Legislating Morality--Is it Okay?

[Scuba Pete]

What do you think?

It's usually a bad idea. While some immoral acts such as murder and theft should and do have laws, other acts that might be considered immoral by some have NO business being legislated.

To whit: Dress codes. Could you imagine them outlawing bare belly buttons? Many think this to be immoral.

Sexual orientation. No one has the right to tell me who I can sleep with.

Religious orientation. Some consider atheism to be immoral. HAH! We don't need narrow minded bigots telling us that we MUST believe in God.

The list could go on.

 

[Katzpur]

What do you think?

Well, I think you already know what I think, Starfish. To begin with, it would not be an easy thing to do -- particularly if you're talking about something like homosexual activity. More importantly, I think it's wrong to impose my morals upon someone else. God has given us commandments, but face it -- not everyone believes in the same God you and I do. It's one thing for me to call someone else's behavior immoral. It's quite another for me to call those same behaviors criminal. Isn't that attempting to deny them their free agency? I'm not condoning certain moral choices by any means. I'm just saying that if a person's civil rights are compromised because I don't like their moral decisions, I've passed judgment where it was not my right to do so. Furthermore, I'm not going to change anyone's behavior by passing laws that deny them the same human rights that I have.

 

[NIX]

"Rights" and "freedoms" and "justice" are moral concepts.

In your book (mind), are "love of human individuality" & "basic human respect" moral concepts? Just wondering.

:islam:Nyx

 

[Runt]

I think the only valid liberty-limiting principle is the harm principle. I don't think it's right to legislate people's actions according to paternalism, offense or morality.

 

[Father Heathen]

One person's rights ends where the others persons rights begin.

Life
Liberty
Pursuit of happiness

In that order.

Your right to life supersedes my right to liberty.

My right to liberty supersedes your right to pursue happiness and so on and so forth.

:yes:

I believe each individual should have the right and liberty to do as they wish, so long as they do no injustice to others.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi TPS,

Actually YOU view that 'interference' (be it murder, physical assault, rape ...) of our safety and freedom "immoral". I simply view it as aggressively hostile behavior that INFRINGES FORCEBLY on the most basic human rights of others.

This is more of an insignificant semantical difference than anything else.

Is forcibly infringing on the the basic human rights of others a bad thing?

If yes, then 'bad' in this context, means immoral. It is morally wrong to forcibly infringe on the basic human rights of others, thus we pass laws and legislate morality.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Fine. But the point is that the law makes moral judgments, or at least it intends to. When a legislative body enacts a law, it is legislating morality. It's saying "in this country, this behavior is considered to be so wrong that we will curttail your liberties for doing it." If that's not moral behavior, nothing is.

Where I live, it's legal to drive without a seatbelt if your speed stays below 40 km/h and you're engaged in work that requires you to exit the vehicle frequently and illegal to drive without a seatbelt in most other circumstances.

Do you think that in my society, how far I'm going before I stop and get out has a bearing on the morality of driving 30 km/h without a seatbelt?

Is it immoral:

- to build a new building with stair handrails only 950 mm tall?
- to drive an HVAC truck without a TSSA registration number on the side?
- to open a retail store on a statutory holiday?
- to use tire chains in the middle of winter on a car that's driving through Kapuskasing but registered to an address in Windsor?
- to sell sugar in a container marked with its net weight in pounds, but not kilograms?
- to file my income taxes on May 1?

All those things are illegal, at least where I am. I recognize the expediency of making them illegal, but in the vast majority of cases, I don't think the law has much bearing on anyone's definition of "moral".

 

[rheff78]

In your book (mind), are "love of human individuality" & "basic human respect" moral concepts? Just wondering.

:islam:Nyx

Not to answer for Dune, but yes, these are moral concepts.

 

[Autodidact]

What do you think?

I think the question is extremely vague. Could you be more specific?

For example, I think that lying is wrong. But we only make it illegal when it rises to the level of fraud.

And of course, if you start passing laws based on morality, not harm, then you have the problem of choosing which morality, and who says. Because there are many different ones.

So, what do you mean by "legislating morality?"

 

[Autodidact]

I don't have a problem with it. Why would I? What would stop someone fromdoing something compeltely immoral without legislation? I guess my point is, you can't have a nation that's built upon, if it feels good do it. What would become of that nation? There has to be a body in order to keep the peace.

So if the majority of people agree with my morality, not yours, should we be able to pass a law to force you to comply with ours?

 

[Autodidact]

Wouldn't laws prohibiting murder be considered legislating morality and thus make the question rather pointess?

Exactly. As contrasted with say, laws prohibiting smoking marijuana. Which kind of laws are you referring to?

 

[NIX]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePhoenixSisters
In your book (mind), are "love of human individuality" & "basic human respect" moral concepts? Just wondering.

:islam:Nyx

Not to answer for Dune, but yes, these are moral concepts.

Can you in any way enforce these moralities? Can you enFORCE love and respect? Can you pass laws that force people to love and respect one another? Or can you only pass laws that keep people from trouncing on & violating the personal "space/path" of an-other?

As I said in post #18 --
For me, "morality" has nothing to do with it. I don't measure life by any "morality stick". I do however love and respect the right(s) of each individual to forge their own unique path--assmuming that path does not keep anyone else from forging their own individual & unique path. It's more a basic human respect thing for me I guess. If you insist on calling that a morality, then I guess (by your definition) I do hold to ONE moral.



This to me is such a basic concept, peaceable equal rights for all..... that I hardly consider it a morality. Just the healthy way of the Universe. But if you insist on calling it a morality, as I said before, then there is ONLY that ONE morality to defend.

:islam:Nyx

 

[Mister Emu]

So if the majority of people agree with my morality, not yours, should we be able to pass a law to force you to comply with ours?

In a pure democracy, yes.

In a constitutional republic? If it does not violate said constitution, yes.

 

[Mister Emu]

Can you in any way enforce these moralities? Can you enFORCE love and respect?

You can pass laws that force someone to respect my rights, whether they think highly of them or not

 

[Wandered Off]

Legislating morality is an inevitable outcome of legislation in general, which has the purpose of spelling out behaviors the society considers unacceptable. Some behaviors are considered unacceptable on a moral basis, and others are not.

 

[NIX]

You can pass laws that force someone to respect my rights, whether they think highly of them or not

No. You can not force someone to "respect" your rights.
But "the law" can deter others from infringing on them.

As long as YOUR rights do not infringe on the rights of ANOTHER, then no one should be allowed to keep you from your expression of them
(even if they don't respect them)

:islam:Nyx

 

[sandandfoam]

Price fixing. It's a criminal offence here. Is it immoral?

 

[Mister Emu]

No. You can not force someone to "respect" your rights.

If you mean, by respect, "think highly of" then I agree.

That is not what I meant by respect.

 

[rheff78]

So if the majority of people agree with my morality, not yours, should we be able to pass a law to force you to comply with ours?

That's where we fall into the trap though isn't it? I would say the more universally accepted moral values. Such as, murder, steal, etc....It's when we start to get more specific is where we run into problems.

 

[rheff78]

Can you in any way enforce these moralities? Can you enFORCE love and respect? Can you pass laws that force people to love and respect one another? Or can you only pass laws that keep people from trouncing on & violating the personal "space/path" of an-other?

As I said in post #18 --
For me, "morality" has nothing to do with it. I don't measure life by any "morality stick". I do however love and respect the right(s) of each individual to forge their own unique path--assmuming that path does not keep anyone else from forging their own individual & unique path. It's more a basic human respect thing for me I guess. If you insist on calling that a morality, then I guess (by your definition) I do hold to ONE moral.



This to me is such a basic concept, peaceable equal rights for all..... that I hardly consider it a morality. Just the healthy way of the Universe. But if you insist on calling it a morality, as I said before, then there is ONLY that ONE morality to defend.

:islam:Nyx

No, you can't force people to love you, but I believe you CAN force people to respect you.