dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
A simple question: does the US government have the right, or can it, enforce morality on the public? Why or why not?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The US Government and morality
- Thread starter dyanaprajna2011
- Start date
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Depends how you define morality, but typically I would say yes, within certain bounds.
And the award for most vague question goes to ...
In practice, yes. Ultimately, no.
Governments have the subjective rights that the majority of people believe they should have. (Or they have the rights their monarchs say they have, if it's not based on democracy.)
I believe that in terms of morality, government should only enforce morality to protect people from other people. That is, it shouldn't interfere with things that don't affect others, but should interfere when one person's actions significantly hurt another person.
I always laugh when I hear about government morality. It is my considered opinion that government is the least moral group or one of the least moral groups. I mean really, politicians lie to get elected, and it goes on from there. (no, not all politicians are immoral but I think government as a whole is immoral).
Alex_G
Enlightner of the Senses
I dont think enforced morality has much meaning as a statement. You cant force a certain moral disposition in someone, mealy manipulate the environment they are in, either to directly coerce their current moral feelings, or to get them to willingly adjust their viewpoint to a changed environment. I mean, the 'enforced robber' has not really retained the morality of a free one.
The Government will work by its own morality, that may or may not be justified, and it has powers to enforce certain things, ultimately controlling behaviours. In time, an environment fashioned by government policy may alter the general morality of the people to better suit the society in which they subsequently live, which would hopefully feed back into the Government itself.
The justification as to the degree a Government should interfere in matters that concern the morality of the people is variable. My personal view would be in support of a Government that aimed to maximise freedom.[FONT="]
[/FONT]
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Laws are a matter of practicality, not morality. Protecting citizens is in the best interest of the community.
McBell
Unbound
The government should stay away from enforcing morality.
Unless they are going to lead by example....
How are you defining morality here?
Regardless of how inept any given government may be, I certainly want them to enforce that theft, rape, and murder are illegal, among a long tail of other things.
McBell
Unbound
A code of conduct.
Now do you really want the US government to enforce the "code of conduct" accepted by the persons in said government?
You think it is because of "morality" that theft, rape and murder are illegal?
How do you define each of those terms?
How do you think the government defines each of those terms?
Do you know what a "noise suppressant" is?
Last edited by a moderator:
Draka
Wonder Woman
Whose morality? Isn't what is moral and what isn't moral subjective anyway? So how can morality be enforced?
McBell
Unbound
Exactly why I think government should not be enforcing morality.
Laws are logical, they are not actual objective morals. I, personally, am a fan of laws, though many are far too invasive. Laws really only need to exist when people or groups are interacting. I should be able to do anything I want with anyone I want (who consents), but only what third parties start getting hurt, their wills violated, should laws be in place.
If that code of conduct includes prohibitions against rape, murder, and theft, without gross injustices towards non-crimes, then sure.
I think you define morality far more narrowly than I do. And without a proper definition ('code of conduct being vague to the point of almost circular), it seems somewhat arbitrary.
McBell
Unbound
How about you present your "proper" definition of morality?
Essentially the same as 'code of conduct' except without limiting it to apparently exclude things like murder, rape, or theft.
Why would they be excluded?
FlyingTeaPot
Irrational Rationalist. Educated Fool.
Define morality. As long as citizens do something that does not affect anybody else, government should not intervene.