You Can't Legislate Morality

[gnomon]

LOL - I don't think I could possibly disagree more, gnomon. I think the war on drugs is an excellent example of a failed attempt to legislate morality. Much like prohibition in the 20's, it has achieved almost the exact opposite of what the intent was.

I'm not talking about success in stemming the flow, creation or use of drugs.

If legislation in this thread is being defined as "creating" a morality then the Drug War has done an excellent job. Starting with racial propaganda to gain support by playing to base, racial fears in legislating against opium and marijuana through the attitudes of predominantly white America against drugs, once known and used, is a well crafted attempt by the government to create a morality against drugs in the majority of the populace. The general publics stance towards illegal drugs has been in line with the governments stance for decades. That is why it is so easy for the government to enact new laws. So easy for them to do away with well established rights. By creating the mentality among the populace that the drugs themselves are bad or even evil.

This is all banking on the definition I've said is used in this thread. Legislation as creating morality. If we change the definition from creating to legislation as merely being a regulatory function, which in truth is exactly what it is, than legislation's primary purpose is to legislate morality. We are no longer discussing legislating as creating. Just passing laws for the sake of regulation.

The New London decision by the SCOTUS will be the next moral test. Taking another persons property and giving it to another private party was considered immoral. Not just illegal or unjust but immoral. Private property is a long held basis of all our rights in this nation. Noticing the flaccid response of the states in the wake of that decision and the lack of concern among the populace. As these takings continue to transpire, coupled with the ability of regulatory legislation to take private property with no recompense at all, it's interesting to watch a new moral paradigm seep into the minds of the masses. That you have no right to not just your private property but that property you define as home. That the state can take it for essentially any reason and give it to another for no public use is a new moral paradigm.

Most people don't think about that issue or at least as a moral one. If that isn't one, then essentially nothing is.

edit: Anyway...this argument is often one over semantics. This could have been a much shorter response by focusing on that but I've been listening to an individual on the radio discussing property seizures recently.

 

[Magic Man]

Not really. Life isn't idle entertainment.

That's debatable, but not the point here. Why are rules for a game not morality, but rules for a society are? Telling someone not to go too many spaces in Monopoly is not ruling on morality. Why is telling someone not to jaywalk?

 

[Dunemeister]

That's debatable, but not the point here. Why are rules for a game not morality, but rules for a society are? Telling someone not to go too many spaces in Monopoly is not ruling on morality. Why is telling someone not to jaywalk?

Morality is about the orderly and safe conduct of human life. It's also about facilitating human flourishing. Traffic laws facilitate the orderly and safe conduct of human life, so it's a moral pursuit. Rules about how to move chess pieces (for example) don't affect the orderly and safe conduct of human life, so it's not moral.

Honestly, I find the question weird because its answer is so obvious and obviously true that seriously questioning of it is, well, almost absurd. So obviously you're not posing this as a serious question but are merely requesting a sharpening of definition.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I'm not talking about success in stemming the flow, creation or use of drugs.

If legislation in this thread is being defined as "creating" a morality then the Drug War has done an excellent job. Starting with racial propaganda to gain support by playing to base, racial fears in legislating against opium and marijuana through the attitudes of predominantly white America against drugs, once known and used, is a well crafted attempt by the government to create a morality against drugs in the majority of the populace. The general publics stance towards illegal drugs has been in line with the governments stance for decades. That is why it is so easy for the government to enact new laws. So easy for them to do away with well established rights. By creating the mentality among the populace that the drugs themselves are bad or even evil.

This is all banking on the definition I've said is used in this thread. Legislation as creating morality. If we change the definition from creating to legislation as merely being a regulatory function, which in truth is exactly what it is, than legislation's primary purpose is to legislate morality. We are no longer discussing legislating as creating. Just passing laws for the sake of regulation.

The New London decision by the SCOTUS will be the next moral test. Taking another persons property and giving it to another private party was considered immoral. Not just illegal or unjust but immoral. Private property is a long held basis of all our rights in this nation. Noticing the flaccid response of the states in the wake of that decision and the lack of concern among the populace. As these takings continue to transpire, coupled with the ability of regulatory legislation to take private property with no recompense at all, it's interesting to watch a new moral paradigm seep into the minds of the masses. That you have no right to not just your private property but that property you define as home. That the state can take it for essentially any reason and give it to another for no public use is a new moral paradigm.

Most people don't think about that issue or at least as a moral one. If that isn't one, then essentially nothing is.

edit: Anyway...this argument is often one over semantics. This could have been a much shorter response by focusing on that but I've been listening to an individual on the radio discussing property seizures recently.

An excellent post, gnomon (and I mean that sincerely), but you are discussing the use of legislation as a tool for influencing what society views as "moral". In this instance, the legislation (and its application) appears (to me) to be not unlike a propaganda effort to blur the issue.

 

[Dunemeister]

An excellent post, gnomon (and I mean that sincerely), but you are discussing the use of legislation as a tool for influencing what society views as "moral". In this instance, the legislation (and its application) appears (to me) to be not unlike a propaganda effort to blur the issue.

Why can't "a propaganda effort to blur the issue" be an attempt to legislate morality?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Why can't "a propaganda effort to blur the issue" be an attempt to legislate morality?

Again - the point that more than half of those participating in this thread is that congress doesn't legislate morality. They merely legislate the penalty for not adhering to what they believe is best for society as a whole.

 

[gnomon]

An excellent post, gnomon (and I mean that sincerely), but you are discussing the use of legislation as a tool for influencing what society views as "moral". In this instance, the legislation (and its application) appears (to me) to be not unlike a propaganda effort to blur the issue.

Propaganda is definitely a huge part of it. I can't deny that. My view may be wrong based upon whether or not my belief that the morality, in this instance the general collective belief among the populace about the use of illicit drugs, has been altered by government legislation and propaganda as well.

The first problem is trying to understand the general perception of the populace prior to the efforts of the government to regulate. The second is whether the propaganda, say in the Harrison Narcotics Act, or the laws altered peoples perception of a drug leading to a resultant change in the moral views of personal behavior. There are other factors not being considered as well. Such as information from the medical establishment. It may be that they all feed each other. However, that once again begs the question as to a resultant change in the mentality of the general populace.

I admit that this is the only arena in which I view that the government has successfully legislated morality. I used to not believe such a thing but my own personal experience with illicit drugs (from use to jail and rehab) combined with generalizing anecdotal evidence has led me to believe that the government can exercise enough power to effect morality.

That's also why I bring up the case of Kelo v. City of New London in which the city took an individuals private non-commercial property to give it to a private second party to use for commercial and non-public use. I think the belief that private property as a fundamental right is well established. The reaction since the decision, after drawing quick condemnation from many states but little in local efforts to counter the SCOTUS decision, has been tame enough to show me that perhaps the government is affecting a change among the public.

However, there are other social factors at play such as general complacency or perhaps prior to the Kelo decision that the general public had already accepted that the fundamental right of private property was no longer held to such an esteemed moral position.

Pretty much all other issues regarding legislation are just regulations in my opinion. I can't think of any other area in which the government has successfully legislated a change in moral position among the majority of the public. I know I may very well be wrong about illicit drugs and private property as well.

 

[Father Heathen]

Morality is about the orderly and safe conduct of human life. It's also about facilitating human flourishing. Traffic laws facilitate the orderly and safe conduct of human life, so it's a moral pursuit. Rules about how to move chess pieces (for example) don't affect the orderly and safe conduct of human life, so it's not moral.

Honestly, I find the question weird because its answer is so obvious and obviously true that seriously questioning of it is, well, almost absurd. So obviously you're not posing this as a serious question but are merely requesting a sharpening of definition.

So "morality" is little more than any practice that helps us to survive and thrive? Does that make insect colonies the most moral societies of all?

 

[logician]

Are morals absolute or relative?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Propaganda is definitely a huge part of it. I can't deny that. My view may be wrong based upon whether or not my belief that the morality, in this instance the general collective belief among the populace about the use of illicit drugs, has been altered by government legislation and propaganda as well.

The first problem is trying to understand the general perception of the populace prior to the efforts of the government to regulate. The second is whether the propaganda, say in the Harrison Narcotics Act, or the laws altered peoples perception of a drug leading to a resultant change in the moral views of personal behavior. There are other factors not being considered as well. Such as information from the medical establishment. It may be that they all feed each other. However, that once again begs the question as to a resultant change in the mentality of the general populace.

I admit that this is the only arena in which I view that the government has successfully legislated morality. I used to not believe such a thing but my own personal experience with illicit drugs (from use to jail and rehab) combined with generalizing anecdotal evidence has led me to believe that the government can exercise enough power to effect morality.

That's also why I bring up the case of Kelo v. City of New London in which the city took an individuals private non-commercial property to give it to a private second party to use for commercial and non-public use. I think the belief that private property as a fundamental right is well established. The reaction since the decision, after drawing quick condemnation from many states but little in local efforts to counter the SCOTUS decision, has been tame enough to show me that perhaps the government is affecting a change among the public.

However, there are other social factors at play such as general complacency or perhaps prior to the Kelo decision that the general public had already accepted that the fundamental right of private property was no longer held to such an esteemed moral position.

Pretty much all other issues regarding legislation are just regulations in my opinion. I can't think of any other area in which the government has successfully legislated a change in moral position among the majority of the public. I know I may very well be wrong about illicit drugs and private property as well.

I would love to hear doppleganger's view of Kelo vs. City of New London. I believe I'll PM him, to get his views. I'll ask him to post them here.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Are morals absolute or relative?

An excellent thread in it's own right.

I'll go with "relative", and await the flames from the social conservatives that want to run my life for me.

 

[Ciarin]

morals are subjective. And you can't legislate morality. Morality is what people think are right and wrong. Laws are for putting forth what is legal or illegal, and to make sure order and well-being are esablished in society while maintaining a level of freedom. Sometimes people's morals agree with the laws, sometime's they don't.

 

[Sunstone]

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?

I don't think the distinction between legislating morality and not legislating morality is a very useful one in this context because it would require you to screw around with the definition of morality to make your point. After all, it seems to be a stretch to consider laws prohibiting murder as laws that do not legislate morality.

I would instead recommend that you consider drawing a distinction between laws that seek to prevent or punish harm to other members of society, and laws that seek to prevent or punish some behavior that at most harms only the person who engages in it.

For instance, a law against rape seeks to prevent or punish the harm the rapist does to others beside himself. But a law against masturbation seeks only to prevent or punish the alleged harm a masturbater does to him or herself.

Just my thoughts.

 

[gnomon]

I would love to hear doppleganger's view of Kelo vs. City of New London. I believe I'll PM him, to get his views. I'll ask him to post them here.

That would be interesting.

 

[Halcyon]

After all, it seems to be a stretch to consider laws prohibiting murder as laws that do not legislate morality.

I think the point being made though, is that morality itself cannot be legistated, only that version of morality that has become accepted as the norm by the majority can be enforced.

Even with rape and murder, other cultures and different times have/had a different view of the morality of these acts, some forms of murder were even seen as righteous in times past - and even today certain groups see some murders as just, honour killings for example.
The way society is moving, the capital punishment some states have today will be seen as abhorrent and immoral in the future.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

But a law against masturbation seeks only to prevent or punish the alleged harm a masturbater does to him or herself.

Oh great! Now you've done it!

Pat Robertson will be in the pulpit this Sunday, telling us how badly we need a new law ...

As for the rest of your post, I think Halcyon has already addressed it, and I would just be guilty of piling on.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Not relevant. They are still legislating morality. They are enacting into law (and thereby training its citizens in) aspects of morality. Whether that changes an individual's moral sense is another matter, but successful in that or not, they are still legislating morality.

Apparently, laws do not train peoples thoughts.

 

[Dunemeister]

Apparently, laws do not train peoples thoughts.

They do to a certain extent. But again, their success rate in this is not the point. Rather, the point is that the laws express the moral wisdom (and confusion) of the society that enacts them. Enacting laws is a moral thing to do. Enacted laws enforce a way of life on the population. What is this if not legislating morality?

 

[Father Heathen]

They do to a certain extent. But again, their success rate in this is not the point. Rather, the point is that the laws express the moral wisdom (and confusion) of the society that enacts them. Enacting laws is a moral thing to do. Enacted laws enforce a way of life on the population. What is this if not legislating morality?

So you really believe the government shapes our lifestyle and culture?

 

[Dunemeister]

I think the point being made though, is that morality itself cannot be legistated, only that version of morality that has become accepted as the norm by the majority can be enforced.

How is this not legislating morality? A society has a particular view of what the good and responsible life consists in and enacts laws that aid and abet that view. Thus morality is legislated.

Even with rape and murder, other cultures and different times have/had a different view of the morality of these acts, some forms of murder were even seen as righteous in times past - and even today certain groups see some murders as just, honour killings for example.
The way society is moving, the capital punishment some states have today will be seen as abhorrent and immoral in the future.

Relativism doesn't blunt the force of the argument. Even if morality is relative, legislatures are creating and police and other agencies are enforcing a vision of what the good life is. Again, what is that if not legislating morality?