Katherine asked:

I have a philosophy exam in Moral Reasoning, and I'm having some problems with a certain question
I should be studying. The question is, "Can an act of Parliament make people better?"

============

I'll say what I think the intent of the question is, then you will have to work out your answer (although I
think the question should start with 'should' not 'can' — otherwise it is an empirical and not a
philosophical question). Let's take an example. Assume that we agree that gambling is morally bad —
and bad for you — and not gambling makes you morally better. Should there be a law against
gambling?

One view would be that it is not the place of the law to try to improve people morally. If people want to
gamble, that is their decision. Others say that it is the state's (or community's) duty to protect people
and look after them by stopping them doing wrong. (See also my answer on Answers page 13, no.
22).

Some argue that, even if a law trying to enforce morality is not used (much), because it is hard to
enforce, or because the behaviour is so widespread that police turn a blind eye, it is still a good thing
to have on the books because it expresses community distaste for the behaviour and thus may deter
some people from doing it.

You might also think about whether your answer would be different depending on how it was that the
law was trying to make people better. Is it OK for the law to try to help people turn away from
murdering others? Or to stop them not giving money to charities? Where is the dividing line between
cases where the law is justified in imposing moral behaviour and when it is not?

Tim Sprod

132