Legislating Morality

[simplynix]

I tried this in a political forum, but was told that all discussion/debate should take place here. So I'm trying again:​

​

I have been distressed lately over the amount of legislation that has been proposed and passed by this administration with regards to religious belief. Whether it be legislating use of speech, sexuality, or other religion based morality, it is harmful to the way our nation sees liberty and puts the religious population in the seat of the oppressor. With this comes resentment for the institution of religion and of the religious. Take the words of Thomas Jefferson:
​

A BILL FOR ESTABLISHING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

SECTION I. Well aware that
​

[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]

• the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds;​

[/font]

[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]

• that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint;​

[/font]

[font=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]

• that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone;​

[/font]

God has given us free will. He did this so that when we choose Him, it is to His glory and not the necessary result of programing. Why then should the religious try to take away the gift given by God? To me, the correct position would be to allow freedom on issues which are purely moral, so that when the right decision is made, it is to God's glory. I feel that we betray the architecture set forth by our Creator by trying to control one another in this way.

God looks at the heart, and to that righteousness is acredited.

Matt 23:25-26 - Woe to you [who] cleanse the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of extortion and rapacity. You are blind! first cleanse the inside of the cup and of the plate, that the outside also may be clean.

A legistlated morality is a false morality, and is of no interest to God.

Any thoughts?

 

[Buzz Dixon]

Bushido has morality. So does the Mafia. Neither of them are particularly religous from Western civilizations POV. Attempts to permit self-indulgence by claiming all moral efforts are based on religion are bogus. Morality is determined by a culture based on what it perceives as its best interests, it can not be legislated, only acted out. Legislation only codifies what already exists.

 

[Prometheus_ash]

NO, but having it legistlated can force others to conform to that specific morality, whether they want to or not.

 

[MoonlessNight]

The question has never been whether or not to legislate morality, because any legislation beyond bueareaucratic monstronsities is actually legislating morality. You may say that the laws may be trying to reduce harm not caused by the individual, or to support the rights of the individual, but the statement "people should not harm other people" or even "people do not deserve to be harmed" is a moral statement, as is "rights are something that should be protected." It is impossible to have a government that affects the lives of the citizens in any noticable way and does not legislate morality.

What people usually mean when they say that we should not legislate morality is that we should not legislate religious morality. And that usually means that we should not outlaw things forbidden by a certain religion if an argument for banning it cannot be made without using religion. But underlying in this is the thought that the argument against it has to follow the premises that our country has set up.

I do not think there is anything wrong with this, it is not hypocritical to reject religious statements as truth in government, and yet have an underlying morality behind the laws of the nation. But if we were to say no morality at all should be legislated, we would not be able to legislate anything at all, and you'd all have to be anarchists like me.

 

[mjiracek]

What morality are you talking about?

Marriage? That should not be the governments job anyway. In ancient civilizations it was the religions job to marry people. The US co-opted that and now the gov has to recognize it as legal.

Abortion? well thats a tricky one. I agree women have a right to choose. They made the wrong choice when they had sex. I belive that abortion should only be allowed when they did not have a choice(rape) or the mother will die form labor

Are there any other moral things you had in mind?

Dont forget that Democrats say poverty, healthcare, social issues are all morality based. If we do not legislate morality as you so aptly put it. What are we legislating?

 

[Norea]

The question I would pose is it moral to forceably impose morals on others? And I'm not talking stopping rapes, murders and theft. I'm talking things like Prohibition and the War on Drugs. Things that tend to have no real need to be restricted other than to continue the livelihood of a few law-officers that would be better handling more pressing issues like terrorism and etc.

-- Bridget

 

[Buzz Dixon]

Well, let's cut to the chase and drag the Nazis into this right now.


The Nazis based their persecution of the Jews on what they felt was scientific and historical evidence. Almost all Nazis were athiests or pagans, not Christians, hence there was no religious morality at play in their acts, just old fashioned Jew-hatred. By Hitler's standards, their actions were just and moral and ethical, but any sane human being's standards their actions were amoral at best and imoral at worst.

But there was no religion involved.

So is it being argued Nazi anti-Semitism was okay since it wasn't based on religious doctrine?

 

[MoonlessNight]

The question I would pose is it moral to forceably impose morals on others?

This is only a question that needs to be dealt with if the moral system values freedom. Our country certainly does, but this is a moral stance in and of itself.

And I'm not talking stopping rapes, murders and theft.

Why not talk about them? They are certainly moral issues. If we want to skip over them and then dismiss other moral issues we have to draw a distinction between the two.

 

[Illuminati]

Hello,

The purpose of the Law is in essence to establish rules based on morality. However morality does not always come from religion, and when it does, it does not always come from the same religion. The fact is that the United States, Canada and most of the first world are secular nations. Meaning that morality is for the most part seperate from religion.

I am glad you like Thomas Jefferson, Here are some more of his quotes:

"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity."

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

"What is it men cannot be made to believe!"

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."

The United States was founded because in Europe the non-secular nature of states, provided much room for corruption. As I always say, if you want to live in a theocracy, move to Saudi Arabia.

Peace,

 

[Norea]

This is only a question that needs to be dealt with if the moral system values freedom. Our country certainly does, but this is a moral stance in and of itself.

True, and I think the biggest concern of mine is that we have no moral system; secular or otherwise. But I really think ours must be based on a secular/objectivist system. Extolling the virtues of being human. Ensuring life, liberty and property... >.< I need to quit reading them books by Rand!

Why not talk about them? They are certainly moral issues. If we want to skip over them and then dismiss other moral issues we have to draw a distinction between the two.

True also, but the biggest contention is then would be how to form morals? Authoritively[Either by a secular entity like the state or a divine agency such as a church? Or a Divine entity such as God[Insert your favorite monotheist name here]?] I think authoritive morals are not the way to go. Morals must be proven like any set of logic, coherently and based on reasonable axioms.

Social Relativism[My social views are different from those so stealing isn't bad and yada yada.]? No way, you would really throw our legal system into a talespin with that one. No way to ensure stability in law if the theory of social relativism is the predication of morals.

Utilitarian[We form morals for given situations and they sometimes are relativistic]? Might be a good alternative but also just as questionable as Social Relativism. If morals form on the fly and not based on a value system, then what is the validity of such a system?

-- Bridget

 

[simplynix]

Dont forget that Democrats say poverty, healthcare, social issues are all morality based. If we do not legislate morality as you so aptly put it. What are we legislating?

Thank you, I forgot to address this in the OP.

With any action taken by the state, it is necessary to define the morality of the state on those issues. This goes for the death penalty, welfare, military action, etc. Unfortunately, the morality of the state changes as flipantly as fashion trends.

The Nazis based their persecution of the Jews on what they felt was scientific and historical evidence. Almost all Nazis were athiests or pagans, not Christians, hence there was no religious morality at play in their acts, just old fashioned Jew-hatred.

Whoa whoa whoa. First, anyhting pagan would be considered religios. Second, Nazism was fueled a great deal by Christianity. Hitler envoked God all the time for justification of his actions.

So is it being argued Nazi anti-Semitism was okay since it wasn't based on religious doctrine?

Although you're wrong about the Nazi/religion thing, I'm also not saying anyhting non-religious is okay. If it betrays the protection of the individual, it is not proper for any non-facist/non-communist government.

 

[MoonlessNight]

True, and I think the biggest concern of mine is that we have no moral system; secular or otherwise. But I really think ours must be based on a secular/objectivist system. Extolling the virtues of being human. Ensuring life, liberty and property... >.< I need to quit reading them books by Rand!

I would say that we have a moral system, just that it isn't thought of much anymore. Close to as you said, the government ensures "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (one off from propety, yes, but I don't think any nation has quoted Locke word for word) but why does it seek to ensure these things? I would say that they are ensured because they everyone has a right to them. The topic of inalienable rights is core to our legal system, (what does the bill of rights do if not guarantee to protect rights that we already have), and that topic is certainly a moral one. And once you agree on which rights everyone possesses, and that it is the duty of the government to preserve these rights, you have a moral system to base a nation upon. Everything else in the constitution is really just details on the best way to guarantee those rights.

But I wonder how many people would agree that this is the purpose of our government anymore. The purpose of government seems to be more and more often to do whatever a person wants, rather than protecting rights.

 

[Norea]

Then we're on the same page. Essentially rights are natural, same as morals. Both are based on rational posits and arguments that stand up to debate. ^___^ Hehe I hate reading Rand and Stirner!!! Grrr.

-- Bridget

 

[Norea]

I personally don't accept 'transcendental' morality as being the source of rational morality, though. Trying to be something better than you actually are, is a bit silly. Reminds me of the Matrix films. >.<

-- Bridget

 

[MoonlessNight]

With any action taken by the state, it is necessary to define the morality of the state on those issues. This goes for the death penalty, welfare, military action, etc. Unfortunately, the morality of the state changes as flipantly as fashion trends.

Does it? I think the morality of the state is (or at least should be) determined by our foundation, since all of the founding documents of our country seem to me to be at least partially moral statements. How else can a state function? If the morality is not established we would be left with nothing more than the morality of those in power.

Whoa whoa whoa. First, anyhting pagan would be considered religios. Second, Nazism was fueled a great deal by Christianity. Hitler envoked God all the time for justification of his actions.

But the point remains that religion is not necessary to justify most of his actions. All that is needed to justify actions against the Jews is to say that they are an inferior race, and therefore when they are persecuted it doesn't matter. That sounds like morality to me, but it does not rely on relgion.

Although you're wrong about the Nazi/religion thing, I'm also not saying anyhting non-religious is okay. If it betrays the protection of the individual, it is not proper for any non-facist/non-communist government.

So you would agree that the morality of a state is determined by its foundation, that is that democracies should protect indvidual freedom, for example, since it is inherit in the nature of democracies that individual freedom is good?

 

[12volt_man]

I have been distressed lately over the amount of legislation that has been proposed and passed by this administration with regards to religious belief.

Like what?

 

[jayem]

I agree that the term "legislating morality" is too broad. Nearly everything a government does can be considered based on some kind of moral position. I think what most people mean is more properly termed as "legislating private behavior." No one would argue that government should not act to prevent rape, or child abuse, or assault. But should legal sanctions be put on consensual sexual behavior of adults? How much can society regulate personal drug or alcohol use? When it is said that morality cannot be legislated, what is meant is that personal, private behavior cannot be legislated--at least not effectively. Personally, I tend towards the libertarian. I think there is a right to privacy, and there is a rather broad realm where government should not intrude. For example: I don't think personal use of drugs should be a crime, prima facie. That is, just using drugs. Now if you injure someone while driving under the influence, or steal to support your habit, or neglect your children, then that is a crime. Allowing people a lot of latitude will likely result in some bad things. Drug users will have health problems, and to care for them may increase all of our health care costs. But I consider myself a true, Jeffersonian conservative. I don't trust government very much. I'd rather have people do things I don't like, and that may even be harmful, than give government the power to regulate our private lives. We don't live in a perfect world, and there is not a perfect solution to every problem. A free society has costs, but a police state is worse.

 

[Randall McNally]

The fundamental purpose of government is to afford its citizens certain protections. Laws that outline those protections might, and in many cases do, have moral components. The ultimate foundation of a law, however, should not be "X is immoral." In each case, there should be some obvious underlying justification that relates to the function of government.

 

[elman]

I personally don't accept 'transcendental' morality as being the source of rational morality, though. Trying to be something better than you actually are, is a bit silly. Reminds me of the Matrix films. >.<

-- Bridget

I don't see a problem with trying to be better than you actually are. If you succeed then then you will be actually better. We are not trapped to be as we actually are forever. We can chose to become actually worse or actually better or stay the same. I don't agree that staying the same is good. It is better than getting worse however.

 

[Norea]

Elman better compared to what? You're a natural entity. You're the best nature made for the given situation. You can improve, yea but to become some superman like something out of a Nietzsche book, I don't think so.

-- Bridget