"Generally, following the law is good, but I hold no illusions that there's any connection between legality and morality."
Not to nitpick but I hope you meant for this to be hyperbole. In general, the law (at least part of it, the parts that aren't purely for practical reasons such as 'everybody should drive on the right side of the road') purports to embody whatever is thought of as 'the moral common ground' of the society it is operating in. In the margin, the implementation can be debated (an epistemological problem of ethics), but prohibitions on and punishment of e.g. murder, rape and theft have a large and explicit moral component.
The key word there is 'purports.' I don't think that it actually does.
Also, I think that prohibitions and punishment say that they have a moral component, but that's largely due to making it easier for the populace to swallow. Opiate of the masses and all of that.
This doesn't mean that I think that there should be a world without rules, either. But these (at least America's) set of rules certainly don't come anywhere close to representing my morality or ethics.
What? Are you serious? Are you saying that murder is illegal 'to make it easier for the populace to swallow'? Are you saying that measures against capital offenses, various forms of assault, protection of private property and enforcement of contracts "do not represent your morality or ethics"? Pray tell, then what are your ethics?
(with claims as outrageous as these I feel like I'm being trolled, but there are at least two people upvoting you?)
> Are you saying that murder is illegal 'to make it easier for the populace to swallow'?
No. I'm saying that by using 'morality' as the reasons for outlawing murder is used that way. In reality, it's very simple to derive the reason that murder is wrong: if we're all allowed to go around murdering each other, we'll have to watch our backs the entire time, and collectively, humanity will never move forward. Very utilitarian. No morality about it.
> Are you saying that measures against capital offenses, various forms of assault, protection of private property and enforcement of contracts "do not represent your morality or ethics"
Yes, I don't think that John Locke was the absolute end to philosophical thought. "Private property" and the accumulation of capital have been the root cause of a large amount of the injustices in the world. Greed is not good. Markets don't work.
> Pray tell, then what are your ethics?
I'm still working out the absolute details, but I'm most certainly in some part of socio-anarco land.
> (with claims as outrageous as these I feel like I'm being trolled, but there are at least two people upvoting you?)
It's because you're thinking on the surface too much. For example: America's rape laws are not in line with my morality. This isn't because I think rape is all good and fine, it's absolutely abhorrent. However, in the eyes of the law, an 18 year old and a 17 year old having sex is wrong, and the 18 year old will be branded a sex offender for life. This is wrong. I don't agree with it.
@1, It's not because there is one reason for something, that that is the only reason. Law is an amalgamation of practical and moral considerations. It would be much more utilitarian if we'd neuter or euthanize everybody with an iq under 90 at age 18 or 25, yet we don't. Is it because of some other utilitarian reason? No we don't because it's a violation of a moral right to self-determination.
@2, I shouldn't say this but I'm getting downvoted left and right today anyway: why aren't you posting from North Korea if it's so great?
@4, this is in the margin. This discussion started with you claiming that "America's (presumable, most of the West's, or even most of the world's) set of rules don't even come anywhere close to representing your ethics", but the only thing you disagree with is some implementation detail (an implementation detail, oh irony, where the tradeoff between morality and utilitarianism was made more in the direction of utilitarianism - statutory rape serves to make prosecution easier).
This really isn't the place or the time to debate most of these things, but I'll leave you with one last reply before this goes even further offtopic:
I'm not saying that I'm utilitarian. Its just that morality can be used as a tool to produce policy that has nothing to do with morals: see the invasion of Iraq, for example. I think we're actually agreeing here.
North Korea is nothing like an anarchist society, and "if you don't like it, move" is not an argument anyway.
In this case, I brought up something that's an implementation detail, because it's an easier segue into the topic. There are other things that are larger, such as the mentioned private property issue.
Not to nitpick but I hope you meant for this to be hyperbole. In general, the law (at least part of it, the parts that aren't purely for practical reasons such as 'everybody should drive on the right side of the road') purports to embody whatever is thought of as 'the moral common ground' of the society it is operating in. In the margin, the implementation can be debated (an epistemological problem of ethics), but prohibitions on and punishment of e.g. murder, rape and theft have a large and explicit moral component.