[marron]

There are different levels of morality. There is morality that is imposed by force, there is morality that rises from fear, there is morality that rises from reason and experience, and there is morality that rises out of love.

All different, all have their place, but the last two flow from the inside out. And of the last two, even a morality rooted in reason and experience is insufficient, except as that reason and experience are informed and guided by love.

This kind of morality is voluntary, it is freely chosen, it is a mark of character. No one can impose it.

How does any of this relate to civil and criminal law? In a civil society, laws are inevitably made by humans in order to govern themselves, to prevent collisions between free people, and to set the rules for solving collisions when they occur.

If those rules are rooted in morality and in reason, they are generally respected; where they are not, they must be imposed by force. Separating law from reason and morality only guarantees that people will lose respect for law.

A corollary to this is that people whose morality flows from the inside out need fewer laws, and less force behind those laws. Freedom rests upon self-government, and the ability to govern oneself is in the end, moral.

Laws that people impose on themselves "democratically" will inevitably reflect the attitudes of the people there. When people generally agree that Sunday should be set aside, you will have "blue laws". When over time attitudes change, and Sunday's religious significance becomes less important, "blue laws" fade away into history.

When you're talking to someone who resents the influence of morality in law, its always helpful to define which laws are so troublesome. In the end, in a free society, laws will always reflect the personality and character of the people who made them. So divorce might be difficult in Ireland and easy in Sweden; killing sick people might be difficult in Italy and easy in Holland. Since laws always reflect the moral attitudes of the people that make those laws and live under those laws, it is inevitable that they will differ from place to place and people to people.

That this is so is not a limitation of freedom, but an expression of it.

[cornelis]

There are different levels of morality. There is morality that is imposed by force, there is morality that rises from fear, there is morality that rises from reason and experience, and there is morality that rises out of love. All different, all have their place

Great observations. I'll add four distinct "places." I'd call them orientations.

(a) self - ego (as 1. reason, 2. will, 3. desire)
(b) society - polis / nomos (as 1. consent 2. authority 3. law)
(d) nature - physis
(e) God - theos

Kant's mistake was to make reason transcend even God. He "lost the imago Dei" as our friend Voegelin describes.

I think bb mentioned (a)-(e) on a thread recently.