Yes, pretty much. Republics are not good at morality but they are not uncaring, either.
EDIT: I have difficulty taking Konkvistador’s comment as anything but a joke, because I specified what I meant by “not amoral”, namely “it has moral (or moral-like) objections to some contract terms”. I should probably clarify what counts as “moral-like objections”: ones grounded on consequential, deontological, or virtue premises, e.g.:
“We don’t enforce that contract term because doing so would cause harm.”
″… to the contracting parties.”
″… to society at large.”
“We don’t enforce that contract term because we’re obligated not to.”
″… because it would violate someone’s rights.”
″… because we couldn’t do so without exceeding our legitimate authority.”
“We don’t enforce that contract term because good people wouldn’t do that.”
″… because it would reward bad behavior.”
″… because doing so would make us like the Bad Example People.”
Yes, pretty much. Republics are not good at morality but they are not uncaring, either.
EDIT: I have difficulty taking Konkvistador’s comment as anything but a joke, because I specified what I meant by “not amoral”, namely “it has moral (or moral-like) objections to some contract terms”. I should probably clarify what counts as “moral-like objections”: ones grounded on consequential, deontological, or virtue premises, e.g.:
“We don’t enforce that contract term because doing so would cause harm.”
″… to the contracting parties.”
″… to society at large.”
“We don’t enforce that contract term because we’re obligated not to.”
″… because it would violate someone’s rights.”
″… because we couldn’t do so without exceeding our legitimate authority.”
“We don’t enforce that contract term because good people wouldn’t do that.”
″… because it would reward bad behavior.”
″… because doing so would make us like the Bad Example People.”