• 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
To the poll, I voted no.

I know my life better than some politician who doesn't know me. The government should do the minimal amount of governing. "Morality" can't really be regulated or governed. Morality is a personal thing.
 
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.

It allowed her and her doctor to commit an immoral act....so YES it did.
 
Please tell your Democratic representative and the First Lady to get the f**k out of American's kitchens too.
So by your standards, whatever they might be, it is okay for lawmakers of our government to interfere with people's everyday lives, including telling people what they can and cannot do in bedrooms, or with their own body.

That's pretty telling of a conservative's take on wanting little or no government involved in people's lives, which is what republicans and conservatives always tout, less government.

A bit hypocritical in my view.
 
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.

There is no reasonable doubt that the issue about whether people have the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. Both sides agree with this, regardless of their preferences concerning terms.


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.

Regardless of how one feels concerning the definition of the word "person" as commonly used, the fact remains that the only definition that matters is the one the Framers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution. Just as you are free to use the word "person" as you see fit, so too were the Framers, and when they wrote the Constitution, the unborn were not included.



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".

That's patently untrue. It is exceedingly clear that those who oppose the right to have an abortion base their position on morality.

But this is not an abortion thread, so I will apologize to everyone here for derailing the thread, and will not respond to any more discussion about the issue. Feel free to have the last word.
 
It allowed her and her doctor to commit an immoral act....so YES it did.

How is that? Because Roe v Wade is the law, and that doesn't fit the conservative agenda? You want to strip the laws of the land to suit the conservative righteous morals? Whilst interfering with other people's lives? I always thought conservatives were for less government. I doesn't look that way to me today, nor did it look that way to me in the past 40+ years I've been voting.
 
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?

While there can be no reasonable doubt that the law has some basis in morality, and some laws demonstrate that clearly, the law can also be justified on the basis that their purpose is to ensure the maintenance of an orderly and civil society. I don't think it requires an excess of logic to see how allowing murder would lead to a disordered and uncivil society.

And while "the maintenance of an orderly and civil society" can be seen as an ethical value, it could also be seen as a selfish one too.
 
How is that? Because Roe v Wade is the law, and that doesn't fit the conservative agenda? You want to strip the laws of the land to suit the conservative righteous morals? Whilst interfering with other people's lives? I always thought conservatives were for less government. I doesn't look that way to me today, nor did it look that way to me in the past 40+ years I've been voting.

Well the GOP has gotten away from the less government ideal but, I personally don't want the government to be making murder legal. Down with RvW.
 
Well the GOP has gotten away from the less government ideal but, I personally don't want the government to be making murder legal. Down with RvW.

I've served up my last comment on this thread, it's led to bickering.
 
"IDK" and other are much the same...
Both the people and our government must work on this and work together...
One, without the other, would be futile at best.
No vote, as usual...
It simply has to be the people and our Government working together...
After man fully grows up and matures, then he can petition government to "legalize" murder...
Imagine, if you will, a world where NO-ONE commits mudrder....so , to have murder illegal or legal would be meaningless...
 
Last edited:
We accept that there is a connection between law and morality, but what sort of connection is it? Their domains are clearly not entirely identical - for example, it may be wrong to lie to your parents, but it certainly is no business of the law. Perhaps the best way to explain this is to acknowledge that the law is an extremely blunt tool.

Law is the mechanism (usually a set of norms/rules with corresponding sanctions) by which we define interpersonal relations. Morality is the categorization of human behaviors as “good” and “bad”, which, is a wholly personal, subjective exercise without recourse to objective moral truth or authority.

It is the governments job to make laws, enforce and govern by them, based on the concepts of justice, equality and rights. These principles are simple and basic in nature, so as not to confuse the whole process with the varying types of religious or personal moralities, which are individual standards based on personal values and faith. The structure of our legal-governing values has to be based on "the rule of law" and equity of results.

The legal maxim of this standard is "equity regards as done what should have been done", or "equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy". This is stating that basically everyone has equal rights under the law and justice is blind and impartial to station, position or wealth.

Basing the governments rule on the ever changing standards of personal morality and social ethics would be a mistake. All cases and legal decisions have to revert back to the simple maxims of law, to dodge the exceedingly complex details of morality based on subjective personal views.

That's why we often see the Law as too literal and unfair, not considering our individually biased viewpoints and emotional judgments. There has to be a common ground that all opinions fall on and settle, as the fairest possible outcome, or nothing would ever be ruled on.
 
So by your standards, whatever they might be, it is okay for lawmakers of our government to interfere with people's everyday lives, including telling people what they can and cannot do in bedrooms, or with their own body.

That's pretty telling of a conservative's take on wanting little or no government involved in people's lives, which is what republicans and conservatives always tout, less government.

A bit hypocritical in my view.

I never had the government tell me what I can do in my bedroom. I keep my bedroom affairs and my bedroom preferences private. You don't?
 
We accept that there is a connection between law and morality, but what sort of connection is it? Their domains are clearly not entirely identical - for example, it may be wrong to lie to your parents, but it certainly is no business of the law. Perhaps the best way to explain this is to acknowledge that the law is an extremely blunt tool.

Law is the mechanism (usually a set of norms/rules with corresponding sanctions) by which we define interpersonal relations. Morality is the categorization of human behaviors as “good” and “bad”, which, is a wholly personal, subjective exercise without recourse to objective moral truth or authority.

It is the governments job to make laws, enforce and govern by them, based on the concepts of justice, equality and rights. These principles are simple and basic in nature, so as not to confuse the whole process with the varying types of religious or personal moralities, which are individual standards based on personal values and faith. The structure of our legal-governing values has to be based on "the rule of law" and equity of results.

The legal maxim of this standard is "equity regards as done what should have been done", or "equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy". This is stating that basically everyone has equal rights under the law and justice is blind and impartial to station, position or wealth.

Basing the governments rule on the ever changing standards of personal morality and social ethics would be a mistake. All cases and legal decisions have to revert back to the simple maxims of law, to dodge the exceedingly complex details of morality based on subjective personal views.

That's why we often see the Law as too literal and unfair, not considering our individually biased viewpoints and emotional judgments. There has to be a common ground that all opinions fall on and settle, as the fairest possible outcome, or nothing would ever be ruled on.

Pretty good but I would change "interpersonal relations" to "social relations"
 
Ultimately, all morality comes from the people anyhow, but then the people are supposed to vote in elected officials that represent the will of the people so the government ought to eventually come to pass laws that represent the morality of the people. Unfortunately, our system is so horribly broken that it doesn't work that way anymore.
 
Morality is subjective. Therefore only individuals can manage their own set of morals. Collective management of morals ranges between not enough and too much management to the point of either way individual liberties are sacrificed. Laws exist as public order not a management of morality.
 
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!

Actually, lots of people think the ACA is immoral and the GOP is a political party, they are not part of the government, only the elected officials that come from their ranks are part of the government. Try again.
 
I never had the government tell me what I can do in my bedroom. I keep my bedroom affairs and my bedroom preferences private. You don't?

If you're a female, living in my state, and if you are raped, become pregnant from the rape, Wisconsin will invade your vagina with a probe, to see if you "qualify" for an abortion. Wisconsin doesn't call it a vaginal probe though, they've reworded the law to make it sound like something pleasant.

This is government meddling in a woman's right to choose, and the law was written by the conservative (republican held) legislature. So, this is basically telling women what they can and cannot do with their own body.

This could be construed as both immoral and illegal, but when a majority of right wing people rule the roost, this is what happens.

Busted: Republicans

You may have heard defenders of Republicans, who are claiming the right to rape women with the authority of the state via their many ultrasound laws currently sweeping the nation via the state level, explain that some of these laws do not mandate a vaginal probe, and therefore are not rape.

After all, it would be politically costly, even for rape-denying Republicans, to not only legalize rape, but to mandate it. They found this out when they tried to mandate vaginal ultrasounds in Virginia.

You see, rape is defined by the Justice Department and FBI (for reporting/statistical purposes – note that state by state definitions of rape vary) as, “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
 
Actually, lots of people think the ACA is immoral and the GOP is a political party, they are not part of the government, only the elected officials that come from their ranks are part of the government. Try again.

I contend the GOP is part of the political agenda in DC, the moral right wing, just as conservatives lump the democrats with liberals. Both have political and moral agendas. The conservative agenda or GOP agenda is the worst of the two. Conservatives label liberals as being immoral.

Conservative Christians are a group to fear IMHO. I don't need to go into detail how they have gathered at abortion clinics and have killed to prevent what they claim are moral sins.
 
Last edited:
Pretty good but I would change "interpersonal relations" to "social relations"

I'm amazed that anyone read it. Basically that "the rule of law" is a more simple set of social rules we agree to adhere to for civilization purposes. Whereas, moral values are personal ethics that guide us beyond the basic laws of society. We accept that we're ultimately self governed by free will and personal choices, not physically forced to live a particular way by majority or government.


Social relations - normatively defined relationship and the expected pattern of interaction between two or more people, resulting from possession of the roles and social positions, subject to social control.

Interpersonal relations - is a strong, deep, or close association/acquaintance between two or more people that may range in duration from brief to enduring. This association may be based on inference, love, solidarity, regular business interactions, or some other type of social commitment.
 
I'm amazed that anyone read it. Basically that "the rule of law" is a more simple set of social rules we agree to adhere to for civilization purposes. Whereas, moral values are personal ethics that guide us beyond the basic laws of society. We accept that we're ultimately self governed by free will and personal choices, not physically forced to live a particular way by majority or government.

The bolded is something often forgotten by many on the internet. Particularly by the libertarians even though that very idea was endorsed by all of the notable libertarian philosphers I'm familiar with.
 
The bolded is something often forgotten by many on the internet. Particularly by the libertarians even though that very idea was endorsed by all of the notable libertarian philosphers I'm familiar with.

They want free markets, capitalism or corporate winners to be the ultimate deciding forces, as far as I can tell. They somehow think that's the equivalent to "the people ruling", instead of the government or elitist political leaders. That's just a form of plutocracy, where those who have the most money make the rules, which is actually what's already happening.
 
They want free markets, capitalism or corporate winners to be the ultimate deciding forces, as far as I can tell. They somehow think that's the equivalent to "the people ruling", instead of the government or elitist political leaders. That's just a form of plutocracy, where those who have the most money make the rules, which is actually what's already happening.

Because corporation cater to the lowest common denominator, and they identify with that
 
If you're a female, living in my state, and if you are raped, become pregnant from the rape, Wisconsin will invade your vagina with a probe, to see if you "qualify" for an abortion. Wisconsin doesn't call it a vaginal probe though, they've reworded the law to make it sound like something pleasant.

This is government meddling in a woman's right to choose, and the law was written by the conservative (republican held) legislature. So, this is basically telling women what they can and cannot do with their own body.

This could be construed as both immoral and illegal, but when a majority of right wing people rule the roost, this is what happens.

Busted: Republicans

That's an abortion law, not a rape law.

I don't oppose a woman's choice to have an abortion. I also don't oppose making her hear the fetus heartbeat before she does it. With the right comes a responsibility. Take it or leave it.

By the way, the WI bill contains this language:

This bill requires, except in a medical emergency and except in the situation
where the pregnancy is the result of sexual assault or incest, that before a person may

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
perform or induce an abortion the physician who is to perform or induce the abortion
or any physician requested by the pregnant woman must do all of the following:


So no, if you're pregnant because of a rape, you aren't subjected to the probe.
 
Back
Top Bottom