Theory Law establishes a Context for Rationality in Behavior. Morality doesn't.

[ResidentHell]

Morality endorses behavior on the basis of mysterious ideas about “right and wrong”, “properness and improperness”, e.g., “You should do X because it is righteous or proper to do X. You shouldn’t do Y because it is improper or evil to do Y”

Laws are declarations or commandments of the authority under which people are administered, e.g., “It’s permitted by the authority for any individual to do X. It is forbidden by the authority for any individual to do Y”

There are similarities between Law and Morality. The real question is does Law have more priority over Morality, or is it the opposite? I think Law has more priority

By what standard does morality have priority over law? How can an individual say their own actions are justified without a corresponding framework of axioms / directives to support this justification? If there was no central law, then people would have to create their own framework of decrees in order to be able to rationalize their own actions, or else they would have no sense of direction. Their behaviors would be aimless and unguided. Law provides a context for justification in behavior. All morality does is glorify or demonize certain behaviors. Law doesn’t have to be favored by someone only cause it’s believed to be “moral”. Law can be favored on the basis of individual, amoral preference, e.g. I could say, “I agree with law X simply because I prefer a state that has law X over a state that doesn’t have law X”

Law establishes a context for reason & rationality in behavior. An individual must conceive or recognize a command or declaration before they can rationalize their decision to fulfil the command / declaration. If there is no context for reason in behavior, then behavior cannot be rationalized. There must be a sort of directive or commandment in order for the justification of behavior to have a context

Morality provides no context for reason & rationality in behavior. Morality merely glorifies / demonizes behavior by categorizing it under some mysterious qualities called “virtue” and “evil”. Morality suggests these mysterious qualities are “inherent” to certain behaviors – In spite that behavior can observed from a non-moralist stance such as personal preference, rather than a pre-notional view of certain behaviors as “inherently virtuous or inherently evil”. Morality often correlates to Law. But the criteria for whatever is categorized under Morality, is different to the criteria for what's categorized under Law:

Law categorizes something under the decrees and permissions of the authority​

Morality categorizes something under a strange quality known as “good” or “evil”, that is supposed to be “intrinsic” to certain behaviors​

 

[SoycuckGodOfReddit]

6/10 schizopost

 

[Slut_Annihilator298]

I read all of this but since I'm not high IQ to FULLY understand it, I have a question:When a society builds their laws, from what structure were those laws built from? Wouldn't it have been from their concept of right and wrong?

 

[ResidentHell]

I read all of this but since I'm not high IQ to FULLY understand it, I have a question:When a society builds their laws, from what structure were those laws built from? Wouldn't it have been from their concept of right and wrong?

Historically, the laws that established the foundation of society were derived from theological beliefs about deities who were perceived to embody values such as “justice”, “harmony”, “truth”. In Ancient Egypt, jurisprudence was inspired by beliefs associated with Ma’at, the Goddess of Order. For many ancient societies, it was believed that a command was issued to mankind by a divine figurehead, e.g., a god, and the people or whatever would recognize this “divine command” as a sort of law or code to which all members of society were accountable

If you look at the history of jurisprudence in countries of Europe, Americas and Asia, it can be traced back to beliefs about a “divine commandment” that was issued by a central deity in Abrahamic religions. For Christian and Jews, it was the Law of Moses aka the Book of the Law. For Muslims, it was Sharia / Fiqh. The framework for jurisprudence in most European and Asian countries was were derived from religious belief systems that concerned “divine commandments to mankind” (e.g., Hinduism, Islam, Judaism). Although I’m not sure about East Asia, I think their framework for jurisprudence may have had a more secular origin

I don’t know whether law came first. But on a macro-social scale, I think it used to be the case that concepts of “right” and “wrong” were directly tied to whether one failed or did not fail to fulfil a “divine commandment”. For followers of Abrahamic religions, if something is “wrong”, it is “wrong” because it is something that was condemned or forbidden by the central deity of their Abrahamic religion, according to the scriptures of their religion

I’m not sure if the standard for what was “right” / “wrong” in ancient civilizations was based on a democratic consensus --- I think it was more authoritarian, not democratic, e.g., “a disciple of God just got word from God that X is forbidden under his divine ruling”, and everyone just had to accept it as the “divine rule” by default. I think the law first established social order (via the supposed “divine commandments” of a deity), and perceptions of “right” and “wrong” were later consequentially tied to one’s failure / success to live up to the so-called “divine commandment”