Legislating morality

[sister_maynard]

There are. It's not outright promotion, though it is a clear acknowldegement that slavery wouldn't be utterly wrong for the Israelites as long as they treated the slaves relatively well and got them from other countries. I don't think that the code of slave-owning conduct never outright says that slavery is good and beneficial. Rather, it provides guidelines for what to do if you must have slaves. Not condemning something outright isn't the same thing as promoting it.

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

There are. It's not outright promotion, though it is a clear acknowldegement that slavery wouldn't be utterly wrong for the Israelites as long as they treated the slaves relatively well and got them from other countries. I don't think that the code of slave-owning conduct never outright says that slavery is good and beneficial. Rather, it provides guidelines for what to do if you must have slaves. Not condemning something outright isn't the same thing as promoting it.

Okay, condone then. I concede "promote" is too strong, but assert "acknowledge" is too weak for something that despicable.

 

[KCDAD]

ALL laws are legislating morality. That is what a law is. It defines the parameters in which behavior is judged to be within normal guidelines or not. Normal and Morality are both defined by the laws that are passed.
Murder, Theft, Arson... these are moral issues.

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

I see that people are still getting confused. Read the bottom part of the OP, where you see "edit: ".

We are not talking about moral issues that everyone agrees with, but the ones not everyone does.

I posted this in another thread:

You are assuming that all moral codes come from religion. Some moral codes have just simply evolved over the millenia as people observe what works for society and what doesn't.

Behaviors that inherently harm other people are obviously immoral. Why do you need a book to tell you that?

If I am alive, I know what that is like and that it allows me to do things and enjoy things. When I see a dead person, I see that he can't do those things any more. If he is dead because of natural causes, that is sad. If he is dead because someone took life away from him, that is wrong.

Everyone assumes that atheists are immoral because we don't get our moral codes out of a religious book. Behaviors that always harm people are bad. Why is that complicated?

Atheists and religious people agree that these behaviors are bad, though we disagree on the source of the moral code.

The other category of moral codes are those that don't harm another person.

These include booze and almost anything related to sex. Except adultery, which is a form of cheating and hurts another person.

You claim that other people are harmed by them, but the harm is often greatly exaggerated.

People often speak out against porn in general, but when you look at some of the arguments they make, it turns out they are really talking about kiddy porn, which is a radically different thing practiced by a few people living deep underground. Arguments related to kiddy porn have nothing to do with regular porn, and the two are not used by the same people.

People make claims that women have been forced into porn, but for every Linda Lovelace or Traci Lords that claims that, there is a Ginger Lynn or a Jewell D'Nyle who proclaims she loves being a porn star, and that no one made her do anything. My personal opinion is that Linda and Traci were overcome with guilt later and manufactured someone else to put the blame on. Linda is known to have been born again since her porn days. Hence the sudden guilt.

Alcoholism and drunk driving are always used as an argument against booze, despite the many people who drink booze without problems.

Teen preganancy and STDs are used to decry unmarried sex, despite the millions of adults and teens who have sex with no problems because they protect themselves.

The behaviors we are disputing can sometimes hurt people, expecially in combination with other bad behaviors (such as not using protection).

The behaviors we do agree on always hurt people.

Killing someone, cheating someone, lying to someone, defrauding someone, assaulting someone is always harmful.

Unmarried sex, booze, porn, etc., can sometimes be harmful, depending on circumstances. But more often than not, it isn't harmful.

This is the difference between the laws we support and the ones we feel you force on us.

 

[outlaw]

OK, I'm on your side in this thread but "promotes" is a little strong. "Acknowledges the reality" is a little closer IMO.

Its promotion in the sense that slavery is given moral approval and by the fact that opposing slavery (at least by the slaves themselves) is shown to be morally wrong.

There is not just approval for slavery and instructions as to the proper treatment of slaves but also instructions for selling your own child into slavery.

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. Leviticus 25:44-46

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. Exodus 21:2-6

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. Exodus 21:7-11

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. Exodus 21:20-21

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. Ephesians 6:5

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. 1 Timothy 6:1-2

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." Luke 12:47-48

 

[KCDAD]

I see that people are still getting confused. Read the bottom part of the OP, where you see "edit: ".

We are not talking about moral issues that everyone agrees with, but the ones not everyone does.

There are no "moral issues everyone agrees with", that is why there are laws. (If you can think of one, I'd like to hear it) All laws are definitions of acceptable or unacceptable behavior... by that society! Jay Walking, Prostitution, Paying Taxes, Drinking Age Limits, Dress Codes, Marriage, Speaking in Public... they are arbitrary and fluctuate widely among cultures, times and technologies.

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

What I mean by "moral issues everyone agrees with" is that everyone agrees that those moral codes are valid. Laws are for those who know about the moral code and disregard it anyway. By "agrees with", I didn't mean "agrees to follow", just "agrees that they are valid".

Unless using the insanity defense, when does a murderer ever claim that he didn't know killing was wrong? He knew it was wrong, thereby agreeing that the moral code against killing is valid, but he ignored it and killed anyway.

That's the whole point of law, to take over when moral codes fail.

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

I just realized that no one has addressed the comments in the OP about free will.

If you perform actions to prevent someone from sinning, such as passing laws, are you interfering with their free will?

Does god want people to do things to control the behavior of others, if it prevents them from exercising free will?

There are all kinds of passages in scripture telling people they should not sin and detailing various sins.

Is there a scripture where believers are directed to prevent another person from sinning, therefore preventing excercise of free will?

If so, please show it.

If it cannot be found, this indicates that christians who lobby to shut down topless bars have no scriptural reason for doing so.

If it can, it shows a contadiction in the free will gag, in that people are supposed to have free will to sin, but god tells other people to remove that free will.

In any case, let's have some scripture.

 

[fillerbunny]

If you perform actions to prevent someone from sinning, such as passing laws, are you interfering with their free will?

I don't think so. They're still free to break the law if they so choose. The presence of legal repercussions clearly doesn't stop individuals from breaking the law. If it did, our prisons wouldn't be full of murderers, rapists, thieves and the like.

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

But it does affect their decision as to whether to sin or not. It does make them have to think about it more. It is still interference, even if not always prevention. The whole point of criminal law is to act as an impediment. Many people who might have sinned have not actually committed the sin because of the law. Is that prevention or what?

 

[radorth]

Something interesting was brought up in another thread, and I thought it was important enough to discuss separately.

Many christians support legislation, both at the national level and at the state and local level, that prohibits behavior they consider immoral or sinful or whatever.

This includes porn, unmarried sex (it is illegal in many jurisdictions, just not enforced), gay sex, gay marriage, booze, topless bars, and so on.

The way I understand the "free will" gag, sin was created and man was given free will to either sin or not sin. Isn't that the whole point, for him to choose whether to sin or not?

If you prevent someone from sinning by passing a law, are you not removing that person's free will to commit that sin? Or at least impairing it?

Some people, such as the dominionists, want to set up an actual theocracy. Wouldn't that remove free will entirely?

Would not god be angry that you are interfering with his plans for mankind?

I might agree to some extent, but virtually all of the sins Paul listed do harm to other people including fornication. Fornication is satisfying lust outside of marriage and creates all kinds of jealousy, emotional damage- probably more to vulnerable women and even murder.

I have to pay a lot of taxes to take care of unwanted children myself, but the harm to the children born of fornication is unfathomable. Does it do any good to legislate againts it? Probably not, but then we don't enforce such laws, do we?

So please, your argument is merely an academic curiosity more than a helpful solution to anything. Right? Thankfully the kids in my church don't fornicate, so they aren't adding to my tax bill or creating severely damaged unwanted children, which you prefer to ignore.

Rad

 

[fillerbunny]

Along those lines, you could also argue the same thing (in terms of christianity) about the bible itself being an impediment to free will.

That said, it's hard to say how many crimes (if any) are prevented by the passing of a law, because there's really no way to definitively determine whether or not crimes that have never occurred would have been committed if not for the law.

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

I might agree to some extent, but virtually all of the sins Paul listed do harm to other people including fornication. Fornication is satisfying lust outside of marriage and creates all kinds of jealousy, emotional damage- probably more to vulnerable women and even murder.

I have to pay a lot of taxes to take care of unwanted children myself, but the harm to the children born of fornication is unfathomable. Does it do any good to legislate againts it? Probably not, but then we don't enforce such laws, do we?

So please, your argument is merely an academic curiosity more than a helpful solution to anything. Right?

Absolutely! I am not proposing anything. I am simply pointing out the illogical nature of the free will argument and questioning why christians feel the need to control the behaviors of others unless god specifically said to do so.

Thankfully the kids in my church don't fornicate, so they aren't adding to my tax bill or creating severely damaged unwanted children, which you prefer to ignore.

What difference does it make what the ramifications of sin are? We are talking about whether free will to sin is being restricted or not. And whether it should be or not, according to your own doctrine.

You are assuming god cares about the consequences of sin. Why would he care about a murder, when he lets people die violently in hurricanes? Human life apparently doesn't matter that much. Free will is how he decides who he loves and who he doesn't.

 

[Code-Monkey]

Many christians support legislation, both at the national level and at the state and local level, that prohibits behavior they consider immoral or sinful or whatever.

Hopefully everyone who supports a law supports it because they believe that the action they are legislating against is either morally wrong or will almost assuredly lead to something morally wrong. Can you imagine someone trying to enact a law that condemns bravery, honesty, or loving your children? But it looks like your edit covers this. But I don't see why you would distinguish between christian and non-christian here since everyone enacts laws based upon what they believe to be moral.

The way I understand the "free will" gag, sin was created and man was given free will to either sin or not sin. Isn't that the whole point, for him to choose whether to sin or not?

It may seem a minor distinction, and it's probably already been said but I haven't read all 6 pages of posts... At least as far back as St Augustine and likely farther back, theologians have had the idea that sin isn't a substance itself in the same way that love is... rather sin is just the absence of love and God's nature is perfectly loving. Love cannot be forced (we generally call that rape). So love must be freely given if it is going to be given at all. So the free will is a necessary attribute of a creature who is going to be capable of loving. So saying the point of the free will gag is so that we can sin or not sin I think mistakenly puts the emphasis on the wrong subject. It seems more appropriate to say that the point of the free will gag is so that we can choose to love or to not love.

If you prevent someone from sinning by passing a law, are you not removing that person's free will to commit that sin? Or at least impairing it?

No. If your theory was correct, then as soon as Congress enacted a law saying X was wrong, then we'd never again see a case where X happened. So obviously enacting laws in a government does not itself prevent the action from happening. You can do sort of a simple experiment with people to try this out. Tell a friend, "You can't look at me anymore -- it's against the law." And then see if they look at you. Go ahead and try to formalize it, write it up on fancy paper, try to make it look official or serious. Chances are they'll still look at you and laugh.

Some people, such as the dominionists, want to set up an actual theocracy. Wouldn't that remove free will entirely?

Nope. I think Christians by definition already believe that we are under the authority of God and we live under his judgement.

I suspect the reason many christians (and others) oppose pushing too much of their morality on others through legislation is 2 things:

1. As I said, you can't actually force others to be loving or moral. It's something that observably people freely choose to do on their own.
2. Unless the people actually making the laws are very moral people themselves, you'll have potentially corrupt people making immoral laws. It seems far safer to try to limit the scope of what the government can do.

Would not god be angry that you are interfering with his plans for mankind?

There doesn't seem to be any evidence from the bible or other reliable christian sources that God supports anarchy or any particular form of government. It does seem clear that he doesn't support those who oppress others or those who don't love others as much as themselves.

I will add that laws enacted by a government seem to sometimes take away the focus from the fact that the moral law comes from God and not man. Murder isn't wrong because our government of the decade says it's wrong, it's wrong because it goes against God's moral law.

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

Along those lines, you could also argue the same thing (in terms of christianity) about the bible itself being an impediment to free will.

True.

That said, it's hard to say how many crimes (if any) are prevented by the passing of a law, because there's really no way to definitively determine whether or not crimes that have never occurred would have been committed if not for the law.

They way I see it, there are three groups of people:

1. those who are totally moral and would never commit a sin that would have corresponded to a crime even if there were no laws at all

2. those who consider committing a sin/crime, but decide not to because of the existence of a law prohibiting it

3. those who disregard the law and commit sins/crimes anyway


If everybody was in category 1, there would be no need of laws at all.

If everybody was in category 3, society would devolve into anarchy.

There is no way of knowing how many people are in category 2, which is the category we are talking about, as there is no way to distinguish them from category 1 unless they tell you they would have committed the crime.

One example of people like this would be those who don't agree with the morality behind the law, which is what this whole thread is about in the first place.

For instance, I see no reason not to hire a call girl, because I don't think there is anything morally wrong with it. I consider the biblical prohibition to be arbitrary and artificial. But I don't because I might get arrested if she was an undercover cop.

Whether you agree with my morality or not, you have to agree that the law prevented me from exercising my free will to sin.

Another way that christians interfere with free will is by removing the opportunity. When religious leaders lobby to shut down a topless bar, they are interfering with the free will of both the customers and the dancers.

When they prohibit porn in a local jurisdiction, they prevent the excercise of free will on the part of those who might have bought it.

Same with booze.

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

It may seem a minor distinction, and it's probably already been said but I haven't read all 6 pages of posts... At least as far back as St Augustine and likely farther back, theologians have had the idea that sin isn't a substance itself in the same way that love is... rather sin is just the absence of love and God's nature is perfectly loving. Love cannot be forced (we generally call that rape). So love must be freely given if it is going to be given at all. So the free will is a necessary attribute of a creature who is going to be capable of loving. So saying the point of the free will gag is so that we can sin or not sin I think mistakenly puts the emphasis on the wrong subject. It seems more appropriate to say that the point of the free will gag is so that we can choose to love or to not love.

I'm just going by the explanation I got when I asked why god hates sin, yet created it anyway and then gets upset when people sin and sends them to hell. I have been told repeatedly that sin is a discrete thing. My question was: wouldn't it be simpler to just refrain from creating sin in the first place? The answer I got was free will.

The big problem with these arguments is that people say completely different things. There doesn't appear to be a universal doctrine.

There are a few points most agree with, but the rest is total chaos, which of course is why there are so many sects.

 

[KCDAD]

What I mean by "moral issues everyone agrees with" is that everyone agrees that those moral codes are valid. ... By "agrees with", I didn't mean "agrees to follow", just "agrees that they are valid".

Ok, with this stipulation, name one moral code everyone agrees is valid? I don't think you can find one of those either.

 

[Code-Monkey]

Ok, with this stipulation, name one moral code everyone agrees is valid? I don't think you can find one of those either.

I suspect Jackrabbit didn't literally mean every single person agrees with some moral code. Every single person doesn't even agree on simple mathematics, which many of us consider to be provable. So there's no real sense that every literal person would agree on other things.

I think a better phrase would be to say that there are moral laws or codes that almost all people agree on.

CS Lewis outlines quite a few in the Abolition of Man. If you look at the laws throughout history, then the basic moral law has been extremely similar. The idea of murdering an innocent person has almost universally been condemned by governments and people (as an example).

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

Ok, with this stipulation, name one moral code everyone agrees is valid? I don't think you can find one of those either.

Are you serious? What do you mean by "everyone"? An "extremely high percentage of the adults in the united states, not including insane people and psychopaths" is what I would say.

You are insisting on every last person?

I would expect an extremely high percentage to think murder is wrong, even many of those who actually committed murder and just don't care that it is wrong.

 

[Code-Monkey]

I'm just going by the explanation I got when I asked why god hates sin, yet created it anyway and then gets upset when people sin and sends them to hell. I have been told repeatedly that sin is a discrete thing. My question was: wouldn't it be simpler to just refrain from creating sin in the first place? The answer I got was free will.

I think what you're discovering is why that theology is weak and why the theology that says that sin is the absence or lack of love is so much stronger.

Your question ultimately asks, wouldn't it have been better for God to not have created creatures who can love in the first place. I'm not sure why creating creatures capable of love is such a bad thing. In fact I happen to see it as a very great thing.

The big problem with these arguments is that people say completely different things. There doesn't appear to be a universal doctrine.

Are you suggesting that a sound argument that concludes X is weakened by a bunch of unsound or invalid arguments also claiming X? It is sort of interesting. I do think people think this quite a bit even though it's a logical fallacy to think that way.

I think the best thing you can do though is to read what some of the more established theologians have said. There doesn't seem to be as wide of a divergence among them.

There are a few points most agree with, but the rest is total chaos, which of course is why there are so many sects.

Yes, if you ask enough people you can find an answer you like. Similarly, a friend of mine who was atheist said that he was an atheist because it meant that there was no such thing as morality, so he could do whatever he wants to. If I take his idea of atheism then I could try to apply it to others and say all atheists don't believe in a god because they don't want to live a moral life. But that would be foolishness for me to take one guy's (or even a bigger groups) idea and then try to apply it to everyone.

And actually, I think the idea that christianity is extremely different on it's beliefs across the many denominations is somewhat of an illusion. It's been my experience that christians from a catholic church, baptist church, methodist, lutheran, and so forth will agree on far more things than they disagree. We just happen to gloss over so much of what they agree upon and the significance of those things that are agreed.