From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!npoiv!hou5f!hou5b!hou5c!hou5e!hou5a!hou5d!hogpc!houxm!ihnp4!ih4ep!starner
Newsgroups: net.religion
Title: re: The basis for laws in our culture.
Article-I.D.: ih4ep.154
Posted: Sat Apr  9 17:37:29 1983
Received: Sun Apr 10 06:37:05 1983


	My question: What is the role of morality and ethics 
	in the making of the law-of-the-land.

	My answer: None at all.

	My contention: Laws are (and ALWAYS have been, right back 
	to the 10 commandments) based on pragmatism, not on morality.

I think you're over-generalizing.  The reason why specific laws were
created is really a matter of speculation.  I would agree that traffic 
laws and tax laws were developed for the good of society.  But, in my 
opinion, some laws were developed because they were **always** true.
Of course, this requires a belief in absolutes.  But I've always believed
in some absolutes (e.g. the laws of logic are valid, I exist, etc.).
I guess I believe that man is aware of these absolutes but is not aware 
of why they are true.  After all, it certainly is possible that there
are things that are true that are not empirically verifiable.  Of course,
this leaves things in a rather fuzzy state.  (How can you be sure of
your absolute laws when you don't even know where they came from?)

Another point.  If laws are just based on pragmatism, there is no
reason why I **should** follow them (as long as I don't get
caught).  After all, why should *I* care about the good of society?

			Other thoughts, opinions welcome,
			Guy Starner
			Bell Telephone Laboratories
			ihnpf!ih4ep!starner
-- 

				Guy Starner
				ih4ep!starner
				IH 4A-333 x6526