Law cannot dictate morality. Even in the Netherlands were you would think we have law for about everything and you have to have permits for anything you want to do.... the law does not dictate morality.

If you want to dictate morality by law who's morals do you pick and morals change does that mean that the laws also have to change? You would get so much books that are so thick that there would be no more lawstudents

The law gives us guidelines on how to act and on how to act when these laws are broken. Morality is there to fill in the gabs that the law leaves.

Thats why the law only specifies maximum / minimum punishments for doing stuff that is not allowed and the judge decides what the actaully punishment will be this is all depended on the circumstances which kinda has to do with morality.

If someone murders 3 children in a horrible way or murders 3 old people by deliberatly cutting power to their lifesupport.... According to the law its 3 murders but I'm pretty sure that the punishments will be different. Because morality dictates that killing children is a lot worse than... I think you know where i'm going with this

Its not like everything thats not in the law is allowed here is also a point where morality jumps in. Also not everything thats in the law is not allowed

copy from dumblaws:
Chester:
You can only shoot a Welsh person with a bow and arrow inside the city walls and after midnight.

I'm pretty sure thats now allowed although they only removed it from the lawbooks a few years back. Just like Slavery only became officially illegal in some states in the USA a mear 10 - 20 years ago because the laws where never removed....

Morality helps us interrupt the laws I guess just like our common sense does

Hoom... this'll be one of those rambly posts in which I'm not sure where I'm going until I get there; lets see where I go...

Modern perspectives on law and morality are firmly anchored in antiquity, and though there has been significant movement it remains the case that there are many positions from which it can be argued that morality and law are one and the same; a devout Christian who believes that "good" is whatever God (the Bible) says it is, or certain Greek philosophers who adopted positions that to be good was meerely to be lawfull.

Laws require an accepted moral basis if they are to have authority, but it is not reasonable to reduce the set of moral precepts used to underpin the law to only those which impact on how people choose to live their lives; so whilst there must be a relationship between individual morality and the law, it is not sufficient to simply map one directly onto the other. In dealing with the formulation of laws ethics is as important a factor as morality.

Outside of the most rareified of ivory towers an individual's decissions can rarely be governed satisfactorily by abstract knowledge of morality and virtue, rather they must rely upon discretion and circumspection to temper morality; employing prudent forethought to conceive the best temporal, personal morality for the moment. Obviously this is not to imply the absolute subjectivity of morality, but rather that anyone's choices must be made considering factors unique to themselves.

Law is not concerned with the rectitude of an individual's conduct, rather it must be focused upon the autonomy and rights of the individual within society -- without society there is no need for law. Where the legislature differentiates between strata within society we are compelled to regard it not as a single set of contingent laws, but rather as two separate fixed sets of laws which are applied contingently. Indeed it is this contingent application of different sets of laws which is perhaps the largest factor differentiating law and morality -- morality must be subjective and applied employing internally-contingent reasoning; law must be objective and applied employing externally-contingent reasoning.

The work of the judiciary in the courts must blend morality and law together, a little of the former is required to apply the latter wisely, as nobody believes that a few (thousand) books of law can adequately codify objectively human behaviour. But just as it is the responsibility of the courts to ensure the carefull tempering of the law with morality, it is made clear by the legislation bounding society that it is only the courts which law permits to do such; individuals may not break the law out of rectitude, and when they find themselves before a judge for having done so, it is up to the court to choose to mitigate the rule of law with morality.

Should. That's a pretty strong word. It means that I am saying what everyone's morality should be. That is, that if they hold any other view then they are fundamentally wrong. Even I'm not prepared to do that.

Personally, no, the law does not shape my morality, and in fact I wished that the reverse were true. But some people do feel that if the law says no then it is morally wrong to do it. That's their choice, although I do think it is a strange position to take.

The law is the fine detail of a society's contract. Whatever the form of government, the law is the set of rules we all agree to abide by. When laws are broken on mass, the society becomes weak. If the general populace feel one law is wrong, it makes them question all the other laws and the validity of the government. When even a minority find they cannot agree with laws it leaves them feeling alienated and external to the society. None of which is good for the health of that society.

As such, laws, in theory, reflect the morality of the society. For most of the last millennium or so, our laws have been based around the teachings of the Christian Church, as this was the dominant force in our culture. As such, the position that laws should inform our morality is just another way of saying 'Whatever the majority believes is right and wrong I will agree with'. Essentially this means you not responsible for your own morality. This seems a little odd to me.

So, the law should be what it will always be - a refection of the morality of the general populace. It is not sufficient that it reflect the morality of the majority as a sizeable estranged minority will always pose a serious threat to the life of a society.

However, there are times when this can become strained. Here in the UK I think it is safe to say this is true. Drug laws are alienating a large number of our citizens. The gap between propaganda and reality also leaves these citizens distrustful of anything the authorities say. We have the same problem with homosexual legislation. With the sentencing for rape. A view that the law favours the criminal is also causing problems. This doesn't disprove what I am saying, it merely shows what a crisis our culture is in. The current situation cannot continue and a huge change must come soon. The question is what side will win.

The problem can be simplified to this: Our nation (and western culture as a whole) is split between two camps: Liberals and Authoritarians. There is a growing trend over the last couple of centuries that the law should allow people to do as they please so long as they hurt no one in the process. This is against the dominant force, that there is a very real and tangible 'Right and Wrong' and the law must reflect this. So even if an individual's actions hurt no one else, if they are morally wrong then they must be stopped or punished.

I don't think I need to tell anyone where I belong in that divide.