions I asked CWL?



I think that we must go to the beginning to understand how morality influences Law.

I guess I believe, as did the founding fathers, that some truths are self evident and not really a matter of morality, per se. I suppose you could argue that human rights are a matter of morality. It is certainly immoral to deprive an individual of those rights. I guess I would have to say, that there is a "natural morality" that is not learned but it inherent in human beings. (not all of them of course, but I would argue that it is inherent in the sensibility of all normal human beings.)

I don't believe the inclination not to hurt (in both a broad and narrow sense) is natural in the human animal. I don't believe it is a conditioned inclination in general. I think of everything we generally call morality is, in fact, conditioned. I believe it is natural for human beings to empathize. I believe it is an evolved behavior.

I do not believe human beings (again, taken as a whole) are naturally disposed to harm each other under normal conditions. Therefore, I believe the laws that I believe are just spring from the natural inclination of humans to live and let live. Not all humans, mind you, but most humans. If it were not so, if cooperation were not evolutionarily part of our make up, mankind never would have survived. The morality I object too in the law is not the natural morality that is inherent in human beings, but that which has been supered on the animal.

[Q-Source]

Quote:

Originally posted by billydkid


I guess I believe, as did the founding fathers, that some truths are self evident and not really a matter of morality, per se. I suppose you could argue that human rights are a matter of morality. It is certainly immoral to deprive an individual of those rights. I guess I would have to say, that there is a "natural morality" that is not learned but it inherent in human beings. (not all of them of course, but I would argue that it is inherent in the sensibility of all normal human beings.)

Well, this is a moot point. I think that there are no self evident truths. We only change names to some actions that in other times were moral or ethical. In fact, as I mentioned before "capital punishment" is one of those acts where it is moral to deprive an individual of his most basic human rights.

In some countries, capital punishment is immoral.
That's why my objection.


Q

[c4ts]

Quote:

Originally posted by CWL
Should morality influence the law and vice versa?

Morality should influence the law, but Thucydides' account of the Melian dialogues says it doesn't.

[CWL]

Quote:

Originally posted by c4ts


Morality should influence the law, but Thucydides' account of the Melian dialogues says it doesn't.

Well, it is quite clear that it does. One excellent example is the anticipated changes in the currently prevalent doctrines according to International Law regarding aggressive warfare against other Sates.

Internaional Law as it has developed in practice and according to the treaties surrounting the UN appears to be based on two major principles - which IMO are incompatible:

1) Human Rights; and

2) The Sovereignity of the State.

The prevalent doctrine basically boils down to the unsatisfactory result that a regime may more or less commit whatever atrocities it desires against its own citizens without fear of (military) retribution therefor - just as long as the regime does not attack another State.

Hopefully, the latest developments (tragic as some of its elements are) will lead to a world order where any regime which does not adhere to the basic principles of Human Rights can no longer hide behind the doctrine of Sovereignity. Yes, I know there are also practical reasons behind the allied interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, but there is undeniably a moral dimension as well (which I personally subscribe to).

I would personally like to see a world where any regime's right to stay in power is conditioned upon adhering and safeguarding basic Human Rights and the Rule of Law. But that's just moral old me...

[c4ts]

Are you saying there really is no morality because the few who are in power decide what's moral and what isn't?

[CWL]

Quote:

Originally posted by c4ts
Are you saying there really is no morality because the few who are in power decide what's moral and what isn't?

Nope. I believe that there is an objective morality based on reason - golden rule and all that. Further there is an intrinsic morality in all non-psycopats which we have inherited through evolution. In the long run it is simply more rational to behave decently against our fellow human beings.

NB - I'm talking about a basic morality. Once we get into the details it is much more complicated (read "subjective"). I would argue that any "moral law" must be based on the basic principle of proportionality between the subjective interests of individuals versues indivuduals, individuals versues the State, certain collectives (corporations associations etc.) versues collectives, individuals versues collectives, etc.

Striking a fair balance between such interests - avoiding placing excessive burdens on individuals - is IMO what law is (or rather should be) all about.

In some instances - such as the Saddam Hussein regime - it could be argued that there is law (albeit corrupt law not based on the principle set forth above, but nevertheless - "law"), but very little morality on account of few who are (were ) in power. To this extent law is but a suborder - a consequence or function of morality (and/or the lack thereof).

[jimmygun]

Morality is a ghost, a figment. Morality does not stand on its own, it is the flavour of the day, the fad of the month or the pet rock of the week.

Laws are sometimes used to give morality body, to give it a physical dimension. It is not enough to know that if you live together without marriage you will be punished by god, you must be punished by man too.

I have said it before and will say it again, as an example...

It is not immoral of me to take a dump in your swimming pool. It is unhealthy, ignorant, frowned upon, illegal, dispicable, confrontational and all the other tags you care to put on it but it is not immoral.

Some laws grow out of a desire to force morality on others, most are from a desire to protect those that need protection, that they may operate within society.

[CWL]

Quote:

Originally posted by jimygun
It is not immoral of me to take a dump in your swimming pool. It is unhealthy, ignorant, frowned upon, illegal, dispicable, confrontational and all the other tags you care to put on it but it is not immoral.

Hmm.... Let's toy a bit with words here. It all boils down to how we define "immoral". If I were to argue that any actions opposed to the Golden Rule are immoral, then surely your dump in my pool must be categorized thusly?

[jimmygun]

Does the "Golden Rule" imply morality? I think not. I think it is a good guide line for getting along with others.

In biblical times pork was a no-no. Good idea to stay away from it because there was no way to preserve it and not run the risk of sickness. Another good guide line but hardly "moral"

[Christian]

I think that the main problem in this discussion is that there is no theoretical framework being used. Maybe if such framework were to be used, the discussion could get more focused.

There are basically four types of *norm* systems: Moral, religious, social, and judicial.

When someone says morality, they are referring to the first norm system. Clearly, that norm system is different from the other three.

Why are they different? All norm system have four characteristics/dichotomies. These are:

autonomous/heteronomous
interior/exterior
unilateral/bilateral
uncoercible/coercible.


The moral norm system is autonomous, interior, unilateral and uncoercible.

At the other end of the spectrum (the two compared are the ones that have the least in common) is the judicial norm system.

The judicial norm system is heteronomous, exterior, bilaterial and coercible.

According to legal theory, the judicial system *borrows* from the other three to add to its inventory, particularly from social and moral norms.

[c4ts]

Quote:

Originally posted by Christian
There are basically four types of *norm* systems: Moral, religious, social, and judicial.

At least he can seperate religion from morality, but I disagree that there are four norms. The "norm" system for a society of any kind is more like a kind of commie evolution, where the survival of the whole is placed before the survival of the individual, as the survival of a society depends largely upon its size (Civ. 2 players might say"no, its tech you fool!" but tech serves to increase population). Government arises when the few protect the many, but at the same time, morality arises as the structure of the ideal system which the society aims to achieve. Law exists in order for the society to remain intact, so the incorporation of the ideal will occur within law. Social and religious outcomes will typically serve law. Religion is either a set of mini-laws, or a political institution which is part of law. Social impacts come from how a society is governed. So we don't have four types of norm systems, we have two: law and morality. The two exist independantly from one another, which is why foreign policy is always so messed up.

[Christian]

c4ts wrote:
So we don't have four types of norm systems, we have two: law and morality. The two exist independantly from one another, which is why foreign policy is always so messed up.

You are mistaken. There are four norm systems. Let me give examples from the two you have omitted and that are clearly not legal or moral:

Three social norms:

1. For the party formal dress is required
2. Please turn off your cel phone in the class room
3. If you don't look cool, you don't get in the club.

Oh, one more. No women allowed at Augusta.

Three religious norms:

1. Pray
2. Read the Bible
3. Come to church to confess your sins to the priest.

[c4ts]

Quote:

Originally posted by Christian
c4ts wrote:
So we don't have four types of norm systems, we have two: law and morality. The two exist independantly from one another, which is why foreign policy is always so messed up.

You are mistaken. There are four norm systems. Let me give examples from the two you have omitted and that are clearly not legal or moral:

Three social norms:

1. For the party formal dress is required
2. Please turn off your cel phone in the class room
3. If you don't look cool, you don't get in the club.

Oh, one more. No women allowed at Augusta.

Three religious norms:

1. Pray
2. Read the Bible
3. Come to church to confess your sins to the priest.

Those aren't norms, that's public orthodoxy!

[Christian]

c4ts wrote:
Those aren't norms, that's public orthodoxy!

Let's get our definition straight. Norms are rules of conduct.

When you, I or anybody else speaks of morality, we are speaking of a particular set of rules of conduct: moral.

There are four classes of rules of conduct. See above.

Moral norms are moral rules of conduct.
Judicial norms are judicial rules fo conduct.
Social norms are social rules of conduct
Religious norms are religious rules of conduct.

[c4ts]

Quote:

Originally posted by Christian
c4ts wrote:
Those aren't norms, that's public orthodoxy!

Let's get our definition straight. Norms are rules of conduct.

When you, I or anybody else speaks of morality, we are speaking of a particular set of rules of conduct: moral.

There are four classes of rules of conduct. See above.

Moral norms are moral rules of conduct.
Judicial norms are judicial rules fo conduct.
Social norms are social rules of conduct
Religious norms are religious rules of conduct.

Then there are no moral norms. Morals aren't rules, they're an ideal by which rules can be made.