Should the level of social moral outrage dictate laws?

[Slytovhand]

Just a thought, given another topic...

Should the 2 - morals and laws - coincide? Or is there some reason why not?

[HYHYBT]

Generally speaking, no. Limiting activity that directly harms others (murder, theft, fraud, etc.) isn't the same, and beyond that it's nobody's business... and it's not like we all agree on the details of what is and isn't moral anyway.

(OK, not the best first response, but someone had to and they'd probably post something similar anyway.)

[fireheart17]

The problem in this case, is that for some, the line is very unclear. And the other thing to add in that case, is that not all laws would be passed straight away since te jury tends to be out in most cases!

[Ghel]

It is our shared morals that determine the law. It is immoral to kill, steal, rape, etc. The reason it is immoral is that it causes harm to others.

There is another area where morals are fuzzy. We don't all agree, so we don't make laws about them (at least, in the US). That's why, for example, many people consider BDSM immoral, but we don't have laws against it (or if we do, they aren't enforced). I think where we should draw the line is if something causes harm to others. If something cannot be shown to cause harm to anybody, for example same-sex marriage, then I see no reason to ban it.

[Greenday]

Laws are already based on the majority's morals. Is that right? No, because as we can clearly see, a lot of people have some really messed up morals. But because they are the majority, there's little we can do about it.

[BlaqueKatt]

to quote my favorite movie:

"Do not kill, do not rape, do not steal, these are principles which every man of every faith can embrace.
These are not polite suggestions, these are codes of behavior and those of you that ignore them will pay the dearest cost. "

[Greenday]

to quote my favorite movie:

"Do not kill, do not rape, do not steal, these are principles which every man of every faith can embrace.
These are not polite suggestions, these are codes of behavior and those of you that ignore them will pay the dearest cost. "

Name one thing you're going to need rope for.

[BlaqueKatt]

Name one thing you're going to need rope for.

Charlie Bronson always has rope.....

[ladyneeva]

In my opinion laws should not be based only on morality, in order to be something which should have a civil law that all people of all faiths must follow, there has to be actual demonstrable harm done to someone. If you cannot demonstrate how an action has harmed someone in this world without reliance on religious dogma, then there should not be a law forbidding it.

Of course that presumes we are talking about a country that has civil laws, not a theocracy where all laws are based on a religious group's teachings.

[gremcint]

We already base punishment on moral outcry, the more heinous the crime the more likely it will receive a larger sentence and the less heinous the more likely to receive community service.

Not always but it does happen.

[Fryk]

I think the real division should be between morals and religious dogma, not morality and law. After all, there is a difference between "Killing someone indiscriminately is wrong because it hurts not only the victim, but the victim's family, and society in general." and "Same-sex marriage is wrong because my holy book says it is." I would argue that the moral stance is quote number one, not quote number 2.

[Slytovhand]

Query: Why is it (possibly seen as) a more heinous crime to sexually abuse a child than to murder them? The former certainly has a much bigger stigma attached to it. Yet, for adults, it is (to a certain extent) reversed.

Also, do some of those thoughts therefore indicate that countries where the law is quite different, the citizens are less moral?

[jackfaire]

This is something I have spoken about for years. Harm law is law based on the level of provable harm to others.

One of the issues with some of our laws is that we are trying to make it illegal for people to engage in behaviors that might hurt themselves.

This is hypocritical when we say things like, "You can jump out of a plane for fun and hope your parachute opens but we will arrest you if you smoke a joint"

We have laws that are on the books because someone decided it was against their beliefs and got a bunch of people to agree.

[BlaqueKatt]

Query: Why is it (possibly seen as) a more heinous crime to sexually abuse a child than to murder them? The former certainly has a much bigger stigma attached to it. Yet, for adults, it is (to a certain extent) reversed.

because a large number of childhood sexual abuse victims grow up to be abusers themselves, or have very serious mental issues. And while adult victims do still have issues, they are usually not as severe, due to several factors.

Childhood abuse usually goes on for years before it's reported, if it gets reported at all(children can be manipulated easier than most adults, into not reporting the abuse).

Counciling for childhood abuse survivors usually takes years to undo the mental damage that was done, as the abuse took years.

Abused children are in a way more of a drain on society as society pays the costs for foster care, medical care, and psychological care.

[jackfaire]

Childhood abuse usually goes on for years before it's reported, if it gets reported at all(children can be manipulated easier than most adults, into not reporting the abuse).

Counciling for childhood abuse survivors usually takes years to undo the mental damage that was done, as the abuse took years.

Also, and yes from personal experience, if your male and finally come out about your abuse a lot of people will tell you to suck it up and move on even though if you were female they would take it seriously.