I know very well that the legal system currently legislates morality. That's how we get into the deepest legal messes. My point is that it shouldn't legislate morality. Sorry for the confusion.
Of course they're based on a moralistic framework. Any non-arbitrary system dealing with this sort of thing must be. But I believe it shouldn't dictate those morals back onto its populace, and it should recognize that each individual has their own moral system for making decisions and not play favors. There are plenty of moral philosophies that adequately provide for just this end. Absolutist systems such as the one we're currently founded upon do not: They leave us open to the examples I mentioned above precisely because the moral foundation is so poor when dealing with a heterogeneous society.
I would agree, but raise you other general rights such as property as well. It fits very well with the philosophy I've expounded about because the basis for criminal law is completely justified due to the initiation of force from the criminal party.
|