3 ms·
Some laws are about settling convention where the specific content of the convention has no normative component, e.g., which side of the road cars drive on
by pxc 5y ago
Some laws are about settling convention where the specific content of the convention has no normative component, e.g., which side of the road cars drive on
- simonh 5y agoSome of the specific content of the law is arbitrary yes, but the fact we have a law about which side people should drive on at all is motivated by a moral imperative. Although actually neither the right or left hand side rules are arbitrary. They were each intended to better serve a moral objective. https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/Why-do-the-British-drive-on-the-left/ https://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/Why-do-the-British-dri...
- pxc 5y agoThey do serve a normative aim, i.e., 'we should have drivable two-way roads', yes. I'm not sure we need to reduce all norms to 'morality'. But if we think of morality in a really broad way, like 'humans (or other sapient creatures) seeking to satisfy preferences or impose additional structure on nature or society for their own purposes in a universalizable/principled (i.e., fair) way', then definitely: laws should always be motivated in some way by morality. That's different from the claim (which I'm not saying you've made) that this relationship means that laws should always simply 'encode' moral norms in some direct sense, which imo is a common (and mistaken) simplification. But yeah I think we're on the same page.