Should We Have Laws Despite Lawbreakers?

[joe1776]

Your assessment is vastly over-simplified.

Morality is actually quite complicated and nuanced, which is why our species has incessantly disagreed with each other about moral issues for our entire recorded history. Certain fundamental principles, like fairness, tend to be pretty universal in our moral reasoning, but its precisely the application of that principle where the rubber meets the road and people disagree. Thus, again, the need for codified standards to organize society.

Secondly, people do things that are morally wrong without guilt all the time. Examples are so obvious I don't even feel the need to cite one. Thus, again, the need for codified standards to organize society.

David Hume, about 250 years ago, thought that moral judgments were feelings (Intuition). Kant thought they were products of reason. Most philosophers and theologians agreed with Kant. Social scientists now are supporting Hume's position.

The muddled morality mess that you point out happens because most of the reasoning has been made based on the false premise that moral judgments are the product of reason.

"All knowledge begins in the senses." So, if we can't see, hear, smell or taste the difference between right and wrong, we must FEEL it. Our reasoning minds would know absolutely nothing about morality if we couldn't feel the judgments of conscience.

 

[joe1776]

Some of our moral reasoning is surely post hoc rationalization, no doubt. The idea that all our moral reasoning and behavior can be characterized that way is, again, vastly over-simplified.

Reasoning has a useful function in making moral judgments (not just post hoc justification). But MOST moral judgments are the product of moral intuition and the reasoning that follows is post hoc.

Abstract
Research on moral judgment has been dominated by rationalist models, in which moral judgment is thought to be caused by moral reasoning. The author gives 4 reasons for considering the hypothesis that moral reasoning does not cause moral judgment; rather, moral reasoning is usually a post hoc construction, generated after a judgment has been reached. The social intuitionist model is presented as an alternative to rationalist models.

Jonathan Haidt, The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail - PhilPapers

 

[Left Coast]

David Hume, about 250 years ago, thought that moral judgments were feelings (Intuition). Kant thought they were products of reason. Most philosophers and theologians agreed with Kant. Social scientists now are supporting Hume's position.

The muddled morality mess that you point out happens because most of the reasoning has been made based on the false premise that moral judgments are the product of reason.

How did you determine this is a false premise? Some moral judgments are the product of reason; I should know, I've made them.

"All knowledge begins in the senses." So, if we can't see, hear, smell or taste the difference between right and wrong, we must FEEL it. Our reasoning minds would know absolutely nothing about morality if we couldn't feel the judgments of conscience.

We can rationally recognize that something is immoral even if we don't personally feel guilt about it. Sociopaths, as an extreme example, are capable of acting morally despite lacking the feelings of guilt others do when they do immoral things.

 

[Left Coast]

Reasoning has a useful function in making moral judgments (not just post hoc justification). But MOST moral judgments are the product of moral intuition and the reasoning that follows is post hoc.

Abstract
Research on moral judgment has been dominated by rationalist models, in which moral judgment is thought to be caused by moral reasoning. The author gives 4 reasons for considering the hypothesis that moral reasoning does not cause moral judgment; rather, moral reasoning is usually a post hoc construction, generated after a judgment has been reached. The social intuitionist model is presented as an alternative to rationalist models.

Jonathan Haidt, The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail - PhilPapers

I can't read the paper, but it makes an interesting point. Doesn't change the need for laws to govern societies, but fascinating hypothesis regardless.

 

[Stevicus]

Countries all around the world have laws which their citizens break all the time. Here in the US, we have speed limits which, truth be told, I may have violated myself once or twice. This goes on even with the most serious, uncontroversial laws - people commit murder and rape every day as well, despite it being against the law.

So since criminals are just going to commit crime anyway, should we even have any of these laws at all?

We often hear this line of reasoning from the Right when the conversation is about gun control. In fairness, I also hear this from folks on the Left when talking about abortion, or the drug war.

In my view, this reasoning is overly simplistic and requires some nuance. First, while laws don't prevent all crime, as a general rule they do deter some. The degree to which they deter a behavior depends on a) how the law is enforced, and b) what the penalty for violating the law is. Quite often, it seems to me that laws themselves take the blame for being ineffective deterrents of behavior when actually the ineffectiveness is a function of a failure at a) and/or b).

I would also add that a law's effectiveness is a function of c) its nature or scope. If a law's scope is so broad that it can't be feasibly enforced, it is likely to be ineffective. If a country, for example, made walking illegal, that would be impossible to enforce because nearly everyone would break it.

What am I missing? Do you disagree with my criteria? Should we stop using the simplistic argument that we shouldn't have a law because criminals will just do it anyway?

Sometimes, I think we have too many laws. When I was growing up, I was told that in America, we are free to do whatever we want, as long as we don't violate another person's rights. In other words, my rights end where another person's rights begin. So, in order for someone to be accused of a violation, there would have to be an actual, provable victim in court whose rights were violated or otherwise damaged by the defendant.

If there's no victim or damage, then there is no crime.

 

[Left Coast]

Sometimes, I think we have too many laws. When I was growing up, I was told that in America, we are free to do whatever we want, as long as we don't violate another person's rights. In other words, my rights end where another person's rights begin. So, in order for someone to be accused of a violation, there would have to be an actual, provable victim in court whose rights were violated or otherwise damaged by the defendant.

If there's no victim or damage, then there is no crime.

I tend to agree, although I think in practice it gets sticky. Sometimes we outlaw things when, although it's nearly impossible to demonstrate that one particular instance of a behavior caused a specific harmful outcome, we know statistically that the practice does cause harm in general.

 

[joe1776]

How did you determine this is a false premise? Some moral judgments are the product of reason; I should know, I've made them.

How would you know? People for centuries have not realized that they were making post hoc rationalizations to support immediate, intuitive moral judgments.

My statement that the premise that moral judgments are the product of reason is false is a general statement (allowing for exceptions like moral dilemmas).

We can rationally recognize that something is immoral even if we don't personally feel guilt about it.

Nope. Not normally.

Sociopaths, as an extreme example, are capable of acting morally despite lacking the feelings of guilt others do when they do immoral things.

You're trying to find abnormal exceptions to my position. Does that mean that you agree with me generally?

 

[Neuropteron]

So since criminals are just going to commit crime anyway, should we even have any of these laws at all?

Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgression manifest...(Gal 3:19)

In other words, if its not illegal to steal or murder, nobody could stop these things occuring.

 

[joe1776]

I can't read the paper, but it makes an interesting point. Doesn't change the need for laws to govern societies, but fascinating hypothesis regardless.

You've been hit with a new concept about morality. It's a game-changer, one that will have a huge impact on society's institutions. For example, the Catholic Church rests its position as a moral authority on the premise that the judgments of conscience are the product of reason. If they're wrong, they can't claim they have the duty to inform (teach) the consciences of their faithful. But the same would apply to all religion.

 

[Left Coast]

How would you know?

I would know because I was faced with a decision that had moral implications, I weighed my options, and decided what to do based on what I felt would be most fair/what would do least harm, and then did that thing. I'm faced with such decisions regularly as a manager, a boyfriend, a son, and a friend.

People for centuries have not realized that they were making post hoc rationalizations to support immediate, intuitive moral judgments.

All moral decisions are not immediate and intuitive. Again, I know this from literal personal experience. I would wager pretty much everyone does. (Maybe not you?)

My statement that the premise that moral judgments are the product of reason is false is a general statement (allowing for exceptions like moral dilemmas).

Lol, Joe, moral dilemmas happen constantly. Do you need more excitement in your life?

You're trying to find abnormal exceptions to my position. Does that mean that you agree with me generally?

I think it's a mixed bag. Yes, people often operate on a sort of instinctive auto-pilot, including when making moral choices. However, people are also capable of reasoning through their moral choices, and can actually learn to improve their moral decision-making when they do so. People make these conscious choices every day.

 

[Left Coast]

You've been hit with a new concept about morality. It's a game-changer, one that will have a huge impact on society's institutions. For example, the Catholic Church rests its position as a moral authority on the premise that the judgments of conscience are the product of reason. If they're wrong, they can't claim they have the duty to inform (teach) the consciences of their faithful. But the same would apply to all religion.

It's not necessarily a new concept per se, just presented in a different way. Again, still doesn't change the need for laws to organize society.

 

[Left Coast]

Anyone interested in a comedic take on moral development should really watch The Good Place.

 

[dybmh]

What am I missing?

Broken windows theory - Wikipedia

"The broken windows theory is a criminological theory that states that visible signs of crime, anti-social behavior, and civil disorder create an urban environment that encourages further crime and disorder, including serious crimes."

That's why simple / small victim-less crimes (like speeding in a so-called safe manner) still need to be enforced.

 

[dybmh]

https://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html

Fascinating...

 

[Left Coast]

Broken windows theory - Wikipedia

"The broken windows theory is a criminological theory that states that visible signs of crime, anti-social behavior, and civil disorder create an urban environment that encourages further crime and disorder, including serious crimes."

That's why simple / small victim-less crimes (like speeding in a so-called safe manner) still need to be enforced.

This makes sense to me in the abstract, but I also realize in practice that this has been used to disproportionately police poorer, blacker neighborhoods, which has been less than great for them.

 

[dybmh]

This makes sense to me in the abstract, but I also realize in practice that this has been used to disproportionately police poorer, blacker neighborhoods, which has been less than great for them.

Yup. It's just a piece of the puzzle that I thought you would find interesting.

 

[Shad]

Countries all around the world have laws which their citizens break all the time. Here in the US, we have speed limits which, truth be told, I may have violated myself once or twice. This goes on even with the most serious, uncontroversial laws - people commit murder and rape every day as well, despite it being against the law.

So since criminals are just going to commit crime anyway, should we even have any of these laws at all?

Law act as a deterrent those that are less willing to the risk of punishment for rewards. It punishes those that commit crimes. Abolishing the legal system would remove that deterrent thus shift the risk away from professional to the individual or mob.

We often hear this line of reasoning from the Right when the conversation is about gun control. In fairness, I also hear this from folks on the Left when talking about abortion, or the drug war.

I've never seen anyone from the right argue to abolish the legal system. People challenge the idea that various solutions will solve the gun problem at the cost of the rights of all citizens. Security vs liberty.

In my view, this reasoning is overly simplistic and requires some nuance.

That is because it seems like a strawman you constructed to knock down.

 

[joe1776]

I would know because I was faced with a decision that had moral implications, I weighed my options, and decided what to do based on what I felt would be most fair/what would do least harm, and then did that thing. I'm faced with such decisions regularly as a manager, a boyfriend, a son, and a friend.

Right. And almost all human beings would agree that they do the same. It's only me and a handful of scientists who would disagree.

 

[LuisDantas]

We should have laws. But we should also be aware of how ambiguous people's relationship to those are, as well as of how good it is that people have minds and judgements of their own.

Laws are ultimately tools of political expression and enforcement. They announce the State's expectations and the likely consequences of running with them or against them.

That is a necessary and useful role to fulfill, but not one with much ability to promote moral or social advancement. It is possible, and sometimes badly necessary, to challenge the law and be punished accordingly without ever straying from the moral path.

 

[Left Coast]

I've never seen anyone from the right argue to abolish the legal system.

Not abolish the legal system. Oppose a law using these rationale that people will break the law anyway.