Legislating Morality--Is it Okay?

[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.

 

[3.14]

freedom is your number one right morality is a side effect of sociaty wanting everyone to have as much freedom as posible without there own compremised.
it is considered to be immoral to take to much freedom from another person,
so based of what kind of freedom you take from another person you are withheld your own.

 

[Dunemeister]

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

:islam:Nyx

Yes indeed.

 

[Dunemeister]

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.

"I don't think it's right..."

"harm principle..."

This all sounds like morality to me.

 

[Dunemeister]

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".

That's why I tried to limit my comments to criminal law. Not all laws deal with criminal behavior. Speeding is not criminal unless it's so utterly reckless as to count as "dangerous driving." Not wearing a seatbelt, in the jurisdictions I'm aware of, is not a criminal concern. However, if a parliament decided to make it a criminal offense, the parliament would in fact be saying "this action is immoral." We might dispute whether it ought to be a criminal offense, but then we're also arguing the action isn't really immoral and therefore doesn't deserve criminal sanction.

 

[Dunemeister]

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?

Sometimes, sure. For example, we have laws against slander, which tries to force people not to infringe on my "space", specifically my reputation. Admittedly, that's a negative prohibition. So I'd have to agree that it's not possible to legislate ALL morality, but that's not the question. A legislature or parliament is doing moral business when it passes a criminal law saying "thou shalt not" or "thou shalt." Presumably, the parliament passes "thou shalt not" because doing that action is immoral. Likewise, they pass "thou shalt" because not doing it is immoral.

 

[Runt]

"I don't think it's right..."

"harm principle..."

This all sounds like morality to me.

It's ethics, not morality. Given, the terms are used interchangably in applied ethics, but I consider them to be significantly different beasts. Ethics is a branch of philosophy, morality is tradition (religious or cultural) which may or may not be backed by ethics. So when determining whether or not an action should be prohibited by a society, I think it's important to ask WHY such an action is being prohibited.

Because it has been demonstrated as harmful to others? (Harm principle)
Because it offends people without harming them? (Offense)
Because it has been demonstrated as harmful to oneself? (Government paternalism)
Because it is considered wrong by a specific religious/cultural tradition? (Morality)

I don't think an action should be prohibited unless is has been demonstrated to harm others.

 

[Dunemeister]

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

According to your legislature, yes.

 

[Dunemeister]

It's ethics, not morality. Given, in applied ethics, the terms are used interchangably, but I consider them to be significantly different beasts. The first is a branch of philosophy, the second is tradition (religious or cultural) which may or may not be backed by philosophy. So when determining whether or not an action should be prohibited by a society, I think it's important to ask WHY such an action is being prohibited.

Because it has been demonstrated as harmful to others? (Harm principle)
Because it offends people without harming them? (Offense)
Because it has been demonstrated as harmful to oneself? (Government paternalism)
Because it is considered wrong by a specific religious/cultural tradition? (Morality)

I don't think an action should be prohibited unless is has been demonstrated to harm others.

Well fine, if you want to worry overmuch about labels, I'll grant them to you and call your principles "ethical" rather than "moral" if you want to. But in my opinion, it seems inappropriate to simply define a problem away.

 

[sandandfoam]

We need a lawyers help but I think the purpose of criminal law in particular is to maintain a desired social order. It is about control not morality.
Criminal justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Runt]

Well fine, if you want to worry overmuch about labels, I'll grant them to you and call your principles "ethical" rather than "moral" if you want to. But in my opinion, it seems inappropriate to simply define a problem away.

This isn't a petty game of semantics. We're talking about two ontologically different types of thought and behavior. An action may be considered "moral" without being ethical.

Case in point: In a small village in Africa, three-year-old twins are abandoned in the desert because the culture's understanding of morality informs them that it is wrong to allow twins---who are evil spirits and will bring harm to a village---to survive.

Ethics, on the other hand, informs us quite the opposite way: it is unethical abandon small children in the desert to die. They are human persons and have an inviolable right to life.

That's morality vs ethics. They are not the same thing.

 

[Dunemeister]

It still looks to me like a distinction without a difference. That's why I've decided to grant the point without further ado because I don't want to get hung up on definitions.

 

[Runt]

It still looks to me like a distinction without a difference. That's why I've decided to grant the point without further ado because I don't want to get hung up on definitions.

Okay.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's why I tried to limit my comments to criminal law. Not all laws deal with criminal behavior. Speeding is not criminal unless it's so utterly reckless as to count as "dangerous driving." Not wearing a seatbelt, in the jurisdictions I'm aware of, is not a criminal concern. However, if a parliament decided to make it a criminal offense, the parliament would in fact be saying "this action is immoral." We might dispute whether it ought to be a criminal offense, but then we're also arguing the action isn't really immoral and therefore doesn't deserve criminal sanction.

I'm not sure how you draw the distinction between "criminal" acts and other illegal acts. In both cases, the government deters people from certain activites and punishes people if they do them. Is there really a moral distinction that's dependent on whether the particular law that makes the activity illegal has the word "criminal" in its title?

 

[Dunemeister]

I'm not sure how you draw the distinction between "criminal" acts and other illegal acts. In both cases, the government deters people from certain activites and punishes people if they do them. Is there really a moral distinction that's dependent on whether the particular law that makes the activity illegal has the word "criminal" in its title?

I take your point. This may be a matter of degree. If that's the case, it only makes my case even stronger.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I take your point. This may be a matter of degree. If that's the case, it only makes my case even stronger.

I'm not sure it is a matter of degree. I recognize that the most serious offenses in our legal systems usually fall under the Criminal Code (or equivalent), but I wouldn't say that vandalism or simple assault (both offenses under the Criminal Code), for example, are worse or more immoral than practicing medicine without a licence or major securities violations (both illegal, but not in the Criminal Code).

 

[Starfish]

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.

But when you think about it, haven't the "left" done the same thing? For example, welfare. Giving charity to the poor. Isn't this legislated morality? Or the tax rate. The rich pay higher taxes, as they should. But the rich pay a higher rate. Is this fair--has morality been legislated again?
One could even add many environmental issues into the question.

How about affirmative action? Would this be another example?

One could say, the "left" promotes legislation of morality, every bit as much as the "right", couldn't one?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

But when you think about it, haven't the "left" done the same thing? For example, welfare. Giving charity to the poor. Isn't this legislated morality?

Depends on the motivation behind it, I think. If the purpose is to make sure people don't starve for its own sake, then yes. If the purpose is to reduce the cost on society of letting them starve (in a "stitch in time saves nine" way), then no.

Or the tax rate. The rich pay higher taxes, as they should. But the rich pay a higher rate. Is this fair--has morality been legislated again?

A tax rate for each bracket has to be picked. No matter what, you'll end up with something that can be construed as a moral judgement. If higher tax rates for higher income is legislation of one segment of society's version of morality, then so would be a flat tax.

One could even add many environmental issues into the question.

Which ones? Most that I can think of can be approached from the point of view of getting rid of externalities in business and personal decision-making.

How about affirmative action? Would this be another example?

Perhaps, though like other issues, it can also be justified in terms of overall societal benefit, IMO.

One could say, the "left" promotes legislation of morality, every bit as much as the "right", couldn't one?

In certain regards, but I see much more legislating of personal morality (e.g. same-sex marriage prohibitions, "blue" laws, etc.) from the right than from the left.

 

[Dunemeister]

I'm not sure it is a matter of degree. I recognize that the most serious offenses in our legal systems usually fall under the Criminal Code (or equivalent), but I wouldn't say that vandalism or simple assault (both offenses under the Criminal Code), for example, are worse or more immoral than practicing medicine without a licence or major securities violations (both illegal, but not in the Criminal Code).

All this shows is that there are clear cases and unclear cases. In any event, it still strikes me as obvious that legislatures are going about a moral business when they pass legislation. If more than criminal code offenses can be considered immoral, then that's fine by me. If some laws that fall under the criminal code aren't obviously immoral, that's fine too. I only took the criminal code as the most obvious case of legislating morality, but other branches of law could well do it, too.

 

[Starfish]

Depends on the motivation behind it, I think. If the purpose is to make sure people don't starve for its own sake, then yes. If the purpose is to reduce the cost on society of letting them starve (in a "stitch in time saves nine" way), then no.


A tax rate for each bracket has to be picked. No matter what, you'll end up with something that can be construed as a moral judgement. If higher tax rates for higher income is legislation of one segment of society's version of morality, then so would be a flat tax.


Which ones? Most that I can think of can be approached from the point of view of getting rid of externalities in business and personal decision-making.


Perhaps, though like other issues, it can also be justified in terms of overall societal benefit, IMO.


In certain regards, but I see much more legislating of personal morality (e.g. same-sex marriage prohibitions, "blue" laws, etc.) from the right than from the left.

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.