|
Hi again, Maggie... allow me to put another slant on your example....
I think most would agree that unless a person is wealthy enough to absorb liability costs themselves, it is immoral for that person to operate a motor vehicle on public roads without auto insurance. Therefore, a law exists to enforce that moral, requiring a person to have insurance in order to drive.
To make enforcing this law easier, and to help discourage uninsured mororists, the contract between the government and the driver dictates that the driver must carry proof of insurance in order to drive. So the failure to carry an insurance card is "immoral" in that it breaks the covenent made when the driver's license was procured. Certainly this isn't a huge breach of moral virtue, but of course morals come in degrees, which is often indicated by the punishment allocated to breaking the law which that moral reflects.
Even by my argument, however, there is no denying that some laws utterly fail to reflect the morals of the people those laws govern, because many laws are bought (example: DMCA). But I think that is their aim, regardless of their success rate.
By the way, Maggie... I am persistent in this matter only because I relish a debate with intellectuals, not because I have some grander point to make. Also, I am relatively certain theat "grander" is not a word.
Hot Pastrami
|