moral tyranny

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
wallaby

wallaby

splendid marsupial
Dec 28, 2008
580
16
37
calimafrickenfornia
✟804.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
should we oppose the legislation of morality in cases where that moral opinion is held by the majority of a people group (nation, state, province, city, whatever)?

most countries have laws based on practicality, banning things like murder that tangibly have a negative impact on individuals not participating in the act by choice. in america, we have a ton of people who want a government that legislates the moral decisions of individuals even when they dont negatively affect other people. some go as far as to say they want a theocracy.

is moral tyranny of the majority an acceptable use of the democratic system or should the government be safeguarded against such abuse?
 
jayem

jayem

Naturalist
Jun 24, 2003
15,274
6,963
72
St. Louis, MO.
✟374,039.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
To prevent a tyranny of the majority is why we have a Constitution, which is the highest law in the land. It says that laws, even if supported by a majority of the people, can go only so far, but no farther. Of course the Constitution can be amended, but it's a long, difficult, and uncertain process. As it should be.
 
Upvote 0
L

LittleNipper

Contributor
Mar 9, 2005
9,011
173
MOUNT HOLLY, NEW JERSEY
✟10,349.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
wallaby said:
should we oppose the legislation of morality in cases where that moral opinion is held by the majority of a people group (nation, state, province, city, whatever)?

most countries have laws based on practicality, banning things like murder that tangibly have a negative impact on individuals not participating in the act by choice. in america, we have a ton of people who want a government that legislates the moral decisions of individuals even when they dont negatively affect other people. some go as far as to say they want a theocracy.

is moral tyranny of the majority an acceptable use of the democratic system or should the government be safeguarded against such abuse?
Click to expand...

The Federal government should not be the determiner of what is abuse, morality, honor, or a good education. The determiner should be in the hands of the people who show concern and vote.
 
Upvote 0
Autumnleaf

Autumnleaf

Legend
Jun 18, 2005
24,828
1,034
✟33,297.00
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
wallaby said:
should we oppose the legislation of morality in cases where that moral opinion is held by the majority of a people group (nation, state, province, city, whatever)?

most countries have laws based on practicality, banning things like murder that tangibly have a negative impact on individuals not participating in the act by choice. in america, we have a ton of people who want a government that legislates the moral decisions of individuals even when they dont negatively affect other people. some go as far as to say they want a theocracy.

is moral tyranny of the majority an acceptable use of the democratic system or should the government be safeguarded against such abuse?
Click to expand...

You can't safeguard the government against such abuses because the people who gravitate toward politics do so to gain and use power to control other people.
 
Upvote 0
L

LittleNipper

Contributor
Mar 9, 2005
9,011
173
MOUNT HOLLY, NEW JERSEY
✟10,349.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Axioma said:
Wouldn't that simply invite abusers to vote that what they are doing is not abuse, but that the victim likes it and was asking for it anyway?
Click to expand...

Everyone has an opportunity to vote ---- even the "victims." Where abusers are in the majority, everyone suffers.
 
Upvote 0
L

LittleNipper

Contributor
Mar 9, 2005
9,011
173
MOUNT HOLLY, NEW JERSEY
✟10,349.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Autumnleaf said:
You can't safeguard the government against such abuses because the people who gravitate toward politics do so to gain and use power to control other people.
Click to expand...

Finally! Someone sees the handwritting on the wall. This is why we do not want the government to define everything in its (governmental) own terms.
 
Upvote 0
2ndRateMind

2ndRateMind

Pilgrim Defiant
Sep 8, 2008
1,091
66
In Contemplation
✟9,044.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Greens
Seems to me the harm principle applies. One supports legislation whose purpose is to prevent damage, and opposes legislation whose purpose is merely to prevent affront. Of course, this principle is a moral one, so in the meta- scheme of things, both action and inaction are for moral purposes, which unfortunately confuses the answer to a straight question, I think.

As for the role of the majority, then I think a healthy disrespect for the conventional is always safest.

Best wishes, 2RM
 
Upvote 0
wallaby

wallaby

splendid marsupial
Dec 28, 2008
580
16
37
calimafrickenfornia
✟804.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Autumnleaf said:
You can't safeguard the government against such abuses because the people who gravitate toward politics do so to gain and use power to control other people.
Click to expand...
while i dont think that is a universal truth, i am an anarchist and believe all forms of institutionalized government are inherently oppressive.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Q

QuakerOats

— ♥ — Living in Love — ♥ —
Feb 8, 2007
2,183
195
Ontario, Canada
✟18,314.00
Faith
Marital Status
Private
Politics
CA-Greens
jayem said:
To prevent a tyranny of the majority is why we have a Constitution, which is the highest law in the land. It says that laws, even if supported by a majority of the people, can go only so far, but no farther. Of course the Constitution can be amended, but it's a long, difficult, and uncertain process. As it should be.
Click to expand...
+1
 
Upvote 0
A

Arkanin

Human
Oct 13, 2003
5,592
287
40
Texas
✟7,151.00
Faith
Anglican
Politics
US-Libertarian
Here's how I like to put this: If nobody's being forced to participate in an activity, it should be legal. For me it boils down to both ethics and pragmatism. Ethically, I believe it's wrong to tell other people what to do with themselves if they aren't participating with anyone who doesn't want to be involved. Practically, the government doesn't have the money or ability to enforce the laws that illegalize these kinds of crimes. They also impose enormous costs on society, and our failed prison system creates criminals more consistently than it rehabilitates them. I tend to oppose prostitution, the drug war, etc. on this basis. Worse yet, the more the law imposes on people's rights, the more precedent it has to impose itself further.

I left this forum about three years ago and just came back, but hey, look at that, there's that little libertarian icon still standing next to my name, I'm glad she made it through the transition. :)
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Tranquil Bondservant
Establishing Secular Morality
Replies
453
Views
8K
Ethics & Morality
Bradskii
Bradskii
Mercy Shown
At some point, all of us must repent of this...
Replies
8
Views
371
Ethics & Morality
Mercy Shown
Mercy Shown
kairo
Is self-defense a sin?
Replies
52
Views
2K
Ethics & Morality
Open Heart
Open Heart
tonychanyt
Is religion necessary for morality?
Replies
1
Views
300
Christian Scriptures
QvQ
QvQ
Michie
The Most Destructive Line in the New Catechism
Replies
11
Views
589
One Bread, One Body - Catholic
fide
fide
Top Bottom
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply