> is there any scientific basis for claiming that enforcement creates morality
Not sure (and doubt it) but my argument is that if enforcement was adequate then you wouldn't need morality - morality would be a "bonus" but even if it were to go away, adequate enforcement would still deter the undesirable behavior by making it unprofitable.
> which is not supporting the hypothesis that more enforcement = better morality and less crime.
"Law enforcement" in general is too broad to be able to draw this conclusion. Which crimes actually trigger enforcement (and what is the penalty)? If police is too busy busting kids smoking pot (or other victimless crimes that are easy to prosecute) to attend shoplifting incidents/property crime then shoplifting will remain regardless of how much "enforcement" there is (and of course the second-order effects from punishing pot smokers will set them up for a life of crime where they'll then "upgrade" to other crime with actual victims).
> both are unacceptable but legally one form is an acceptable way to do business
But law != morality. From a moral point of view I'm not sure there's a difference - in both cases someone is unjustly enriching themselves at the expense of the victim. When talking about morals and how they prevent people from acting antisocially, those morals may evolve over time if the bad behavior has been normalized by financial reward & lack of consequences.
> People at the individual level however don’t operate that way though
That is true but the economic incentives that are there (and lack of deterrence) means that people may start operating that way and I'd argue more and more people do, whether by choice or by lack of other options.
And I’m saying that enforcement and morality are swamped by poverty and inequality.
I’d recommend trying to find any grounding in evidence of your claims because the poverty and inequality links to crime are pretty well established in the data.
Not sure (and doubt it) but my argument is that if enforcement was adequate then you wouldn't need morality - morality would be a "bonus" but even if it were to go away, adequate enforcement would still deter the undesirable behavior by making it unprofitable.
> which is not supporting the hypothesis that more enforcement = better morality and less crime.
"Law enforcement" in general is too broad to be able to draw this conclusion. Which crimes actually trigger enforcement (and what is the penalty)? If police is too busy busting kids smoking pot (or other victimless crimes that are easy to prosecute) to attend shoplifting incidents/property crime then shoplifting will remain regardless of how much "enforcement" there is (and of course the second-order effects from punishing pot smokers will set them up for a life of crime where they'll then "upgrade" to other crime with actual victims).
> both are unacceptable but legally one form is an acceptable way to do business
But law != morality. From a moral point of view I'm not sure there's a difference - in both cases someone is unjustly enriching themselves at the expense of the victim. When talking about morals and how they prevent people from acting antisocially, those morals may evolve over time if the bad behavior has been normalized by financial reward & lack of consequences.
> People at the individual level however don’t operate that way though
That is true but the economic incentives that are there (and lack of deterrence) means that people may start operating that way and I'd argue more and more people do, whether by choice or by lack of other options.