Morality and Law: Drawing the Line

[Aldin]

Had an interesting conversation with a group of friends last night about morality and law that I thought was interesting enough to share. It started with Quantic Dream's "Kara" (mature themes potentially slightly NSFW depending on work environment) test demo for the PS3.

Spoiler Alert!

In it, an impressively lifelike female android is assembled and asked to answer questions and perform tests by a voice which we come to understand is the final QA before she's shipped. Upon revealing a capacity to think independently, the QA starts disassembling her as she pleas for her life. As she is about to be destroyed, he relents, but is clearly worried about the decision he made in allowing her to exist.

It raised issues along a couple of different lines that converged and diverged over the course of the conversation that boiled down to these questions:

1) Given them increasing ability to create lifelike simulations, what limitations (if any) should the law place on the creation of simulations which represent acts that would be illegal if they actually happened? For example, should I be able to create a lifelike simulation game of myself killing my next door neighbor complete with a layout of his house and realistic timing of activities in my neighborhood?

2) Is there a relationship between law and morality and if so, what is it?

3) Assuming a relationship between law and morality, how do you draw the line somewhere along the moral spectrum?

4) What constitutes "harm" in both a moral sense and in a legal sense and should they be the same thing?

It was a great conversation and it ended with more questions than answers. I'd be delighted to see some of your thoughts and perhaps to wrestle with some of the ideas together.

~Aldin, artificially intelligent

[Rich10]

1) Given them increasing ability to create lifelike simulations, what limitations (if any) should the law place on the creation of simulations which represent acts that would be illegal if they actually happened? For example, should I be able to create a lifelike simulation game of myself killing my next door neighbor complete with a layout of his house and realistic timing of activities in my neighborhood?
There have been a number of games (or simulations) that are (to me) highly distasteful. I can remember video games that had been developed in which the player is a Nazi or a gunman at a school. Grand Theft Auto is a popular game which I won't play. I wouldn't play a HeroScape squad made up of Nazi's. I wouldn't play them (or spend my money on them), but I don't think they should be illegal.

There is a world of difference between an immoral action in a video (or other) game and an immoral action in real life. I don't know how to legislate taste or morality. Being a libertarian at heart, I have trouble with laws that try to legislate morality.

2) Is there a relationship between law and morality and if so, what is it?
I view Morality as a person's perception of what is right and wrong. Law is the state's definition of what must and must not be done along with consequences for not complying with the law. Because many laws have their basis in lawmakers' morality, law and morality are related but I don't think that law and morality can be equated. There have been many immoral laws: slavery, segregation, internment, ... To be fair, they may have seemed moral at the time.

3) Assuming a relationship between law and morality, how do you draw the line somewhere along the moral spectrum?
Since many laws represent (to a degree) the morality of lawmakers, there is a relationship between law and morality. I wouldn't start to draw a line. My morals aren't necessarily the same as yours or the law.

4) What constitutes "harm" in both a moral sense and in a legal sense and should they be the same thing?
Again, I think that morals are determined from the mind of the individual. Harm from a legal sense would be defined by the laws of society. I don't view them as the same since different people will have different views of morals. As a result, it is impossible to legislate all forms of behavior that all people would view as immoral.

[johnny139]

Interesting. Very interesting.

Originally Posted by Aldin

1) Given them increasing ability to create lifelike simulations, what limitations (if any) should the law place on the creation of simulations which represent acts that would be illegal if they actually happened? For example, should I be able to create a lifelike simulation game of myself killing my next door neighbor complete with a layout of his house and realistic timing of activities in my neighborhood?

No. Unless there is an objective, quantifiable negative to it - that is, physical (or quantifiable emotional) damage. Unless someone or something (though the something is another question - I mean, hamburger's creation involves the harm of animals, but I can't really imagine that as bad) is hurt by its existence there's no legal grounds to remove it.

So yes, that's everything from an "Assassinate JFK" video game to simulated child pornography. Distasteful as something might be, unless an individual is harmed, there's no reason to ban it.

2) Is there a relationship between law and morality and if so, what is it?

Not really, no. The law doesn't exist to enforce any sort of morality, it exists to protect those within its legal boundaries. Often the two are intertwined - for example, murder is legally and morally wrong - but not always. I consider the excessive use of alcohol (or really any sort of mind-altering substance from sugar on up) to be morally distasteful, but I can't seriously expect a government to ban sugar because I don't like it.

Unless someone there is a quantifiable harm done, there's no reason to exert any sort of legal statute over it. (As a side note, I think this is one reason I find the discussion about abortion so engrossing - it's NOT simple a question of morality but of objective "harm" done based on the "life" of a fetus).

3) Assuming a relationship between law and morality, how do you draw the line somewhere along the moral spectrum?

There isn't one.

4) What constitutes "harm" in both a moral sense and in a legal sense and should they be the same thing?

Moral harm is up to the individual. Legal harm is quantifiable. If someone is being physically hurt - without consent, of course - by something it should be illegal. The murky water is psychological harm... but frankly I don't put much stock in that alone. Generally, if it does enough psychological harm to consider a legal solution, that psychological harm would be pushed over to the realm of the physical. Sleep deprivation, headaches, illness, that sort of thing.

[Aldin]

Thanks for the responses, Rich and johnny. The phrase "legislate morality" gets bandied about quite a bit as a negative thing, but what else is there? Is it not moral to refrain from murder? Doesn't that mean a law that you may not murder someone is a moral law - in effect that you've legislated morality?

The other possible way to look at it is that rather than legislate morality, you legislate freedom. A law against murder is a law legislating freedom - namely that you can not impose your free choice to murder over another's choice to live. In essence, you legislate in a way that codifies a series of relationships such that restricting the freedom of another person is criminalized. It turns the restriction of another's freedom into harm.

But that begs the question of what constitutes harm. Is it only physical harm? It's easy to argue that bullying restricts the freedom of the bullied - does that make it appropriate to legislate against it - even if there is no physical component? Harm is too easy to demonstrate I think in too many situations for it to be possible to fully legislate. So in a way you're back to the same basic question - where do we draw the line and why do we draw it there?

In fact, even if we accept that we could choose to legislate freedom instead of morality, haven't we simply created a moral spectrum where freedom is good and not freedom is bad? What makes freedom preferable over not freedom? Human nature? What makes right, right and wrong, wrong? More importantly, what happens when we disagree with others about what is right or wrong?

johnny posted while I was writing this, but I think it addressed most of his post as well. Let me add though - should harm be legal if it is unquantifiable? Or do we have an obligation to legislate against harm to the extent we understand harm exists whether or not we can quantify it?

~Aldin, aiming for the middle

[Rich10]

Our laws aren't necessarily set to maximize freedom. We don't let minors legally buy alcohol. We can't legally drink and drive. Many drugs are illegal. Gambling is restricted. People are obligated to pay taxes. At certain times of war, there has been a draft. In many cases, society restricts freedoms.

Laws are passed which (generally) represent the collective morals, values, wishes and/or fears of the people. If the laws stray from what the people want, new politicians will be elected who will change the laws.

[kolakoski]

Originally Posted by johnny139

The law doesn't exist to enforce any sort of morality, it exists to protect those within its legal boundaries. . . .

Unless . . . there is a quantifiable harm done, there's no reason to exert any sort of legal statute over it. . . .

Moral harm is up to the individual. Legal harm is quantifiable. . . . The murky water is psychological harm... but frankly I don't put much stock in that alone. Generally, if it does enough psychological harm to consider a legal solution, that psychological harm would be pushed over to the realm of the physical. Sleep deprivation, headaches, illness, that sort of thing.

Well met!

I was just terminated from my job of 29 years and offered 8 weeks salary/3 months COBRA as severance pay. It may be legal, but it sure ain't right! (We will probably settle for somewhere around 5/5 to avoid the hassle/expense/time of formal legal proceedings, but that, too, is far from moral.)

[Son of Arathorn]

Originally Posted by Rich10

Our laws aren't necessarily set to maximize freedom. We don't let minors legally buy alcohol. We can't legally drink and drive. Many drugs are illegal. Gambling is restricted. People are obligated to pay taxes. At certain times of war, there has been a draft. In many cases, society restricts freedoms.

Laws are passed which (generally) represent the collective morals, values, wishes and/or fears of the people. If the laws stray from what the people want, new politicians will be elected who will change the laws.

Actually, laws are usually passed on the basis of Freedom vs. Security. If you want more freedom, laws will be looser, such as lower ages of voting/drinking, more drugs would be legal, gun regulations wouldn't be very tight. Basically, the average person is simply granted more freedom. The 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution is a fair example, protecting a person from search and seizure by state or federal authorities. Thus, the people have more freedom in their lives, but the police have to work harder to catch criminals. So with this law, we chose freedom over security. But if, in a nation, too many laws favor one or the other, you end up with anarchy in the case of not enough security, or in the case of too much security, you get something similar to Nazi Germany.

Then again, plenty of laws are based on the morality or ideals of individuals, but many of those have been repealed, such as laws barring interracial marriage, Prohibition, etc.

[lefton4ya]

Things like prostitution, gambling, drugs and alchohol get people's view out in the open. One could argue that if a prositute and trick are OK with it then there is nothing wrong with prostitution or that even if a casino only pays out 10% winnings if a person pays to play then there is nothing wrong with gambling. But one could argue even if parties involve say they are not being hamed, they really are being harmed and/or societal sufers from others' actions, and then it is the government's duty to ban and stop these things. Of course it it is more about your views of PSYCHOLOGY and SPIRITUALITY that guide whether these things are MORALLY wrong or not. Less extreme examples are violence in movies in games, where people can argue whether or not it does harm even if no one says it harms them. Not saying one way or the other, just pointing out the dilema.

[Tornado]

As far as the video game about killing your neighbor may be restricted due to the fact you do not own the rights to their image. Outside of that I see nothing that would stop such a game.
The rest of the discussion will always be just that, since Congress makes the laws and serve their own purposes, mainly getting re-elected. Until Americans execute their right to vote in force and clean out Congress we will subjected to laws supported by those who do vote. When it comes to morality laws the faction that votes most is generally the religious sector. This results in their Congress member voting with the voting masses in their district regardless of their beliefs or those of the general public. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

[Taeblewalker]

I think the main thrust of the OP is this: What happens when we create artificial life, capable of thinking? At what point does it become a "person?" With rights? And what laws should automatically protect, say, a sentient alien species that visits us tomorrow? Would it be illegal to murder a Vulcan before Congress said it was with an official bill being signed into law?

[Rich10]

Originally Posted by Taeblewalker

I think the main thrust of the OP is this: What happens when we create artificial life, capable of thinking? At what point does it become a "person?" With rights? And what laws should automatically protect, say, a sentient alien species that visits us tomorrow? Would it be illegal to murder a Vulcan before Congress said it was with an official bill being signed into law?

Romulan - Yes
Klingon - Maybe
Vulcan - No (except in Florida under the stand your ground law)

[Tornado]

Originally Posted by Taeblewalker

I think the main thrust of the OP is this: What happens when we create artificial life, capable of thinking? At what point does it become a "person?" With rights? And what laws should automatically protect, say, a sentient alien species that visits us tomorrow? Would it be illegal to murder a Vulcan before Congress said it was with an official bill being signed into law?

Very tough question but one that I think is inevitable. My gut tells me we will create artificial life that will replace us someday.
Aliens is a scarier proposal as it is even more likely they would eliminate/enslave us. I guess it will come down to the people in charge when these situations arise. Something tells me that fear will cause us to destroy (or at least attempt to) any perceived threat to the human race. We wiped out the Neanderthal and the Hobbits(mostly my opinion), it is in our blood. I think this subject makes for great conversation but is hard to execute online. Great food for thought.