What is your stand on the belief that anything legal is moral?

Answer 1

The understanding of what is Moral changes with the times. We now abhor Slavery as immoral; but in the past, slavery was the norm and is legal.

Answer

If you believe that the laws of the state are totally in agreement with your understanding of what is moral then you would agree. The answer given above is an excellent example of how laws change with the times. Another example is smoking which, although not totally illegal now is discouraged and curbed in some countries by law. Although strictly a health issue governments are seeing it as not right (and therefore immoral in that sense) to have to spend billions in their health budget to support the consequences of the habit of a shrinking minority.

In addition those who follow The Bible have rarely lived totally comfortably with any government which is, by definition, not specifically Christian because it must theoretically cater for all its subjects. Many things which
Christians find repugnant morally are totally legal. Which is why in many cases they have attempted to change the law. The action of Wilberforce, a Christian, in relation to the abolition of slavery, is a good example of success in this area.

Answer

Another approach, but one that arrives at a place similar to the answer directly above. I will make a distinction between "morals" and "ethics". Mores [MO-rees] are the conventional, fixed customs, or folkways that are followed by and expected of members of a given society. The term morals can be seen in a similar light. This use of the word doesn't imply much of a distinction between right and wrong; there is only the social convention that presents itself as an admittedly subjective standard. This is not to say that the above uses of the word are wrong; they are not. From this "mores" point of reference, I would be more inclined to say that all things legal are moral. This would even cover things that seem truly repugnant to us today, including the past use of cannibalism by some tribes, or even the human sacrifices of the Aztecs. I'm not condoning any of this; I'm looking at the facts dispassionately.

Ethics, on the other hand, is striving to arrive at an objective and universal code for, or definition of the good. This is beyond morals, using my sense of the word. Clearly, what is legal is not always or necessarily completely in line with what is ethical. There may even be times when what is ethical is not necessarily legal, although I cannot think of any at this moment. Often, but clearly not always, when people make the courageous decision to act on the basis of their convictions despite the consequences, they act in support of what they believe to be ethically right.

See Related Links

See the Related Links for "The Holocaust and Evolution" to the left for an answer.

This is relevant in the sense that apparently at Nuremburg the Nazi's stated that, as their actions towards the Jews and other minorities were part of the laws of the German parliament they were legal and therefore moral in their own eyes. This would probably be the case in countries under Communist rule today which still persecute and imprison Christians and other 'dissenters' on the grounds of their differing in ideology, even though in all other respects they may be good citizens. Such persecution would be both legal and moral in their own eyes as were the many murders of Stalin who likened the killing of thousands as being no different to mowing a lawn.

Another view of the appeal to authority:

Check the September 23 New York Times Magazine for an article on 'honor killing'. A 15 year old female is kidnapped and raped. She is kept from her family out of fear that they will kill her to preserve family honor. A good man marries the girl/woman and the hope is that the honor of her family is appeased. After her husband leaves for work, the girl's brother breaks into the house and brutally stabs her to death. He then reports to the police what he has done, announcing that it was his right. His actions are not considered murder in their country. This kind of behavior is rarely punished. The young woman's name is never uttered again. The perpetrator of the rape would probably not receive any kind of serious punishment.

Within the cultural context the killing is not a murder, but it is a cultural and moral obligation. It is extremely hard for us in the west to understand how people can act this way and feel justified, but the story, which is true, highlights that what is legal and what is moral are certainly not always the same thing.