Fornication by consenting adults is not against the law here in Virginia.
Zone1 One Truth: Should Society Maintain a Moral Compass?
- Thread starter Meriweather
- Start date
DGS49
Diamond Member
The Sovereign has a right and a duty to proscribe (criminalize) conduct that harms other people, their property, or society as a whole. It is not a coincidence that all of those are also immoral.
The question comes up when conduct is deemed by some to be immoral, but causes no apparent harm to anyone, anything, or society as a whole. "Thou shalt not covet..." your neighbor's spouse or his stuff. That is purely a moral matter and the Sovereign can take no position on the matter.
The problems come up in recent years when "immoral" conduct that has long been condemned and legally punished, but its harms are - let's say - debatable. Homosexual sodomy. Gambling. Prostitution. Pornography. Using and trafficking in "controlled substances." Usury. Hateful speech.
In each of these cases, an argument can be made that they harm society as a whole if not the individuals involved, or that it is only the excesses of conduct that manifest a measurable harm. It also appears to be the case that the criminalization of these conducts does more harm than the conduct itself. Consider the Volstead Act and its later repeal ("Prohibition"). It is often argued that Prohibition spawned the rapid growth of organized crime, a menace that we continue to deal with a hundred years later.
It's best if the Sovereign stays out of the morality business, even if it offends morally sensitive people.
Then you can look at a "quasi-Sovereign" like the Sharia courts, and their influence in specific communities. Can you outlaw Sharia Law when only "believers" are bound, and only to the extent that they choose to be bound? On what basis?
The question comes up when conduct is deemed by some to be immoral, but causes no apparent harm to anyone, anything, or society as a whole. "Thou shalt not covet..." your neighbor's spouse or his stuff. That is purely a moral matter and the Sovereign can take no position on the matter.
The problems come up in recent years when "immoral" conduct that has long been condemned and legally punished, but its harms are - let's say - debatable. Homosexual sodomy. Gambling. Prostitution. Pornography. Using and trafficking in "controlled substances." Usury. Hateful speech.
In each of these cases, an argument can be made that they harm society as a whole if not the individuals involved, or that it is only the excesses of conduct that manifest a measurable harm. It also appears to be the case that the criminalization of these conducts does more harm than the conduct itself. Consider the Volstead Act and its later repeal ("Prohibition"). It is often argued that Prohibition spawned the rapid growth of organized crime, a menace that we continue to deal with a hundred years later.
It's best if the Sovereign stays out of the morality business, even if it offends morally sensitive people.
Then you can look at a "quasi-Sovereign" like the Sharia courts, and their influence in specific communities. Can you outlaw Sharia Law when only "believers" are bound, and only to the extent that they choose to be bound? On what basis?
It was until recently, but who said manmade laws are always based in morality?
This one is based on the morality of the USA. Do we want laws that are not based on our morals?
We want them based on God’s moral law
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Putin could end up controlling most of the oil production worldwide- Started by Invisibleflash
- Replies: 0
-
-
Did you know that the USA killed +/-20% of the North Korean population in the Korean war?
- Started by Invisibleflash
- Replies: 2
-
How many Iranian sleeper cells did Biden bring into the US?- Started by Nostra
- Replies: 16
-
Check Out This Nonsense: Hollywood Democrats Come Back To Life — With Cash- Started by trumptman
- Replies: 3
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
-
The revisionist view of Iranian history that libs are sure to hate- Latest: RoshawnMarkwees
