[rndmize]

This sounds exactly right to me. In discussions with a religious friend of mine some years ago, I noticed that she had a tendency to conflate law and morality, when they really have nothing to do with each other. Further, she seemed to think that because it was illegal or bad to do something, it was reasonable to expect that people wouldn't do that thing as a result. I found (and find) this ridiculous - in large enough groups, you can use incentive/disincentive structures to push the population's behavior in a certain direction, but never with 100% effectiveness. Naturally, she disagreed.

[graphitezepp]

The legal = moral line of thought is one of my most hated things to come across. It correlating with the highly religious makes sense, but it's by no means limited to them. It's incredibly wide spread in American culture to have at least a small degree of that, people always feel naughty when they break the law. I too find it ridiculous.

[jwhitlark]

I wonder sometimes if legal = moral is just a labor saving device for most of the population.

[wowzerz]

Keep in mind that there’s actually a path to breaking people out of this point of view, but it’s a really deep, dark rabbit hole, with lasting ramifications.

When you take this principle into account, however, a huge segment of the world makes much more sense, although the realities that become evident are kind of horrible.

The fastest path to lead people out of this mindset, is to prove to them their own error by bringing them in on some misbehavior (such that they perceive it as a serious violation of their own personal code), for which they both benefit from, experience no consequences, and find deep tempatation to repeat.

To broach the subject of crossing some personal line with a person like this raises an eyebrow. Crossing that line in front of them reveals a mixture of feelings. Inviting them to participate is met with uncertainty. Pulling the trigger with them gives way to a period of paranoia, until the coast is clear. Then, twice then, three times. Now, they’re convinced that morality isn’t set in stone, and laws are the commands of mere mortals, to be broken at will.

But, now what you have on your hands is a convert. Once conservative, and yet still as much, but eager to experiment and challenge their own views. This is where stereotypical morally abivalent, yet superficially conservative people come from. Seduced out of their naive, obedient world view, but entertaining dubious integrity. So now it’s no longer divine authority in an imperfect world conceived by some paranormal perfection, but instead, simply might makes right. And so, you get tasteless materialism, and a ruthlessness to obtain status.

After a certain age, this sort of thing really can’t happen with some people. When you’re a teenager, transgressing certain boundaries can be harmless and naive, but after a certain age, cheap thrills don’t work. That’s why we find a broad split of sheltered, uptight squares, mixed in with smaller segments of snobby, cavalier libertines or cheesey, greedy sociopaths.

It’s a distribution of age brackets for teenage misbehavior. The cornier the yuppie, the later in college they started breaking the rules, or maybe they never broke any rules, and that’s why they’re stuck with this holier-than-thou attitude.