Opinion
Lab

See how this opinion breaks down by gender, political spectrum and generation — and who shares your view.

Gender

AGREEDISAGREE
Male
Female
Non-binary
Log in to see how you compare
Share to
https://www.parlia.com/o/legality-morality-are-same-thing

9 comments

For
Legality and morality are the same thing. However legality is the agreed morality of a nation rather than of a faction of a nation. Laws represent social bodies attempt, to have agreed, reasonable restrictions, practices and penalities, for defined interactions in society. If a law is unreasonable and does not represent what society or social bodies, considers reasonable, then there is pressure for it's revision or end. Morality is an attempt for individuals or societies to create codes of behaviour, which represent reasonable standards when interacting with others or things, or social bodies, in society. When I say "things" I can give for an example, burning a national flag. Some might say that there are times when burning a national flag in public is sometimes justified as a political statement, others might say it is always unacceptable. Some might call it is a completely immoral act others might say it acceptable under certain circumstances. Laws are subjective, and try to take into account ideas and notions that are social concepts such as: "fairness" and "right and wrong". All of these notions stem from our collective emotions and notions about the way the world "should work." Morality, while hotly debated, stems from our collective emotions and notions about social concepts, such as: "fairness" and "right and wrong" and the way the world "should work" Therefore morality and legality are identical, except legality is the collectively agreed morality of the country or body it represents. However legality is constantly evolving in its attempt to follow and get right, it's reflection of a country's or social body's, morality. Most of us live in democratic societies, so we should see legality as the democratically agreed morality of our country. As we adhere to democratic principles, we should have reverence for the laws and see them as the highest form of morality, as they are morals that have been collectively agreed. If we believe "democratic morality" = law, is presently unjust, we should try to bring them inline with morality. So legality and morality are identical, except that legality is a higher form of morality. Although there is sometime a time lag in getting the law right, once we have agreed, or attempting to agree, our collective morality.
··
Against
Nsoper194y ago
In my country it became illegal to burn certain types of coal last year. Nothing to do with morals but it is a regulation that is now there. Morals and law obviously have a lot of overlap but to suggest they are the same is totally crazy to me. When a speed limit on a road changes do people become more or less moral? You see the point?
··
I see your point but I don't agree. I imagine that the reason it is has been become illegal to burn certain types of coal in your country, is that there are problems with burning that type of coal. At a guess, the reason for not burning certain types of coal might be because certain types of coal are more ecologically damaging to the environment. To put ecology above the right to make profit with a certain type of coal, is a moral judgement, that many societies are coming to agree with. In essence the countries are coming into agreement that although we have the right to live in the here and now, profitably, we must have that right curtailed for survival in the future. This moral judgement is put into law via the stipulations of those in power. The law in this case stems from and is an agreed moral judgement. The speed a person drives down a road, given their right to get to a destination fast is agreed by all as a right. However that right has to be weighed in terms of safety. This estimation and the agreed driving limit could be called an agreed moral judgement that has been put into law concerning safety and the right to drive fast. The faster one drives without regard to safety, the more likely it is to be called an immoral act. For instance to drive down certain roads at 20 miles per hour at certain times of day (say when school children are leaving school) might be a matter of law. If one were to drive down that road, at 25miles an hour, some people might frown and say: "That's wrong". However to drive down that road at 80miles per hour at that time of day, some would say is: “outrageous and criminal". However because we all agree that it is reasonable to drive at certain speeds in certain areas, the law tries to reflect our morals. In the case of speed limits that is, safety for other road users must be taken into account, when exercising your right to get to a destination fast. The law estimates this speed according to our agreed morals about the subject. If people are getting knocked down on that road, or people are not getting to their destination fast enough then the speed limit may have to be changed to more adequately reflect the populations feelings concerning the moral priorities that are concerned with this law.
··
Nsoper194y ago
I think there is an underlying assumption on your part that something is moral only because the state legislates it as such? Otherwise I can't see how your argument makes sense?
··
That is not what my opinion says. My opinion is quite different. Perhaps you would like to reread my points? With respect, my points are clearly not how you have assessed them. There is no point me repeating them, when I have already stated them clearly.
··
Nsoper194y ago
Wow that was a very condescending thing to say. Nobody actually believes that morality and law are identical. Nobody does.
··
It is not condescending to ask someone to reread the points that have been made, so that they can respond to the points that have been made. Rather than suggest I should make a different point. My understanding of debating, is to explore positions/ideas by refuting the points that have been made by making points of your own that address the points that have already been made. This applies however much "you know you are right". No offense intended. I think I will not respond to anything else you write, incase this thread is lead away from the heading or it becomes personal, rather than a debate. Let's agree to disagree. I think we can agree however, that we are not getting anything positive out of this, such as exploring ideas. Respectively I wish you well. bye.
··
Nsoper194y ago
It is condescending because it assumes that I haven't read what you wrote - when I did. The fact that you made so many palpably false statements without evidence was what made it confusing but then suggested that the reason I didn't understand was that I didn't read them well enough. You said that "morals and the law were identical" which I contend is obviously wrong. My question to you was whether you believe that something is moral only when it becomes law. If they are "identical" then this *must* be the case.
··
ParliaMod4y ago
Clear disagreement here on the terms of the debate, but great to have stabilised and stopped before anything gets out of hand! Agreeing to disagree is ✅ 🙏
··
Sign up or log in to post a comment.
Are we missing an argument?
Make the case or invite a friend to comment!