Legislating Morality--Is it Okay?

[Draka]

As far as "overall societal benefits" as you said, wouldn't that be a matter of opinion? Most of the "religious right" feel that same-sex marriage hurts society as a whole. Many also feel that welfare hurts society, in the long run.

Can you give examples of legislated morality from the "right", other than same sex marriage, and abortion? (In a discussion I heard on the radio, those were the only two they could come up with.) I've heard that some areas prohibit the sale of alcohol on Sundays, though I'm not sure about that one. But it could be an example.

And yet they have never been able to prove one point as to why that is. They only state it, with no proof or reason behind it. At least other so called "moral" laws you say the "left" is behind have some rational explanation as to how they affect and benefit society in some way. The whole same-sex marriage opposition has no reasoning what-so-ever. Along with abortion really. There is no proof how Sandy getting an abortion affects society as a whole.

there may be some "legislating of morality" on each side, BUT there still must be some rational explanation of WHY that morality would be beneficial to the society. If there is no logical proof that it is...then you are just trying to legislate someone's beliefs onto a society that may not even share them. That's where the glitch comes in. That's where the "religious right" meet their downfall. They have no proof to back up their claims...only beliefs.

 

[Starfish]

And yet they have never been able to prove one point as to why that is. They only state it, with no proof or reason behind it. At least other so called "moral" laws you say the "left" is behind have some rational explanation as to how they affect and benefit society in some way. The whole same-sex marriage opposition has no reasoning what-so-ever. Along with abortion really. There is no proof how Sandy getting an abortion affects society as a whole.

there may be some "legislating of morality" on each side, BUT there still must be some rational explanation of WHY that morality would be beneficial to the society. If there is no logical proof that it is...then you are just trying to legislate someone's beliefs onto a society that may not even share them. That's where the glitch comes in. That's where the "religious right" meet their downfall. They have no proof to back up their claims...only beliefs.

Well they do have reasons, and they've given them, but they aren't acceptable to the rest. Abortion, for example. You could equate killing old people who have reached a point of no quality of life or usefulness and have become a drain on society, with abortion. So there are very valid arguments against it.

But this thread isn't to argue about the merits of individual laws. It's just that when I heard this comparison between the left and right and legislating morals, it seemed worth bringing up here. The right, which obviously I feel a part of, gets blamed for pushing morals onto others. Yet the same happens in reverse also.

By law, I am forced into providing charity to the poor. I don't disagree with the moral value of charity (it's taught in the Bible), and I do give it freely, but I don't agree with being legally forced to do it.

 

[Father Heathen]

You could equate killing old people who have reached a point of no quality of life or usefulness and have become a drain on society, with abortion.

No you couldn't. The elderly are sentient, conscious, self-ware, thinking, feeling, have free will and capable of making choices.
But what you could equate to abortion is washing your hands with antibacterial soap.

 

[Alceste]

As far as "overall societal benefits" as you said, wouldn't that be a matter of opinion? Most of the "religious right" feel that same-sex marriage hurts society as a whole. Many also feel that welfare hurts society, in the long run.

Yes, but the problem with this and most other far-right morality-based notions of what does or doesn't cause societal harm is that they are factually incorrect, irrational, whimsical musings based on nothing but self-righteousness, wishful thinking and xenophobia.

Liberals tend to rely heavily on research, reason and practicality, and they often look to philosophy to determine the best course of action. That makes their policies ethics-based, not morality-based. You may chafe at the idea of welfare, but when you lose your job and suddenly find yourself with no way to feed your children, you could one day find yourself in a welfare line. In this case, the best thing for you is consistent and reliable financial assistance until you are back on your feet. Liberals understand this, and don't mind how ashamed you feel in the welfare line-up due to your conservative upbringing and religious views, as long as they know your babies are getting fed.

Can you give examples of legislated morality from the "right", other than same sex marriage, and abortion? (In a discussion I heard on the radio, those were the only two they could come up with.) I've heard that some areas prohibit the sale of alcohol on Sundays, though I'm not sure about that one. But it could be an example.

Some drugs (typically all the really fun ones favored by liberals) are illegal. Also I hear there are states (Mississippi, was it?) where sex toys are illegal. (Sex toys!!!) I think there was a whole swath of states jumping on the "creationism in school" bandwagon. (Not sure how that turned out).

I want to point out, btw, that if there is an ethical basis to the redistribution of wealth beyond the obvious pragmatic considerations, it is Christian. It always shocks me to see Christians furrowing their brows about the idea of looking after the poor. What will they think of next?

 

[Dunemeister]

It seems to me that the objection to "legislating morality" has to do with the state trying to govern actions that most people consider private business rather than public interest. As Canadian prime minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau once said, the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. Another example is recreational drug use. Some have argued that it may harm the individual in some way, but if it does no demonstrable harm to the community, it shouldn't be regulated.

But if that's the objection (and I think it is), then the problem isn't "legislating morality." The problem is that the state is trying to govern areas that are not protective of the common weal (to borrow an old word that really needs to be brought back into political discourse). And most people think that the government's role is to protect and promote the common weal. It's hard for some to imagine how making sodomy among consenting adults illegal promotes the common weal.

 

[Draka]

Well they do have reasons, and they've given them, but they aren't acceptable to the rest. Abortion, for example. You could equate killing old people who have reached a point of no quality of life or usefulness and have become a drain on society, with abortion. So there are very valid arguments against it.

Not really a valid argument against it. If anything, if you are really talking about NO quality of life then, you have made a case for euthanasia. Which I believe should legally be allowed as well. Why should letting a person die with grace and mercy be illegal? Why is life held so important "morally" in the government that it supercedes the right to a favorable death? I guess that's another one huh? Why is euthanasia for humans illegal??? Isn't that legislating a morality that is a private matter as well?

But this thread isn't to argue about the merits of individual laws. It's just that when I heard this comparison between the left and right and legislating morals, it seemed worth bringing up here. The right, which obviously I feel a part of, gets blamed for pushing morals onto others. Yet the same happens in reverse also.

But again, the types of morals being pushed are what is the problem. Not that they are pushed. If they truly are for society and are PUBLIC matters then they should be considered being put into law. If they are things which deal with private matters within home and family and are NOT directly connected to how society functions and thrives then they should not be forced into law.

By law, I am forced into providing charity to the poor. I don't disagree with the moral value of charity (it's taught in the Bible), and I do give it freely, but I don't agree with being legally forced to do it.

You are required to pay taxes. As is everyone else that makes an income. This is for all kinds of things, programs for the general benefit of society as a whole are just a part of where your money goes. Personally, I would be more upset about the ungodly amount of money that goes to the regular pay raises for the congressmen and the decorating of the White House and the war we should have never been in and other things, than if some money went to help someone pay their medical bills for their sick child that they can't afford on their own.

 

[gnomon]

What do you think?

The answer is blatantly obvious.

We legislate morality. That is a fact no matter the equivocation. There are a number of laws ready to prosecute an individual who would have sex with a minor. This is moral legislation. Obviously, laws against the taking of property, slander, libel, murder, fraud, etc. are all an act of moral legislation.

To be quite honest, the purpose of criminal law is to define a moral framework among society.

It seems to me that the objection to "legislating morality" has to do with the state trying to govern actions that most people consider private business rather than public interest. As Canadian prime minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau once said, the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. Another example is recreational drug use. Some have argued that it may harm the individual in some way, but if it does no demonstrable harm to the community, it shouldn't be regulated.

But if that's the objection (and I think it is), then the problem isn't "legislating morality." The problem is that the state is trying to govern areas that are not protective of the common weal (to borrow an old word that really needs to be brought back into political discourse). And most people think that the government's role is to protect and promote the common weal. It's hard for some to imagine how making sodomy among consenting adults illegal promotes the common weal.

The part I highlighted really hits the nail on the head. I'll go further in stating that the questioning of legislating morality is a tired, old canard. The answer is a statement of the obvious or an obfuscation or outright equivocation. Unfortunately, by definition of the terms involved, people cannot have it one way and than another for the sake of forming an argument. What those arguments center around and should focus on are what are called consensual acts. There is much to debate there and it would be far more efficient.

When one thinks about legislating morality, one usually thinks of the "religious right" imposing its values upon the "left". Things such as abortion and same-sex marriage come to mind.

I would say you are correct.
edit: I would say that "legislating morality" as a tool in argumentation is just not effective. There are better arguments to be made without it.

 

[Starfish]

No you couldn't. The elderly are sentient, conscious, self-ware, thinking, feeling, have free will and capable of making choices.
But what you could equate to abortion is washing your hands with antibacterial soap.

I don't agree with this at all.

 

[Starfish]

I want to point out, btw, that if there is an ethical basis to the redistribution of wealth beyond the obvious pragmatic considerations, it is Christian. It always shocks me to see Christians furrowing their brows about the idea of looking after the poor. What will they think of next?

Though I don't agree with most of your post, I'd like to respond to the end.

When do we "furrow our brows" at helping the poor? Statistically, the religious right far out-gives in charitable donations. It's our system of forced (legislated) charitable "giving" that I object to. I think it's destructive to the recipients in the long run. It encourages generations of dependency that hurts the individual as well as society in general. It also discourages self-reliance and personal achievement because we are penalized for improving our income and rewarded for depending on others.

Of course true charity fits with Christian ethics. No argument there at all.

 

[Starfish]

And yet they have never been able to prove one point as to why that is. They only state it, with no proof or reason behind it. At least other so called "moral" laws you say the "left" is behind have some rational explanation as to how they affect and benefit society in some way. The whole same-sex marriage opposition has no reasoning what-so-ever. Along with abortion really. There is no proof how Sandy getting an abortion affects society as a whole.

There is proof how that abortion affected that baby. This may not seem like an important consideration to some, but it sure is to others, especially to that one life.

there may be some "legislating of morality" on each side, BUT there still must be some rational explanation of WHY that morality would be beneficial to the society. If there is no logical proof that it is...then you are just trying to legislate someone's beliefs onto a society that may not even share them. That's where the glitch comes in. That's where the "religious right" meet their downfall. They have no proof to back up their claims...only beliefs.

This is all completely a matter of opinion. You simply prefer your opinion over mine. But my opinion is just as valid. In some cases, in law, the left prevails, and in some, the right prevails.
It goes both ways.

 

[Starfish]

Both sides legislate morality. We're content with it when the law agrees with our beliefs, and we all kick against it when it doesn't.

No difference.

 

[Fluffy]

No I don't think that legislating morality is okay.

I think that there is a justification for making something illegal other than "it is immoral" and whilst there is an overlap between what is immoral and what is illegal, I don't think that these things should be confused. The thing that justifies morals are moral facts. The thing that justifies laws are contracts.

For example, murder is wrong because it is immoral. Murder is illegal because it is unjust.

 

[Magic Man]

Both sides legislate morality. We're content with it when the law agrees with our beliefs, and we all kick against it when it doesn't.

No difference.

No, there is a difference. As I've said before, There are laws that go against my beliefs. Some of them I accept because they make sense and add to the good of society. Others I reject because they make no sense, and only harm society in general. The problem is that you see it as me railing against anything that doesn't fit my beliefs. That is not the case. If a law is based on reason and logic, then I don't have a real problem with it. If it's based on someone's like or dislike of something which has no rational basis, then I have a problem.

As has been said, murder is considered immoral, and illegal. There is good reason, as if we allowed it, then we'd have people dying quite a bit more frequently and we'd be living in fear constantly. Other parts of some people's morality, like banning gay marriage, has no rational basis like that. It doesn't hurt anyone, including society as a whole, it's only some people's dislike of homosexuality, and the fact that a book "claims" it's wrong that are behind the ban.

 

[Fluffy]

Both sides legislate morality. We're content with it when the law agrees with our beliefs, and we all kick against it when it doesn't.

No difference.

I disagree. I believe that several things are immoral but I would not wish to see them become illegal. For example, I think it is immoral to teach young children about the existence of hell but I wouldn't want that made illegal. I think voting to prevent homosexuals from marrying is immoral but I wouldn't want that made illegal.

 

[Smoke]

It's impossible to legislate morality. What you can do is legislate protections for the rights of citizens.

For instance, you can make it illegal for a man to beat his wife. Laws like that are helpful because they may discourage some men from beating their wives, and may help to provide legal recourse for the person -- the wife -- whose rights have been violated. However, the man who refrains from beating his wife only because he might go to prison is not morally elevated by the law; he's only restrained.

What people usually mean when they talk about legislating morality is forcing other people to live by the dictates of their religion, even if it's not those people's own religion. The rule of law is needed in part to protect people from the excesses of such fanatics and their coercive religious agenda.

Most of the "religious right" feel that same-sex marriage hurts society as a whole.

Yeah, they believe it, but they're never able, somehow, to give any rational explanation for why they believe it. Most members of the religious right couldn't find their rear end with both hands.

 

[Draka]

Yeah, they believe it, but they're never able, somehow, to give any rational explanation for why they believe it. Most members of the religious right couldn't find their rear end with both hands.

For some...isn't that thing on top of their neck?

 

[Katzpur]

For instance, you can make it illegal for a man to beat his wife. Laws like that are helpful because they may discourage some men from beating their wives, and may help to provide legal recourse for the person -- the wife -- whose rights have been violated. However, the man who refrains from beating his wife only because he might go to prison is not morally elevated by the law; he's only restrained.

This is the best answer I've heard yet. This is one that everyone who opposes same-sex marriage needs to read. I've to explain this concept before, but haven't done it justice. I'm kind of assuming that the OP is really talking about same-sex marriage, even though it doesn't mention it specifically. If it's the idea of men having sex with men or women having sex with women that bothers people, prohibiting same-sex couples from getting married is not going to solve anything! I don't personally condone the idea of gay sex, nor do I condone heterosexual sex outside of marriage. I seriously believe that a lot of conservatives oppose same-sex marriage because they don't want their peers (i.e. fellow church-members, etc.) to think that they are okay with gay sex, when they're really not. The thing is, it's not about sex! It's about human rights. I have never been strongly opposed to same-sex marriage, but it has been your comments, Bill, that have been most instrumental in helping me to understand this issue.

 

[Father Heathen]

Laws are rules to make sure a society functions and stays intact, not to ensure the moral fiber of the individual. The government is to be of, by and for the people, and the "people" consists of many different cultures, religions and social/moral norms.

In other words, not the same as legislating morality.

/thread

 

[Starfish]

Believe it or not, this thread was not about same-sex marriage particularly, though it is involved. It's about how the left legislates morality just as the right does. My main point concerned welfare. Legislated charity. It's morally correct to help the poor, but should it be a law?

And abortion: a woman's right to choose, or the infant's right to live? Both sides have a moral basis. Both concern the rights of individuals.

How about seatbelts? It's morally right to use them, but should it be a law? The law enforcing the use, affects individual rights.

Sexual harrassment? The list goes on.

 

[Smoke]

My main point concerned welfare. Legislated charity. It's morally correct to help the poor, but should it be a law?

Welfare doesn't legislate "charity" -- love and compassion for the poor -- it legislates survival for the most disadvantaged members of our society. I can't imagine why anyone would have a moral objection to that.

And abortion: a woman's right to choose, or the infant's right to live? Both sides have a moral basis. Both concern the rights of individuals.

A zygote, embryo or fetus is not an infant and is not an individual.

How about seatbelts? It's morally right to use them, but should it be a law? The law enforcing the use, affects individual rights.

I don't believe adults should be compelled to wear seatbelts, although I can see mandating seatbelts and carseats for children, to protect them from the stupidity of their parents, and I can see allowing insurance companies to void every part of a policy except for liability in the case of people who don't wear seatbelts.

Sexual harrassment? The list goes on.

I don't know anybody who thinks that sexual harassment is a right or is ever appropriate. Do you?