Legislating Morality--Is it Okay?

[Starfish]

Welfare doesn't legislate "charity" -- love and compassion for the poor -- it legislates survival for the most disadvantaged members of our society. I can't imagine why anyone would have a moral objection to that.

Please understand, I AGREE with helping the poor. I'm a Christian--it's in the Bible. But should it be legislated? That's the issue.

A zygote, embryo or fetus is not an infant and is not an individual.

Your opinion. I call it a baby.

I don't believe adults should be compelled to wear seatbelts, although I can see mandating seatbelts and carseats for children, to protect them from the stupidity of their parents, and I can see allowing insurance companies to void every part of a policy except for liability in the case of people who don't wear seatbelts.

I don't know anybody who thinks that sexual harassment is a right or is ever appropriate. Do you?

Sexual harrassment, for the most part, is nothing more than rudeness and stupidity. But should there be a law for it?

 

[The Great Architect]

depends upon who's morality. legislating a morality that restricts, discriminates against or hurts others because they deviate from the norm, but are not victimising anyone, is not okay.

I have to agree with this.

As do I.

I agree, too. You can't force your beliefs onto someone else, under the guise of 'legal morality'. The values that are legalised need to be shared by the majority of the community. I have never understood the debacle surrounding the legalisation of gay marriage. Saying that gay people can't get married, is forcing one particular set of beliefs on the majority of the community. I hope there are some Christians out there, who believe in the importance of equality.

(I can't think of everything I wanted to say.):rainbow1:

 

[Smoke]

Your opinion. I call it a baby.

You may call it whatever you like, but even if it were a person, I think you'd have trouble demonstrating that any person has a right to live inside another person against her will. I don't think I even have the right to take your kidney against your will, even if I need it to live and you don't.

 

[Aqualung]

Uh oh, this is about to digress into an abortion debate.



Yes, people have the right (and indeed, the obligation) to legislate morality. There is one moral truth that all governments must legislate (and if they don't, the people should overthrow them). That moral truth is that people have the right to make their own descisions. Thus, all legislation should allow people to make their own descisions (so, there should never be any laws against, say, drug consumption), and all legislation should keep people from denying others of the right to make their own descisions (so, there should be laws against, say, murder, since dead people are notoriously bad at making descisions for themselves).

Of course, in practice, these lines become blurry. Or so they say. I have yet to find an example in anything but the most petty of circumstances.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I seriously believe that a lot of conservatives oppose same-sex marriage because they don't want their peers (i.e. fellow church-members, etc.) to think that they are okay with gay sex, when they're really not.

Interesting point. That might explain why there's such an outcry about homosexuality from the religious right, but not about freedom of religion. Whatever the Bible says about homosexuality, it places far greater emphasis on faith in God and in Christ. It's understood that a Christian advocating for the right of Jews or Hindus to worship as they please isn't implicitly declaring that he agrees with their beliefs... this isn't necessarily the case when it comes to homosexuality.

Believe it or not, this thread was not about same-sex marriage particularly, though it is involved. It's about how the left legislates morality just as the right does. My main point concerned welfare. Legislated charity. It's morally correct to help the poor, but should it be a law?

I think so.

From one point of view, there's justification apart from morality for welfare and other government-sponsored aid programs. If a person in need would cost X dollars to society (by being driven to crime, perhaps, or in burial costs after he starves to death), then it's economically pragmatic to spend anything up to that X dollars to prevent that from happening.

From another point of view, there's the issue of reasonable accommodation. I suppose this is a moral issue, but our freedom (including the freedom to do as we please with our own money and property) has value; human life and... well, welfare, has value. Our governmental policies will reflect some relative valuation between those two things; every point on the spectrum between the communist model (i.e. the government has an absolute responsibility to the welfare of the people and personal freedom is completely secondary) and the libertarian model (i.e. personal freedom is paramount, regardless of whatever happens to the welfare of the people). The question is where on that spectrum we want our society to be, and some choice must be made, even if it's to be at the extreme lower end of the scale.

Welfare may represent a moral judgement. However, abolition of welfare would represent a moral judgement as well. If welfare is an instance of "legislating morality", then so would no welfare at all.

 

[gnomon]

A few considerations:

To what degree are the following a legislation of moral views or simply societal rules.

1) Compulsory education
2) Limited abortion laws
3) Defamation laws
4) Ban on televised tobacco advertisements
5) Drug laws

Taking the phrase "legislating morality" to mean that we cannot alter moral views through legislation is quite different from the view that "legislating morality" means the enactment of legislation to punish immoral behavior. The former is also challenged by the notion that legislation has indeed altered the moral outlook of the majority of a culture. See the history of drug laws. They show that we can indeed legislate a moral outlook upon a nation. As long as it is accompanied by a massive propaganda campaign.

But i think the concept that the government can enact legislation based upon moral views is the point of argument and a couple of those I mentioned above I believe do hold an inherit moral nature. Compulsory education. Defamation laws.

How about hate crimes legislation? An incentive to reduce discrimination in this nation by applying additional punishment on actions already deemed criminal or to possibly criminalize actions considered to be socially unacceptable and harmful to society. What degree of moral legislation is there in such legislation. Surely the purpose behind them is one of a punitive nature.

Are human rights considered to be an issue of law or an issue of morality? Has the enforcement of rights by the power of government altered the culture? If so, is this not in fact legislating morality? Possibly not if the change has been affected (effected?-forget it) by education campaigns and/or other factors.

 

[Aqualung]

I think so.

The thing is, the poor are helped so much more efficiently and thoroughly when the government isn't getting in their way and messing everything up.

The following excerpt is from Mary Ruwart. Emphases are all mine.

During the 1980s, I rented to welfare recipients. Ninety percent of my tenants were able-bodied women with children who simply chose welfare instead of work. Indeed, one woman who tried to give me friendly advice suggested that I stop fixing up the apartments at night and give up my day job. "Have some kids and get on welfare so that you can enjoy your life," she counseled me.

<snip>

Why would someone choose to conceive children as meal tickets and live on welfare? By the mid-'90s, a person would have to earn $5.50 to $17.50 per hour (depending upon your state) to get more after-tax benefits than they'd receive on welfare! Of course, choosing welfare instead of work didn't give a person job experience or regular raises, so choosing poverty as a teen was generally a life sentence.

When Ohio required capable welfare recipients to work, 40% of them decided that they didn't need help after all. Oregon tried to place its able-bodied welfare population in jobs by offering employers a subsidy to take them. Once welfare recipients found out that they were going to have to work for someone, 80% went out and found an unsubsidized job. Clearly, a great deal of the welfare population simply chooses not to work when tax dollars, usually in excess of what they would initially earn, are readily available. Giving money to those who could work results in less money for those who can't.

<snip>

Let's assume that Wisconsin's experience was atypical and that nationwide, only 50%, rather than 71%, of the people on welfare are capable of supporting themselves. Private charities would be likely to weed out such people. Thus, if we simply gave the equivalent of the welfare budget to churches and other private charities for distribution, twice as much help would go to the truly needy -- virtually overnight!

Of course, public welfare gives over two-thirds of every tax dollar we give them to overhead (e.g., salaries of the bureaucrats who administer the program). Private charities, however, give two-thirds of every dollar to those who need help. By switching to private distribution, we'd cut overhead in half. In other words, we'd double the dollars available to the needy once again. By switching from public to private charity, we'd quadruple our help to the disadvantaged -- virtually overnight!

Taxes are expensive to collect. Two-thirds of a dollar are spent to collect one dollar of taxes. If everyone in a libertarian society voluntarily gave the same amount to charity as they do today through taxes, once again we'd triple what the disadvantaged receive. In other words, if private charities received the entire welfare budget in voluntary contributions, we'd multiply by twelve the money available to the poor!

Even if private charities received one-tenth of what our current welfare budgets are, the poor would still be better off than they are now. From all indications, however, each generation of Americans is more charitable than the last. In 1996, the average donation per adult was twice the inflation-adjusted average in 1970 and triple the 1950 average. Volunteer work has increased in roughly the same proportions.

How significant are private contributions to charity? If volunteer time is valued at the minimum wage, total private contributions to charity exceed the combined poverty budgets of government at all levels. If Americans contribute so generously while they are also forced to pay taxes for government welfare programs, wouldn't we expect them to give more, not less, if government left more money in their pockets?

And from this essay published by the Cato Institute

This essay outlines a libertarian approach to poverty. No, it's not "Leave them in the gutter." It's an approach that tries to be pragmatic and compassionate. Even if -- especially if -- you are not a libertarian, you need to understand that when it comes to government doing something about poverty, "less is more." Further below, I even include a policy proposal -- something that is rare coming from a libertarian.

<snip>

Government has a mixed record in alleviating poverty. The GI bill seems to me to have been a success. Welfare seems to have been a failure -- by creating a culture of entitlement for unwed mothers, it exacerbated the very problem that it was supposed to cure. Social Security probably was a positive program when it began, but by now I believe it causes too much hardship for people of working age relative to the hardship that it relieves for the retired, and this tendency is going to get worse with each passing decade.

If the tendency of government were to expand on its successes and cut back on its failures, then I probably would not remain a libertarian. Imagine politicians saying, "Gosh, the GI bill worked, but for the children who need it most, public schools fail. So let's make K-12 education more like the GI bill, and switch from government-provided schools to vouchers."

Unfortunately, that thought-experiment has no basis in reality. Instead, politicians have been captured by the teachers' unions. Where I live, the teachers' union is by far the most powerful political force. No one has any hope of being elected to the school board or the County Council without first receiving the endorsement of the teacher's union's political action committee.

<snip>

Government programs persist not because they help to alleviate social problems but because they develop political constituencies. Thus, we have a food stamp program, when the number one nutritional problem among the poor appears to be obesity. I am not saying that I don't think that poor people need help obtaining food. But a program that was focused on poor people rather than as an indirect way to aid the farming constituency would probably operate rather differently than our existing food stamp program. With government, political goals inevitably interfere with what from an idealistic perspective would be the "public good" intent of a program.

<snip>

Charitable organizations are better than government as a source of aid. First, it is easier for donors to hold charitable organizations accountable than it is for taxpayers to hold government accountable. A failed government program can go on forever. An ineffective charity has a more difficult time obtaining funding.

Charitable organizations tend to be more "hands-on" with the needy than are government organizations. For example, although I cannot say that I am particularly happy that my daughter volunteered to go on a project with this organization, it clearly is going to put her in direct contact with poor people, which is better than going on an international "mission" where you stay in 4-star hotels.

Those organizations that work directly with poor people stand a better chance of learning how to meet their needs than people who lobby in Washington on behalf of the poor. Nongovernmental organizations will tend to be more innovative. They can be leaner, and they can operate with what the military would call a high "tooth to tail" ratio.

Charitable organizations are better suited to dealing with the pathology of poverty. When people get checks from the government, they tend to think of this as an entitlement. They are getting money in exchange for doing nothing. They learn that this is how you get money -- you take it from others. Taking money from others is what criminals do. Productive people get money from other people by exchanging something of value.

Charities are in a position to demand something of value from their clients, even if that "something" is nothing more than a human "Thank you." Charities are also in a position to set the terms under which their clients receive aid and to cut off clients who fail to comply with those terms.

Charities can be flexible in how they handle individuals. One person may need transportation to a job. Another person may need drug rehabilitation. With hands-on involvement and with flexibility, charitable organizations are more likely to discover solutions to the pathologies of poverty.

Charitable organizations are flawed, to be sure. On average, I think that profitable companies are better managed than nonprofits. But every organization has its flaws, and charitable organizations are less flawed than government alternatives.

In fact, I think that one of the factors that inhibits the effectiveness of NGO's is that many of them are dependent on government grants for support. This forces the NGO to put much of its effort into satisfying the bureaucrats who provide the funding. That requires resources and skill sets that have nothing to do with solving the problems of people in need.

And this pdf provides a detailed free-market approach to solving poverty.

 

[cardero]

It already is, isn't it? Maybe not my morality or your morality but the people who made the laws morality.

Originally Posted by stephenw
Oh blast, that'd be the politicians. This is worse than I thought.

Actually Somkid may be referring to the Senator's wives.

 

[Father Heathen]

Please understand, I AGREE with helping the poor. I'm a Christian--it's in the Bible. But should it be legislated? That's the issue.

It's not a moral issue, but a socio-economic one. It's about keeping the nation stable and fuctioning (a chain is as strong as its weakest link), like using tax money to keep roads in working order for example.

Your opinion. I call it a baby.

[FONT=verdana, arial, helvetica]Would you consider masturbation the summary execution of 300 million babies?[/FONT]

Sexual harrassment, for the most part, is nothing more than rudeness and stupidity. But should there be a law for it?

It's an injustice, which I hope I don't have to explain why it would be in a society's best interest to combat such things. Without justice and protection society wouldn't be able to function.

 

[Fluffy]

Believe it or not, this thread was not about same-sex marriage particularly, though it is involved. It's about how the left legislates morality just as the right does. My main point concerned welfare. Legislated charity. It's morally correct to help the poor, but should it be a law?

Yes welfare should be legislated but not because it is morally correct to help the poor. It should be legislated to avoid a sufficiently high concentration of wealth that would destroy democracy. It has nothing to do with helping the poor.

And abortion: a woman's right to choose, or the infant's right to live? Both sides have a moral basis. Both concern the rights of individuals.

I agree that this is about rights but it is not about legislating morality for either side. Pro-lifers claim that life has rights from conception. Pro-choicers claim that life has limited rights from some point afterwards. It is not morally right to uphold rights. They are contractual, not absolute.

Having said that, there is also a moral compulsion in this situation. If you believe the unborn baby to be alive and that murder is wrong then abortion is wrong, for example. This has nothing to do with rights. It especially has nothing to do with rights if you are Christian because your morality has nothing to do with rights.

In general, laws are there to keep society stable. Every law is justified by this goal and should not be justified by any other means. Morals are justified by moral facts such as what God tells you is right or whatever else a person uses to determine right from wrong.

 

[Magic Man]

I think the problem, Starfish, is that you see the moral laws which correspond with the legal ones, and think that one begat the other. The truth is that whether or not Christian morality influenced our legal system, Christian morality was influenced by common sense for society's needs. Most morality that you think is being legislated has a basis in society's needs. Most laws are in effect because they are harmful to others, like murder, stealing, harrassment, etc. There is a rational explanation for them to be prohibitted aside from moral reasons.

So, allowing abortion is seen as not hurting anyone other than the mother, since the baby is not yet truly a "baby". I think most states only allow abortions up until a certain point in pregnancy just because of it becoming a self-aware, true baby. You can disagree with the idea of them not being babies at conception, but they have to draw the line somewhere, and there's not much difference, as Father Heathen pointed out, between conception and right before.

Gay marriage doesn't hurt society in any way. I know you think it will destroy the nuclear family and society with it, but you are mistaken. Faulty logic and reasoning are used to come to that conclusion. It is just because some people don't like it that it isn't allowed. There is no rational basis for it to be banned, which is why it is considered legislating morality, and should be done away with.

Welfare might have its problems, as outlined by Aqualung, but it has a rational basis in the betterment of society. Maybe it could use some changes or could be done differently alltogether, but it's not instituted because helping the poor is a "good" thing to do. It's in effect because helping the poor helps the entire society function better and make progress. It coincides with Christian morality, but it has reasons other than "because God said so". If other things have other good reasons than "Because God said so", then I'll accept them too, if not then I'm likely to reject them.

 

[Fluffy]

Excellent post mball! I'd frubal you but it won't let me yet .

 

[Magic Man]

Excellent post mball! I'd frubal you but it won't let me yet .

Thanks! It's the thought that counts.

 

[Smoke]

Excellent post mball! I'd frubal you but it won't let me yet .

Got it for ya.