Capital punishment a constitutional right?

Legal systems should be treated instrumentally, but should be wielded in the cause of morality.

So if the morals at the time say its ok to hang for stealing a sheep i should accept that morality?

you think that the law is weilded incorrectly because of your morality; so you think that morality should dictate the use of the law.

No I said that the law should be a tool of morality, which seems obvious, or the law would dictate 'murder is legal'

.Religion would make certain abortionist murderers and adulterers could be stoned.

There is morality in law such as protecting the vunerable but morals in themselves should not be the reason for laws..

Some relgions some of the time, maybe. Not the church where I live. In fact God is the official source of authority for our government and it's legal system in the UK.

Then what are the reasons for the law? I do not suggest that it is the job of the law to make us moral people, certainly, but it is the job of the law to do its utmost to make a moral society, and this is in fact the reason for its noninterfearance- it would do the opposite of it's intent.

Whose morals are you talking about? Stealing is morally wrong but is greed covered by the law even though it is morally wrong..Laws should be morally correct but it is not the purpose of law.. Business can be morally corrupt but if they dont break the law they are not judged ..

The purpose of the law is a moral one, do you disagree? It is not the place of the law to dictate morality, but it should be based on morality, and strive to acheive moral things for the society it serves. It is set up because of morality and for morality. It is not the place of the law to punish people for all evils, only those that are best dealt with by the law. The law is a tool. As to which morality, this is a broader question, but that it should be morality seems unquestionable.

If we have the right to safety, pursuit of happiness and life it self. doesn't that mean capital punishment must exist? it aids in these things. less murderers mean that more people are safe, pursuing happiness and living too.

Is it a constitutional right in the same way that the right of freedom of speech or a woman's right to an abortion are considered to be constitutional rights? No. I also don't see how capital punishment necessarily must exist in order for innocent people to pursue happiness that makes little to no sense.

As for the separate question that has come up between the relationship of the law and morality: I take it that we generally think the legal system should and often does track morality (even though obviously certain things like jaywalking or not running a redlight, even if other cars are remotely nearby don't seem like morally bad things). And as you pointed out morally reprehensible things have been legal in the past, slavery is a classic example. But I don't think the fact that laws have often functioned immorally means that laws can't or shouldn't be founded heavily upon moral concerns.So, I'm inclined to tentatively agree with avatar that the basis for the law is largely moral, although I don't know if morality has to be the sole foundation.

That which suits a particular social gestalt at a particular time.

What is morality? can you give a precise definition?

If we have the right to safety, pursuit of happiness and life it self. doesn't that mean capital punishment must exist? it aids in these things. less murderers mean that more people are safe, pursuing happiness and living too.

The funny thing about putting moral mores into law is that you solidify those social mores from changing. At least in the law. In reality, the people's morality continues to change as it always has, and the law would become increasingly out of tune with the expectations and morals of society--an awkward situation, considering the insane difficulty of getting a law changed, much less revoked.

Should the law then, legislate morality? The simple answer is no. In a diverse country like the United States, there is practically no issue on which a moral consensus can be reached. To enact moral legislation then would violate minority rights/civil liberties.

But then what about murder and theft? Grand theft auto, extortion, blackmail, slavery? In the case of murder, a very real observable threat to societal stability is documented. Same goes for theft, extortion, and blackmail. In fact, almost all the major laws that we all pretty much agree to be just are secularily valid and viable(slavery being the noted exception).

And that makes sense, because we don't need to consult morality per se to figure out what laws to make. We just need to uphold the stability of society, which, in my opinion, is all that is absolutely required from the law.

And that makes sense, because we don't need to consult morality per se to figure out what laws to make. We just need to uphold the stability of society, which, in my opinion, is all that is absolutely required from the law.