Legislating morality

[faster_jackrabbit]

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

Interfering with another person's free will does interfere with what you claim god's will is ("man must have free will").

Maybe that's the problem: you don't actually know what god's will is, or that he even wants free will in the first place.

Maybe "free will" is a concept created by man to explain the illogic of creating something you hate, i.e. god allowing sin to exist if it upsets him so much.

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

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.

I thought of something else related to this. Yes, they have the free will to break the law. But if you take away the opportunity to sin, such as closing down the only topless bar or porn store or liquor store within driving range, you are completely preventing them from sinning. Religious people have done this many times. You are taking the choice to sin away from them.

 

[KCDAD]

I thought of something else related to this. Yes, they have the free will to break the law. But if you take away the opportunity to sin, such as closing down the only topless bar or porn store or liquor store within driving range, you are completely preventing them from sinning. Religious people have done this many times. You are taking the choice to sin away from them.

You can not prevent someone from sin and you can not prevent someone from unsocial behavior... Look at the puritans in U.S. colonization history... they were so "crime free" that they created new definitions of "deviance" so that someone would always be considered deviant... because your hair was too long, or your shoes weren't shiney enough or you didn't attend church enough...See Kai Erikson's study of the Massachusetts bay colony.
http://192.211.16.13/curricular/healthhumanbehavior/deviance.htm

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

You can not prevent someone from sin and you can not prevent someone from unsocial behavior... Look at the puritans in U.S. colonization history... they were so "crime free" that they created new definitions of "deviance" so that someone would always be considered deviant... because your hair was too long, or your shoes weren't shiney enough or you didn't attend church enough...See Kai Erikson's study of the Massachusetts bay colony.

What does the behavior of the puritans have to do with god and sin and free will as we know it now? (Or think we know it.) Did god think unshined shoes were a sin? Certainly the puritans did, but what do people today think? Er, I mean the ones who think god and sin exist at all.

If your point is that chrisitians disagree with each other as to what god thinks is sin, you are absolutely right. So they should not try to pass laws based on what they think god thinks is sin.

 

[KCDAD]

What does the behavior of the puritans have to do with god and sin and free will as we know it now? (Or think we know it.) Did god think unshined shoes were a sin? Certainly the puritans did, but what do people today think? Er, I mean the ones who think god and sin exist at all.

If your point is that chrisitians disagree with each other as to what god thinks is sin, you are absolutely right. So they should not try to pass laws based on what they think god thinks is sin.

This is not my point. Society passes laws to define what is moral and what isn't. It is a method to separate "us" from "them". Laws do not apply equally to all, the elite in society has rarely ever been held to the standard of the law as the poor, or less powerful. However, the point is that laws are based on something... they are not just made up randomly. (today we will outlaw using fountain pens)
There is always a "moral" reason behind a law. That morality is based on social consensus about an issue.

 

[gengwall]

This is a really nice conversation but, if I can speak for you FJR, the point really is about legislating personal morality. I think it is fine to say that preventing harm to society is a moral endeavor. But there clearly are many, many things we find personally immoral that either don't pose a harm to society (or at least the majority of it) OR aren't considered immoral by society as a whole. Morevoer, there are some things that even a majority of society may find immoral but are literally constitutionally protected behaviors (gay sex comes to mind). So, should those types of things be banned by law? That is the point of the thread (I think).

 

[KCDAD]

This is a really nice conversation but, if I can speak for you FJR, the point really is about legislating personal morality. I think it is fine to say that preventing harm to society is a moral endeavor. But there clearly are many, many things we find personally immoral that either don't pose a harm to society (or at least the majority of it) OR aren't considered immoral by society as a whole. Morevoer, there are some things that even a majority of society may find immoral but are literally constitutionally protected behaviors (gay sex comes to mind). So, should those types of things be banned by law? That is the point of the thread (I think).

This is exactly the point: There is no personal morality in law... it is all social morality.

 

[gengwall]

This is exactly the point: There is no personal morality in law... it is all social morality.

But FJR's whole premise was that some Christians want to encode their personal morality into the law. I think he is very right. Do you not agree that desiring a ban on private, consensual gay sex, for example, is an attempt to legislate personal morality? Do you not acknowledge that such a desire exists and is acted on within conservative Christian political circles? Or did I just imagine the uproar over Lawrence v. Texas?

 

[KCDAD]

But FJR's whole premise was that some Christians want to encode their personal morality into the law. I think he is very right. Do you not agree that desiring a ban on private, consensual gay sex, for example, is an attempt to legislate personal morality? Do you not acknowledge that such a desire exists and is acted on within conservative Christian political circles? Or did I just imagine the uproar over Lawrence v. Texas?

NOT if the majority of society believes it is immoral. It is an attempt to legislate morality that is best for society. (Or if not technically the majority, those with voice and power ... who always think they know what is best for society.)

 

[gengwall]

NOT if the majority of society believes it is immoral. It is an attempt to legislate morality that is best for society. (Or if not technically the majority, those with voice and power ... who always think they know what is best for society.)

But that simply is not how our government works. Just because the majority of society thinks something is immoral does not mean it poses an inherent harm to society. And the courts are set up specifically to ensure that this type of "majority rules" legislation doesn't violate the constitutional liberty protections. I'll go back to my earlier example. What if the majority of society thought that sex on Sunday was immoral? BTW, this is not just pulled out of my hat - there are some Christians who think this. You also have a slightly better chance of demonstrating societal harm here vs. with gay sex. If I read you right, you would have no problem with a ban on Sunday sex based on the personal moral convictions of the majority.

Take an even more relevant example: adultary. Certainly, a majority of society thinks adultary is immoral. We don't even need the bible for that one. And I doubt anyone would argue that, at some level, adultary has a detrimental impact on society. So, not only do the majority think it's immoral, but it also harms society. So, why isn't there a ban on adultary? Because the constitution won't allow it. It violates the principals of individual liberty and equal protection, and the detriment to society doesn't rise to a level sufficient to override those liberties.

Adultary is the perfect example why you can't legislate personal morality (or, more accurately, why personal morality is irrelevant). Every example we have talked about through this thread can be evaluated along these lines (now we know what it feels like to be SCOTUS justice). Unless there is a societal impact that rises to a level sufficient to override personal liberty, you can't legislate it.

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

NOT if the majority of society believes it is immoral. It is an attempt to legislate morality that is best for society. (Or if not technically the majority, those with voice and power ... who always think they know what is best for society.)

Of course that is how it works. Is that how it should be?

The majority thought that slavery was moral in 1850. Was it? What about "separate but equal" fifty years ago? You know, "white only" drinking fountains and restrooms.

Did that morality come from the bible? Guess it did, since the bible talks about the care of slaves.

If the bible mandated it, why was it dropped? Could it be that people decided that blindly following every word the bible said might not be a good idea?

 

[KCDAD]

Of course, that is how it works. Is that how it should be?

The majority thought that slavery was moral in 1850. Was it? What about "separate but equal" fifty years ago?

Did that morality come from the bible? Guess it did, since the bible talks about the care of slaves.

If the bible mandated it, why was it dropped?

Obviously the majority did NOT think slavery was moral... hence the war. Certainly those in power thought it was important not to change this policy for political and economic reasons.
Why drop slavery? Because it was determined that another "morality" over rode the need to subjugate a class of people for economic gain. Slavery as an institution was not considered immoral. Forcing it on non-conquered people because they were bought and sold was immoral. Race was invented to justify the enslavement of a class of human beings that were for hense forth to be considered "inferior"... it did not stop indentured servitude or forced labor of conquered peoples... e.g. penal institutions.

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

Obviously the majority did NOT think slavery was moral... hence the war.

That was in the 1860s. I specifically said the 1850s, a decade before that. Or lets go back earlier yet, to 1800, before the abolitionist movement started. Before "Uncle Tom's Cabin".

Did the majority believe slavery was moral or immoral then? If immoral, why didn't they go to war then?

 

[faster_jackrabbit]

Because it was determined that another "morality" over rode the need to subjugate a class of people for economic gain. Slavery as an institution was not considered immoral.

Then why do we consider it immoral now? If all morality comes from god, how can it change within a span of a couple of centuries? Did god change his mind?

You said one moral code overrode another. Since both came from god, is he not contradicting himself?

 

[KCDAD]

That was in the 1860s. I specifically said the 1850s, a decade before that. Or lets go back earlier yet, to 1800, before the abolitionist movement started. Before "Uncle Tom's Cabin".

Did the majority believe slavery was moral or immoral then? If immoral, why didn't they go to war then?

There wasn't the leadership to force the issue... it had been brewing since before the Revolution. The founding convention compromised for the sake of independence with the full intention of seeing the issue faced later.

 

[SimplyMe]

This is not my point. Society passes laws to define what is moral and what isn't. It is a method to separate "us" from "them". Laws do not apply equally to all, the elite in society has rarely ever been held to the standard of the law as the poor, or less powerful. However, the point is that laws are based on something... they are not just made up randomly. (today we will outlaw using fountain pens)
There is always a "moral" reason behind a law. That morality is based on social consensus about an issue.

actually, all laws are not based on moral reasons. The easiest examples are tariff laws, these laws aren't based on morality but on economics. There are many other examples.

Further, many laws that may have a moral base are changed over time so that they are slanted toward the people with the power, though this is more debatable. One example would be the bankruptcy laws that were changed about a year ago. Arguments are that the credit companies were given far too much power. Another example would be the tobacco companies. There are arguments that because of the damage we know tobacco products cause in humans, that it should be a restricted substance -- that is what many argue is the moral position. Instead, we actually give subsidies to the tobacco industry (mostly farming) to help make growing and producing tobacco products more profitable.

 

[KCDAD]

Then why do we consider it immoral now? If all morality comes from god, how can it change within a span of a couple of centuries? Did god change his mind?

You said one moral code overrode another. Since both came from god, is he not contradicting himself?

I hope I didn't imply morality comes from God, (I might have) I intended to present that morality comes from our notions of God, or divine judgement...

I apologise for being vague.

 

[KCDAD]

actually, all laws are not based on moral reasons. The easiest examples are tariff laws, these laws aren't based on morality but on economics. There are many other examples.

Further, many laws that may have a moral base are changed over time so that they are slanted toward the people with the power, though this is more debatable. One example would be the bankruptcy laws that were changed about a year ago. Arguments are that the credit companies were given far too much power. Another example would be the tobacco companies. There are arguments that because of the damage we know tobacco products cause in humans, that it should be a restricted substance -- that is what many argue is the moral position. Instead, we actually give subsidies to the tobacco industry (mostly farming) to help make growing and producing tobacco products more profitable.

Of course they are based on morality... it is better to buy and trade goods from our own people than to send our money overseas and put our people out of work... so we charge more to buy and sell foreign goods. That is a moral decision.
The morality is that people choose to smoke so it is more ethical to allow them to choose then to put a million people out of work, (and there is so much stinking money involved that the injured can always sue the tobacco companies.)
All laws have moral roots.

 

[SimplyMe]

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




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

As was pointed out, the second quote was not mine. As for your question here, I'll agree that if God determines that something is going to happen, He has the power and foresight to insure it does happen. OTOH, where God only wills and does not require an outcome, it's quite easy to thwart God's Will. God's Will includes us not sinning, yet we do on a daily basis.

 

[KCDAD]

As was pointed out, the second quote was not mine. As for your question here, I'll agree that if God determines that something is going to happen, He has the power and foresight to insure it does happen. OTOH, where God only wills and does not require an outcome, it's quite easy to thwart God's Will. God's Will includes us not sinning, yet we do on a daily basis.

God can will something and it not occur? Is there a difference between willing something and determining something will happen?