Can morality exist without law?

[Rabs]

What do laws have to do with anything. Are you saying that illegal = immoral, and legal = moral?

It is perfectly possible to act immoral without breaking any laws, as well as breaking laws without acting immoral. As I've said, laws are objective while morals are subjective. That's why it doesn't match.

The topic is whether to kill a man or not.

Laws were created, because humans have morals. BUT - (morals weren’t created overnight). Date back to the first humans... they did what they deemed to be beneficial for themselves, whether killing, or not.

You can't just base this on a certain timeframe..

 

[Schnell]

The topic is whether to kill a man or not.

Laws were created, because humans have morals. BUT - (morals weren’t created overnight). Date back to the first humans... they did what they deemed to be beneficial for themselves, whether killing, or not.

You can't just base this on a certain timeframe..

Sorry, but the topic is "Can morality exist without law". This subject is not entirely about murder.

Laws were created because humans have different morals. It was necessary to create a standard that most can agree upon. You just helped my point by saying morals came first, thanks for that.

 

[Rabs]

Sorry, but the topic is "Can morality exist without law". This subject is not entirely about murder.

Laws were created because humans have different morals. It was necessary to create a standard that most can agree upon. You just helped my point by saying morals came first, thanks for that.

Example: Would you kill a man if there was no laws stopping you? If not laws, then what is stopping you?

This is what I am basing my arguments on.


And laws aren’t a standard. They are boundaries and regulations. As well as the set guidelines by which that particular society follow. They are different around the world.

And for you to tell me that I helped you say morals came first - is wrong mate... Morals came at the time that laws were introduced.

How would you know if you are doing something which society deemed moral, if you didn’t know the good and the bad?

When the first laws were introduced..., it was then seen that humans, have this thing called 'morality'. Before this ‘morality’, humans acted upon instinct… then later developed to have understanding about others and other ideas. When this was realized… theoretically laws were introduced the same time.
I think that, something which was always with the humans, (which makes us different from other animals), is our ability to justify within reason. And our compassion and understanding for others, not just for ourselves. But, as stated above... This did not happen over night.

What is: ‘morally correct’ – was thought about by humans… the same that laws were.

 

[Schnell]

This is what I am basing my arguments on.


And laws aren’t a standard. They are boundaries and regulations. As well as the set guidelines by which that particular society follow. They are different around the world.

And for you to tell me that I helped you say morals came first - is wrong mate... Morals came at the time that laws were introduced.

How would you know if you are doing something which society deemed moral, if you didn’t know the good and the bad?

When the first laws were introduced..., it was then seen that humans, have this thing called 'morality'. Before this ‘morality’, humans acted upon instinct… then later developed to have understanding about others and other ideas. When this was realized… theoretically laws were introduced the same time.
I think that, something which was always with the humans, (which makes us different from other animals), is our ability to justify within reason. And our compassion and understanding for others, not just for ourselves. But, as stated above... This did not happen over night.

What is: ‘morally correct’ – was thought about by humans… the same that laws were.

How are laws not a standard? Because they are different around the world? Tell me one single standard that is the same all around the world.

I'll give you one example. Marijuana is illegal, and by some considered immoral. While others, even though they are bound by the same laws, see nothing wrong in it. That is because morals are different from person to person, even if they are affected by the same laws. Laws do not define what is moral because morals are different for each individual, while laws are the same for everyone (in the same area).

Do you follow every single law? I doubt you're so high and holy that you have never in your life broken a law and not felt bad about it.

 

[new user 1000]

Religion. And voluntary cooperation.

 

[megaman 2006]

No laws whatsoever? To me the word "law" encompasses all legal laws, social laws, and the laws we set for ourselves. Now if one is in a situation where one is all powerful; then I don't believe we would be moral. If we have nothing to fear and no reason not to do something we want, then I believe we'll do it. This is not reality however.

 

[Dr Lauftstein]

Instilled in all people is a basic compassion and caring for humanity. Attaining to your example, you would not kill a man if it was legal because you have respect for human life, as you have respect for your own life. However, to contrast this, if you have been instilled with a hatred for mankind due to life experiences or other influences, you may have lost reasonable morality.

 

[Arya]

Instilled in all people is a basic compassion and caring for humanity.

Untrue.

--

Anywho, uhm. Okay.
When we're born, as we are, we have no knowledge of anything. We are sponges. We have no moral instinct. It is purely savage[instinct], as is shown in many other animals, and can be immediately noticed in young humans. Actions/happenings throughout existing shape the moral part of our conscience. This is, obviously, related to laws.

Example. You grow up with society saying that murder is wrong. That is a CAUSE of moral shaping. Unless another CAUSE comes along, effecting it, your moral conscience will exist following the law that you have been told was true. In this sense, the event of you killing someone will be, in most cases, non-existant, because your moral p-o-v knows that society says it's wrong.

If, however, while you were still in the 'sponge' stage, and the society that you were in never stated that murder was wrong, the event of you killing someone without a heavy conscience, in any particular case, would be more than likely.

In other words, morality cannot exist without rule, simply because rule shapes morality, no matter what that rule may be.

You are not born thinking that life has meaning.

 

[wombakage]

Example: Would you kill a man if there was no laws stopping you? If not laws, then what is stopping you?

I believe this is a continuation of Robespierre's (the french revolutionary) arguement that vitrue cannot really exist without terror. i believe it can

 

[iDesignLogos]

This reminds me of "Lord of the Flies"
I agree with the book...

 

[TobyL65]

Morality acts as a template for Law so morality had to exist before any sort of laws.

 

[Arya]

Morality acts as a template for Law so morality had to exist before any sort of laws.

Without laws, morality, by any standard, cannot be formed.

 

[wombakage]

If you look at all the great societies of earth, all have a very defined legal system. I believe morality can exist without laws, but not very often.

 

[Arya]

If you look at all the great societies of earth, all have a very defined legal system.

I believe morality can exist without laws, but not very often.

Was there point in any 1 of these posts? Saying either of them would give lead to a discussion, but the two, essentially, contradict each other.

You give an example of how the greatest of societies have law, the 'greatest' being the 'greatest' because of it's citizens moral standpoints [I'm assuming], but then you go to say that morality can exist without law, contradicting what you implied about the laws of great societies.

Elaborate?

 

[Schnell]

Without laws, morality, by any standard, cannot be formed.

Define "any standards". I would say a lot of animals have morals. Protect kids, don't kill own flock, etc.

 

[Alex k]

The only reason morals are in existence is to help keep the law under control IMO.

 

[Kristian4th]

When you think about it, the Law is based on moral.

 

[tipsytoto]

When you think about it, the Law is based on moral.

I'm guessing that was initially the idea, but one can hardly make a blanket statement in regards to laws like that in modern society.

That being said, I do believe morality can exist without law, for laws would never have come about without moral intervention of some sort. The idea of putting a rule into effect for public welfare immediately shows signs of morality. That being said, I can hardly expect the vast majority of people to act morally without laws, and with modern tech, it's just too dangerous to live in a society without law, as one person can do immense damage...