Should we legislate morality?

[Scott C.]

A couple of current threads motivated me to start this one. How should we as a society determine what behaviors should be encouraged or discouraged through legislation? Some say that one should not impose his morality on another by insisting that his morality be legislated. Many will say, well, we should not allow people to hurt others, so if a behavior harms another, it should be illegal. But what if my sense of right and wrong says its ok to harm others? Are you then imposing your morality on me? What if we disagree on what's harmful to others? What if I believe that it's morally wrong to be rich and it's morally right to steal from the rich? Why do you have a right to tell me that I can't steal from the rich? Do you have any studies to prove that stealing from the rich actually harms them? Maybe it makes them better off in the long run. A rebuttal might be that stealing is wrong, period, so we don't need to do the research.

I submit that our sense of morality guides what we think should and should not be legislated. Futhermore, frequently the majority view of morality leads to legislation that others feel imposes on their moral will. We see this in liberal and conservative thought. Here are some examples:

Abortion - Liberal view - It's morally wrong for others to interfere with one of the most personal and intimate decisions a woman could make, that of reproduction. The thought of another imposing his will on a woman in this way, offends the deep and inalienablee right to privacy, the right to choose for oneself, a right held dear to the heart.

Conservative view - Human life begins at conception. This human being has the same right to life as anybody. To snuff out the life of the unborn is a horrible crime that offends the deepest senses of those who oppose abortion. The same sense of morality that motivates to legislate against murder or other violent crime, motivates to legislate agianst abortion.

I could give other examples:

- Prostitution
- Adultery (illegal in the military)
- Pornography
- Taxation. Conservative view - "my money is mine - keep your hands off - it's morally wrong to take what is mine from me". Liberal view "it's immoral for you to have so much, when others have so little". Both ideas are based on moral belief.
- War, when, if ever is morally right. "We have the right to kill in defense of life and liberty". "Killing is always morally wrong".

The point I want to make is that I disagree with the following statement: "You have no right to impose your morality on me." Or, "You can't legislate morality". There are not many laws which are free of moral implication.

The question for me is, which of all of the things that I believe are morally wrong, do I believe should be illegal? What is my guideline for deciding?

If you belive in a God of morality, your moral views are probably formed based on how you believe that God feels. If you don' t believe in a God of morality, perhaps you have another source for your moral compass.

Do you agree that morality motivates most public policy? How do you decide what moral principles should or should not be legislated?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Great thread Scott. Frubals

 

[Darkness]

We should all have personal spheres and we should not have the right to violate another person's sphere unless they allow us to.

Abortion: The fetus is protected only if it legally has a personal sphere.

Prostitution: Going with the personal sphere's theory, if both parties are consenting the government has no right to prevent the selling of sex for money.

Adultery: No legal action should be taken, but it is ample grounds for divorce.

Pornography: Unless it is broadcast over network television, it is not forcing itself upon anyone's personal sphere.

Taxation: Taxes are very tricky. It really depends on how much you believe the Government or Society "owns" the money.

War: Only if the enemy nation is attacking us, assaulting another nation unjustly, or curtailing its citizen's freedoms.

 

[Somkid]

I would suggest that morality is dictated through legislation to a big extent in many countries.

 

[Greatest I am]

Every piece of legislation is a mirror of what is believed to be a moral position. It sometimes speaks well to religion and sometimes to secularism.

Most laws in the west are speaking to a secularist population and at present this position is superiour to religion.

Religions had better smarten up if they are to remain relavent.
A house divided cannot stand.

Regards
DL

 

[Katzpur]

Scott, I think I could safely say that my view of what's moral and what's not is probably pretty much the same as yours. I don't accept certain behaviors as moral and I believe God is displeased by them. On the other hand, hundreds of good men and women were banned from practicing plural marriage in the late 1800s because of somebody else's concept of what is and is not moral. They weren't hurting anyone. They were minding their own business and simply wanted to be left alone to do as they pleased.

Plural marriage had been practiced openly during most of Brigham Young’s administration. It had continued throughout John Taylor’s administration. After John Taylor’s death, in 1887, the keys of authority were held for two years by the Quorum of the Twelve. Finally, Wilford Woodruff, was sustained as the fourth President of the Church. During his tenure as Prophet, the political crusade against the Church continued to intensify. Within just a few short months after he was sustained, Wilford Woodruff came to the undeniable conclusion that, this time, the Church was literally going to be destroyed. After surviving nearly sixty years of persecution, it was essentially going to be wiped off the face of the earth. It was one thing to fight the mobs. It was quite another to fight the Feds.

To me, this is the biggest and best reason why we have no right to try to legislate the moral behavior of others.

 

[Scott C.]

Scott, I think I could safely say that my view of what's moral and what's not is probably pretty much the same as yours. I don't accept certain behaviors as moral and I believe God is displeased by them. On the other hand, hundreds of good men and women were banned from practicing plural marriage in the late 1800s because of somebody else's concept of what is and is not moral. They weren't hurting anyone. They were minding their own business and simply wanted to be left alone to do as they pleased....

To me, this is the biggest and best reason why we have no right to try to legislate the moral behavior of others.

I've considered the example of plural marriage when it was practiced by LDS in the 1800's. The members of the church felt is was a religious principle, revealed by God, and to legislate against plural marriage amounted to a violation of freedom of religion, which is protected by the constitution. The general population of the U.S., however, found the practice to be morally unacceptable and made it illegal, in spite of the LDS religious views. I would suspect that the same LDS who practiced plural marriage back then and argued for freedom of religion, also believed that some immoral practices should be illegal. I'm sure they were opposed to the legalization of prostitution, for example, for they saw this as immoral and having no legitimate claim to protection by the Constitution. I, today, believe prostitution should be illegal. I don't see it as simply a business venture between two willing parties who are not hurting anyone else. I believe it takes a heavy negative toll on society and hurts our collective welfare. Therefore, I feel the need and the obligation to support legislation to combat the practice, without consideration that it may be a constitutionally protected behavior.

I don't claim to have all of the answers on this question. I wrestle from time to time on certain issues, while others are clear in my mind. But, I will say that I don't agree with the general statement that it's wrong to legislate against what I perceive as immoral behavior in others. There are two many examples of where such is necessary, prostitution and abortion being two immediate examples.

Often when one finds something morally wrong and believes it should be illegal, they argue the point from a non-religious and non-moral position and rather look for societal evidence to support their position. This keeps the argument out of the "morality" and "religion" forum. I believe such evidence exists to support keeping prostitution illegal, for example. But even with such evidence, at the core of my position is moral belief.

 

[Greatest I am]

Scott, I think I could safely say that my view of what's moral and what's not is probably pretty much the same as yours. I don't accept certain behaviors as moral and I believe God is displeased by them. On the other hand, hundreds of good men and women were banned from practicing plural marriage in the late 1800s because of somebody else's concept of what is and is not moral. They weren't hurting anyone. They were minding their own business and simply wanted to be left alone to do as they pleased.

Plural marriage had been practiced openly during most of Brigham Young’s administration. It had continued throughout John Taylor’s administration. After John Taylor’s death, in 1887, the keys of authority were held for two years by the Quorum of the Twelve. Finally, Wilford Woodruff, was sustained as the fourth President of the Church. During his tenure as Prophet, the political crusade against the Church continued to intensify. Within just a few short months after he was sustained, Wilford Woodruff came to the undeniable conclusion that, this time, the Church was literally going to be destroyed. After surviving nearly sixty years of persecution, it was essentially going to be wiped off the face of the earth. It was one thing to fight the mobs. It was quite another to fight the Feds.

To me, this is the biggest and best reason why we have no right to try to legislate the moral behavior of others.

I am now careful about assuming that Christians believe as I do about sin and evil.

IE. I believe that genocide is evil and that killing is a sin, yet many Christians have argued that they are not when God uses them.

Evil should always be evil and sin is always sin to me regardless of who the perpetrator is.

Regards
DL

 

[Kungfuzed]

I think, as long as a person isn't harming anyone else, they should be allowed to do whatever they want to themselves. Laws should be set to protect the safety and property of others. To base a law solely on morality is to say "That act offends me so I'm going to make it illegal and punish those who do it". I believe, to make something a law, there should be strong evidence that the act is harmful to safety or property of others. Acts of violence and theft are self evident of this but lawyers could really split some hairs over other issues like lying, fraud, or the selling of bacon. Certainly bacon is harmful to our arteries but does that mean it should be illegal? To make it illegal there should also be a consensus on it. Sometimes the evidence won't fit public opinion, which is why bacon is legal, and weed isn't.

 

[rheff78]

I think, as long as a person isn't harming anyone else, they should be allowed to do whatever they want to themselves. Laws should be set to protect the safety and property of others. To base a law solely on morality is to say "That act offends me so I'm going to make it illegal and punish those who do it". I believe, to make something a law, there should be strong evidence that the act is harmful to safety or property of others. Acts of violence and theft are self evident of this but lawyers could really split some hairs over other issues like lying, fraud, or the selling of bacon. Certainly bacon is harmful to our arteries but does that mean it should be illegal? To make it illegal there should also be a consensus on it. Sometimes the evidence won't fit public opinion, which is why bacon is legal, and weed isn't.

I don't agree. The point is not to just protect others, but to protect people from themselves. Someone has to draw the line. Regardless, even though you think you are only hurting yourself, you are by extension hurting others.

 

[Random]

NO. How would you, anyway?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Answering the last question of your post first...

Do you agree that morality motivates most public policy? How do you decide what moral principles should or should not be legislated?

No, I don't. Though I agree there are some laws currently on the books that are founded in someone's view of morality, I think that the overarching principles that guide our legal system are benefit and harm, not morality and immorality. I suppose that the idea that it is right and proper to encourage benefit and reduce harm could be seen as a moral principle, but not, IMO, in the way you've presented things.

Now... for your examples:

Abortion - Liberal view - It's morally wrong for others to interfere with one of the most personal and intimate decisions a woman could make, that of reproduction. The thought of another imposing his will on a woman in this way, offends the deep and inalienablee right to privacy, the right to choose for oneself, a right held dear to the heart.

Conservative view - Human life begins at conception. This human being has the same right to life as anybody. To snuff out the life of the unborn is a horrible crime that offends the deepest senses of those who oppose abortion. The same sense of morality that motivates to legislate against murder or other violent crime, motivates to legislate agianst abortion.

Or, in my way of thinking:

Liberal view
- there can be harm associated with either an unwanted pregnancy or the birth of an unwanted child.
- therefore, a prospective mother should be free to mitigate this harm as she sees fit.

Conservative view
- a fetus is a person, and abortion results in the death of a person.
- unnecessary, premature death of a person constitutes serious harm.
- therefore, a fetus should be protected by law against death as much as possible.

I could give other examples:

- Prostitution

On this one, I agree with you. I think the main basis for laws against prostitution is morality, or rather, one group's interpretation of it.

- Adultery (illegal in the military)

I did not know that it's illegal in the military; nonetheless, it's legal in most situations. I think this fact speaks against the idea that morality is the basis of our laws - if it were, wouldn't adultery be illegal in all circumstances?

- Pornography

Pornography is generally legal. For the most part, illegal types of pornography are those that constitute harm in some way, such as child porn.

- Taxation. Conservative view - "my money is mine - keep your hands off - it's morally wrong to take what is mine from me". Liberal view "it's immoral for you to have so much, when others have so little". Both ideas are based on moral belief.

I disagree. Here's my interpretation:

Conservative view #1
- money has value. Depriving me of it constitutes harm to me.
- tax-funded government services (either all of them or specific ones) represent deadweight loss and inefficiency; the net benefit to society from them is less than the net cost through taxes.
- therefore, taxation (either generally, or above some level) is a bad idea.

Conservative view #2/Libertarian view
- freedom and property rights have value.
- depriving someone of them constitues serious harm.
- any benefit from tax-funded government services does not outweigh the net harm above (along with the direct cost of taxes).
- therefore, taxation is a bad idea.

Liberal view #1
- people with less money derive more benefit per dollar than someone with more money.
- therefore, redistributing money from rich to poor creates a net increase in benefit.
- therefore, taxation is a good idea.

Liberal view #2
- through efficiencies/economies of scale/lack of "profit" removed from system, tax-funded government services create more benefit than they cost in taxes (or, possibly, they provide the same benefit at less cost than other methods).
- therefore, the net effect of taxation is positive
- therefore, taxation is a good idea.

- War, when, if ever is morally right. "We have the right to kill in defense of life and liberty". "Killing is always morally wrong".

The "Just War Doctrine" (proclaimed by the Catholic Church and others) states that war should only be entered into when the harm that would be averted by war outweighs the harm of the war itself. I think this is a good example of the idea that I'm talking about.

The point I want to make is that I disagree with the following statement: "You have no right to impose your morality on me." Or, "You can't legislate morality". There are not many laws which are free of moral implication.

OTOH, I think that the only moral implication that is appropriate for a common framework of laws is, "it is good to avoid harm, and it is good to maximize benefit."

The question for me is, which of all of the things that I believe are morally wrong, do I believe should be illegal? What is my guideline for deciding?

Harm, like I said. If an action sufficiently harms another, then it should not be legal. If an action does not harm anyone, then it should not be made illegal, no matter how "immoral" it may be.

 

[Greatest I am]

I think, as long as a person isn't harming anyone else, they should be allowed to do whatever they want to themselves. Laws should be set to protect the safety and property of others. To base a law solely on morality is to say "That act offends me so I'm going to make it illegal and punish those who do it". I believe, to make something a law, there should be strong evidence that the act is harmful to safety or property of others. Acts of violence and theft are self evident of this but lawyers could really split some hairs over other issues like lying, fraud, or the selling of bacon. Certainly bacon is harmful to our arteries but does that mean it should be illegal? To make it illegal there should also be a consensus on it. Sometimes the evidence won't fit public opinion, which is why bacon is legal, and weed isn't.

You are partly right as it pertains to custom and fashion but there are too many people that cannot or do not use good judgement for whatever reason. Illness being one factor.
Each issue must be disected and decided by it's own merit. There can be no blanket statemennt like the one you are trying to make.

Regards
DL

 

[Sunstone]

The point is not to just protect others, but to protect people from themselves.

That's fine for children, but not so fine for adults.

Someone has to draw the line.

Yes. Adults must be responsible for themselves and draw whatever lines need to be drawn for themselves -- rather than be irresponsible children who need the lines drawn for them.

 

[djrez4]

I'm from the "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" camp. (and I have a big nose)

I've never understood why people feel the need to codify their moral codes into national law. I've tried the walk-a-mile-in-their shoes method, but can't seem to grasp why anyone would care what I do in my private life.

I've also considered the shoe-on-the-other-foot position and don't see any reason I would want to impose my personal beliefs on anyone else. No, I take it back. Everyone should think like me, but no one, myself included, should have any power to force such a lovely transformation.

Honestly, I think there are too many "moral" laws on the books. I think there are too many laws in general, but that's another issue. Simply codifying the golden rule would work for me. For example, I think clothes should be optional in public. On the other hand, there are a lot of people I would not want to see naked. So, because I wouldn't want them to impose their hideous nudity on me, I don't impose my not-so-hideous nudity on them. Another example: I'd like to be able to do some target practice in my back yard. I would not, however, like to have to listen to the crack of firearms all day or deal with a stray bullet finding its way into my ***. Thus, I understand that there are times and places where target practice is appropriate and my backyard at 2am is not one of them.

 

[rheff78]

That's fine for children, but not so fine for adults.



Yes. Adults must be responsible for themselves and draw whatever lines need to be drawn for themselves -- rather than be irresponsible children who need the lines drawn for them.

Come Sunstone, you know as well as I that some adults need to be looked after just like children.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Everyone has different views on morality, so it don't think it could work.

You could have made this a poll.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

NO. How would you, anyway?

I think he is questioning the view more so then the action.

 

[Sunstone]

Come Sunstone, you know as well as I that some adults need to be looked after just like children.

Such as those adults who don't share your values, right?

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Adults are adults because are at an age where they can provide and fend for themselves, however, some do need helping and looking after.