How do you justify moral-based laws?

[TricksterWolf]

From the "imposing morals on others" thread, it seems like the majority of people here oppose forcing others to conform to their moral beliefs. But this contradicts my personal experience with law. It seems to me that most people try to force others to do what they think is moral through the rule of law, at least to a point.

For those of you who feel that it's wrong to force others to conform to your morality outside of free will, how would you justify laws against things like gambling, prostitution, abortion, and pornography, which do not have a direct society-disabling effect on those who do not participate?

Or in other words, when do you have the right to remove someone's free will and replace it with force?

Trickster

 

[quatona]

From the "imposing morals on others" thread, it seems like the majority of people here oppose forcing others to conform to their moral beliefs. But this contradicts my personal experience with law. It seems to me that most people try to force others to do what they think is moral through the rule of law, at least to a point.

For those of you who feel that it's wrong to force others to conform to your morality outside of free will, how would you justify laws against things like gambling, prostitution, abortion, and pornography, which do not have a direct society-disabling effect on those who do not participate?

Or in other words, when do you have the right to remove someone's free will and replace it with force?

Trickster

I lean towards anarchism, and I regard the idea of correcting behaviour by (threat of) punishment counterproductive.

I am inclined to think that laws always and by their nature are moral-based (in that they are derived from a particular idea as to how things "should" be).

Now, since I live in a society that holds strongly to the paradigms of guilt, law and punishment, and since I have an interest in peaceful coexistence, I submit to the paradigms, in practice, and - since I have accepted the basic terms and conditions - sometimes I am even interested in a certain regulation
However, the less laws seem to be designed to merely direct human coexistence towards a peaceful one, the less I am convinced there is a need for them, even in a society that generally works with the instrument of law and punishment.
Then again, people usually always find an aspect that - in their view - makes a certain issue a matter of coexistence, even when it comes to gambling, pornography, prostitution and abortion.
Latest example: Yesterday a poster said: "Each abortion kills a future tax payer."
And if everything fails, someone points to some sort of "spiritual" collective consequences.
Well, what can I do?

 

[CSMR]

I am inclined to think that laws always and by their nature are moral-based (in that they are derived from a particular idea as to how things "should" be).

Maybe but only with considerable looseness in how we interpret the notion of a moral idea.
For instance:
1. If you are rich you must give the government half your money: maybe there are some "moral" ideas of poor people needing more than rich people to some extent behind this.
2. You must give all your posessions to me the president: he could feel that he deserves it because of his status or he just wants to grab money; is this a "moral-based" action?

It's not a clear cut issue (not a clear cut word).

Then again, people usually always find an aspect that - in their view - makes a certain issue a matter of coexistence
Well, what can I do?

 

[quatona]

Maybe but only with considerable looseness in how we interpret the notion of a moral idea.

Yes, I have tried to point that out in my post. Since the OP didn´t define "moral idea", I answered according to my own definition, not without mentioning its essentials.

For instance:
1. If you are rich you must give the government half your money: maybe there are some "moral" ideas of poor people needing more than rich people to some extent behind this.
2. You must give all your posessions to me the president: he could feel that he deserves it because of his status or he just wants to grab money; is this a "moral-based" action?

It can (and has been and occasionally is still) proclaimed and understood as such. It makes people more humble; seeing their king/president/... happy will add to their happiness; the king/president is sort of their father and knows best how to use the money in the best possible way; the money belongs to him anyways, so justice is served; yadayada.
It used to be a common idea of morals back in those times when the gods were modeled after earthly potentates. The gods still seem to take advantage from it.

It's not a clear cut issue (not a clear cut word).

Granted, I couldn´t agree more: it´s one of the most subjective topics ever. One purpose of my post actually was to point that out, sorry if it came across the wrong way.

 

[Pheehp]

well laws against prostitution and restrictions on gambling are based on tax not morality. pornography's laws are intertwined with protection of children and that parents are still seen as legally responsible. abortion laws are more tricky i think they are half to apease religious ppl and half to comfort the pregnant woman, the law finds it ok so she doesnt need to feel wracked with guilt. i am prochoice but i understamd it must be a very traumatic experience for the woman be it inherant or society that creates that psychological trauma.

so laws arent always about morality but moral issues can overlap with them.

 

[Robinsegg]

gambling,

I see this as a public issue (not because of religion) because it effects the financial welfare of families. The government is in the business of protecting children from poverty so that they can be safe, have food, have shelter, have clothing. The laws about only being allowed to lose a certain amount in a certain amount of time effect this issue.

prostitution,

This is a public health issue. It can be done hygenically, but that seems to be the exception rather than the rule. It can also be an issue if a minor is engaged in this profession.

abortion,

This issue is inherently moral in nature. The government has a role in defining "human life" in order to make/enforce laws. Right now, the laws are extremely ambiguous on the point on when "human life" begins.

pornography,

I believe children should be protected from being exploited for this type of "adult entertainment", and that this type of image should be kept strictly away from children (outside the parent's influence).

which do not have a direct society-disabling effect on those who do not participate?

See, I think most of these do have an effect on society as a whole. Once the society-issues are dealt with, it is largely a matter of concience.

Rachel

 

[TricksterWolf]

Yes, I have tried to point that out in my post. Since the OP didn´t define "moral idea", I answered according to my own definition, not without mentioning its essentials.

I'm interested in hearing how people justify law, particularly law that prevents someone from engaging in behaviors of personal choice that do not involve directly infringing against the will of another citizen.

For example: you may believe that prostitution is wrong. Is something seen by the majority as morally wrong sufficient cause to make it an illegal act? When and why do we have the authority to strip someone of their own volition?

Trickster

 

[TricksterWolf]

See, I think most of these do have an effect on society as a whole. Once the society-issues are dealt with, it is largely a matter of concience.

So, you're saying that you believe that issues like the example ones are not solely a personal choice, but rather are inevitably damaging to other people not engaging in the behavior?

Where is the line to be drawn? You could strip people of many sorts of personal choices in the interest of public health and protecting families, not just these. For one example, you could outlaw all risky forms of entertainment, like skydiving, or make laws about what people with low incomes are allowed to purchase. Why not those?

Trickster

 

[Robinsegg]

So, you're saying that you believe that issues like the example ones are not solely a personal choice, but rather are inevitably damaging to other people not engaging in the behavior?

Where is the line to be drawn? You could strip people of many sorts of personal choices in the interest of public health and protecting families, not just these. For one example, you could outlaw all risky forms of entertainment, like skydiving, or make laws about what people with low incomes are allowed to purchase. Why not those?

Trickster

That's an interesting point. I'll try to go back through and touch on each point I made in light of yours:

Gambling: I don't know about outlawing gambling entirely, but I do see the wisdom in helping adults not overspend in one night. Gambling in and of itself is addicting, and therefore the adult involved my not be in a mental state to decide how much to spend or when to stop.

Prostitution: If it were government regulated (for stopping disease), I suppose it would make much more sense to allow it, rather than how the business is currently conducted. One other concern is any children resulting from this business would have to be cared for.

Pornography: I like the idea that this media is shut away from the eyes of children. If parents wish to introduce such things to their children, I suppose that's their business, just as it's any adults business as to whether or not to view such materials. So, I say that as long as the business is neither involving children in making it, nor marketing it to children, it can be created and consumed by consenting adults. Just don't put it on a billboard my children will have to see going down the road.

Abortion: The only legal issue involved here is when "life" begins, when something is "murder", when something is "manslaughter", etc. Once the government decides when that embryo or fetus is a "human life" worthy of protection abortion should be illegal from that point in gestation on (with certain caveats for the life of the mother). I think abortion could be greatly lessened with proper sex education from 7th grade (including strong emphasis on abstinence until high school graduation so they get an education) and better adoption procedures.

Rachel

 

[[serious]]

For those of you who feel that it's wrong to force others to conform to your morality outside of free will, how would you justify laws against things like gambling, prostitution, abortion, and pornography, which do not have a direct society-disabling effect on those who do not participate?

Or in other words, when do you have the right to remove someone's free will and replace it with force?

Trickster

1. Gambling- Should not be illegal, but should be regulated to protect those who may be exploited by others.

2. Prostitution- If legal, should be regulated. There are public health grounds that can justify outlawing it though.

3. Abortion- If one views a fetus as a living human being, then it should be protected. I see no justification for outlawing abortion when carrying to term would threaten the life of the mother.

4. Pornography- shouldn't be illegal, but should be regulated.

For all of these, laws preventing people from unwilling exposure or involvement would be perfectly acceptable from any reasonable standpoint.

 

[quatona]

I'm interested in hearing how people justify law, particularly law that prevents someone from engaging in behaviors of personal choice that do not involve directly infringing against the will of another citizen.

For example: you may believe that prostitution is wrong. Is something seen by the majority as morally wrong sufficient cause to make it an illegal act? When and why do we have the authority to strip someone of their own volition?

Trickster

Hi Trickster, have you seen my first post?
I tried to explain why I have problems describing general abstract rules as to when it is ok to strip someone of their own volition.
In a way I am a fundamentalist in this respect: I would never want to strip someone of their own volition, but my society thinks this is legitimate in certain cases. Thus, I can´t work from cut in stone rules or axioms, but I rather see it as a matter of compromise and a collective effort to come to an agreement that´s tolerable for everyone.
As I have suspected in my previous post, and as has been confirmed by the opinion of some posters, some people will feel that even issues like prostitution, gambling or gay marriage are a matter of direct infringement of the will of another.

I am tending more and more towards the notion, that when trying to argumentate rationally for or against in an ethical/moral/societal question, we are merely rationalizing our feelings. In certain questions we argumentate as if axiom X were the most important one, and in another question we argumentate by axiom Y. We are searching for those maximes that support our feeling in this case, and we have no problem with ignoring this maxime in another case, if it would make an argument against what we feel to be appropriate. We´ll argumentate then by another maxime which we had ignored or seen as a less important maxime in the first case. You can observe such inconsistencies in argumentations everywhere.
Thus, I am more and more trying to put the rational argumentation aside when it comes to these questions, and instead simply and honestly say that which is the motive for all these rationalizing efforts: This sits wrong with me, and that feels ok.
Does that give you an idea?

 

[TricksterWolf]

Hi Trickster, have you seen my first post?

Yes! I admit I was a little confused as to what you were trying to say, though. I understand much better from this recent post.

I tried to explain why I have problems describing general abstract rules as to when it is ok to strip someone of their own volition.
In a way I am a fundamentalist in this respect: I would never want to strip someone of their own volition, but my society thinks this is legitimate in certain cases. Thus, I can´t work from cut in stone rules or axioms, but I rather see it as a matter of compromise and a collective effort to come to an agreement that´s tolerable for everyone.
As I have suspected in my previous post, and as has been confirmed by the opinion of some posters, some people will feel that even issues like prostitution, gambling or gay marriage are a matter of direct infringement of the will of another.

I am tending more and more towards the notion, that when trying to argumentate rationally for or against in an ethical/moral/societal question, we are merely rationalizing our feelings. In certain questions we argumentate as if axiom X were the most important one, and in another question we argumentate by axiom Y. We are searching for those maximes that support our feeling in this case, and we have no problem with ignoring this maxime in another case, if it would make an argument against what we feel to be appropriate. We´ll argumentate then by another maxime which we had ignored or seen as a less important maxime in the first case. You can observe such inconsistencies in argumentations everywhere.
Thus, I am more and more trying to put the rational argumentation aside when it comes to these questions, and instead simply and honestly say that which is the motive for all these rationalizing efforts: This sits wrong with me, and that feels ok.
Does that give you an idea?

It does, yes. I think you touch on an interesting aspect of the human condition, the relative nature of our justification for social mores... Studies in the social sciences generally agree that, all "law" and concepts of "disorder" are to a large extent determined by what is normative. Meaning, doing something unusual (like collecting bottles of glue) isn't necessarily a crime or a sign of mental illness, but a crime or a mental illness is generally assumed to be abnormal. Criminal acts and mental illnesses are defined in part by their abnormality; they're only labeled "wrong" when the majority of people consider the behavior or mindset to be objectionable.

Just as an interesting aside... This phenomenon becomes controversial when a criminal behavior becomes surprisingly common (such as file sharing) or when a mental disorder comprises too substantial a sum of the population (such as female anorgasmia). It kind of throws up the question whether something can be a criminal act or a disorder if it's so ubiquitous.

I was hoping to hear from some people who have strong feelings in favor of using law as a tool to enforce morality. I don't know if they will post here, though.

Trickster

 

[quatona]

Thanks for your response, Trickster.
You touch a lot of questions that I am occupied with myself. It would be interesting to discuss them some more, but it seems as though this would lead this thread off from the direction you intended it to have..
Greetings
quatona

 

[CSMR]

Criminal acts and mental illnesses are defined in part by their abnormality; they're only labeled "wrong" when the majority of people consider the behavior or mindset to be objectionable.

Labelled wrong by whom? By God? By many people? (Then it's pretty much a tautology.) By social scientists?

I was hoping to hear from some people who have strong feelings in favor of using law as a tool to enforce morality. I don't know if they will post here, though.

I think I am one of those people whom secularists say want to "force others to conform to their moral beliefs". But I wasn't able to understand your question. (Or this form of words.) I am not sure if others are in the same boat.

 

[TricksterWolf]

Labelled wrong by whom? By God? By many people? (Then it's pretty much a tautology.) By social scientists?

I think I am one of those people whom secularists say want to "force others to conform to their moral beliefs". But I wasn't able to understand your question. (Or this form of words.) I am not sure if others are in the same boat.

Oh... Labeled "wrong" by society (so yes, this is a restatement), but this alone isn't sufficient for creating law. Society can generally agree that lying is wrong, but lying isn't always illegal, for one.

I agree the question is difficult to pose properly. It's really a question about certain kinds of so-called "victimless" crimes that are routinely outlawed on the basis of moral outrage over the existence of the behaviors in a given community. These laws are often grouped together in legal texts. I'm curious to know what moral justification people use in drawing the line between allowing people the free will to make mistakes on their own, and using the power of the State to protect people from themselves. Recreational drug use is a perfect example of this sort of grey area, as is prostitution, gambling, and use of pornography.

Essentially, I don't really care what you believe, I'm just curious to hear what your rationale is for your beliefs. When is it acceptable to usurp free will and intervene in someone else's personal life? (Certainly, it's acceptable in some circumstances; if murder were not illegal, then acts of violence would probably be greater and bear wars of retributions, disrupting society as a whole. But the sorts of crimes with clear parties who have been injured in some way are not the ones I'm referring to.)

Trickster

 

[MoonlessNight]

well laws against prostitution and restrictions on gambling are based on tax not morality.

Am I the only one who thinks that taxes are a matter of morality? I mean, they essentially say that the government has more of a right to your money than you do. Or perhaps that they don't, but they can take it anyway. And in any case they are justified in acting with force if you do not agree. That seems like a consideration pretty mired in morality to me.

If you really want to avoid laws that dictate morality it's best to go to an anarchy. I'm not even saying this facetiously; I'm an anarchist. Of course it's partially because I think that society would be better ordered in an anarchy but that's going off topic.

So, um, yeah. Laws that use the might of the government for coercion of any form are bad. Morally bad.

 

[TricksterWolf]

Am I the only one who thinks that taxes are a matter of morality? I mean, they essentially say that the government has more of a right to your money than you do. Or perhaps that they don't, but they can take it anyway. And in any case they are justified in acting with force if you do not agree. That seems like a consideration pretty mired in morality to me.

If you really want to avoid laws that dictate morality it's best to go to an anarchy. I'm not even saying this facetiously; I'm an anarchist. Of course it's partially because I think that society would be better ordered in an anarchy but that's going off topic.

So, um, yeah. Laws that use the might of the government for coercion of any form are bad. Morally bad.

Economic freedom and personal freedom are often seen as separate, but you make a valid point to link them together in that way. I think taxes may be part of a slightly different paradigm if they are used in order to provide certain services to the community that we vote to support.

But the analogy is still clear...you could make an argument that taxes are a way of keeping people from using their own money because the state is better equipped to use it "properly".

I suppose I'd defend taxes by saying that the money I earn is only possible due to the fact that I earn it on American soil, with American laws and regulations set to make this much easier for me than it would be in an anarchy, so a small portion of my earnings and sales rightly belong to the State. I think I probably win out in the end. But maybe people should have more of a choice, I don't know.

Trickster

 

[elman]

From the "imposing morals on others" thread, it seems like the majority of people here oppose forcing others to conform to their moral beliefs. But this contradicts my personal experience with law. It seems to me that most people try to force others to do what they think is moral through the rule of law, at least to a point.

For those of you who feel that it's wrong to force others to conform to your morality outside of free will, how would you justify laws against things like gambling, prostitution, abortion, and pornography, which do not have a direct society-disabling effect on those who do not participate?

Or in other words, when do you have the right to remove someone's free will and replace it with force?

Trickster

How about the law against murder? Are you for enforcing that moral law? Or the law against child moslestation? Do you think the parents of a child have a right to prevent the freedom of the criminal to molest their child?

 

[Konkurrent]

How about the law against murder? Are you for enforcing that moral law? Or the law against child moslestation? Do you think the parents of a child have a right to prevent the freedom of the criminal to molest their child?

Neither of those laws are irrevocably rooted in morality. Logic alone justifies both admirably.

 

[Asimov]

I lean towards anarchism, and I regard the idea of correcting behaviour by (threat of) punishment counterproductive.

That's because you're a hippy....lol, I'm kidding man.

I disagree with you, though.