Moral Issues and Political Solutions

[Missourian]

A large part of politics these days is that many politicians seem to think they can fix moral problems with political solutions. Additionally, many people seem to think that those politicians can do exactly that.
I disagree. You cannot solve a moral problem with political solutions.

Now that I’ve said that, I must point out that people differ on what the moral problems/issues are. Since they differ on agreement to the problems, they obviously would then differ on the solution. I’ll mention a few in this post, but would welcome others to include their own thoughts on other issues.

Moral Dilemma 1: Abortion/Unwanted Pregnancy
Some people don’t think abortion is immoral and some do. If unwanted pregnancies could be 100% avoided then this issue would disappear. The root of wanting or needing an abortion lies in a pregnancy that was unintended (maybe not always, but in general, that is the situation). I posit that part of the moral issue is actually getting pregnant when one doesn’t want a child at that moment in time. That could be caused by failure to take appropriate preventive measures (potentially moral or immoral), failure of birth control (generally not immoral), or on occasion something as horrid as rape (definitely a moral issue on the part of the rapist).
I don’t think any politician can come up with a political solution to fix all of the above regardless of the morals of him/herself or his/her potential constituents.

Moral Dilemma 2: Welfare
Some people think it is moral to support those in need and others do not. Part of that is a disagreement on what constitutes need. Most of us would probably agree that somebody that is mentally incapable of caring for themself is in need. The question arises when one is both mentally and physically capable. As of yet, nobody has figured out a way to keep people out of poverty, but poverty is the root issue. If you look at the last 40 years, the percentage of people in poverty has been fairly constant. There are people that have struggled and used welfare as a safety net for a short period of time, then bounced back. There are people that have struggled and never bounced back and spend much of their life using welfare. How does a moral person determine when welfare should end for a mentally and physically competent person?
A politician can’t determine that moral decision for me or you with a political solution.

Moral Dilemma 3: War
This one is a bit different than the previous 2 dilemmas. I truly believe that the vast preponderance of people would choose to avoid war if they possibly could. When do your morals find a justifiable cause for war? I think just about everybody has their breaking point where they would agree to the nation declaring war. But with that also comes morals about what one finds as acceptable action in the war. How brutal will our side be? What do we consider to be an acceptable level of collateral damage? Are our losses of people and property more or less important than winning/ending the war?
Politicians can’t determine that for you nor I, but that is one decision where most of us have acquiesced to them.

There are many more issues that one side or the other claim morals on that I haven’t addressed in this post. I welcome others to add their thoughts.

What criminal laws the government institutes are NOT morals codified?

 

[alan1]

I was hoping that others would drop some moral issues in this thread and give their thoughts on whether or not a political solution is possible. Since nobody has, I'll make mention of another.

Homosexual Marriage.
This not merely a moral issue for the right, it is a moral issue for the left as well.
Many of those on the right see marriage as a bond and sanctity between a man and a woman only ( a moral they hold). Many of those on the left see marriage as a freedom that should be granted to all, including homosexuals (a moral they hold). The passions from both sides can and do run high.
In my opinion, as long as government is involved in marriage (and people acquiesce that authority) there will be no acceptable political solution for both sides of the argument. This is another example where there is no political solution to a moral issue.

 

[whitehall]

Welfare is a blight on society because it is an indication of failed government policies not because it's a moral issue. You could call the entire judicial system enforced morality but it wouldn't be accurate. Unwanted pregnancy might be a moral issue but abortion equals the loss of human life.

 

[alan1]

A large part of politics these days is that many politicians seem to think they can fix moral problems with political solutions. Additionally, many people seem to think that those politicians can do exactly that.
I disagree. You cannot solve a moral problem with political solutions.

Now that I’ve said that, I must point out that people differ on what the moral problems/issues are. Since they differ on agreement to the problems, they obviously would then differ on the solution. I’ll mention a few in this post, but would welcome others to include their own thoughts on other issues.

Moral Dilemma 1: Abortion/Unwanted Pregnancy
Some people don’t think abortion is immoral and some do. If unwanted pregnancies could be 100% avoided then this issue would disappear. The root of wanting or needing an abortion lies in a pregnancy that was unintended (maybe not always, but in general, that is the situation). I posit that part of the moral issue is actually getting pregnant when one doesn’t want a child at that moment in time. That could be caused by failure to take appropriate preventive measures (potentially moral or immoral), failure of birth control (generally not immoral), or on occasion something as horrid as rape (definitely a moral issue on the part of the rapist).
I don’t think any politician can come up with a political solution to fix all of the above regardless of the morals of him/herself or his/her potential constituents.

Moral Dilemma 2: Welfare
Some people think it is moral to support those in need and others do not. Part of that is a disagreement on what constitutes need. Most of us would probably agree that somebody that is mentally incapable of caring for themself is in need. The question arises when one is both mentally and physically capable. As of yet, nobody has figured out a way to keep people out of poverty, but poverty is the root issue. If you look at the last 40 years, the percentage of people in poverty has been fairly constant. There are people that have struggled and used welfare as a safety net for a short period of time, then bounced back. There are people that have struggled and never bounced back and spend much of their life using welfare. How does a moral person determine when welfare should end for a mentally and physically competent person?
A politician can’t determine that moral decision for me or you with a political solution.

Moral Dilemma 3: War
This one is a bit different than the previous 2 dilemmas. I truly believe that the vast preponderance of people would choose to avoid war if they possibly could. When do your morals find a justifiable cause for war? I think just about everybody has their breaking point where they would agree to the nation declaring war. But with that also comes morals about what one finds as acceptable action in the war. How brutal will our side be? What do we consider to be an acceptable level of collateral damage? Are our losses of people and property more or less important than winning/ending the war?
Politicians can’t determine that for you nor I, but that is one decision where most of us have acquiesced to them.

There are many more issues that one side or the other claim morals on that I haven’t addressed in this post. I welcome others to add their thoughts.

What criminal laws the government institutes are NOT morals codified?

That is a very good question Missourian. My OP was not about criminal law.
Would you consider criminal laws concerning the transport of tobacco or alcohol or guns (legal substances) across state lines morals codified?

 

[Coyote]

I was hoping that others would drop some moral issues in this thread and give their thoughts on whether or not a political solution is possible. Since nobody has, I'll make mention of another.

Homosexual Marriage.
This not merely a moral issue for the right, it is a moral issue for the left as well.
Many of those on the right see marriage as a bond and sanctity between a man and a woman only ( a moral they hold). Many of those on the left see marriage as a freedom that should be granted to all, including homosexuals (a moral they hold). The passions from both sides can and do run high.
In my opinion, as long as government is involved in marriage (and people acquiesce that authority) there will be no acceptable political solution for both sides of the argument. This is another example where there is no political solution to a moral issue.

I have to agree with your statement on government - imo, all marriages recognized by the state should be civil unions. Let individual religious groups then give it the label of marriage in a religious ceremony. That way - if they support same sex unions, they can sanctify them. If they don't they don't have to. But the state will recognize both marriages as civil unions. Same with polygamy/polyandry. That would be a political solution don't you think?

 

[alan1]

I was hoping that others would drop some moral issues in this thread and give their thoughts on whether or not a political solution is possible. Since nobody has, I'll make mention of another.

Homosexual Marriage.
This not merely a moral issue for the right, it is a moral issue for the left as well.
Many of those on the right see marriage as a bond and sanctity between a man and a woman only ( a moral they hold). Many of those on the left see marriage as a freedom that should be granted to all, including homosexuals (a moral they hold). The passions from both sides can and do run high.
In my opinion, as long as government is involved in marriage (and people acquiesce that authority) there will be no acceptable political solution for both sides of the argument. This is another example where there is no political solution to a moral issue.

I have to agree with your statement on government - imo, all marriages recognized by the state should be civil unions. Let individual religious groups then give it the label of marriage in a religious ceremony. That way - if they support same sex unions, they can sanctify them. If they don't they don't have to. But the state will recognize both marriages as civil unions. Same with polygamy/polyandry. That would be a political solution don't you think?

And where does incest fall in?

 

[Wiseacre]

What about capital punishment? Some say it's morally wrong for society to end a life, others disagree. There's no political solution to this either, it's either done or it's not. If you allow it, there are differences in the circumstances for when the death penalty can be adjudged, grounds for appeal, the method used, etc. There are a number of argments for and against, I think the majority of Americans in most states approve of it, but many of those states do not permit it. What's so moral about our elected officials refusing to follow the wishes of the majority?

 

[Coyote]

I was hoping that others would drop some moral issues in this thread and give their thoughts on whether or not a political solution is possible. Since nobody has, I'll make mention of another.

Homosexual Marriage.
This not merely a moral issue for the right, it is a moral issue for the left as well.
Many of those on the right see marriage as a bond and sanctity between a man and a woman only ( a moral they hold). Many of those on the left see marriage as a freedom that should be granted to all, including homosexuals (a moral they hold). The passions from both sides can and do run high.
In my opinion, as long as government is involved in marriage (and people acquiesce that authority) there will be no acceptable political solution for both sides of the argument. This is another example where there is no political solution to a moral issue.

I have to agree with your statement on government - imo, all marriages recognized by the state should be civil unions. Let individual religious groups then give it the label of marriage in a religious ceremony. That way - if they support same sex unions, they can sanctify them. If they don't they don't have to. But the state will recognize both marriages as civil unions. Same with polygamy/polyandry. That would be a political solution don't you think?

And where does incest fall in?

Unlike polygamy and same sex marriages - I think there are valid biological reasons to prohibit incest, at least between male and female. Those reasons wouldn't apply to same-sex marriage though. I also think there are valid reasons to prohibit it in the case of a parent and child - it is an abuse of authority and trust as well as the biological reasons.