Of course, most law-abiding people in a society will have similar moral values. This is to be expected. But, as I keep saying, and, as you keep ignoring, many immoral acts are not illegal and this is where the differences in moral values will occur. In the 'big picture' the differences might be small, but they're still important as they give us some sense of individuality, i.e. that we're not all totally programmed and brainwashed by society to 'conform' to the norms of that society.

Very true, banks which are legally permitted to charge absurdly high interest rates on credit card debt are no better than the fucking mafia! That such things outrage us demonstrates how highly moral we humans are, and how difficult it is for legal systems to mediate between competing ideas of what is fair and just. (That, btw, is the task that normative ethics sets itself.) And that is why societies require that its members possess a commonly agreed upon moral code and not just depend on the policeman to determine what is right and proper. (There has been a lot of work done recently on the evolutionary origins of morality, and it has even been demonstrated that dogs possess an innate sense of  right and wrong.)

So yes, we all have our own ideas of what is right and wrong; which, in turn, explains why we also need laws to deal with those people whose personal moral code leads them to commit crimes - like murdering one's daughter to protect family honor - that violate society's moral norms.

So the underlying moral principles of a society are codified in laws that enable that society to enforce adherence to those principles. Each requires the other.

But what you and I have been arguing about, here in this thread, is what morality is and how it is related to and informs the law. If you had limited yourself to the above observation, this argument of ours would never have taken place.

[ Last edited by  Marsupial at 18-9-2009 12:46 ]