• 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!

Should the government legislate morality?

Yes or No?

  • Total voters
    42
Your Star

Your Star

Rage More!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,392
Reaction score
20,164
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Socialist
Should the government force a person to live a moral life,(if so, who decides what is moral?), or should the government let the individual have the responsibility of living a moral life.
 
Your Star said:
Should the government force a person to live a moral life,(if so, who decides what is moral?), or should the government let the individual have the responsibility of living a moral life.
Click to expand...

Since a lot of our laws are based on morality, I don't believe that the government FORCES someone to do so, but if they do not there are certainly consequences.
 
Like CC said, all laws are morally based. There are consequences for not obeying the law. So the government doesn't exactly force people to live a moral life, but it does punish them for not doing so.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Since a lot of our laws are based on morality, I don't believe that the government FORCES someone to do so, but if they do not there are certainly consequences.
Click to expand...

Well yes and no. Some laws are based on a certain morality code.. murder, rape, child abuse, crime.

However what I understand by the question is laws like.. sodomy laws, anti-homosexual laws, laws banning porn and so on and so on. Laws that try to force the population into "better morality" based on religious dogma.
 
Your Star said:
Should the government force a person to live a moral life,(if so, who decides what is moral?), or should the government let the individual have the responsibility of living a moral life.
Click to expand...

Almost all laws are in some sense legislating morality. It is impossible for a government not to do so.
 
Your Star said:
Should the government force a person to live a moral life,(if so, who decides what is moral?), or should the government let the individual have the responsibility of living a moral life.
Click to expand...

Our laws are based on morality. Laws against stealing,rape,murder, and so on are based on morality. So it is a silly to say that the government shouldn't legislate morality.
 
Your Star said:
Should the government force a person to live a moral life,(if so, who decides what is moral?), or should the government let the individual have the responsibility of living a moral life.
Click to expand...

Depends. What do you mean by morality?

If we're talking about banning same-sex marriage and waging a war on drugs because they make Baby Jesus cry, then no, government should not be involved. If we're talking about deciding together, as a society, that there are certain things we aren't willing to tolerate (e.g. human rights abuses, corporations taking advantage of weak people, being unable to get health care when you get sick), then yes, government absolutely should be involved.
 
Last edited:
The government legislates morality all the time, such as making murder a felony. I'm okay with murder being a crime.
 
Kandahar said:
Depends. What do you mean by morality?

If we're talking about banning same-sex marriage and waging a war on drugs because they make Baby Jesus cry, then no, government should not be involved. If we're talking about deciding together, as a society, that there are certain things we aren't willing to tolerate (e.g. human rights abuses, corporations taking advantage of weak people, being unable to get health care when you get sick), then yes, government absolutely should be involved.
Click to expand...

And what if we decide together, as a society, that we aren't willing to tolerate homosexuality?

All laws are based on morals, and not everyone will always agree with those morals. The best we can do is impose laws that agree with most people's personal moral compass.
 
The government should not legislate morality. The government should legislate behavior which harms other people without their consent. That covers not only the obvious crimes of violence, but also acts of fraud, theft, vandelism, contractual violations, etc. These are society laws.

The government should not legislate "moral" behavior such as sexual orientation, forced church attendance, specific systems of belief (religious or otherrwise), any behavior between consenting adults, or victimless behavior, like prostitution and use of drugs, alcohol or tobacco (although the government can certainly legislate the consequence of recklessly abusing these substances, creating potential harm to others in the process).
 
DiAnna said:
The government should not legislate morality. The government should legislate behavior which harms other people without their consent. That covers not only the obvious crimes of violence, but also acts of fraud, theft, vandelism, contractual violations, etc. These are society laws.

The government should not legislate "moral" behavior such as sexual orientation, forced church attendance, specific systems of belief (religious or otherrwise), any behavior between consenting adults, or victimless behavior, like prostitution and use of drugs, alcohol or tobacco (although the government can certainly legislate the consequence of recklessly abusing these substances, creating potential harm to others in the process).
Click to expand...
The government already does legislate morality. All those things you called "society laws" are based on moral concepts. So I vote yes.

Incidentally you say nothing between consenting adults should be illegal. How about if an adult brother and sister want to get married? It's gross, I know but I'm not the one advocating it be legal.
 
Last edited:
Should we send adulterers to federal prison? No? Then we're not legislating morality.
 
Mickey Shane said:
Should we send adulterers to federal prison? No? Then we're not legislating morality.
Click to expand...
Yes, because that is the only thing that has moral implications.:roll:
 
X Factor said:
The government already does legislate morality. All those things you called "society laws" are based on moral concepts. So I vote yes.
Click to expand...

And you'd be wrong, but this is America and you have every right to be wrong! :mrgreen:

Incidentally you say nothing between consenting adults should be illegal. How about if an adult brother and sister want to get married? It's gross, I know but I'm not the one advocating it be legal.
Click to expand...

Have a seat so you don't faint. Are you sitting down? Good. Because the fact is that I personally don't care if brothers and sisters want to get married. I consider it a huge ick factor myself, but I don't believe the government has the right to criminalize it. Or bigamy. Or polygamy, for that matter. All I care about is that all parties are consenting adults, not duped spouses being lied to by someone with a secret life.

Grown ups have a right to do icky things, things I personally would never do. I don't believe the government has the right to criminalize behaviors between consenting adults, period. And yes, that extends to assisted suicide. Government needs to keep our society safe from those who would infringe upon our bodies, our property and our freedoms without our consent. Morality is not in the government's job description as far as I'm concerned.
 
DiAnna said:
And you'd be wrong, but this is America and you have every right to be wrong! :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Are not morals the laws or rules dealing with right and wrong?
 
DiAnna said:
The government should not legislate morality. The government should legislate behavior which harms other people without their consent. That covers not only the obvious crimes of violence, but also acts of fraud, theft, vandelism, contractual violations, etc. These are society laws.

The government should not legislate "moral" behavior such as sexual orientation, forced church attendance, specific systems of belief (religious or otherrwise), any behavior between consenting adults, or victimless behavior, like prostitution and use of drugs, alcohol or tobacco (although the government can certainly legislate the consequence of recklessly abusing these substances, creating potential harm to others in the process).
Click to expand...

I agree with some of your conclusions, but I think you are begging the question. You are speaking of what you think the limits of government should be. You are necessarily using some sort of political morality to decide what the limits of government are. If you are going to make, or establish laws (legislate), you therefore have to invoke some theory of political morality to decide what those laws should or should not be.
 
No, Star...I love ya and think you represent yourself very well...but I am not changing my mind re gay marriage...
 
drz-400 said:
I agree with some of your conclusions, but I think you are begging the question. You are speaking of what you think the limits of government should be. You are necessarily using some sort of political morality to decide what the limits of government are. If you are going to make, or establish laws (legislate), you therefore have to invoke some theory of political morality to decide what those laws should or should not be.
Click to expand...

What conclusions of mine do you believe are incorrect, and what theory of political morality do you believe I should invoke in order to support my conclusions? Serious question, not a troll at all.
 
PeteEU said:
Well yes and no. Some laws are based on a certain morality code.. murder, rape, child abuse, crime.

However what I understand by the question is laws like.. sodomy laws, anti-homosexual laws, laws banning porn and so on and so on. Laws that try to force the population into "better morality" based on religious dogma.
Click to expand...

These laws are also based on morality. Perhaps not EVERYONE'S morality, but morality nonetheless.
 
Your Star said:
Should the government force a person to live a moral life,(if so, who decides what is moral?), or should the government let the individual have the responsibility of living a moral life.
Click to expand...

As a broad idea...yes, the government absolutely should legislate or punish or create consequences for morality. The idea of infringing upon someone's rights being "wrong" is in and of itself morality.

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.
 
Kandahar said:
Depends. What do you mean by morality?

If we're talking about banning same-sex marriage and waging a war on drugs because they make Baby Jesus cry, then no, government should not be involved. If we're talking about deciding together, as a society, that there are certain things we aren't willing to tolerate (e.g. human rights abuses, corporations taking advantage of weak people, being unable to get health care when you get sick), then yes, government absolutely should be involved.
Click to expand...

Essentially you're saying government should operate based on your moral priorities, but not the moral priorities of others. Which I guess is fine as long as you accept that we live in a democracy and if 50%+1 of the population happen to have a different moral standard than yours, you'll live under their moral code. But don't cry when some people want to legislate according to their beliefs in baby Jesus, or Muhammad's law, or the writings of L. Ron Hubbard. I don't see how you can say its OK to legislate universal healthcare on the basis of morality, but its not OK to ban drugs or gay marriage on the same basis of morality.

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:
X Factor said:
Yes, because that is the only thing that has moral implications.:roll:
Click to expand...

What about lying? We have a law against lying under oath as if that covers it. We're never under oath, yet there's no legal punishment for a liar. Cheating is similar. You might get in trouble for cheating on your taxes, or insider trading, but feel free to cheat your friends and associates because it's not illegal by law.
There are consequences for adulterating, lying, and cheating, but you won't be arrested because there's no moral law against your action.
 
DiAnna said:
What conclusions of mine do you believe are incorrect, and what theory of political morality do you believe I should invoke in order to support my conclusions? Serious question, not a troll at all.
Click to expand...

I guess I said some. I would say I agree with your conclusions except I am not sure how far you were reaching with drug liberalization. I agree with pot, but I haven't been convinced that hard drugs being legalized will make us better off. However, that is not the subject of this thread.

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:

Liberal Ethics
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom