Is it the government's job to regulate Morality

cpgrad08 said:

This came up with a discussion with Tigger. Do you guys think it is the job of the government to judge,decide,regulate the morality of the people or that the job of the people and the laws of the government should reflect that?

Click to expand...

Almost all laws are an expression of moral priority. Even jaywalking and littering laws.

Kobie said:

The government should protect people from other people. The government has no business protecting people from themselves.

Click to expand...

While I agree with the highlighted portion, I do so in a different way.... The Government should not be protecting people from the consequences of their own mistakes. The Government SHOULD be protecting Society from the consequences of those mistakes, by doing everything possible to ensure that the people making those mistakes never have the opportunity to do so again.

Kobie said:

The government should protect people from other people. The government has no business protecting people from themselves.

Click to expand...

How does one then justify forced income redistribution? Charitable giving may be morally right but certainly does not protect people from other people so there is no justification for doing so by gov't force.

cpgrad08 said:

This came up with a discussion with Tigger. Do you guys think it is the job of the government to judge,decide,regulate the morality of the people or that the job of the people and the laws of the government should reflect that?

Click to expand...

To the extent that the judiciary is responsible for enforcement, there's no question of its jurisdiction within boundaries evidently defined. To the extent that morality remains uncodified, the point is moot.

By passing RvW (and later by the SCOTUS), they DID regulate morality.

I guess we could always dispense with governance altogether, and simply trust the aspiring serial killer to 'listen to his heart' right?

AJiveMan said:

No, absolutely not, please tell your GOP representative to get the f*ck out of America's bedrooms and out of women's lives.

Click to expand...

As soon as you tell the Dem's to get out of the doctor patient relationship, get them to stop telling Mexicans it's cool to sneak across the border and use our social services and unilaterally take over a sixth of the economy.

vasuderatorrent said:

I voted yes. Otherwise I don't see what purpose government serves.

Click to expand...

Government in the US was supposed to have a very limited scope. Regulating morality was not one of them. What a person believes, a communities morality (what they deem as moral or immoral) is not part of that scope. Yes, laws arguably can be seen as sometimes a moral issue, however it's about what a society deems is right and wrong as it applies to others. That in and of itself is only addressed by the judicial portion of the government. Government should stay out of people's lives for the most part. Who is to say what is moral and what is not? It's a slippery slope issue and I'd rather have government out of people's lives and not determining through law what is or is not moral.

AJiveMan said:

Not at all.
Go look at the bills the GOP has written and passed in the house since they've had control of it, repeal Roe v Wade many, many times. Repeal the ACA many, many times, that's not immoral to you? :roll:

Last time I looked, the GOP is part of the US Government, they legislate!

Click to expand...

What has Obamacare to do with morals? It's a redistribution of wealth bill.

They do in fact regulate morality. Murder could even be considered a moral issue. Anyway, I think it depends on the issue, and whether is fits within the intent of the Constitution.

ttwtt78640 said:

How does one then justify forced income redistribution? Charitable giving may be morally right but certainly does not protect people from other people so there is no justification for doing so by gov't force.

Click to expand...

Protecting people from others is not the only function of the law.

1750Texan said:

all law is base in some form of morals. Rape, murder or assualt are beyond the scope of a simple question of morality. Yes we should act as a group of citizens through our elected representatives to protect one another from these heinous examples of uncivil acts.

Should the government tell us how much soda to drink...not so much.

Click to expand...

I would disagree. Laws are about protection of individual rights. Or at least they should be.

sawdust said:

As soon as you tell the Dem's to get out of the doctor patient relationship, get them to stop telling Mexicans it's cool to sneak across the border and use our social services and unilaterally take over a sixth of the economy.

Click to expand...

Idiot.

WCH said:

By passing RvW (and later by the SCOTUS), they DID regulate morality.

Click to expand...

NOT

Roe v Wade is a woman's right to privacy and to do as she chooses in making her own decisions, among other things.

That's not regulating morality, that's regulating what other people believe either by religion or by their own beliefs and by their own so called moral standards, which take away a woman's rights.

sangha said:

It will be interesting to see how the anti-choicers vote

Click to expand...

Why? Because you're of an arrogant belief that you are an all knowing arbiter of how to define things that are not universally definable? Or because you're ignorant of the fact that everyone doesn't share a similar view point as you when forming their opinions.

For pro-lifer folks (rejecting your retarded and childish procolomation of "anti-choice" as much as those who claim pro-choice individuals are "pro-abortion"), the mindset is not one of enforcing morals. Rather, it's an extension of the commonly held notion that one of the legitimate roles of government is to protect the livelihood of an individual who is physically incapable or nigh incapable of protecting themselves.

Just like someone who believes the government has a place in stepping in to keep a father from ending the life of his 3 year old son for reasons other than "regulating morality", someone who believes the government has a place in stepping in to keep a mother from ending the life of her unborn son for reasons otehr than "regulating morality". It is not an instance of needing to regulate morality, but rather to protect the rights of those who can not reasonable protect themselves.

As to regulating morality by the government, in general I believe it has no place in doing so if the PRIMARY purpose of a law is to in terms of regulating morality. However, I think there are reasonable times where morality being regulated is a potential side effect of a law.

AJiveMan said:

NOT

Roe v Wade is a woman's right to privacy and to do as she chooses in making her own decisions, among other things.

That's not regulating morality, that's regulating what other people believe either by religion or by their own beliefs and by their own so called moral standards, which take away a woman's rights.

Click to expand...

So it's like....regulating morality, then? lulz

Zyphlin said:

Why? Because you're of an arrogant belief that you are an all knowing arbiter of how to define things that are not universally definable? Or because you're ignorant of the fact that everyone doesn't share a similar view point as you when forming their opinions.

For pro-lifer folks (rejecting your retarded and childish procolomation of "anti-choice" as much as those who claim pro-choice individuals are "pro-abortion"), the mindset is not one of enforcing morals. Rather, it's an extension of the commonly held notion that one of the legitimate roles of government is to protect the livelihood of an individual who is physically incapable or nigh incapable of protecting themselves.

Click to expand...

It will be interesting because many anti-choicers (and I call them that because that is exactly what they are) believe that the "protect[ing] the livelihood of an individual" is a legitimate role of government even though the Constitution clearly only protects "persons"

NoC_T said:

So it's like....regulating morality, then? lulz

Click to expand...

Not hardly.

sangha said:

It will be interesting because many anti-choicers (and I call them that because that is exactly what they are) believe that the "protect[ing] the livelihood of an individual" is a legitimate role of government even though the Constitution clearly only protects "persons"

Click to expand...

Yeah, until they make a law that states a fetus is a person, oh, wait...
Then, they won't call it homicide, they call it feticide.

It's what republican lawmakers did in Wisconsin, pretty much, they changed the words of vaginal invasions to some fancy wording to push legislation to probe women's private parts.

My vote is other. I feel that morality is a personal ideology that can certainly vary person to person. I think the only function that the government should serve is to preserve the right of all Americans to observe their own moral conduct and that no government (federal, state or local) should attempt to press the moral majority on any minority. Each person should be free to pursue their own life as they see fit.

Zyphlin said:

Why? Because you're of an arrogant belief that you are an all knowing arbiter of how to define things that are not universally definable? Or because you're ignorant of the fact that everyone doesn't share a similar view point as you when forming their opinions.

For pro-lifer folks (rejecting your retarded and childish procolomation of "anti-choice" as much as those who claim pro-choice individuals are "pro-abortion"), the mindset is not one of enforcing morals. Rather, it's an extension of the commonly held notion that one of the legitimate roles of government is to protect the livelihood of an individual who is physically incapable or nigh incapable of protecting themselves.

Just like someone who believes the government has a place in stepping in to keep a father from ending the life of his 3 year old son for reasons other than "regulating morality", someone who believes the government has a place in stepping in to keep a mother from ending the life of her unborn son for reasons otehr than "regulating morality". It is not an instance of needing to regulate morality, but rather to protect the rights of those who can not reasonable protect themselves.

As to regulating morality by the government, in general I believe it has no place in doing so if the PRIMARY purpose of a law is to in terms of regulating morality. However, I think there are reasonable times where morality being regulated is a potential side effect of a law.

Click to expand...

This thread should never have been started here. I motion it be moved to the abortion debate forum.

sangha said:

It will be interesting because many anti-choicers (and I call them that because that is exactly what they are) believe that the "protect[ing] the livelihood of an individual" is a legitimate role of government even though the Constitution clearly only protects "persons"

Click to expand...

You call them that because of your egotistical belief that somehow your opinions are facts and because you have a severe inability to argue your opinion in any kind of meaningful or persuasive manner and thus must relay on cheap emotional ploys and demonizations as a means of deluding yourself into believing you're making a good point.

Pro-Life is accurate with regards to the view point, mentality, and reasoning that goes into that sides position on the issue.

Pro-Choice is accurate with regards to the view point, mentality, and reasoning that goes into that sides position on the issue.

Pro-Abortion and Anti-Choice work only by applying the other sides view points, mentality, and reasoning erroniously upon the other side and labeling them based on that.

And as I stated, your ignorance and arrogance on this subject highlights the ridiculousness of your attempts to proclaim that it's a moral based argument. Contrary to what you may wrongly believe, your opinion is not universal law. There is no unquestioned, definitve, universally provable means of defining exactly at one stage or point of a humans existance that they are deemed a "person". There is not some magical sign hovering over every persons head, be they laying in a crib or inside the body of another, that suddenly lights up and say "I'M A PERSON NOW!" once they hit some magical stage. Ultimately, "person" is simply a definition created by man and is arbitrarily placed upon a human at a given point. YOU and pro-life individuals simply have a difference of opinion regarding when a human should be considered a "person". You, in your gross arrogance, judge the other side based on an ignorant assumption that they must hold the same definition as you and thus must base their opinions on that definition. This is unquestionably a poor assumption.


A pro-life's persons position on abortion, generally, is no more concerned with "regulating morality" than such a persons view regarding laws on murder is "regulating morality".

AJiveMan said:

This thread should never have been started here. I motion it be moved to the abortion debate forum.

Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:

The thread is a poll in nature, and is not specific to abortion...indeed, the OP didn't even mention abortion. A poster simply offered it up as an implied example of what he believes such a law to be. In the future, if you feel a thread is misplaced please use the report button (triangle with a !) and let the mods know your views. Posting matters of board organization in thread is not on topic and potentially leads to derailment if discussion occurs regarding whether a threads placement is correct or not. Thank you

American said:

They do in fact regulate morality. Murder could even be considered a moral issue. Anyway, I think it depends on the issue, and whether is fits within the intent of the Constitution.

Click to expand...

Yeah, this and some other individuals posts similar (paschendale I believe) was kind of my point.

There are a number of laws that one could make an argument DO regulate based on morality to some degree depending on a persons view.

Murder is a wonderful example. My making it illegal to murder people, the government is also in a sense suggesting it backs the notion that murdering someone is immoral and thus regulating morality.

However, it could also be argued that the law's primary and/or singular purpose isn't simply to enforce morality but to protect the rights of one person from being infringed upon by another.

Then again, someone could say that such a notion is in and of itself one based off the notion of a "moral" argument.

That's why I'm not one to pound the table going "GOVERNMENT SHOULD NEVER REGULATE MORALITY". Well, no...because that's such a broad notion.

I think there are some basic jobs of government that are set out in our founding documents. Now whether or not those jobs are based on the notion of enforcing morality or not is debatable. But to me, a law needs to connect to that pretty tangably as it's main reason for existing.

A law stating you can't have consensual anal sex is something I can't fathom any legitimate reason for OTHER than a notion that it's immoral and should be frowned upon.

But this is definitly the type of thing that SEEMS like a cut and dry question on the surface, but isn't. It seems cut and dry because people think of it in terms of what I just said above. "Oh no! We shouldn't have laws keeping people from having consensual sex in whatever manner they want!".

But look at something different...what about a law that authorizes the government to help fund a museum.

Could it be argued that instilling a sense of culture and history in the citizenry is something that is felt as morally important? At the very least, could it be argued as a law/act of government that is trying to instill or promote a general notion of a style or type of culture?

AJiveMan said:

No, absolutely not, please tell your GOP representative to get the f*ck out of America's bedrooms and out of women's lives.

Click to expand...

Please tell your Democratic representative and the First Lady to get the f**k out of American's kitchens too.