It is good that you mentioned the NAP. More information can be found here: www.logicalhumanitarian.com/dont-confuse-legality-with-morality/ So, it`s out of the way. We know that we should be moral and that others should be too, and without a sense of morality, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for many people to live together. Now let`s move on to the questions that deal with the rules of morality and all the rules that determine human behavior. First of all, some terms need to be clarified. According to the letter to the editor “Reality and Morality” of 16.11.21, Mr. Thom seems confused by the difference between a “legal” argument and a “moral” argument. Legal arguments are based on laws/statutes, while moral arguments are based on an individual`s belief system. The legal arguments are objective; moral arguments are subjective.
Although Mr. Thom claims to base his positions on reason and law after being presented with objective legal facts highlighting the lies found in his earlier statements/letters, Mr Thom now seems to be aiming to shift the conversation to more subjective arguments by citing perceived “moral complexities” in a very fundamental legal issue. Ethics and morality are therefore not the same thing! A person is a legal person if it follows the legal rules. A person is immoral if he violates moral rules. A person is amoral if he does not know or care about moral rules. This is just one of the many mysteries about the relationship between the realms of legality and morality, but it indicates an important source of conflict and confusion. I can say that I disagree with the person in the clinical discussion who said that laws are the end of the story. There is more to it than that. What is the relationship between law and morality? They are NOT the same.
You can NOT equate the two. Just because something is immoral doesn`t mean it`s illegal and just because something is illegal doesn`t mean it`s immoral. There are certainly many laws that are moral in conformity (such as laws against initiation into violence), and acting in accordance with these laws is moral. However, following a law simply because it is a law says nothing about its virtue. In fact, the moral thing to do is often in total opposition to the law. For example, if a public servant refuses to comply with an order that would victimize an innocent person, he is acting outside his or her legal duties, but is acting morally. If we do the right thing, we do not need a law that requires us to do it. If a law requires us to take a step that we would not otherwise take on the basis of our own moral compass, there is a good chance that the law is not based on morality. The NAP, principle of non-aggression, is certainly a great place to start rebuilding imperfect morality. It`s a shame that many/most people aren`t familiar with this concept. Etiquette – rules of conduct relating to matters of relatively minor importance, but which contribute to quality of life.
Violations of these rules can lead to social censorship. Etiquette deals with rules for clothing and table manners and deals with politeness. Violations would lead to denunciations because they are rude, rude or rude. Friendships probably wouldn`t break for breaking these rules, as they would for violating moral rules, such as lies and broken promises! These rules are not only invented “by a bunch of old British latitudes”, as a student has already volunteered in class. But they are made by people to promote a better life. In all societies, there are authorities in this area and there are collections of such rules. Many books are sold each year to potential brides who want to follow the right rules of decency and etiquette. There are newspapers that regularly have questions and answers on these topics. Sociological: Without morals, a social life is almost impossible.
What is the relationship between morality and law? Well, if enough people think something is immoral, they will work to have a law that forbids it and punishes those who do. Things that are illegal but are considered moral (for many)! So this view takes us back to the beginning: even if we have a moral obligation to obey the law, to what extent do we have a moral obligation and when is it offset by our other moral obligations? Laws – rules applied by the company.