Law and morality are the same thing. — Ludovico Lalli

So if capital punishment is law in one country and proscribed in another, is it moral? How do we adjudicate between differences in laws pertaining the same matter? Homosexuality? Or are you saying morality is arbitrary and it hitches a ride with legislation?

If there are moral facts, how do we determine what they are? People can obviously disagree about which principles are moral facts. On the one hand there is near-universal agreement that murder, rape, theft and other serious crimes are morally wrong. It is arguably a fact that if those major crimes were not illegal within communities then those communities would fall apart.

This is not so with issues like sex before marriage and homosexuality, they seem fairly clearly to come down to cultural preferences. In another thread you claimed homosexuality is wrong, not just for you but per se, and you will probably claim that is a moral fact. And yet the majority today probably disagree with you. Facts are demonstrable, how are you going to demonstrate that homosexuality is objectively morally wrong?

It is an issue of legality. How to define the good? I analyzed this issue several times. Expectations must be gauged on the basis of the objectivity of the Constitution. The common denominator is the law. We cannot do without the transparency and the categorical nature of the law. Once you talk about capital punishment you are talking about a well-known controversy. I tell you that it is not appropriate to use the case of capital punishment for weakening the value of law. In short, capital punishment is the abomination of the past. Capital punishment is among the last fossils of the age of abomination. Capital punishment is not the law in its perpetuity and in its nature. Capital punishment is the perversion of the law and its most acid abomination.

It is an issue of legality. How to define the good? I analyzed this issue several times. Expectations must be gauged on the basis of the objectivity of the Constitution. The common denominator is the law. We cannot do without the transparency and the categorical nature of the law. Once you talk about capital punishment you are talking about a well-known controversy. I tell you that it is not appropriate to use the case of capital punishment for weakening the value of law. In short, capital punishment is the abomination of the past. Capital punishment is among the last fossils of the age of abomination. Capital punishment is not the law in its perpetuity and in its contemporary nature. Capital punishment is the perversion of the law and its most acid abomination.

I'm not sure I understand the argument. You seem to be saying that some laws are immoral, and therefore morality is separate from the law. But there are laws against homosexuality, abortion, drug use; you name it. So how do we determine when a law reflects a sound moral position?

Expectations must be gauged on the basis of the objectivity of the Constitution. — Ludovico Lalli

Any constitution is a human made document that can and is altered over time as values change. Some constitutions omit human rights protections, for instance. How do we determine if the constitution represents the good? And how do we translate vague motherhood statements about equality into law?

There must be a common denominator for allowing people to coexist and having expectations. This parameter is equal to the law. Human behavior must be "facile" and emulative. The law must be emulated. Law is equal to morality. It is an issue of simplicity and order.

Some laws can be contested. The law intended as the "corpus" of majoritarian norms of legal behavior must be always valid. You are contesting some laws. However, the law in itself - the law in its majoritarian aspect and in its institutional (official) aspect -

continuing ------> institutional (official) aspect - cannot be abandoned.

Trying to equate legality with morality is a fool's errand. Even a superficial observation of the capriciousness of the legal world will reveal the difference between the two. However an argument can be made to try to equate legality with ethics, depending on the definition of terms.

You've expressed some loose opinions, but I'd like to read an argument.

Some laws can be contested. The law intended as the "corpus" of majoritarian norms of legal behavior must be always valid. You are contesting some laws. — Ludovico Lalli

The law is a reflection of the values of a society: the whole reason there is a significant world-wide enterprise of law reform is because society often identifies that our laws are behind current moral thinking and inadequate and unjust. This can include laws on child labour, environmental protection, and the rights of minority groups, laws about drugs, family law, privacy law, health law and corporate legislation. So, the notion that law equals morality seems incoherent and the reverse of how things work. The law is an attempt to codify a culture's moral principles and dominant moral values - it comes after we decide what's right.

In the case we do accept your argument, we may arrive at the conclusion that morality is ineffable. Basically, it is not so. Once you do analyze your behaviors and expectations, you would arrive at the conclusion that what you do and what you do expect from others has to do with the current form of law. The readiness in being contextualized within society, the readiness in avoiding antisocial behavior, the readiness in avoiding the arrest, the readiness in avoiding imprisonment are some of the motivations which do put the individual in a position to embrace the law. It is an issue of economics of behavior and an issue of facility and convenience. Morality is something that must be comprehended and used. Law is certainly the widest and most perpetual form of morality. Law is the edifice of morality. Also, sometimes law (thus morality) can be reformed.