If you are asking whether morality or legality is more important, it would matter what the stakes are, would it not? If the act is trivial and nothing is at stake, it doesn't matter. If the stakes are high, then the relationship between morality and legality are worth considering.

Which takes precedence--legality or morality? Which one do you think is the most reliable guide to behavior -- moral teaching or law? Law is more specific and detailed; morality is general and stated in principles. Law is perhaps more thorough than morality: In time the law is elaborated to cover all manner of behavior, everything from hunting squirrels to the way depreciation should be calculated. Usually following the law will result in one being moral, but not always.

Where morals and law become difficult to reconcile is when need arises that requires moral, but illegal, action. In order to save an accident victim, I might have to trespass and damage private property. Both are illegal, but the morality of the situation requires busting down the fence and trespassing. If an aggressive animal is treating the victim, I might have to shoot it--more illegality.

No formulae is foolproof. Some over-riding principle is needed to determine which system--morals or law--you should follow. Jesus says one should love God and love your neighbor as yourself. Thereby hangs the entire law. So, love might be the overriding rule.

Definitely immoral, laws are put into place to dictate a society, where as morals are there to dictate the individual. Most of the time an individual without morals does not take part in a society. Imagine if the world was just made of individuals, there would be no society of any kind. As much as I hate it social sturctures help nurture progress and with out that nothing would ever change, and without change there would be no life.

Only rarely will I do anything that I think is immoral. There have to be significant balancing pressures--concessions for loved ones, livelihood necessities, self-preservation--for me to do something I consider immoral.

That's not to say anything about whether other people consider the things in question moral. I have a lot of unusual moral stances.

Legality, on the other hand, for me is a consideration based on (a) whether I agree with the law, and (b) the risks of breaking it.

Only rarely will I do anything that I think is immoral. There have to be significant balancing pressures--concessions for loved ones, livelihood necessities, self-preservation--for me to do something I consider immoral. — Terrapin Station

Wouldn't the existence of these balancing pressures turn what would otherwise be an immoral act into a moral act?

Is it immoral to lie if you feel like what you are lying about is morally permissible or neutral but the person you are lying to disapproves, in order to avoid putting stress on the relationship? In other words, you feel like the issue that the other party disapproves of doesn’t harm anyone, so you lie about it to avoid strife. Is that immoral?

I don't think I have a one-size-fits-all kind of answer. Rather, which of the two I consider more important would depend on the context. Sometimes, at least for me, the practical concerns about not following a law can outweigh the sense of injustice I feel regarding that same law. Other times, I'm not too bothered about breaking a law if I don't think that it's justified or I just don't care enough about it or it's secondary to a feeling of outrage.

driving a car barefoot is illegal (Truth:was) but not immoral.

Freedom of speech for hate. Legal but immoral. — Drek

So shallow! Let's assume there's good reason for driving barefoot being illegal. What is your "moral" stance toward that reason?

Hate speech may well be immoral, but that's not what you wrote, is it. You wrote, "Freedom of speech for hate." What is your "moral" stance to freedom of speech? It's good to think about what you write before you post it.

My moral stance is there are other good reasons to drive barefoot. I shouldn't be limited to driving with something on my feet, that's unreasonable to me. Have you ever seen electricians work with gloves on... it's actually harder. I don't see how making it illegal solves anything. If there was a valid moral reason why... I'd follow.

I believe we have the freedom of speech, but just go on youtube and see all the hate that's legally there. I find it immoral, but it is legal. Hate speech is legal but immoral... doesn't mean that it is legal we should use it. All I am saying. And because something is not legal we shouldn't do something. It must be critically examined.

I don't care whether you drive barefoot or naked.

A person needs to identify a key virtue with which they will weigh their choices. Love is a possible key virtue. Of the 6 kinds of love

Eros, or sexual passion. ...
Philia, or deep friendship. ...
Ludus, or playful love. ...
Agape, or love for everyone. ...
Pragma, or longstanding love. ...
Philautia, or love of the self

Pragma, Agape, or Philia -- love of others in any case, might suffice.

Or, maybe Freedom, or Loyalty to some canon of virtue suits being a key virtue. There are others. When it comes to judgement (especially of squishy categories like "hate speech" or "Patriotism") you need a consistent standard of what is important.

So, for instance, which approach towards a thing most advantages agape, freedom, or family values -- whatever you measure importance by. When I measure importance with freedom, then so called hate speech is and ought to be protected. If "family values" are my guide, hate speech, porn, liberal values, and much else will be deemed not worth saving.

Agape with Freedom... sounds good to me

If you lie for convenience sake it would seem immoral. There are exceptions like national security. Or usually when it harms you or someone else. Though a lot of people lie to protect themselves, still if they are in the wrong their reputation gets the best of them. But other than that, honesty or telling someone "I don't have to answer that." You have a moral right to assert yourself. If they disagree or disapprove, but you are morally sound and have valid reasons, they will have to do some critical thinking.

I think it is a bad idea to lie for convenience sake no matter how mundane. Just not good practice. It might not be an end all but it's a bad habit that can get you in trouble fast.

Would you want the lie in return? Universal test (If everyone did it) and Public Test (If people were observing it on TV) from Kant help me.

Other than that, I don't know if it is immoral. I'm usually pretty straight forward with people myself, and if it is a blood boiling topic, I stay away. I tend to get along easy with people in RL, and really haven't needed to lie about things.

Well there's a parents child relationship between immoral and illegal. Morality fathers legality.

Only the most important moral considerations are codified in legal terms. Lying casually isn't illegal but murder is. Vague moral entities are left out of the law.

So, it is imperative that you always consider the law but moral considerations are an option.

I can see some merit in thinking that, but among the things I have in mind here are making decisions that simply make life easier for me--keeping a job instead of burning bridges and looking for another, staying out of prison, etc.

There is goodness in everyone, and people only need a good chance to show. When hearing people gasp and startle for accident, people do care and do share their sympathy. Therefore, it is more important being legal than being immoral to protect the goodness of people from getting crushed by wrong accusation or in bad means.
You can walk up an injured personnel, try your best to save him/he and to the side road, but by doing so, you may break the law due to your unprofessional emergency action, which potentially cause extra injuries. It would be more important to have strong legal logics to set up stop sign before the accident scene to stop the coming car from having further incidents. It is only crushing my mind when seeing people show good deeds get punished. Being more legal oriental help, would protect and defense for those who intend to act for the goodness.

"You can walk up an injured personnel, try your best to save him/he and to the side road, but by doing so, you may break the law due to your unprofessional emergency action, which potentially cause extra injuries"

isn't that really a moral than legal? it's good the law is there don't get me wrong, but if I know nothing about helping someone I'm causing more harm than good, isn't that immoral? If you don't want to cause extra injuries you are morally obligated not to cause more damage. The virtue of honesty and all that?

That would be like pretending to be a doctor or something...

Say you were formerly a professional, would it be more of a gray area, would it be immoral not to act knowing you can save him? It would still be illegal to help wouldn't it?

I think legal and moral are more like second cousins. Less than a generation ago it was legal in Germany to exterminate a whole race, and less than 3 generations ago slavery was legal in the us. We are separating children from their parents at the us border today.

I think legal and moral are more like second cousins. Less than a generation ago it was legal in Germany to exterminate a whole race, and less than 3 generations ago slavery was legal in the us. We are separating children from their parents at the us border today. — Rank Amateur

What is morally vague doesn't get written down in legal texts. Only those ethical ''truths'' we're sure of are legally binding.

All I'm saying is legality is not an option in that we must abide by the law. As for ethics there are a lot of vague entities in them that we haven't decided to legislate on. These are optional as far as I can see.

I guess if we really get down to basics it's a greater human being to be moral as we're free - things being optional. To be legal is just to fear punishment.

"I guess if we really get down to basics it's a greater human being to be moral as we're free - things being optional. To be legal is just to fear punishment. "

That's what I am thinking as well... so striving to be moral is better than to do things out of legal obligation. Not to say breaking the law doesn't have consequences but being moral you tend to avoid what's illegal for the most part (marijuana is my problem) and you get to live a life in accordance to a truer life (a life towards progress). Morals differ but for different reasons (kindness over freedom) but that's where a little critical thinking takes place.

Laws are necessary to enforce moral character. Though not all laws are created equal. (Slavery, or genital mutilation in Africa)

Like a republican or a democrat they value different things but if you really think about it they are JUST (justice) causes with different values sometimes they conflict; hence, an ethical dilemma. Democrats may value social acceptance but republicans the economy (just an example) it just depends on what's more valuable in a given context. I bet neither would agree that they don't have America's interests at heart.

If the economy is in the shitter, I'd rather listen to someone that wants to save money and is worried about the economy, than spend all the time (not saying all democrats do but generally...). Sometimes we can spend if our budget allows, and enjoy government programs. Neither are immoral people as a whole just value different things at different times. Critical thinking is necessary. As Bitter Crank told me do what's best for the nation.

Another topic would be political party bias. You know voting purely Republican or purely Democrat.

Just my thoughts.

A way to restate the question would be:
Is it better to do moral things or things which are thought to be moral (by society). What is more important, your state of being or the perception of others?

This is an interesting question and it is dealt with directly in Plato's Republic in which he makes the argument it is better to be a just man who is perceived by all (even the Gods!) to be unjust, than to be an unjust man perceived by all to be just. I couldn't possibly do Plato's work justice without writing an essay, so if you are interested I can recommend reading the work. However, to summarize Plato argues that in a just man it is reason that rules desire, whereas an injust man is ruled by his desire. Therefore an unjust man cannot experience contentment and will be in a permanent state of want. The just man on the other hand controls his desire through reason and therefore experiences contentment wherever he goes.

Thank you for pointing and refining the writing and let me get close to the theme of the question.
“Say you were formerly a professional, would it be more of a gray area, would it be immoral not to act knowing you can save him? It would still be illegal to help wouldn't it?”
Applying the medical professional idea to my daily job, a pen company, we always mention the pen is an environmental friendly and CO2 reduced products for good company image, and moral satisfaction for consumers. Unfortunately, the painting, the coating and chemistry help the product to last longer, is giving Mother Nature very hard time to digest. It is a legal product with FDA certification, but it is immoral to the nature environment and results collateral damage to human being, which as result people won't spend time to talk about on news or social media. It is immoral to use the pen, but it is also legal. As result, if we want to have goodness for our world, we should avoid being immoral, but and not letting legal to affect the own morality. ( wow this sounds crazy)

.

Perhaps your post is caught in TPF spam filter? It happens sometimes....