Morals have no place in the law
In a current debate, people are trying to create a law that is mostly based on the morals of the public, angled in a very black and white way by the media. Based on their or a common opinion and taste. To ban something because it is against a common ideal.
I found a good comparison to make it more clear what exactly morals mean when it comes to laws. Say for example that we have a discussion group somewhere, on or off the internet, it doesn’t really matter. Now someone states his opinion here, and someone else replies that “You are so stupid and wrong, can’t you see that?!” and some other people might even go in and say “Yeah, can’t you see how stupid you are? You are so wrong!”. Without any real arguments other than subjective opinions, these are simply morals. The problem here is that the one stating his opinion might as well be right, but no one cares because he is a minority and the others are a majority. It is a democracy, but one based on emotions rather than facts.
When you call something wrong only because it is immoral, you are making a looping argument. If you have no actual facts other than subjective opinions and feelings, then you state that it is against your morals because it is against your morals. That it is wrong to you (immoral) because it is immoral. Morality is not a fact, it is a feeling and an opinion, which do most oftenly vary from person to person, from country to country and from culture to culture.
For example, this may be the topic in such a group:
Someone: “Homosexuals don’t hurt anyone, therefore I think we should leave them alone.”
Reply 1: “What, that’s so sick! It will lead to the downfall of our society!”
Reply 2: “Gross! He is probably a fag himself! Don’t listen to him!”
Now, the first reply here says it’s “sick” (personal opinion unless that person is an educated psychologist or similar) and that it will “lead to the downfall of our society”. These are examples of very common reactions to things that people think are “morally wrong”, regardless really to what topic it involves. Let’s take a look at “lead to the downfall of our society” – this means that the replyer thinks that letting homosexual people live their lives without interfering will destroy (or begin to destroy) the image he has of the society, that is, his ideal image of the society. The facts are that, in this case, homosexuals ARE part of the society, but he doesn’t want them to be. The “downfall of the society” is the “downfall of his ideal image of the society”, based on his personal opinions and taste. In other words, his morals. So, in his eyes, homosexuality is wrong (immoral), because it is immoral. A very immature way of reasoning.
The other reply in the example mentions that it is “Gross!” (also a very common response) which means more or less the same as saying that it is “sick” or “disgusting” or “revolting”, etc. Solely subjective opinions based only on personal (or common) taste. Then another very common response is this; “He is probably a fag himself!”. This is called a “witch hunt”. Unless you are one of us, you are one of them. A very black and white way of seeing things. If you don’t agree completely with us, then you are our enemy. Then we have “Don’t listen to him!” which is a continuation of the “witch hunt”, really. If you are our enemy, then you have no say. We are a democratic people, but anyone as “obviously sick” as you are have no respect from us. Condensed, that means that “we let everyone speak, but not those that don’t think like us“.
Now, we can take plenty of other examples here. Instead of “homosexuality” we could take “heterosexuality“, “zoophilia“, “being nude at home“, “transvestites“, “barefooting in public“, “eating tomatoes“, “singing in the rain“, or whatever, really. All fine examples; it depends on what group to which the discussion takes place and what the common opinion is there.
So, why then should morals have no place in the law?
Well, I am hoping that part of that answer is already clear to you after reading the text above.
A law is supposed to protect those subjects from harm that are directly affected by an event - not to protect others that have nothing to do with the event and are not directly affected by it. A law should not be made to protect one group’s ideal image of reality. A law should be based on actual facts, not popular feelings or taste.
Feelings, taste and morals are personal. They might be shared by many others, maybe even the majority of a group of people, but that won’t make them less subjective and it won’t turn them into facts.
This is what laws should be based on:
Facts, not fantasies.
Consistency, not double-standards.
Realism, not idealism.
Discussion Area - Leave a Comment