someone once said that altho law and morality overlap it is not neccesary for law to have a moral content.wat?
452431
read "The Prince" by Nicolo Machiavellli
285224
Laws are subjective.  Laws are a GUIDELINE to live.  Some laws aren't specific because legislation to pass specific laws either gets caught up in red tape or the person who submitted it for review didn't give enough proof that their point should be made into a law.\n\nMost laws DO protect you and your property.  But for every minute action there has to be a minute law to cover it and there are just too many small actions. (minute = small)
335128
For me, and this is just my perception, morals have a basis in religion. The Jewish 10 commandments, for example, constitute a moral code. Ethics on the other hand are derived from sources out side religion. You might derive a moral code from philosophy, science, or any number of other things. I, personally, do not consider myself to be "moral" because I'm not religious. I do however have an ethical standard that I try to live by. I derive my "code of ethics" from what I think of as a simple Universal Principle (This principle also defines the subject for me.) ... Cause and effect. I do a thing. That's the cause. That causes a sort of chain reaction that culminates in the result or effect. So I consider that I can pretty much do what ever I want so long as I'm willing to accept and live with the consequences. Which thing makes me stop and think before doing a thing. So I tend to act rather than re-act. That works pretty good for me. I usually end up treating the other person the way I'd want to be treated, accepting things as they are, just letting some things pass (I mean, how important is it ... Really?), etc. So ... For what its worth, that's my take on the thing. And it works well enough for me. ~ Peace & Blessings ~
648681
it is immoral but not illegal
1061093
Because morality is a matter of choice. Physics is not.
716380
I am a conservative but I am here to tell you that you cannot legislate morals. It is just not going to happen. The problem I see with our society today is that we are taking away personal responsibility. When people are not held accountable for their actions morality will indeed suffer. I think this is not a conservative or liberal problem, but rather a societal one. We are allowing our children to drown themselves in video games and endless hours of television. We spend less quality family time and expect the schools to teach morality, but at the same time hamstring their ability to enforce discipline in our classrooms. Rather than address behavioral problems we now medicate them. The list of problems goes on and on. Just blaming one side or the other is useless when what we really need to do is come together in the name of finding common sense solutions.
1032275
I think you make some interesting points - words definitely have limitations for the definer and the interpretter.  Its always a rhetoric game and only real thieves hide behind definitions to justify their actions.  As for morality - this is not a truth - it is a social norm - and each society determines what is or isn't moral based on their level of consciousness.  As long as we are trapped in words - we are limiting our consciousness.
870561
If I didn't believe in God, or in a divine being with laws, what would motivate me to be good?\n\nWhere does morality come from in the absence of God? Would moral laws be designed just for the avoidance of chaos? What would be the point of doing good unto others if you got nothing in return?\n\nSociety itself would crumble into anarchy if no one believed.
1157963
You need to clarify your question.  Civil law has several meanings.  It can mean the opposite of criminal law, or it can mean the opposite of English common law.  In neither of those settings, however, are there four widely known "assumptions", so your question lacks meaning in this form.  Provide more information or, if the question comes from a textbook, consult it for whatever assumptions it claims exist.  Try your question again with more detail and context, and I'll bet someone will get you an answer.
212192
legal is system is merley that legal regulations, has nothing to do with morality.
448662
A law makes no specification about whether others are present, and so the law has been "broken." I like to use a sociologist's point of view, so I would say that a law is just a very formal norm; as such, since you are not really acting in society, I would say that the law really has no bearing. You could argue that learned behavior should generalize to when you are alone, but this does not have to be the case.
489660
Its quite possible that one thing may be illegal, but not necessarily immoral.  Whether or not there's a set definition of what is right and what is wrong isn't the question, but each individual's perspective on any given matter could be slightly, or entirely, different.  Therefore, who's to judge if something is bad just because it is illegal, or vice versa?
1049102
Grace(not law) unto you, and peace(not division),\nfrom God our Fathe and the Lord Jesus Christ.\n\nThe law is not of faith: Gal 3:12\n\nRe: children, the exhortation is:\n"Forbid(law) them not"\n(Mt 19; Mk 10; Lk 18)\n\nFor law is spiritual, but it's spiritual abuse.\nAnd the law is good, but it is also evil.\nDiscern(avoid) both good and evil.\n\nLaw worketh wrath: Rom 4:15\nWe are delivered from the law: Rom 7:6\nWe are to put away wrath(law): Eph 4:31\nGod hath not appt'd us unto wrath(law): 1Thes 5:9\n\nThe "grace" of our Lord Jesus Christ with you all. Amen.
623449
A Rabbi once said something like:\nIt is possible to use the law to interpret the law.\n\nParaphrased from memory:\n • Thou shalt not kill.\n • Whosoever lays with another man's wife... they shall both be stoned to death.\n\nDepending on your interpretation, is it even possible to follow both laws?\nWhich one has primacy?\nIs it possible that the latter rule made more sense when mankind was on the edge of survival?\n\nAgain paraphrased (and probably poorly):\nIf a law in the Torah offends you morally, it is your duty to judge it with the law.\nIf you do not agree with the law but it does not offend you morally, then preference should be to obey.
19397
"Something nonexistant.\n\nThere is no love between animals, only survival."\n\n^\n|\nI don't have an answer, but I have to say, this answer quoted is crap.  Just because something is abstract, or because something serves a purpose doesn't mean it doesn't exist.\n\nThat's like saying:\n"There is no law between men; only survival."\n\nWell, a law is not a physical thing that you can put in your pocket, and it is abstract.  It also happens to serve a very useful peupose, but that does not mean that it is the purpose, which is just as abstract anyways.
1083359
Absolutely.  Everyone believes that morality comes only from religion.  This is not the case.  If anything, nonreligious morality is superior to religious morality and here's why.\n\nNonreligious morality is a code followed because it is the right thing to do.  People have morals because they know that it really is what is best for them.\n\nReligious morality carries a sanction for disobedience.  People don't follow the speed limit because they know it to be safer.  People follow speed limits to avoid the punishment for speeding.  (A ticket in this case.)  People obey religion because of the punishment for not obeying, not for the positive good it does for them.
684910
Absolutely not. Morality is a religious issue. \n\nGovernment should legislate based upon practical concerns and objective goals. Murder should be illegal because it causes violence, which disrupts the ability of society to function, and because it interferes with the victim's personal rights. It shouldn't be illegal because "only God can kill". Likewise, communications with a clergyman should be privileged because it serves the social goal of people seeking emotional help (same as a psychologist), and government has an interest in people being rational rather than having emotional breakdowns. Confessions are not legally privileged just because they are sacred in some religions.\n\nMost people don't actually take the time to figure out WHY something may be wrong or bad. Religions and/or politics simply tell them something is bad, and they just accept that conclusion without question.\n\nOnce you look at WHY something is bad, then the answer becomes clear. If it's bad because it interferes with a person's rights to life and liberty, or because it results in property damage, or because it harms the environment thus affecting the health of the community, or because it increases the risk of car accidents -- those are identifiable objective practical goals that are valid for the government to enforce via laws.\n\nIf it's bad because God made it a sin, or because your moral upbringing told you so, or because good people shouldn't do that -- those are not valid reasons to pass mundane laws. Granted, those may be moral reasons why you should choose not to do something. But the government should not not be dictating religious or moral beliefs, let alone attempting to enforce them.