• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is it the government's job to regulate Morality

Is it the government's job


  • Total voters
    60
Incorrect. The government if for the people, by the people and of the people, but it is not the people.

Please explain to me how the government being for the people, by the people, and particularly of the people, does not give the government the power to do something the people want -- regulate morality?
 
Please explain to me how the government being for the people, by the people, and particularly of the people, does not give the government the power to do something the people want -- regulate morality?

Simply because with the exception of a very few, all moralities are relative and subjective. For example, to many devout religious people, you cannot work on the Sabbath. It's immoral. However, there is no real agreement as to which day the Sabbath is, although for the most part it's narrowed down to three periods. However, why should that particular moral be forced upon the ones who either a) do not hold a religious belief, or b) hold to a different Sabbath than others. This hold true for any moral that is religious or individual specific.
 
Simply because with the exception of a very few, all moralities are relative and subjective. For example, to many devout religious people, you cannot work on the Sabbath. It's immoral. However, there is no real agreement as to which day the Sabbath is, although for the most part it's narrowed down to three periods. However, why should that particular moral be forced upon the ones who either a) do not hold a religious belief, or b) hold to a different Sabbath than others. This hold true for any moral that is religious or individual specific.

That's democracy. If we listened to your view, we probably wouldn't be able to have even a semblance of a functioning legal system for fear of stepping on the toes of the few nutters who think it's okay to murder -- or, better, not pay taxes.

The government does and MUST regulate morality -- preferably by the will of people, as this is a democracy. If it didn't do that, we wouldn't HAVE a government.
 
That's democracy. If we listened to your view, we probably wouldn't be able to have even a semblance of a functioning legal system for fear of stepping on the toes of the few nutters who think it's okay to murder -- or, better, not pay taxes.

The government does and MUST regulate morality -- preferably by the will of people, as this is a democracy. If it didn't do that, we wouldn't HAVE a government.

First off this is a republic. Yes we use some democratic features, but we also use some socialistic features as well; e.g. libraries. Rule of law is our basis not majority rules. That aside, you first missed that I did note that there are some exceptions and are indeed some universal morals, such as against murder or theft. I also said as much earlier in the thread, but I can see you having missed that coming in this late in the thread. By your view, at least as shown in the quoted post, you would have been fine with slavery as that was what a majority in this country wanted and had regulated.

If we are to have our morals regulated by the government, which morals do we go by? Christian? Which denomination? Judaic? Islamic? To enforce the morals of one group is to infringe upon the rights of another. Homosexuality is immoral to some, even a majority at one point. Were we right to regulate homosexuality? To others destruction of nature is immoral. Should we be banning all new destruction of nature? The ironic thing is that we can enact some of the same laws and rules, such as natural conservation efforts, under a basic desire to preserve, without it being a moral. Not to mention that since morals are subjective, two people can believe in the same result (say no abortion) for two different reasons, one moral and the other not.

We should not have our morals regulated by government. Society, yes but not government. Are you smart enough to know the difference?
 
First off this is a republic.

Just a basic correction. We are guaranteed a republican form of government by the US Constitution. Unfortunately, we have nothing of the sort. This government can best be described as a corporatist oligarchy, which is similar to fascism. Or looking at it another way, this government follows all ten planks of the Communist Manifesto. Either way, it is regulating and taxing just about every aspect of our lives, not just morality.
 
Back
Top Bottom