This afternoon, I tutored a student who was working on a paper that explored the relationship between civil laws and moral laws. Allow me to throw in my two cents: There isn't one.
There are some actions in some circumstances that are illegal, but morally right, and there are many actions that are legal, but morally wrong. However, I think that this may be as it should be. While I am loath to make it illegal for someone to follow their conscience, some people's moral compasses are badly demagnetized, and even if such people think it's morally justified to harm others, I don't mind forbidding them to do so. I also don't mind legalizing some actions that I believe are immoral. It's morally wrong to insult someone, but that should never be illegal.
While many civil and moral laws overlap, like the laws against murder, there still is, and perhaps should be, a strong distinction between civil and moral laws. Holding oneself to strict moral laws should be voluntary, never enforced, and while I would err on the side of freedom, there are some freedoms that should not be granted, even if they're considered by some to be morally just. Despite the overlap, civil and moral laws have nothing to do with each other, and since they exist for different reasons and are enforced in different ways, I think that that difference is probably a good thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment