-
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!
Legislating Morality--Is it Okay?
- Thread starter Starfish
- Start date
rheff78
I'm your huckleberry.
I don't have a problem with it. Why would I? What would stop someone fromdoing something compeltely immoral without legislation? I guess my point is, you can't have a nation that's built upon, if it feels good do it. What would become of that nation? There has to be a body in order to keep the peace.
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
Legislation is all about morality. Passing a criminal law is tantamount to declaring an act evil. How could it be otherwise?
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
I don't know, I would have thought the law amoral. Possession of soft drugs can be a criminal offence, not many would declare such an offence evil.
Draka
Wonder Woman
I have to agree with this.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
As do I.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
Oh blast, that'd be the politicians. This is worse than I thought.
Joe_Stocks
Back from the Dead
Wouldn't laws prohibiting murder be considered legislating morality and thus make the question rather pointess?
Laws prohibiting murder have to do with the safety and freedom of others to live free and persue happiness (should they choose to do so). What has "morality" to do with law? Law is an "enforcement or prohibition" for the sake of the rights and freedom of others. (assuming, of course, that it is law based on freedom and justice for all)
:islam:Nyx
Oh blast, that'd be the politicians. This is worse than I thought.
Yep, that's why I moved to the other side of the world, I would leave earth if I could but I have transportation issues.
Joe_Stocks
Back from the Dead
Hi TPS,
Yes, and we view that 'interference' (be that murder, physical assault, rape ...) of our safety and freedom immoral and we legislate laws that punish that type of behavior.
Are you arguing that laws against murder have nothing to do with the perceived moral wrongness of murder?
Yes, and we view that 'interference' (be that murder, physical assault, rape ...) of our safety and freedom immoral and we legislate laws that punish that type of behavior.
Are you arguing that laws against murder have nothing to do with the perceived moral wrongness of murder?
One person's rights ends where the others persons rights begin.
Life
Liberty
Pursuit of happiness
In that order.
Your right to life supersedes my right to liberty.
My right to liberty supersedes your right to pursue happiness and so on and so forth.
Life
Liberty
Pursuit of happiness
In that order.
Your right to life supersedes my right to liberty.
My right to liberty supersedes your right to pursue happiness and so on and so forth.
I would recommend reading the Supreme Court's dialogue and majority opinion in the Lawrence v. Texas case.
A great excerpt:
"Mr. Rosenthal: I think what -- what I'm saying is -- and I had not gotten into the equal protection aspect of the -- of the argument yet, but under the equal protection argument, Texas has the right to set moral standards and can set bright line moral standards for it's people. And in the setting of those moral standards, I believe that they can say that certain kinds of activity can exist and certain kinds of activity cannot exist.
Question: Could they say, for example, it is against the law at the dinner table to tell really serious lies to your family?
Mr. Rosenthal: Yes, they can make that a law, but there would be no rational basis for the law.
Question: Oh, really. It's very immoral. I mean, I know there's certainly -- it's certainly immoral to tell very serious harmful lies to your own family under certain circumstances and around the dinner table, some of the worst things can happen.
[Laughter]
But -- the -- so Texas could go right in there and any kind of morality that they think is just immoral or bad, cheating, perhaps. What about rudeness, serious rudeness, et cetera?"
In other words, does anyone have a pair of skis I can borrow? I'll need them to get to the bottom of the slope without breaking every metaphorical bone in my metaphorical body.
Solution:
"Question: But what about the statute which this Court I think once had to grapple with, people felt during World War I that it was immoral to teach German in the public schools. So then would you say that the State has every right to do that, parents want their children to learn German, but the schools forbid it? See, the hard question here is can the State, in fact, pass anything that it wants at all, because they believe it's immoral. If you were going to draw the line somewhere, I guess you might begin to draw it when the person is involved inside his own bedroom and not hurting anybody else. Now that -- that now -- so you say it's morality. I -- I agree many people do believe that that's a question of morality. Many do not, but nonetheless, what can you add to what you're saying, other than simply asserting its morality? Because I don't think you think that the State could pass anything in the name of morality?
Mr. Rosenthal: Certainly not. But it would have -- any law that would pass would have to have some rational basis to the State interest."
Ding ding ding! We have a winner and a new pair of skis!
Hi JS,
Actually YOU view that 'interference' (be it murder, physical assault, rape ...) of our safety and freedom "immoral". I simply view it as aggressively hostile behavior that INFRINGES FORCEBLY on the most basic human rights of others.
For me, "morality" has nothing to do with it. I don't measure life by any "morality stick". I do however love and respect the right(s) of each individual to forge their own unique path--assmuming that path does not keep anyone else from forging their own individual & unique path. It's more a basic human respect thing for me I guess. If you insist on calling that a morality, then I guess (by your definition) I do hold to ONE moral.
When children throw sand at others in the public sandbox, they need to be taken out for the sake of the other childrens safety. It's a practical issue. But a moral one?
The only "moral" (of the story) I see here is, "If you throw sand at people in the sandbox, people won't like it, and you'll find yourself isolated".Certainly many people DO view these things as "moral" issues, but that is just one's personal interpretation, and not a universal concept "we" all hold in common. Of course It's NICE when people care about others enough to respect and uphold their rights to Life, Freedom, and the Persuit of Happiness, but some (dare I say most?) people just don't get the whole love of humanity , life and world thing........ and they usually wind up isolated, one way or another. (and yes, there are MANY kinds of isolation).
:islam:Nyx
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
Fine. But the point is that the law makes moral judgments, or at least it intends to. When a legislative body enacts a law, it is legislating morality. It's saying "in this country, this behavior is considered to be so wrong that we will curttail your liberties for doing it." If that's not moral behavior, nothing is.