You Can't Legislate Morality

[The Voice of Reason]

One of my first posts to this board was in a thread about the legalization of recreational drugs.

The point of my post was to express the idea that the government cannot legislate morality.

One of the members responded that "sure we can - we legislate morality all the time". He gave the example of the laws that make certain actions illegal, such as murder, speeding, larceny, etc.

To me, it is obvious that those laws do NOT legislate morality - rather - they legislate a penalty for those that do not conform to the standards desired by society.

Thoughts?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

To me, it is obvious that those laws do NOT legislate morality - rather - they legislate a penalty for those that do not conform to the standards desired by society.

It seems to me like someone could say the same thing about drugs.

 

[3.14]

society says it is moraly wrong to steal from old ladys
goverment makes that action against the law to preserve and protect society
guy doesn't realy care about society and feels robbing an old lady isn't immoral and robs an old lady
goverment says he we said you couldn't do that, thats immoral
guy i don't feel its immoral
goverment that doesn't matter its not up to you anymore its a law now

 

[Troublemane]

morality is what society defines as behavior that is beneficial, both societally and individually. it changes with times, with culture, etc. i think laws can be moral, since they regulate behavior as the society wishes. but, yeah, its gonna change depending on the time, culture and contemporary thoughts/opinions. (e.g. drugs like cocaine, heroine, opium, even LSD were all legal at one time).

though commiting crimes against others (ie doing them harm) will be universally illegal, most likely.

 

[Nessa]

There are numerous silly laws on the book and a handful of laws that seem contradictory. Like it's legal to smoke cigarettes, drink stuff that can fuel some combustion engines, take opium until you die on a morphine drip, while we ban marijuana which has some medicinal value and criminalize euthanasia.

Laws are seemingly based on punishment, social standards, and to solve perceived problems.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

It seems to me like someone could say the same thing about drugs.

I agree, Angellous. I was not implying that the question of the legislation of morality did not apply to drugs.

I was saying that we can all see that society needs to control antisocial behavior through legislation, but it is a fine line to walk when trying to distinguish between clearly damaging antisocial behavior (i.e. murder), and behavior that portions of our society do not see as being nearly so clear cut.

In the instance of murder, it is easy to see that one person is violating another person's rights. In the instance of drug usage (or say, prostitution) the damage is not so clear.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

morality is what society defines as behavior that is beneficial, both societally and individually. it changes with times, with culture, etc. i think laws can be moral, since they regulate behavior as the society wishes. but, yeah, its gonna change depending on the time, culture and contemporary thoughts/opinions. (e.g. drugs like cocaine, heroine, opium, even LSD were all legal at one time).

though commiting crimes against others (ie doing them harm) will be universally illegal, most likely.

Exactly what I was typing when you posted, Troublemane.

 

[Dunemeister]

VOR, I think I was your antagonist in that previous discussion. I argued there (and here) that the political act of creating laws is a moral act. When you legislate any law, whether it's criminal, procedural, or whatever, you are implying something about morality. It's wrong, we believe, to drive faster than 70 mph on a freeway. Germans demur, saying you can go as fast as you want. Both countries have legislation that determines how fast you can go on a freeway. In both cases, the issue is moral. It may be at two or three removes, but the point is that, in the end, we are drawing moral laws in the sand with our legislation.

 

[blackout]

Is a safety issue, a "morality" issue?

Some things are "standardized" (like a speed limit)
because it would be dangerous if all different people
were traveling at all kinds of different speeds.

But there is no "right" or "wrong" speedlimit.
Just a "chosen" one.

 

[Dunemeister]

Is a safety issue, a "morality" issue?

Some things are "standardized" (like a speed limit)
because it would be dangerous if all different people
were traveling at all kinds of different speeds.

Is it immoral to operate a vehicle at such a speed that it is dangerous to the health and welfare of yourself, your passengers, and other drivers? I think so.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

VOR, I think I was your antagonist in that previous discussion. I argued there (and here) that the political act of creating laws is a moral act. When you legislate any law, whether it's criminal, procedural, or whatever, you are implying something about morality. It's wrong, we believe, to drive faster than 70 mph on a freeway. Germans demur, saying you can go as fast as you want. Both countries have legislation that determines how fast you can go on a freeway. In both cases, the issue is moral. It may be at two or three removes, but the point is that, in the end, we are drawing moral laws in the sand with our legislation.

Thanks for the response, Dunemeister, but it really wasn't you that sparked the thread. I was actually referring to a post by the original founder of RF, in a thread sometime in 2004 or so. His screenname was Rex.

As for the content of your post, I agree with much of what you say. I need to think about your claim that a law "implying something about morality".

I don't know that I agree with that, and I need to process it.

 

[Nessa]

i think laws can be moral, since they regulate behavior as the society wishes. but, yeah, its gonna change depending on the time, culture and contemporary thoughts/opinions.
.

Doesn't your sentence support the notion that laws can also be immoral? Shouldn't morality be absolute? I realize that's subjective, though. As an example, when America decided slavery was immoral, they didn't change morality but reversed their opinion of morality.

 

[Dunemeister]

Doesn't your sentence support the notion that laws can also be immoral? Shouldn't morality be absolute? I realize that's subjective, though. As an example, when America decided slavery was immoral, they didn't change morality but reversed their opinion of morality.

Yes, laws can be immoral. Some people believe that huge tax breaks for corporations are immoral, for example. Slavery was immoral. Changing the laws didn't change what was actually moral, but in both cases -- legalization and outlawing of slavery -- represented attempts to put into law the morality of the day.

 

[blackout]

As I edited in up above...

There is no "right" or "wrong" speedlimit.
Just a "chosen" one.

Is it immoral to operate a vehicle at such a speed that it is dangerous to the health and welfare of yourself, your passengers, and other drivers? I think so.

And people could CERTAINLY argue about what speed that might be.
There is no "absolute" about it.

So some kind of a standard is chosen, and put in place for everyone's safety.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Like UltraViolet, I can see a distinction between a law that is passed for the issue of safety, as opposed to one that is passed on moral grounds.

It may be that there are other "classes" of laws, besides those two.

I can also see your point, Dune, when you speak of the morality of endangering another person. I would submit items like the OSHA regulations, which are enacted strictly for the purpose of ensuring workplace safety, but don't readily appear to have a moral basis.

A good example would be the rules regarding the angle of lean for a ladder in the workplace.

 

[Dunemeister]

Thanks for the response, Dunemeister, but it really wasn't you that sparked the thread. I was actually referring to a post by the original founder of RF, in a thread sometime in 2004 or so. His screenname was Rex.

Ah, well sorry for trying to take credit where it wasn't due. Old habits die hard.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Doesn't your sentence support the notion that laws can also be immoral? Shouldn't morality be absolute? I realize that's subjective, though. As an example, when America decided slavery was immoral, they didn't change morality but reversed their opinion of morality.

I don't see any possibility that morals can be absolute.

As stated earlier in the thread, morals are subject to the culture and times that they are part of.

 

[Dunemeister]

As I edited in up above...

There is no "right" or "wrong" speedlimit.
Just a "chosen" one.

And people could CERTAINLY argue about what speed that might be.
There is no "absolute" about it.

That's not relevant to the point about legislating morality. There is a morality in society -- absolute or not. Society legislates it. That's what legislatures are for -- legislating and enforcing the morality of a society. This is so obvious to me that I find the discussion actually somewhat puzzling.

 

[Dunemeister]

I can also see your point, Dune, when you speak of the morality of endangering another person. I would submit items like the OSHA regulations, which are enacted strictly for the purpose of ensuring workplace safety, but don't readily appear to have a moral basis.

A good example would be the rules regarding the angle of lean for a ladder in the workplace.

These are moral, too. The function of these laws is the creation of an orderly and safe workplace so that workers aren't needlessly harmed or killed. That's a moral goal.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Ah, well sorry for trying to take credit where it wasn't due. Old habits die hard.

Nonsense - I just didn't want you to feel like I started this thread to lambaste you for something in another thread.

I'll give you the credit, though, if you wish. If Rex comes back and sees this thread, I'll just owe him an apology.