Moral authority is the basis for creating and interpreting laws, but it can be complex in societies with different views on morality. In theocracy, religious leaders have moral authority, while in sectarian governments, it comes from the people’s vote. The US started with laws based on Christian philosophy but expanded voting rights. Moral authority is not evenly distributed, and controversial laws may lead to civil disobedience. Questions about who has the authority to make moral decisions are debated in courtrooms and by elected representatives and the voting public.
Moral authority means the underlying philosophy that creates or interprets laws, or it can have other definitions. Many individuals, especially elected officials, are believed to have the ultimate authority. Alternatively, the law itself can be seen as having the authority to create morals and respected as the source on which people base their behavior. The issue becomes much more complex, especially in societies where individuals have different views on what constitutes morality.
In a theocracy, moral authority derives from the dominant religion. This means that the laws of religion and civil and criminal law are extremely close because religious leaders control the government. This does not mean that all laws are agreed upon because interpretations of religions vary, even within core sects. However, religious leaders are believed to have the moral authority to create and interpret the law, and this authority comes from adhering to specific religious teachings.
Sectarian governments decide where the moral authority to make and interpret the law comes from. Places like the United States started out with laws loosely inspired by Judeo-Christian concepts. The founding fathers sought to give people freedom of religion, but a general sense pervaded that laws based on Christian philosophy had the greatest moral authority. The authors and each state went further by constructing ways for people to be involved in determining the law. By giving people the right to vote, states and the federal government gave the voting public the opportunity and authority to determine what was moral.
As the United States matured, it extended this authority to more people by expanding voting rights. This authority is not always direct. A person can elect a government official but not have him vote a certain way. Judges are sometimes appointed rather than elected and interpret existing laws or make new laws by setting precedents. In essence, moral authority is widespread in the United States and is not always evenly distributed.
What makes moral authority extremely complex in different populations is that not everyone agrees on the same foundations of basic law. People might even disagree about what the authority should be: some say religion, some say the market, and still others suggest the majority opinion. When certain controversial laws are on the books, those who strongly oppose them may find it necessary to practice civil disobedience where permitted, and may do things like protest peacefully. They may not have options to disobey a law in other ways. If a levied fee funds an abortion clinic and a person does not support an abortion, they usually cannot refuse to pay the fees without suffering consequences.
The diversity of opinion, theological background, and interpretation leads to questions about who has the authority to make moral decisions. These questions take place in courtrooms, where judges must interpret laws from a moral sense. Elected representatives in government also debate moral authority, and the voting public debates which people seem best able to exercise this kind of authority. This leads to regular reevaluation of laws and changes in voter opinion about who best represents a moral view.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
