Morality based on fairness (i.e. its bad to kill someone or steal from someone or rape someone who has done nothing and just trying to go about their business) fine. Morality based on what some 2,000 year old book says is "right" or based on what will be "better" for someone who didn't ask for government advice and who's decisions aren't harming anyone else - absolutely not.
I voted other, some things they should and others they shouldn't. I think the government should legislate morality in some cases like abortion. However other things the government should not, such as gay marriage.
Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
Certainly some people like society's laws because those laws square with their morals. But, is morality the only possible justification for most laws?
What if, as a society, we decide that we have a consensus that we value certain things simply because we like them. Such as liberty, order, and security? Deciding that we value these things is not a moral decision, it is a selfish one. We value them because it makes the vast majority of us happy to have them. If laws are based on these values, then their justifications need not be moral justifications.
I think it is important that society avoid moral justifications.
As a side note, I think morality largely happens to spring from the same fount as the justifications I propose above, though not entirely. But even so, there is some departure, and it is in those matters where law and morality ought to diverge.
You can never be safe from a government that can keep you completely safe from each other and the world. You must choose.
Catawa is my favorite bleeding heart liberal.
One aspect of law is to define the basic, agreed upon morality of a given society, so it is appropriate for government to "legislate morality". The debate then becomes about the agreed upon morality. Generally speaking, almost everyone is going to push for at least a few laws which are a part of their own moral code, but that are not "agreed upon" by the society as a whole. These proposed laws tend to be shot down.
One of the reasons I consider myself an anti-federalists is because of the interconnected nature of morality and law. I believe that there is a greater likelihood of gaining a social agreement on a specific morality on the small scale, but that as the population affected by the morality increases, the likelihood of agreement decreases and this leads to disenfranchisement and discord within the population.
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.
Before you criticize someone you should walk a mile in their shoes, that way when you do criticize them you'll be a mile away and you'll have their shoes.