Legislating Morality

[dblack]

The law says you can't have sex between an adult and a child. The law says people who have sufficient income must pay taxes to help support those that are poor. The law says that handicapped people get special parking places. Etc. Etc. All law is based on certain moral principles.

The question is whether it should be. Or if, instead, it should focus on protecting our rights. There's a lot of overlap between rights and morals but they aren't the same thing. RIghts are freedoms, morals are imperatives of behavior. Clarity on that distinction would do our nation a lot of good.

 

[Artevelde]

The law says you can't have sex between an adult and a child. The law says people who have sufficient income must pay taxes to help support those that are poor. The law says that handicapped people get special parking places. Etc. Etc. All law is based on certain moral principles.

The question is whether it should be. Or if, instead, it should focus on protecting our rights. There's a lot of overlap between rights and morals but they aren't the same thing. RIghts are freedoms, morals are imperatives of behavior. Clarity on that distinction would do our nation a lot of good.

There really isn't that much overlap between rights and morals.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I have meant to post this topic for a long time but have failed to do so until I seen Immie recently mention government legislating morality and I could not let another statement like this slide. I have heard time and time again that it is the governments place to legislate morality and that all law is based on this. The worst part is that I hear this mostly from the 'small' government right here on this board. You cannot have a small government at the same time as a government that decides morality. Those two situations are mutually exclusive because a government that is based on determining morality has any and all rights to do whatever it feels is moral at the time.


IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENTS PLACE TO LEGISLATE MORALITY. PERIOD.

There's no need, anyhow.

Everything we are, we got from....

....our "ancestors"!!!!!!

 

[nodoginnafight]

You cannot have a small government at the same time as a government that decides morality.

Laws are the manifestation of a society's collective morals. Period.
The absence of law is the absense of collective morals.

 

[buckeye45_73]

I have meant to post this topic for a long time but have failed to do so until I seen Immie recently mention government legislating morality and I could not let another statement like this slide. I have heard time and time again that it is the governments place to legislate morality and that all law is based on this. The worst part is that I hear this mostly from the 'small' government right here on this board. You cannot have a small government at the same time as a government that decides morality. Those two situations are mutually exclusive because a government that is based on determining morality has any and all rights to do whatever it feels is moral at the time.


IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENTS PLACE TO LEGISLATE MORALITY. PERIOD.


It is one of the most egregious things that the government does when it legislates my activities based on what it feels is right and wrong. That was never the place of the government and we should never have given it such an unstoppable power. Now, before you go into making murder or theft illegal and claiming that is legislating morality, it is not. The number one job of the government (and in reality, the only real job of government) should be to protect its citizens rights. It is in that duty that acts like murder, theft and other laws derive their need. It prevents on citizen from infringing on the rights of other citizens.

Personally, if I were to draft a law, the primary question that should be asked is what right does this law protect. If the answer was none then such a law would be meaningless and discarded. If the government can decide what is immoral and moral, how long are you going to wait for the government to decide that YOUR morality is not the correct morality.

Well.... let the scathing criticisms begin

Sorry but murder and theft are morality.....aztecs and other indians practiced human sacrifice, to them it was ok and perfectally moral as you put it...so yeah some people are ok with it.

And to protect citizens rights, are you serious? so if someone uses offensive language they shouldnt be fired and tarred and feathered? That's my position, because of first amendment rights, but people like you love the speech codes.
What about a right of a politician to express his religion? Liberals have deemed it immoral and somehow as a way to impose a state religion (their arguments are stupid and make no sense, I agree)

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Thou shalt not steal.

OMG. A question of right and wrong. Of morality.

And yet, the government does prohibit stealing.

Is the government therefore guilty of legislating "morality?"

 

[Katzndogz]

It is not the government's place to legislate morality, or legislate immorality.

If a business decides that someone is an immoral person and fires them or refuses service to them, then the government steps in and forces that business to serve them or employ them anyway, the government has legislated immorality.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I have meant to post this topic for a long time but have failed to do so until I seen Immie recently mention government legislating morality and I could not let another statement like this slide. I have heard time and time again that it is the governments place to legislate morality and that all law is based on this. The worst part is that I hear this mostly from the 'small' government right here on this board. You cannot have a small government at the same time as a government that decides morality. Those two situations are mutually exclusive because a government that is based on determining morality has any and all rights to do whatever it feels is moral at the time.


IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENTS PLACE TO LEGISLATE MORALITY. PERIOD.


It is one of the most egregious things that the government does when it legislates my activities based on what it feels is right and wrong. That was never the place of the government and we should never have given it such an unstoppable power. Now, before you go into making murder or theft illegal and claiming that is legislating morality, it is not. The number one job of the government (and in reality, the only real job of government) should be to protect its citizens rights. It is in that duty that acts like murder, theft and other laws derive their need. It prevents on citizen from infringing on the rights of other citizens.

Personally, if I were to draft a law, the primary question that should be asked is what right does this law protect. If the answer was none then such a law would be meaningless and discarded. If the government can decide what is immoral and moral, how long are you going to wait for the government to decide that YOUR morality is not the correct morality.

Well.... let the scathing criticisms begin

Sorry but murder and theft are morality.....

No....they're murder & theft.​

.....aztecs and other indians practiced human sacrifice, to them it was ok and perfectally moral as you put it...

So, they could have been.....

....the ORIGINAL-CHRISTIANS!!!!

Gee.....who knew the Mormons were RIGHT??!!!

 

[nodoginnafight]

so if someone uses offensive language they shouldnt be fired and tarred and feathered? That's my position, because of first amendment rights, but people like you love the speech codes.

Getting fired and getting arrested are two different matters. Saying F___ the draft as a form of political speech is far different than saying F___ you to a customer at your shoe store. Darn right, that'll get you fired.

 

[nodoginnafight]

It is not the government's place to legislate morality, or legislate immorality.

Sorry, but that is exactly what every government and every law does. It dictates proper and improper behavior.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It is not the government's place to legislate morality, or legislate immorality.

Sorry, but that is exactly what every government and every law does. It dictates proper and improper behavior.

Define proper and improper behavior.​

 

[Katzndogz]

It is not the government's place to legislate morality, or legislate immorality.

Sorry, but that is exactly what every government and every law does. It dictates proper and improper behavior.

When the people abandon the obligation of shared values of decency, the government has no choice but to fashion its own version of morality and enforce that with all the force at their disposal.

Now, with the government dictating what is or is not moral behavior, immorality becomes a crime. At one time, immoral behavior might result in ostracism, maybe you'd be denied membership at the club, or turned down for dinner reservations. The bowling team suddenly moved and won't tell you where they went. There were consequences. Violate governmental impositions of its version of morality and it's deprivation of property or freedom.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

It is not the government's place to legislate morality, or legislate immorality.

Sorry, but that is exactly what every government and every law does. It dictates proper and improper behavior.

When the people abandon the obligation of shared values of decency, the government has no choice but to fashion its own version of morality and enforce that with all the force at their disposal.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Now I think this is a bit far
http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20130507/NEWS/305070032/Hagel-Troops-workplaces-will-checked-degrading-images-women

 

[FA_Q2]

You cannot have a small government at the same time as a government that decides morality.

Laws are the manifestation of a society's collective morals. Period.
The absence of law is the absense of collective morals.

Absolutely false. The original intent here was to point out that law exists in order to secure your freedom. It is not a matter of morality but a matter of ensuring that your freedom is guarded from others. Essentially, stealing is not against the law because it is wrong but because it is a violation of the rights of the one pilfered.

If I can legislate morality based on the ‘collective’ then there is justification to essentially outlaw anything. Outlawing gay actions is perfectly all right as long as we see it as immoral. That is crazy. That flies in the face of rights and freedom. You have no right to demand that I follow your morality, no matter how many people shat that. You only have the right to ensure I do not infringe on your freedom.

It is not the government's place to legislate morality, or legislate immorality.

Sorry, but that is exactly what every government and every law does. It dictates proper and improper behavior.

False, as I have already addressed thin in this thread.

BTW, do any of you realize that you are responding to a thread that Shaman revived from the dead? It has been over a year since the last reply.

 

[Agit8r]

There is certainly a place to legislate ethics. That's kinda the whole point of laws; that nobody can trespass on the rights of others.

Of course, as a secular humanist, I don't believe that anything is immoral unless it is unethical, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms

 

[editec]

It is not the role of government to legislate moral issues that result in "victimless" crimes.

If there is no victim?

There was no crime.​

 

[freedombecki]

It is not the role of government to legislate moral issues that result in "victimless" crimes.

If there is no victim?​

There was no crime.​

Gosnell is being tried for murder based on victims he killed after they were born alive. What difference does it make which side of the placenta they're on? They still human beings. They just don't have any guns to defend themselves from cowardly! parents and people they hire to put an "!" after their cowardice!

 

[freedombecki]

It is not the government's place to legislate morality, or legislate immorality.

Sorry, but that is exactly what every government and every law does. It dictates proper and improper behavior.

Define proper and improper behavior.​

It is proper to uphold one's oath of office.

It is improper to fuggetaboutit.