Should “Immoral” = “Illegal?”

If something is immoral, do we have to make it illegal? 

How do we discern which moral norms to make into laws? 

Whose morality do we follow? 

On the surface it seems that laws and morality serve the same purpose.  Both appear to restrict certain activities that might hurt other people or damage the common good.  But morals are different than laws.  Moral norms are meant to make us the best that we can be.  The Ten Commandments were the rules of a freed people (Israelites freed from slavery in Egypt) who God chose to be his people.  It is more like a marriage covenant where we choose to live a certain way in order to be in a relationship with another person.  In marriage the spouses live a certain way that allows them to grow closer to each other.  In the Ten Commandments the people live a certain way to grow closer to God.  If a person must decide if an action is moral, they can consider a guiding principal, a moral norm.  Jesus gave us the great commandment, love God, and love your neighbor.  It is a reminder that morals do not restrict behavior, but open the person up to being in a relationship with God. 

Laws exist to help people live together in a community.  We agree to follow these rules that this community has agreed to live by.  One may not agree with all of the laws, but we accept them in order for our communities, states, and countries to work smoothly.  If there is no law against something, it is generally permitted.  Laws tell us what we cannot, do.  Morals tell us what we should do. 

Many times laws and morals are the same.  Killing an innocent person is, or ought to be, against the law.  Lying about an investment opportunity in order to sell it at a higher price is, or ought to be, against the law.  These actions are immoral, and illegal.  They are immoral independent of the law.  Even if it were legal to kill an innocent person, it would still be seriously immoral.  Even if there are no regulations about misrepresenting an investment, it is still immoral to take money from people and to lie. They are also actions that are generally illegal.  Our society does not allow them because it disrupts our community.  

Sometimes the law allows certain activities that many consider immoral.  It is legal to say or publish untrue things about people.  A person might be sued and have to pay monetary damages, but there would be no imprisonment or banishment from society.  Political action committees can spread all kinds of falsehood about a candidate immediately before an election, and suffer little or no penalties.  Despite the commandment, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor,” a person in our country can say these things because of our right to free speech.  It is not against the law for a 55 year old married man to have an extra-marital relationship with a 19 year old.  It is certainly not moral under most systems of morality.  Not everything that is legal is moral. 

Where do we draw the line?  What should be the indicator that something should be illegal? 

We could make things illegal if they harm other people.  We currently do not make things illegal that cause emotional harm.  Take the case of the above mentioned 55-year-old.  He is harming his spouse certainly.  But he is also harming his children, and probably is causing emotional harm to the much younger woman.  We may be disgusted by his actions.  We may decide to never associate with him again.  He might lose much of his material possessions in a civil suit for “loss of affection.”  But despite the great harm to many people, he suffers no criminal penalties.  If he caused physical harm to his spouse, children, or mistress, he would probably be arrested for domestic violence.  But since he is causing

emotional harm, there is no criminal penalty. 

Perhaps we should make it illegal for him to remarry after he divorces his first spouse.  Obviously he has caused emotional harm to the children, and his spouse.  It would probably be in the best interest of society if that person did not get remarried.  Since his actions cause emotional harm to others, maybe we should revoke is right to marry. 

Some suggest that law teaches people about morality.  If something is legal, then people will think that it is moral; if it is illegal, people will think that it is immoral.  On the surface that seems logical.  But there are many instances in our society where people acknowledge that something is legal, yet still consider it immoral.  None of the seven deadly sins is illegal in itself: lust, greed, envy, pride, sloth, gluttony, and wrath.  Only certain ways of acting on those sins is illegal.  Wrath is not illegal until it turns to assault.  Greed and envy are not illegal until they become theft.  Pride, sloth, gluttony and lust, and most of the actions that are motivated by them are not illegal.  Even though they are legal, we still acknowledge that they are immoral. 

Unless we want to make all immoral actions illegal, we have to make distinctions.  It would seem that in our country we make laws about actions that harm another person physically, affect their property, or affect their basic rights as outlined in our constitution. 

Whose morality do we follow? 

There are many different moral systems.  They often come to the same conclusions and the same general behavior norms.  But, frequently in our moral systems disagree in important areas.  An example: “Is it ever permissible to directly, and intentionally kill an innocent human being?”

From the perspective of a Catholic moral system the answer is, “not ever.” 

From a different moral system that emphasizes the greatest good over individual events the answer might be, “If it saves other lives, it may be permissible.”

Not all moral systems come to the same conclusions in every case.  In our pluralistic society, where we do not all have the same moral convictions, when do we use civil law, and when do we use moral persuasion?  It would seem prudent to use civil law sparingly so as not to interfere with individual or collective rights. 

I would suggest three categories where laws would be more appropriate than moral persuasion: 

• To protect the innocent from harm or grave injustice, especially threats to life, health, and basic human rights. 
• To correct an injustice and to restore rights when they have been denied. 
• To allow all people to participate in our society, and to promote the common good. 

I am curious about what others think, When should we make our morality the law?