Alright, I’m going to respond to most of what you said, but it’ll be the last part that’s most important. Some of the beginning stuff is probably purely semantic disagreement, but the stuff at the end is… not.
*That tree ought to be producing more fruit, I wonder if it’s not getting enough water?
You should see this movie, Elmo, it’s fantastic! *
So, not all ought or should statements have moral content.
Alright, fair enough, I wasn’t specific enough - neither of those statements are what I meant by “ought/should statement”. The first is a statement that things are not as you expect. The second is advice using the language of duty even when no duty is implied.
Let me restate: any statement that a thing should be a certain way, where should is taken to mean that if things are not that way people have some sort of duty to make them so, is a moral statement. Any time you tell me I should do something and actually mean it - mean that I have any sort of obligation at all to do so - you are making a moral statement.
Or to put it another way, the only duty is a moral duty.
(If we generalized one step further out: All questions are theological questions.)
But the law itself is not moral, it is factual. It describes actions necessary or forbidden and consequences of the actions. It defines things essential to itself, like “person” or “consent” or “citizen.” The law is created around individuals and their welfare. It is not based on things being “right” or “wrong” but simply defines what is legal, illegal, required or forbidden. Law has no moral content,* per se*. Not in the US.
It is very much
based on things being right or wrong, and if it gets this base wrong, there are problems. A society where people suddenly decide that it’s ok to massacre a large portion of the population, and make laws that cause this to happen have made immoral laws. The laws they made did not change morality, true, but because the laws were based upon a faulty understanding of it, bad things happen.
For an example of the moral basis of laws: Murder is prohibited because killing other people (except in self defense and all of those cases where killing isn’t murder) is wrong.
You can turn around and say that “no, it’s to protect people’s right to not get murdered.”
But this is the same statement. There is no difference whatsoever between saying people have a right to not be murdered and that it is wrong to murder someone. There is no difference between saying that people have a right to practice their religion and saying that it is wrong to try to stop people from practicing their religion.
Even
speed limits are based on morality. We have roads. Use of roads are regulated to protect the life and property of those using and near the roads. The statement that life and property should be protected and that the activities of those using the roads may be restricted to reach this end is a moral statement. Thus a speed limit is set. What the exact number is, so long as it does the job, doesn’t really matter, but the fundamental reason why the law even exists is moral.
A law that requires something immoral is bad law and should not exist. A law that forbids something morally necessary is bad law and should not exist.
In short, protecting the citizens’ welfare is a moral obligation.
You can make no value statement about law that is not a moral statement.
Law that is too vague invites abuse and is difficult to enforce.
Fundamentally a moral statement. Assuming you think those things are bad. Otherwise, it’s a comment along the lines of “that shirt is blue,” which is not a value statement.
But my reasons, as a person and an individual, for supporting or objecting to a law can be about my own personal morality. This doesn’t imbue the law with morality, however.[emphasis mine] There is no objective reason to bar persons of the same sex from participating in civil marriage. The objections are purely moralistic[emphasis also mine], and relative due to not all persons sharing the same moral imperatives on this topic.
Moral relativism is false. There is no such thing as personal morality. There is such thing as personal
perception of morality, and that perception is either right or wrong on every point.
Morality is objective. I say there are moral reasons for a law not to pass. If my perception of morality on this point is correct, then those reasons are objective reasons for the law not to pass and it shouldn’t. If my perception of morality is incorrect, then those reasons are simply false and not reasons at all.
A law which is supported by objective morality is moral. A law which is opposed by objective morality is immoral. My perception isn’t doing any sort of imbuing, and none needs to be done. Morality or immorality is already there.
That there are people who are wrong about morality does not change anything, really. All the statements about not coercing people to violate their own perception of reality (within reason) are simply part of true morality itself. There is no need to say “you must ignore morality because some people disagree with you.” Ignoring morality is always bad.
So - If I say it is immoral for gay people to act as though they are married, and I further say that it would be immoral to treat them as though they are married, then
if I am right a law which requires people to treat them as though they are married is OBJECTIVELY wrong. If I’m wrong then I have no argument.
But we’re Catholic.
So we know that I’m right.
So we know that a law which requires people to treat gay couples as though they are married is bad law.
