Legislating Morality

[simplynix]

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?

Well, for the sake of argument, I think we should go with Jayem's suggestion and focus on legislating private behavior. The rest is kind of tedious, and maybe deserves its own thread.

The United States was designed to be a democracy that protects the minority from the majority. I think it is clear, through the words of our founding fathers, that legislating private behavior was never intended. Would you agree with that much?

 

[MoonlessNight]

Well, for the sake of argument, I think we should go with Jayem's suggestion and focus on legislating private behavior. The rest is kind of tedious, and maybe deserves its own thread.

The United States was designed to be a democracy that protects the minority from the majority. I think it is clear, through the words of our founding fathers, that legislating private behavior was never intended. Would you agree with that much?

I agree that private behavior should not be legislated. But I don't think that it is because private behavior is naturally exempt from government consideration, but because it happens that legislating private behavior never serves the purpose of the government. And that purpose is to guarantee and protect our inherent rights. Since the right to personal freedom (as long as it does not intefere with the rights of others) is among the rights protected by the government, it of course follows that legislating private behavior would not serve to protect this right.

While this may seem a minor quibble, the thought that the government should do anything other than protect rights is something that I am not comfortable, since it gives the government justification to do anything if they can argue some good would come of it. So while some good may come from observing all citizens 24 hours a day, for example, since crime perhaps could be reduced, this would violate many rights, particularly the right to privacy, so this is a course of action that we should not even consider.

 

[Randall McNally]

I agree that private behavior should not be legislated. But I don't think that it is because private behavior is naturally exempt from government consideration, but because it happens that legislating private behavior never serves the purpose of the government.

This is generally true, but I would add to that behaviors that occur between consenting adults.

 

[MoonlessNight]

This is generally true, but I would add to that behaviors that occur between consenting adults.

Out of curiosity, do you believe that duels should be legal, then? (Not a criticism, since I myself believe they should be, but it seems a natural result of the statement).

 

[Ave Maria]

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

Agreed. I am against legislating moral or religious values. Certain values are universal such as don't murder. Those should be kept. But saying that homosexuals can't marry or abortion should be banned is NOT right!

 

[Randall McNally]

Out of curiosity, do you believe that duels should be legal, then? (Not a criticism, since I myself believe they should be, but it seems a natural result of the statement).

Oh, good question.

Consider some arguments against:

• The participants, unless truly suicidal, are arguably not consenting to die, since each presumably thinks he will prevail
• Guns are dangerous not only to the duel participants, but also to people, animals and structures nearby
• Participants who are wounded are further burdensome on the medical system

Does the balance of argumentation suggest prohibition? Probably not.

Consenting participants are at least aware of the possibility of death. Peripheral damage can be punished harshly by the judicial system. The 'medical burden' argument can be offered against hundreds of high-risk behaviors.

I doubt personal honor even exists today to the degree that duels would become commonplace.

 

[simplynix]

Just to round things out, how do we all feel about suicide and assited suicide? I believe both shold be okay, as one's life is their own, not the state's.

Another thing we haven't suggested is drug use. It's another complicated issue because of potential societal burden, so i'd like to hear others' thoughts as well.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

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.

Mere propaganda to placate the masses of Germans who were Christians. Hitler was contemptuous of Christianity and an athiest in the conventional sense of the word. He did believe in a higher mystical destiny calling him forward, so in a very real sense he was his own god. Many but not all Waffen SS members belonged to a Nordic cult, but how many of them treated this as a bonafide religion as opposed to their version of the Freemasons is open to debate.

 

[Natman]

I think what most people mean is more properly termed as "legislating private behavior."

I believe the concept you may be trying to explaing is "regulating private behavior".

All laws are attempts to "legislate" so sort of behavior, be it private or corporate. They lay out the consequences for unacceptable behavior, assuming that someone is caught commiting of such behavior.

In other words, we can write all the legislation we want, but that in and of itself will not, and can not "FORCE" people to live within that legislation.

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.

The problem as I see it, is that, we as a society, DEMAND that our government protect us physically and financially from those that would act with reckless abandon.

Consequently, we allow our government to legislate and regulate some of our personal freedoms, by use of fines, imprisonment and force if necessary, for the general security of the people.

A good example are "speed limits". We allow the government to study and establish maximum speeds of travel by certain vehicles under certain conditions, and EXPECT that they will enforce them for the security of all other citizens. We agree to limit our personal freedom to travel at whatever speed we so desire or face the consequences.

In your example of "drug use". If it was the common practice that personal drug use had zero affects on the rest of society, I doubt it would even be an issue. Unfortunately, personal "private" drug use rarely remains "private" and it's affects tend to spew out upon society in general in the forms of increased crime as well as increased costs for treatment of addictions and social diseases.

I doubt that you would be very comfortable allowing your little girl to play in your front yard, knowing that your next door neighbor was a heroine addict who gets behind the wheel of his car in a drug indused stupor every day.

I know I wouldn't.

Soncerly,
Nate

 

[Buzz Dixon]

Out of curiosity, do you believe that duels should be legal, then? (Not a criticism, since I myself believe they should be, but it seems a natural result of the statement).

Yeah, but the weapons should be limited to socks full of wet manure.

 

[Randall McNally]

Just to round things out, how do we all feel about suicide and assited suicide? I believe both shold be okay, as one's life is their own, not the state's.

Both should be legal, but psychological intervention still should be attempted whenever possible.

 

[simplynix]

In your example of "drug use". If it was the common practice that personal drug use had zero affects on the rest of society, I doubt it would even be an issue. Unfortunately, personal "private" drug use rarely remains "private" and it's affects tend to spew out upon society in general in the forms of increased crime as well as increased costs for treatment of addictions and social diseases.

This is a gross overstatement. The fact is that drug related crimes stem almost exclusively from prohibition. By putting it in the hands of gang lords who operate outside the ethics of business, crime prevails. This is proved clearly by nations like Holland who have legalized many drugs and have seen drug related crimes plummet as a result.

Additionally, addictions and social diseases have their root in a pathological psyche, which may or may not express istself in drug abuse. But to label all drug use as pathological is simply misunderstanding the issue.

I doubt that you would be very comfortable allowing your little girl to play in your front yard, knowing that your next door neighbor was a heroine addict who gets behind the wheel of his car in a drug indused stupor every day.

I know I wouldn't.

Legalizing drug use wouldn't exempt it from safe-use restrictions, much like it doesn't with alcohol. You wouldn't be able to drive if you are inhibited, employers wouldn't allow employees to use when it affects their work, etc.

 

[Randall McNally]

Mere propaganda to placate the masses of Germans who were Christians. Hitler was contemptuous of Christianity and an athiest in the conventional sense of the word. He did believe in a higher mystical destiny calling him forward, so in a very real sense he was his own god.

This doesn't really sound like any atheist I've ever known.

Hitler was indeed an ideological opportunist, though. It's difficult to determine exactly what he believed, but his liberal use of mysticism seems to preclude atheism.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

This doesn't really sound like any atheist I've ever known.

Hitler was indeed an ideological opportunist, though. It's difficult to determine exactly what he believed, but his liberal use of mysticism seems to preclude atheism.

I referred to HItler being an athiest in the conventional sense of the word since he did not seem to believe in a higher intelligence that was in charge of his life. He did seem to believe in some vast, nebulous, mystical destiny that was out there waiting for him. At what point that sort of belief becomes theological is open to debate.

 

[simplynix]

Theistic or not, it is still clearly religious.

 

[Natman]

The fact is that drug related crimes stem almost exclusively from prohibition.

I have also argued in favor of this statement, even usinh Holland as an example, but would change it to say "Some drug related crimes".

I realize that "prohibition" tends to create a black-market for whatever is being prohibited and that in itself creates temptation toward criminal activity. But that is not what I am talking about here.

Additionally, addictions and social diseases have their root in a pathological psyche, which may or may not express istself in drug abuse. But to label all drug use as pathological is simply misunderstanding the issue.

I didn't say that.

Legalizing drug use wouldn't exempt it from safe-use restrictions, much like it doesn't with alcohol. You wouldn't be able to drive if you are inhibited, employers wouldn't allow employees to use when it affects their work, etc.

I take it that you are just fine with having an estimated 18,000 American deaths annually attributed to drunk driving, considering that alcohol has it's own "safe-use restrictions".

Son-cerely,
Nate

 

[simplynix]

I have also argued in favor of this statement, even usinh Holland as an example, but would change it to say "Some drug related crimes".

That's why i said "almost exclusively." "Some" doesn't give credence to the overwhelming majority of drug-related crimes that stem from prohibition.

I take it that you are just fine with having an estimated 18,000 American deaths annually attributed to drunk driving, considering that alcohol has it's own "safe-use restrictions".

I'm not "just fine with it," but it is an unfortunate occurance that happens with negligence, just like automobile accidents that don't involve alcohol.

 

[crashedman]

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?

That is *so* true. Legislating morality is just darned impossible! You cannot hold a machete or a gun to another person's head saying "LOVE ONE ANOTHER NOW!!!!"


Crashedman