Legislating morality

[faster_jackrabbit]

As I outlined in an earlier post, I see two basic sets of moral codes: a set that virtually everyone agrees with and a set that not everyone agrees with.

I consider the first set to be behaviors that allow one person to directly harm another. The second set consists of everything else.

Biblical morality includes both sets. My view of morality, and that of many other people, includes just the one where one person directly harms another. I do not see behaviors that affect just one person to be a moral issue, nor behaviors that could potentially hurt someone in certain circumstances that don't occur a majority of the time.

I fully recognize that those who recognize full biblical morality are probably a majority and they can probably do what they want. Certainly in some local jurisdictions they have been a majority and have caused laws to be passed that I wouldn't have agreed with if I had lived there. The question is whether they should.

The framers of the consitution expended great effort to prevent the majority from oppressing the minority, such as the introduction of the electoral college.

James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper 51: "It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure."

The full paper can be found here.

 

[KCDAD]

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).

I agree and that is my point. (With the obvious exception of how one defines innocent: 9/11 attacks on WTC were hailed in the Muslim world as righteous! They were dancing the streets over the deaths of 3000 innocents.) There is recognition in the codified legal sytem of generally accepted mores and norms. I don't believe that a law without consensus has validity and can be enforced for long. (Prohibition for example, or The Intolerable Acts))

 

[outlaw]

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?

Interestingly enough the laws enacted to support discrimination ageist gays and lesbians do exactly these things.

 

[outlaw]

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

It is alwasy moral to act with legitimate concern for the well being of others.

 

[Stinker]

I agree and that is my point. (With the obvious exception of how one defines innocent: 9/11 attacks on WTC were hailed in the Muslim world as righteous! They were dancing the streets over the deaths of 3000 innocents.) There is recognition in the codified legal sytem of generally accepted mores and norms. I don't believe that a law without consensus has validity and can be enforced for long. (Prohibition for example, or The Intolerable Acts))

Do we define what or who is innocent or do we try to find what or who is innocent?

C.S. Louis said in response to the old witch burnings, that if we really found that there were such people going around using supernatural powers to kill their neighbors, that the death penalty would be the only alterative for authorities in order to protect society. He says that the people of that time did not have the correct information, and thought they were doing the morally good thing.

When people stop caring to try to objectively find if things are wrong or right with the accumulation of information more available with the passing of time these days, then even those people would say that such a people would be morally wrong to stay on such a course.

 

[KCDAD]

It is alwasy moral to act with legitimate concern for the well being of others.

Legitimate concern? By legitimate you refer to legislated definitions? Well being? Do you presume the law knows what is best for others? You are talking about philanthropic behavior and attitudes... there are some real moral contradictions there. I must help the unfortunate because I am better than they, God blesses me more than them, they need my help... We brought education and Christianity to the natives of the new world with honest and pure intentions... along with small pox and measles... and massacre...
I think you haveto admit morality is socially defined and varies from culture to culture, from time to time.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

ALL laws are legislating morality.

No, they're not. They're legistlating what behaviours a society finds acceptable. That has nothing to do with morality.

That is what a law is. It defines the parameters in which behavior is judged to be within normal guidelines or not.

No, it defines the parameters in which behaviour is judged to be acceptable or not.

Normal and Morality are both defined by the laws that are passed.

Sorry, but that's nonsense. Homosexuality, for example, is abnormal (it is a behaviour practised by a minority). It has not become any less abnormal (or any more normal) since laws have been changed to make it accepted within society. Nor has its morality been changed by any laws.

Murder, Theft, Arson... these are moral issues.

They are. They are also legal issues. The law addresses them as legal issues; it does not address the morality of them.

 

[KCDAD]

No, they're not. They're legistlating what behaviours a society finds acceptable. That has nothing to do with morality.

You need to find a definition for morality that works for you. The definition that I use comes from Sociology... based on Mores... norms that are widely observed and have great moral significance. What are NORMS? rules and expectations for behavior by which a society guides the behavior of its members.
SOCIOLOGY 9th Edition John Macionis
morality n 1: concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct [ant: immorality] 2: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong [syn: ethical motive, ethics, morals]
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
mores n : (sociology) the conventions that embody the fundamental values of a group


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) Mores \Mo"res\ (m[=o]"r[=e]z), n. pl.; sing. Mos (m[=o]s). [L.] Customs; habits; esp., customs conformity to which is more or less obligatory; customary law.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

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?



edit: some people are apparently consfused about the term "legislating morality". This does not just mean creating laws based on morality. All laws that govern human behavior are based on morality.

This is a negative term that means legislating a particular moral code (the bible) on everyone, when not everyone accepts its validity.

Good question. I have a few points:

... Actually, can sum up in one: you can't obstruct God's will.

 

[SimplyMe]

Good question. I have a few points:

... Actually, can sum up in one: you can't obstruct God's will.

It is also true that throughout history people have debated what "God's Will" actually is and few if any of them have been obstructed from that debate. If anything, there are many who have claimed to know what "God's Will" was that are now known to be wrong.

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

It is also true that throughout history people have debated what "God's Will" actually is and few if any of them have been obstructed from that debate. If anything, there are many who have claimed to know what "God's Will" was that are now known to be wrong.

It doesn't matter how much we debate God's Will or what we think God's Will is - God's Will can't be obstructed.

I don't know God's will, only his word.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

You need to find a definition for morality that works for you. The definition that I use comes from Sociology... based on Mores... norms that are widely observed and have great moral significance. What are NORMS? rules and expectations for behavior by which a society guides the behavior of its members.
SOCIOLOGY 9th Edition John Macionis
morality n 1: concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct [ant: immorality] 2: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong [syn: ethical motive, ethics, morals]
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
mores n : (sociology) the conventions that embody the fundamental values of a group


Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) Mores \Mo"res\ (m[=o]"r[=e]z), n. pl.; sing. Mos (m[=o]s). [L.] Customs; habits; esp., customs conformity to which is more or less obligatory; customary law.

This has nothing to do with the law. There are a great many things that I find immoral which are not against the law. Most of them I don't WANT to be against the law, because they are moral issues, not legal issues.

 

[SimplyMe]

It doesn't matter how much we debate God's Will or what we think God's Will is - God's Will can't be obstructed.

I don't know God's will, only his word.

So what was your point?

 

[KCDAD]

This has nothing to do with the law. There are a great many things that I find immoral which are not against the law. Most of them I don't WANT to be against the law, because they are moral issues, not legal issues.

Are you saying that rape or murder are not moral issues or if it is, that we shouldn't legislate rape and murder because it is forcing our notions of morality on someone else?

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Are you saying that rape or murder are not moral issues or if it is, that we shouldn't legislate rape and murder because it is forcing our notions of morality on someone else?

Whether they are moral issues or not is irrelevant. We legislate against them because allowing them would harm society. These behaviour are not permitted; that does not mean they are not moral, but just that they are not permitted.

We don't permit people to drive 10 mph faster than the speed limit - but there's nothing intrinsically immoral about doing so. We legislate against it because allowing it would be harmful to society. Once again, the morality of an action should have nothing whatsoever to do with its legality.

I'll repeat - any law prohibiting an act SOLELY because some group finds that act immoral is a bad law and should be repealed. I'll expand on that. Let's say you have a certain activity (call it blerking) which you find immoral. In your opinion doing it consigns one to certain hellfire. You want to make it illegal because it is immoral. I don't care. You can't make it illegal just because of that. Now, if you can demonstrate how blerking actually harms someone (other than the blerker), then you have a case. But until you can do so, you have no business trying to make blerking illegal.

 

[KCDAD]

Whether they are moral issues or not is irrelevant. We legislate against them because allowing them would harm society. These behaviour are not permitted; that does not mean they are not moral, but just that they are not permitted.

We don't permit people to drive 10 mph faster than the speed limit - but there's nothing intrinsically immoral about doing so. We legislate against it because allowing it would be harmful to society. Once again, the morality of an action should have nothing whatsoever to do with its legality.

I'll repeat - any law prohibiting an act SOLELY because some group finds that act immoral is a bad law and should be repealed. I'll expand on that. Let's say you have a certain activity (call it blerking) which you find immoral. In your opinion doing it consigns one to certain hellfire. You want to make it illegal because it is immoral. I don't care. You can't make it illegal just because of that. Now, if you can demonstrate how blerking actually harms someone (other than the blerker), then you have a case. But until you can do so, you have no business trying to make blerking illegal.

Speeding is immoral because it puts you and others at higher risk for accidents, and death. Itis also immoral because it wastes more gas (cars are less efficient at 65 than at 55mph.) Being harmful to society is a good definition of immoral.

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

I'll repeat - any law prohibiting an act SOLELY because some group finds that act immoral is a bad law and should be repealed. I'll expand on that. Let's say you have a certain activity (call it blerking) which you find immoral. In your opinion doing it consigns one to certain hellfire. You want to make it illegal because it is immoral. I don't care. You can't make it illegal just because of that. Now, if you can demonstrate how blerking actually harms someone (other than the blerker), then you have a case. But until you can do so, you have no business trying to make blerking illegal.

I would adjust that to blerking should only be illegal if it harms others the great majority of the time.

Booze can sometimes harm others via drunk driving, but most of the time it harms no one but the drinker.

 

[KCDAD]

I would adjust that to blerking should only be illegal if it harms others the great majority of the time.

Booze can sometimes harm others via drunk driving, but most of the time it harms no one but the drinker.

Ok, would colluding with other gasoline retailers for the purpose of charging too high a price for gasoline be blerking? It hurts poorer people but not rich people... it is their product, their business, the consumer can refuse to but it...

 

[The_Horses_Boy]

So what was your point?

Oh Lordy Lordy. Let me turn you to that which you earlier did spake:

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?

How can you interfere with the plans of an all-powerful God? How can you interfere with his will?

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

So what was your point?

Oh Lordy Lordy. Let me turn you to that which you earlier did spake:

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?

How can you interfere with the plans of an all-powerful God? How can you interfere with his will?

You seem to be incredibly confused.

Despite your error in attribution above, poster SimplyMe did not make the second quoted statement.

It was not what he "earlier did spake". Someone else "earlier did spake".

Poster faster_jackrabbit posted that text, as part of the OP.