We say that it is wrong to murder. Let us take that as a given. We are obliged not to murder because it is morally wrong.
Now we say that it is the law not to murder. What additional obligation does this give us, and why?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think one answer could be that if something is immoral, it is immoral no matter if it is justified by one or several reasons, and so that it has the law's backing adds nothing to this. As to the obvious follow-up, what is the immorality in not following the law, I think we can think of a number of examples where merely following the law increases the social good (e.g. drive on the right side of the street), while the underlying command may, on its own, have no moral force.
ReplyDelete"When we follow the law because it is the law, we act out of fear."
ReplyDeleteThen we are not following the law because it is the law.
And yes, PBJ, the coordination problem is well-known. But are ALL instances of truly "LEGAL" obligation coordination problems?
Well, they don't only make it easier to drive on the street. They also increase community feeling, kinship, etc. Additionally, they serve as a proxy to recognize obeisance to the sovereign, which is useful. I can think of other policy goods they serve, but it seems challenging to say that in itself following the law is good. What are your thoughts?
ReplyDeleteYes, HD, what you have identified is the coordination problem. The need for "any" sovereign is like the need for "any" rule.
ReplyDeleteIs solving a coordination problem a moral duty? Is it a MORAL duty to choose the left or right hand side of the road, rather than leaving it undecided and chaotic?