Some people attempt to legislate morality, because they believe that if something is immoral, it obviously out to be illegal. Morality is subjective. Rights are much clearer. That is why the legal system is built on rights and not morality.
Yes, but it can't be in determining what is a crime. Morality is subjective, and it changes. The statue books could not keep up with something that might be illegal today, legal tomorrow and illegal the day after. Also it would reduce law to a function of the majority, the morality of the majority outweigh the morality of the minority. Although the minority may in fact be right.
There is a place for morality, and that is when it comes to the remedy for the crime.
Not all crimes are equal.
You would expect different punishments for different moralities. But you would always expect a punishment for he crime.
You can get rid of an immoral act, but the immorality still remains.
Lets take one example:
A father smokes, but because he smokes, and he won't live as long as he could. This is immoral as he has a duty to be there for his children.
A law is passed to stop this immorality, and a cop assigned to enforce this edict. The father still wishes a cigarette, but he just isn't smoking.
Here are the effects:
The Amish and ultra orthodox jews believe that religion dictates social, economic and political principles, but they are generally more concerned with their own observation of these principles than a comprehensive regeneration of society.
This has contributed to the idea that liberalism is 'neutral' in relation to the moral cultural and other choices citizens make. Moral autonomy.
Governments are inconsistent in their application of regulation