Is there a term for the belief that “if it's legal, it's moral”?Does humanism's rejection of God...
What is this plant I saw for sale at a Romanian farmer's market?
What is the most suitable position for a bishop here?
What is the "ls" directory in my home directory?
My student in one course asks for paid tutoring in another course. Appropriate?
Boundaries and Buddhism
What is the highest power supply a Raspberry pi 3 B can handle without getting damaged?
Umlaut character order when sorting
Need help understanding the double sharp turn in Chopin's prelude in e minor
Why is it easier to balance a non-moving bike standing up than sitting down?
Print 'A' 1000 times with BrainFuck
Explicit song lyrics checker
Scaling an object to change its key
Why there is a red color in right side?
Is there a polite way to ask about one's ethnicity?
In Street Fighter, what does the M stand for in M Bison?
The Amazing Sliding Crossword
Can I apply for a working holiday visa at age 30 and get the full 12 months?
How to make all magic-casting innate, but still rare?
S&P 500 Index Value
Syntax and semantics of XDV commands (XeTeX)
Why things float in space, though there is always gravity of our star is present
How is the idea of "girlfriend material" naturally expressed in Russian?
Teferi's Time Twist and Gideon's Sacrifice
Counterfeit checks were created for my account. How does this type of fraud work?
Is there a term for the belief that “if it's legal, it's moral”?
Does humanism's rejection of God necesitate relativism?Moral Duty and Happiness: Are Both Achievable?Is it immoral to buy / own / sell stock in an evil company?Kant's need of GodWhat ideology or philosophy do I follow?What is the basis of the belief that institutions should pursue only their own goals and disregard moral aspects of their actions' wider consequences?Legal vs moral lawsIs it moral to obey the law?If everything that happens is “part of God's plan”, how can anything be immoral?Is there a term for the belief that what is popular in society defines what is moral?
Sometimes I hear arguments that seem to appeal to the fact that something is morally permissible because it is legally permitted. For example:
- Abortion is moral because it's legally permitted. Killing two year olds is immoral because we have laws against it.
- Putting your money into offshore bank accounts to avoid taxes is perfectly legal, thus I see nothing morally wrong with it.
- The law allows me to keep a slave, therefore it is my moral right to do so.
This appears to be fallacious, since there are cases where modern people assert that something is immoral that was historically legal (e.g. chattel slavery), thus something can still be legal yet immoral. Nonetheless, this belief seems to persist.
Is there a term for this belief that "if it's legal, it's moral", either as a name for a fallacious argument or as a name for a philosophical belief? Let's assume we're not talking about laws that are made by people, rather than by nature (i.e. natural law) or by God (i.e. divine law).
ethics terminology philosophy-of-law
asked 9 hours ago
ThunderforgeThunderforge
1477
add a comment |
Sometimes I hear arguments that seem to appeal to the fact that something is morally permissible because it is legally permitted. For example:
- Abortion is moral because it's legally permitted. Killing two year olds is immoral because we have laws against it.
- Putting your money into offshore bank accounts to avoid taxes is perfectly legal, thus I see nothing morally wrong with it.
- The law allows me to keep a slave, therefore it is my moral right to do so.
This appears to be fallacious, since there are cases where modern people assert that something is immoral that was historically legal (e.g. chattel slavery), thus something can still be legal yet immoral. Nonetheless, this belief seems to persist.
Is there a term for this belief that "if it's legal, it's moral", either as a name for a fallacious argument or as a name for a philosophical belief? Let's assume we're not talking about laws that are made by people, rather than by nature (i.e. natural law) or by God (i.e. divine law).
ethics terminology philosophy-of-law
asked 9 hours ago
ThunderforgeThunderforge
1477
Is it the idea that "if it is legal, then it must be moral in some way", or "there is only one moral duty: follow the laws of society, whatever it may be" ? While leading to the same result, both have very different premises.
– armand
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Sometimes I hear arguments that seem to appeal to the fact that something is morally permissible because it is legally permitted. For example:
- Abortion is moral because it's legally permitted. Killing two year olds is immoral because we have laws against it.
- Putting your money into offshore bank accounts to avoid taxes is perfectly legal, thus I see nothing morally wrong with it.
- The law allows me to keep a slave, therefore it is my moral right to do so.
This appears to be fallacious, since there are cases where modern people assert that something is immoral that was historically legal (e.g. chattel slavery), thus something can still be legal yet immoral. Nonetheless, this belief seems to persist.
Is there a term for this belief that "if it's legal, it's moral", either as a name for a fallacious argument or as a name for a philosophical belief? Let's assume we're not talking about laws that are made by people, rather than by nature (i.e. natural law) or by God (i.e. divine law).
ethics terminology philosophy-of-law
asked 9 hours ago
ThunderforgeThunderforge
1477
Sometimes I hear arguments that seem to appeal to the fact that something is morally permissible because it is legally permitted. For example:
- Abortion is moral because it's legally permitted. Killing two year olds is immoral because we have laws against it.
- Putting your money into offshore bank accounts to avoid taxes is perfectly legal, thus I see nothing morally wrong with it.
- The law allows me to keep a slave, therefore it is my moral right to do so.
This appears to be fallacious, since there are cases where modern people assert that something is immoral that was historically legal (e.g. chattel slavery), thus something can still be legal yet immoral. Nonetheless, this belief seems to persist.
Is there a term for this belief that "if it's legal, it's moral", either as a name for a fallacious argument or as a name for a philosophical belief? Let's assume we're not talking about laws that are made by people, rather than by nature (i.e. natural law) or by God (i.e. divine law).
ethics terminology philosophy-of-law
ethics terminology philosophy-of-law
asked 9 hours ago
ThunderforgeThunderforge
1477
asked 9 hours ago
ThunderforgeThunderforge
1477
asked 9 hours ago
ThunderforgeThunderforge
1477
asked 9 hours ago
ThunderforgeThunderforge
1477
asked 9 hours ago
ThunderforgeThunderforge
1477
1477
Is it the idea that "if it is legal, then it must be moral in some way", or "there is only one moral duty: follow the laws of society, whatever it may be" ? While leading to the same result, both have very different premises.
– armand
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Is it the idea that "if it is legal, then it must be moral in some way", or "there is only one moral duty: follow the laws of society, whatever it may be" ? While leading to the same result, both have very different premises.
– armand
4 hours ago
Is it the idea that "if it is legal, then it must be moral in some way", or "there is only one moral duty: follow the laws of society, whatever it may be" ? While leading to the same result, both have very different premises.
– armand
4 hours ago
Is it the idea that "if it is legal, then it must be moral in some way", or "there is only one moral duty: follow the laws of society, whatever it may be" ? While leading to the same result, both have very different premises.
– armand
4 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
I think what you are looking for is called Legal Interpretivism, which, unlike Legal Positivism (which asserts that laws are distinct from morality), asserts that laws are based on morality, and that there is no separation between law and morality, so there must be an interpretation for why such and such is legal or illegal.
In which case, the statement if it is legal then there must be moral reason for it to be legal would hold true, only if you consider an interpretivist point of view.
Interpretation is a kind of moral processing of these norms. To
interpret is to assess the norms constituted by institutional
communication and adjust the set in order to make it more attractive
in some way
That is, to tweak and play with one's understanding of the laws, then interpret those laws in order for them to match some moral preferences, for example : Abortion is legal, and it is totally moral because women are free and have the right to their bodies, and you cannot kill a kid who was never born, so that must be the reason why it is legal.
(and if it is illegal, a legal interpretivist would give a moral reason why it is illegal).
Third, for interpretivism, the justifying role of principles is
fundamental: for any legal right or obligation, some moral principles
ultimately explain how it is that institutional and other nonmoral
considerations have roles as determinants of the right or obligation.
In the order of explanation, morality comes first.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/law-interpretivist/
Of course there are other points which set Legal Interpretivism apart from Legal Positivism and Natural Law Theory...etc.
answered 7 hours ago
SmootQSmootQ
1,703214
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "265"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f64045%2fis-there-a-term-for-the-belief-that-if-its-legal-its-moral%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
I think what you are looking for is called Legal Interpretivism, which, unlike Legal Positivism (which asserts that laws are distinct from morality), asserts that laws are based on morality, and that there is no separation between law and morality, so there must be an interpretation for why such and such is legal or illegal.
In which case, the statement if it is legal then there must be moral reason for it to be legal would hold true, only if you consider an interpretivist point of view.
Interpretation is a kind of moral processing of these norms. To
interpret is to assess the norms constituted by institutional
communication and adjust the set in order to make it more attractive
in some way
That is, to tweak and play with one's understanding of the laws, then interpret those laws in order for them to match some moral preferences, for example : Abortion is legal, and it is totally moral because women are free and have the right to their bodies, and you cannot kill a kid who was never born, so that must be the reason why it is legal.
(and if it is illegal, a legal interpretivist would give a moral reason why it is illegal).
Third, for interpretivism, the justifying role of principles is
fundamental: for any legal right or obligation, some moral principles
ultimately explain how it is that institutional and other nonmoral
considerations have roles as determinants of the right or obligation.
In the order of explanation, morality comes first.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/law-interpretivist/
Of course there are other points which set Legal Interpretivism apart from Legal Positivism and Natural Law Theory...etc.
answered 7 hours ago
SmootQSmootQ
1,703214
add a comment |
I think what you are looking for is called Legal Interpretivism, which, unlike Legal Positivism (which asserts that laws are distinct from morality), asserts that laws are based on morality, and that there is no separation between law and morality, so there must be an interpretation for why such and such is legal or illegal.
In which case, the statement if it is legal then there must be moral reason for it to be legal would hold true, only if you consider an interpretivist point of view.
Interpretation is a kind of moral processing of these norms. To
interpret is to assess the norms constituted by institutional
communication and adjust the set in order to make it more attractive
in some way
That is, to tweak and play with one's understanding of the laws, then interpret those laws in order for them to match some moral preferences, for example : Abortion is legal, and it is totally moral because women are free and have the right to their bodies, and you cannot kill a kid who was never born, so that must be the reason why it is legal.
(and if it is illegal, a legal interpretivist would give a moral reason why it is illegal).
Third, for interpretivism, the justifying role of principles is
fundamental: for any legal right or obligation, some moral principles
ultimately explain how it is that institutional and other nonmoral
considerations have roles as determinants of the right or obligation.
In the order of explanation, morality comes first.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/law-interpretivist/
Of course there are other points which set Legal Interpretivism apart from Legal Positivism and Natural Law Theory...etc.
answered 7 hours ago
SmootQSmootQ
1,703214
add a comment |
I think what you are looking for is called Legal Interpretivism, which, unlike Legal Positivism (which asserts that laws are distinct from morality), asserts that laws are based on morality, and that there is no separation between law and morality, so there must be an interpretation for why such and such is legal or illegal.
In which case, the statement if it is legal then there must be moral reason for it to be legal would hold true, only if you consider an interpretivist point of view.
Interpretation is a kind of moral processing of these norms. To
interpret is to assess the norms constituted by institutional
communication and adjust the set in order to make it more attractive
in some way
That is, to tweak and play with one's understanding of the laws, then interpret those laws in order for them to match some moral preferences, for example : Abortion is legal, and it is totally moral because women are free and have the right to their bodies, and you cannot kill a kid who was never born, so that must be the reason why it is legal.
(and if it is illegal, a legal interpretivist would give a moral reason why it is illegal).
Third, for interpretivism, the justifying role of principles is
fundamental: for any legal right or obligation, some moral principles
ultimately explain how it is that institutional and other nonmoral
considerations have roles as determinants of the right or obligation.
In the order of explanation, morality comes first.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/law-interpretivist/
Of course there are other points which set Legal Interpretivism apart from Legal Positivism and Natural Law Theory...etc.
answered 7 hours ago
SmootQSmootQ
1,703214
I think what you are looking for is called Legal Interpretivism, which, unlike Legal Positivism (which asserts that laws are distinct from morality), asserts that laws are based on morality, and that there is no separation between law and morality, so there must be an interpretation for why such and such is legal or illegal.
In which case, the statement if it is legal then there must be moral reason for it to be legal would hold true, only if you consider an interpretivist point of view.
Interpretation is a kind of moral processing of these norms. To
interpret is to assess the norms constituted by institutional
communication and adjust the set in order to make it more attractive
in some way
That is, to tweak and play with one's understanding of the laws, then interpret those laws in order for them to match some moral preferences, for example : Abortion is legal, and it is totally moral because women are free and have the right to their bodies, and you cannot kill a kid who was never born, so that must be the reason why it is legal.
(and if it is illegal, a legal interpretivist would give a moral reason why it is illegal).
Third, for interpretivism, the justifying role of principles is
fundamental: for any legal right or obligation, some moral principles
ultimately explain how it is that institutional and other nonmoral
considerations have roles as determinants of the right or obligation.
In the order of explanation, morality comes first.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/law-interpretivist/
Of course there are other points which set Legal Interpretivism apart from Legal Positivism and Natural Law Theory...etc.
answered 7 hours ago
SmootQSmootQ
1,703214
edited 7 hours ago
answered 7 hours ago
SmootQSmootQ
1,703214
answered 7 hours ago
SmootQSmootQ
1,703214
answered 7 hours ago
SmootQSmootQ
1,703214
1,703214
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Philosophy Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f64045%2fis-there-a-term-for-the-belief-that-if-its-legal-its-moral%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Is it the idea that "if it is legal, then it must be moral in some way", or "there is only one moral duty: follow the laws of society, whatever it may be" ? While leading to the same result, both have very different premises.
– armand
4 hours ago