Law vs Moral

I've constantly been reminded of how laws are used in contrast with morals in politics and in society. Two event I've heard about have distinctively reminded me of this.

The first was something from the Taiwanese news. A young women was led away by a man and the man had sex with her. The man was caught and brought to trial for rape. At first, I thought It's not rape if the woman was willingly led off by the man and did not resist. It seems that the woman had some sort of mental illness and her parents claim that she was not have been responsible for her own actions; the man had taken advantage of her, knowing she was ill. Three judges ruled that the man was not guilty based on

• The woman was willing
• Because she was willing, the women cannot file rape
• Rape by legal definition did not occur.

The judges were later called to have been stiff and cold-hearted.

In the end many people were upset because according to law, nothing illegal happened. It is plain as day that he purposely took advantage of the woman yet by technicality of law he was a free man.

I understand that other factors such as if mental illness should be count as liability would turn up but we're going to set aside that as the above was on example.

The second story was from a course on First Nations or Native North American history. The argument was basically should the present government be responsible for faults they had done in the past. Issues such as land claims and treaties and the assimilation of Indians. By law, all land claims were legal as they were all documented and surveyed. Treaties were all agreed upon and accepted by both parties. Assimilations were issued official and by law and not by the general public. However, the land claims were argued as unrightful; the the treaties were unfair and abused; and the assimilations harsh, racist and not right.

That was another example of how something by law was okay but by just and moral values to be seen as bad.

I continued to think about the controversy between what is right and what is legal and I noticed a hypocrisy. Politicians usually side with the people with unrealistic and ideal moral mind-set. This brings in votes and popularity and is what usually results in disappointment once they get elected.

I personally think that anything technical by law should be right as I have a low moral value. However, that doesn't mean that the law shouldn't be changed to be able to apply to ethical issues.

What are your thoughts on this?

 

I think that of course the laws should be followed but judged on a more moral basis, and in the first story it was the girl's choice and the correct decision was made.

 

Morals are usually based on personal preference and are not very universal. Feelings and opinions should not get involved with the law as the law should stand at a neutral point of view of what is right despite what is fair. Laws should account for what is just but not be judged upon a moral opinion.

 

Law doesn't usually side with morality, but what is more beneficial toward society. Good examples would be drug prohibition, the death penalty and abortion. Drug prohibition impedes on my civil rights, but many people vote to keep drugs illegal solely based on the harm it might cause others (which is entirely untrue btw). The death penalty may be morally incorrect to many, as you are basically playing the role of god and deciding if person X should be murdered, though others view it as positive as society will no longer have threats from this person in any circumstance, (etc. Whatever the situation is). Abortion is an obvious one aswell. Pro-lifers argue that it's morally wrong as you are basically killing a child, while pro-choicers may argue it is not a child and it is a great advancement that may help society and it's problems.

It's a hard topic though, as morals vary from person to person.

 

But that's the thing. Should it? Most of the example you pointed out says it is not.

 

There is no definitive right or wrong for laws/morals, it all depends on the situation.

Most times they come into agreeance, but there is times when they clash (You listed them above) moral is unbiased, the law after all is the law meant to be followed; if it wasn't broken then their should be no consequence besides the (morally) guilty conscience of the person(s) accused

Post didn't come out as well as it did in my head >_> Hope it makes sense

 

Right and Wrong are entirely subjective. Every person has their own set of beliefs, independent of the law. I know some people who think it's all right to steal pirated movies and the like, and others who think it's a wrong thing to do. Morals are so subjective, that laws shouldn't be based on them at all, rather on what is best for society (or the government - sometimes I think the only reason murder is illegal is because the government doesn't want to lose the tax money).