"Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run
Mace Windu: Then our worst fears have been realized. We must move quickly if the Jedi Order is to survive.
The fact the government can and should legislate or enforce morality doesn't necessarily mean they should do it at all times in all ways. Some are ones society generally agrees is wrong and agrees its okay for government to act against (Theft, murder, etc). Some are controversial, such as obscinity laws. Some are things people by and large feel are wrong, but feel the government shouldn't act on, like cheating on ones boyfriend/girlfriend.
But as a general sense, if you were simply to ask whether or not government should be enforcing morality as a broad statement...my answer would be yes.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
I know some people have argued that the libertarian approach to government is also a moral one. And to certain folks, specifically those that come from an Objectivist way of thinking, it is a moral argument. But the reason I want to limit government to preventing people from harming each other or using force against each other to be a moral position. It comes from a much more basic human desire .... self interest. If by giving up the right to harm others against their will, I recieve protection from others harming me against my will, I consider that to be a great bargin wholely within my own interests. I'm free to live as I please without seriously worrying about my neighbors ransacking my belongings if I leave them unattended or even killing me in my sleep.
Last edited by Psychoclown; 02-02-11 at 01:20 PM.
Slipping into madness is good for the sake of comparison - Unknown.
There are consequences for adulterating, lying, and cheating, but you won't be arrested because there's no moral law against your action.
HELPING HILLARY PICK OUT HER INAUGURAL GOWN!The jokes write themselves!
Given what you said, that the government should only intervene if someone is taking away someone elses rights I would say a libertarians ethics would be the best fit. In my opinion the most compelling arguments from libertarians come from utilitarianism. Basically you would argue that giving freedom to individuals leads to favorable consequences. Therefore we should support it.
Here is a good article on something very similar:
Morality itself is based on logical arguments to preserve a large group of people living together. With that said, the government should police/legislate certain aspects of 'morality' in order to keep some sort of order. What should be measured is the limits of this legislation. It doesn't benefit anybody for us to be able to murder without consequence. It also doesn't benefit anybody to make rape legal. As long as the legislation does not infringe on the man-made rights, benefits etc of others, I do not see a problem with 'legislating morality'.
Last edited by Hatuey; 02-02-11 at 06:06 PM.
I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK
As a moral relativist, no.
Legislating morality would be immoral because it subverts the life and freedom of other beings.
The one moral the government can rightfully administer is justice, which is stopping people from imposing on the lives and freedoms of others to the point the imposition threatens the continued existence of these beings' lives and freedoms.
Hence the term, justice system.
Last edited by Morality Games; 02-02-11 at 09:54 PM.
If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.
Most laws coincide with popular morality, but a good law isn't based solely on morality. The people have a right to chose laws to protect themselves against others in society. If a law doesn't do that but instead meddles in private affairs that don't affect anybody else, it should go.