Jonah Goldberg writes:

It is, for example, absurd that we've decided the Supreme Court should be the final arbiter of morality in this country and it is even more cockeyed that, having arrived at this absurd place, we continue to appoint lawyers to the court on the assumption they are the experts best qualified to adjudicate not merely the law (which is fine, of course) but right and wrong and all of the mysteries of metaphysics and meaning. Why lawyers? Why not priests, doctors and philosophers too — that is if they're going to be deciding when life begins and when it can be ended?

When did we decide that the Supreme Court should be the final arbiter of morality in this country? Did I miss the memo? If so, that's a pretty frightening thought. Maybe many people have, but I never did. I retain the quaint, and perhaps archaic notion that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is constitutional, not what is moral. Sometimes, as the man once said, the law is a ass. And while I think that a priest might be capable of judging the constitutionality of a given law, given sufficient study, there's nothing particular in his background that would render him more fit to the task than a trained lawyer.

I'd like the Supremes to stick to their knitting, myself, and if they do so, people with training in constitutional law (and argumentation and logic) are probably the best candidates for the job. If we believe that a law ruled constitutional is immoral, then we should either fight to change the law, or work to change the Constitution. But I don't think that we should draw any conclusions whatsoever about morality from a SCOTUS opinion.

Many people appear to operate under the notion that if an action is legal, it is sufficiently moral that they can do it for any reason whatsoever. The law, and changes to it, appear to work as legitimizing functions.

You and I are able to make a distinction between the morality and law. Based on what they wrote, Jonah and his reader are also capable of making that distinction and in fact that's their point. They are, however, pointing out a real human dynamic at work in our culture. The other day, my wife caught me subconsciously equating the law and morality. When she pointed it out I realized my mistake. Have you ever made that mistake, Rand?

Yours,
Wince

Have you ever made that mistake, Rand?

Not that I know of. I have a pretty strong viewpoints on that subject, as exhibited by this post. In fact, I think that there are many laws (DC's handgun ban being one) that's it's immoral to obey (not that I think it immoral to not have a handgun in DC--just that if you feel a need for one to protect yourself and your family, it would be wrong to avoid doing so simply because it's illegal).

I've also noticed a parallel line of thinking, that anything "Good" is somehow to be justified by the Constitution (even if it's silent on the subject, or even disagrees), and likewise anything the speaker thinks "Bad" must be somehow condemned by it (even, again, if it's actually silent or actively contradicts the speaker's beliefs).

Noting that makes certain arguments make much more sense in terms of their perceived basis.

When morality has been mocked, ridiculed, and effectively destroyed as a means for encouraging or discouraging behaviors, only the law remains.

Ooooh, those nasty destroyers of morality are at it again! That explains all those bodies I had to step over in the street this morning on the way to work.

And when law becomes so vast, complex and indeterminate that a non-lawyer cannot understand what it says, it is easy, and tempting, for lawyers to become like priests.

Since lawyers themselves are almost equally lost out of their specialties (e.g., tax vs. family law) and there are many fundamental disputes within specialties, the legal sector becomes even more of a mystery cult.

"Ooooh, those nasty destroyers of morality are at it again! That explains all those bodies I had to step over in the street this morning on the way to work."

They can't do that! It's illegal!