Chicken or egg question, sort of...?

Although they are definitely related, I think that first choice predominates.

Social mores existed long before laws did. Codifying laws tended to fix mores from changing though. Although, over time, mores do change and laws are modified (sometimes though great pain) to reflect those changes.

Today, we do see the opposite occur, such as when laws are overturned by a court. An example could be the Roe v Wade decision or the current rulings on gay marriage. However, what we witness is that changing social mores to reflect changes in law are nearly impossible. 35 years after Roe v Wade, our country is still as divided over abortion as it was then. Maybe it is a bit less divided, but the slow change indicates to me that any change in mores might have come about anyway, if Roe v Wade had not overturned the law. Some suggest that the social mores would have come around FASTER if the court had not ordered the change in law.

Gay marriage is similar. Public opinion of the moral acceptance of homosexuality has been changing for decades before the law has started catching up. The changes we've seen in the law would have been impossible to bring about 20 years ago.

Interesting question, thanks for giving me a chance to think about it!

Most likely both. We express in laws our moral understanding and values. Individuals raised in a certain society will also adopt the moral views of this society, some of which are articulated and enforced in the society's laws. Adhering to the laws of this society then also reinforces my value system, one that my society sees as so important to them that they have written them into the law.

But here is of course the crux: Is the moral code to which I adhere one that depends on the society I live in? In other words, is the content of morality something that evolves and is determined by local majorities? In society A it is illegal to be married more than once, in society B it is seen as a sign of great strength and valued highly. Can we say that moral behavior in either society depends on the code agreed upon in this society?

If so, the problem is that the Nazis in Third Reich Germany would have to be considered moral, which is difficult to stomach (impossible to stomach, if you ask me...).

So, if we don't want to go down the road of moral relativism, can we say that laws expressing our moral values, are only just when they adhere to the universal moral code that underlies all human behavior?

I think you can see the dilemma; on the one hand, one is tempted to answer the latter question in the positive, but then one also has to show where this universal code comes from and how we can find cultural discontinuity in a morally continuous world.

Just another thought...

good queation. i think that they created each other because just like the chicken and the egg they need each other to live (in a way).

you said it its a kind of chicken or egg question . i will have to get back to you on that one .