Originally Posted by
shanbaum
I would say that we pass laws against murder because we don't want people to do it. The underlying motivation may be (and probably is) mixed - some of us believe that God says it's wrong, so we shouldn't let people do it; some of us believe that the world will be a happier place if there's less rather than more murder, so we punish those who commit it to deter others from doing so (or lock up the perpetrators so they can't do it again).
Either way (where the motivator is God, or utility), the practical effect is exactly the same.
The fact is, the morality of killing has changed over time. Most of the world no longer imposes the death penalty. The U.S. no longer executes people for crimes that do not involve a death, and no longer executes minors, like we used to do, not long ago. One could say, well, we're just bringing our laws more in line with absolute morality - or, one could say (like Chip will) that the changes move us further from it. We might only be one Supreme Court appointment from moving back in the other direction, so, if there's a slippery slope here, I don't know which way it slants.
I don't understand Lewis' point. A defendant who argues that "I don't care about the law" isn't likely to succeed. But defendants do occasionally argue that a law targeting them is wrong (that is, unconstitutional, which might mean, "immoral") and sometimes, they prevail.
Bookmarks