Legislation of Morality

[strathyboy]

This thread is partially in response to an issue raised in the abortion thread, but it is better debated in a thread of its own.
Should morality be legislated by a state that does not claim to be of any religious affiliation?

 

[Hank]

As per Cambridge dictionary
morality
noun
Morality is a personal or social set of standards for good or bad behaviour and character, or the quality of being right, honest or acceptable.

Thus our society does that already. Insider trading, slavery is prohibited and so on.

The problem I have with your statement is that only religion seems to have morals. We all have a heart. We know what hurts and thus know what must hurt others. I think we know by default what is right and what is wrong, without the aid of any religious doctrines. So any government can issue moral laws, in fact is it not what laws are all about?

 

[humanimal]

Originally posted by strathyboy
Should morality be legislated by a state that does not claim to be of any religious affiliation?

People say that you cannot legislate morality.

Is this true?

They are implying that all laws are immoral.

"Our laws are devoid of morals, and that is the way we like it."

i dunno

 

 

[strathyboy]

What about such issues as premarital sex, lying, watching inappropriate contentography, etc? These are issues that tend to be deemed immoral by Christians, and in the abortion thread there was the implication that such should also be illegal.

 

[seebs]

I think society should legislate, not based on morality, but based on what is necessary for a functional society. Many of these things are moral questions, but the fact remains that it's pretty easy to argue that a law against murder is essentially necessary to a functioning society.

 

[wildernesse]

The law doesn't have to be immoral because it is not moral--being not moral means it is amoral. There are three choices in morality: moral, immoral and amoral. Brushing my teeth is amoral.

Our laws do reflect our morals--American civic morals. Morals are just rules for a functional society, like seebs said.

---tibac

 

[humanimal]

Originally posted by seebs
I think society should legislate, not based on morality, but based on what is necessary for a functional society. Many of these things are moral questions, but the fact remains that it's pretty easy to argue that a law against murder is essentially necessary to a functioning society.

Plenty of "societies" exist and function in nature that have no such laws whatsoever.  The only true law is that of survival of the most fit. You deserve to live and continue because you are the strongest and therefore the most deserving to survive. You claim territory and win out because you are the strongest. You eat the best because you are the best hunter.

What if we dropped all such pretense of being a "civilization", forgot about trying to be a "functional society", and just allowed nature to reassert this law in our species.

Is it just possible that "civilization", "society", and "religions" are just distractions that have derailed the human animal from it's evolutionary path?  Are they just mechanisms of the weak to keep down the strong? Will the strong ones finally recognize and re-establish their place in nature?

What do you think?


 

 

[humanimal]

The law doesn't have to be immoral because it is not moral--being not moral means it is amoral. There are three choices in morality: moral, immoral and amoral. Brushing my teeth is amoral

Quite right.. doing that what is needed to survive and come out on top is neither moral nor immoral. It is "amoral". I like that!

When a lion kills a sheep to survive, it is amoral.
When a raccoon tips over my trash to survive.. it is amoral.
If a man steals a car to survive... I guess that is "amoral" too?

What do you think?

 

 

[panterapat]

Can't legislate morality??? All laws are based on morals.

Laws are made to enable people to live together. The Ten Commandments were given to the Hebrews to enable them to live together but also to enable them to please God. The Jewish laws involving purification, not eating pork, etc. etc. were necessary for that people to remain healthy and to survive.

Our laws today serve this same purpose. However, they are ALL based on morality. Our laws in fact mimic (but dimly) the Ten Commandments. They have been adapted to fit our needs.

The crux of the matter is to have legislators creating laws that are pleasing to God. I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who stated, "A democracy is sutible only for a religious people. It is totally unsuitable for any other."

It has often been said that we get the leaders we deserve. If our hearts are in the right place, we will elect moral leaders. If our personal sin begins to cloud our vision, we will elect immoral or amoral leaders.

To say that one can't legislate morality is to say that it is not possible to have ANY law. With lawlessness, comes anarchy. With morality, comes peace.

No Jesus, no peace. Know Jesus, Know peace!!!

In Christ, Patrick

 

[wildernesse]

humanimal:

Humans don't exist outside of nature, therefore our "civilization" is natural to us. Also, evolution doesn't happen to individuals, but populations. I think you should talk about that in the science forum because I don't think you have a very good idea about how evolution affects human society.

Also, lions and sheep don't live in a society--thus they don't have morals. The man lives in a society, so if it is immoral to steal then he is being immoral not amoral.

--tibac

 

[humanimal]

Originally posted by wildernesse 
Humans don't exist outside of nature, therefore our "civilization" is natural to us.

Wilderness,
Only if we choose to. Unless you are a sheep being led around by your nose(are you?). What if we simple decide not to play anymore? We are the first and only species who can decide where evolution will take us. Does our present "civilization" contibute or hinder the process? I think it hinders it.

Also, evolution doesn't happen to individuals, but populations.

Only if they as a group choose to let it. What if they as a group decide to change it?

Also, lions and sheep don't live in a society--thus they don't have morals. The man lives in a society, so if it is immoral to steal then he is being immoral not amoral.

*chuckle* I see a lot of sheep in this society... lions too. 
Last time I checked, sheep wandered around in "flocks" and were hunted by "prides" of lions. A million years from now these proto societies may evolve into something more structured and defined. I think you are using magical thinking to elevate homo sapiens to a special class outside and somehow above the laws of nature and evolution.... 

not so.

I think you should talk about that in the science forum because I don't think you have a very good idea about how evolution affects human society.

--tibac

Gee... thanks for your suggestion , but I think I'll  talk about it right here.
And I think I have a very good idea about how evolution effects humans.


So as to the original post:

Should morality be legislated by a state that does not claim to be of any religious affiliation?

As you said, evolution has caused us to evolve religion(and the morals therein) as a part of this "civilization". It was quite natural. As you asserted "Humans don't exist outside of nature, therefore our "civilization" is natural to us."


The theist could respond:
"Humans don't exist outside of nature, therefore our "religion" is natural to us."

Whole populations evolved with their own slant. Some populations evolved one brand, other populations another. If nature caused civilizations to evolve, and if as you assert we are bound to follow like sheep, then the same nature evolved religions and you as an individual should get in line. Unless of course we in fact as individuals can break away... but you seem to refute this idea also. Sorry, it is hard to follow your logic because of the inconsistencies in your thoughts.

But if evolution has choosen to develop civilizations and religions in our species, then perhaps you are bound to allow the legislation of the morals that have also evolved within them. Unless of course you are trying to break free also.  I just don't see that in you, because,  other than the supercilious thing, you seem to be a moral person. 

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by humanimal
People say that you cannot legislate morality.

Is this true?

They are implying that all laws are immoral.

"Our laws are devoid of morals, and that is the way we like it."

i dunno

 

You cannot make people moral through legislation. Look at Prohibition. Those who disagreed simply refused to comply and hid their drinking a little more. However, the conflict began to tear society appart.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

From a Christian point of view, what profit is there if someone is only moral because of coersion? If I point a gun at Bill and say, "Don't kill Bob," Bill probably won't kill Bob. However, if Bill kills Bob when I take a break, was Bill acting morally to begin with?

 

[humanimal]

Originally posted by fragmentsofdreams
You cannot make people moral through legislation. Look at Prohibition. Those who disagreed simply refused to comply and hid their drinking a little more. However, the conflict began to tear society appart.

Quite right dreamfragments. And would not that tearing appart be the natural event that could and should take place? Perhaps "society" needs, and is destined by evolution, to crumble under it's own "un-naturalness". I mean prohibition is not the only legislation that people refuse to comply with. And who is to say what is a valid moral and what is not? That which lends to survival and success will in the end be declared by nature to be that valid "moral".

Lions have long teeth and sharp claws. That is the moral law of the lion.

Wilderbeasts group together in large herds which at least gaurentees the survival of some. That is their "moral" strength.

Humans have brains and apoesable thumbs. That is pretty much where we get our morals. The cunning use of our thumbs is how we win.

 

[strathyboy]

Perhaps you could try to stick to the subject at hand, humanimal, instead of side rants about evolution.
Fragmentsofdreams touched on the point I was originally trying to get at with his example of prohibition. While it is not illegal to drink, some seem to feel that it is immoral. While adultery is not illegal, some seem to feel that it is immoral. While homosexuality is not illegal, some seem to feel that it is immoral. The same goes for marrying your cousin, watching inappropriate contentography, etc. None of these are illegal, but many seem to feel that they are immoral.
How do you justify, as a secular state, the enforcement of the morals of a particular religion? If the state makes these illegal, are they not promoting one religion over another?

 

[wildernesse]

Morals aren't the sole property of religious groups. Any human group has rules/morals that govern acceptable behavior. American civic morality shows up in constitutional laws. When other morality sneaks in from religion, it is usually weeded out by the courts when it conflicts with American civic morality.

--tibac

 

[Blackhawk]

Possibly one should restate the tpic of this thread to better illustrate what is wanting to be discussed.

Basically I see it as not "should we legislate morality?" but "Should we legislate morality that is not agreed upon?" So instead of speaking about if Laws against murder legislate morality or not we can get into the discussion of should there be laws against things like abortion or homosexuality or prohibition.

So I guess I will ask "Should we make laws that are not universally or maybe not even popularly agreed upon as immoral?"

 

[humanimal]

Perhaps you could try to stick to the subject at hand, humanimal, instead of side rants about evolution.
Fragmentsofdreams touched on the point I was originally trying to get at with his example of prohibition. While it is not illegal to drink, some seem to feel that it is immoral. While adultery is not illegal, some seem to feel that it is immoral. While homosexuality is not illegal, some seem to feel that it is immoral. The same goes for marrying your cousin, watching inappropriate contentography, etc. None of these are illegal, but many seem to feel that they are immoral.
How do you justify, as a secular state, the enforcement of the morals of a particular religion? If the state makes these illegal, are they not promoting one religion over another?

sounds like somebody wants to legislate their non-thestic morality on me....

 

 

[humanimal]

Originally posted by wildernesse
Morals aren't the sole property of religious groups. Any human group has rules/morals that govern acceptable behavior. American civic morality shows up in constitutional laws. When other morality sneaks in from religion, it is usually weeded out by the courts when it conflicts with American civic morality.

--tibac

What is "American civic morality"?

And why should we not consider it just another religion?

"American Civil Morality-ism"

Is this the new state religion?

Why are you advocating legislating these morals on me? What makes you think I want your morals pushed on me any more than an atheist would want theistic morality pushed on him?

 

[Blackhawk]

Originally posted by humanimal
What is "American civic morality"?

Why are you advocating legislating these morals on me? What makes you think I want your morals pushed on me any more than an atheist would want theistic morality pushed on him?

 

WEll I do not want you to push your morality on me either.  I think it is moral to kill anyone for no reason.  Why not?  So please do not push your morals on me anymore.