• 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
1750Texan said:
I don't know what a superior moral code is;
Click to expand...

Moral code: Don't steal anything over $200

Superior moral code: Don't steal anything over $10

A superior moral code would be a code that is more demanding than the one you would be comparing it to.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
Moral code: Don't steal anything over $200

Superior moral code: Don't steal anything over $10

A superior moral code would be a code that is more demanding than the one you would be comparing it to.
Click to expand...

In what law book or US code can I find these "superior moral codes"
 
vasuderatorrent said:
It is noble for society to decide that we should be a better group of people but sometimes managing the choices of a large group of individuals is similiar to herding cats. The harm done by attempting to enforce the superior moral code is more damaging to society than the vice itself.
Click to expand...

Telling people what they can or can't put in their bodies is neither noble nor moral. That's why prohibition sucks.
 
1750Texan said:
but in your example the people chose.
Click to expand...

The people are the government. This thread is confusing the crap out of me. I think some of the words are being redefined.

Which government are we talking about? I assumed we were discussing the United States government which is a democratic-republic. With that in mind, Option 1 and Option 2 are identical.

This is just a bunch of arguing over what word means what and who can scream the loudest to demand that it means something different.

I don't think this can even be discussed if every participant is free to redefine words at their leisure which prohibits the ability of any of us from making a point at all.
 
1750Texan said:
In what law book or US code can I find these "superior moral codes"
Click to expand...

I guess you could compare one state law to an other state's law. You could pretty much compare any two laws that are in relationship to another law regarding the same topic. :shrug:

I don't mean superior as in better. I meant superior as in dominant. If a law demands more it is more overreaching than a law that demands less.

You are offended at my use of the word 'moral' and the use of the word 'superior'. This thread is really useless since these words are being interchanged frequently from one poster to the next.

I think I am wasting my time in this thread that will yield 0 changed minds. There is too much confusion on what is being said and what is not being said. That could have been the intention of the OP. I'm not sure. :shrug:
 
Some immoral things should be illegal. Murder and slavery are good examples.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
The people are the government. This thread is confusing the crap out of me. I think some of the words are being redefined.

Which government are we talking about? I assumed we were discussing the United States government which is a democratic-republic. With that in mind, Option 1 and Option 2 are identical.

This is just a bunch of arguing over what word means what and who can scream the loudest to demand that it means something different.

I don't think this can even be discussed if every participant is free to redefine words at their leisure which prohibits the ability of any of us from making a point at all.
Click to expand...

My quote:
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.
Click to expand...


Your quote:
It is noble for society to decide that we should be a better group of people but sometimes managing the choices of a large group of individuals is similiar to herding cats. The harm done by attempting to enforce the superior moral code is more damaging to society than the vice itself.
Click to expand...

My bottom line is that if the people chose...whether that choice be right, wrong, damaging, or uplifting...the people through their government are the final aribitors of the moral code.
 
TeleKat said:
That's not legislation of morality, that's protection of natural rights. Big difference
Click to expand...
From a linguistic perspective, you're contradicting facts.
 
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...

You want to stay on topic or should I pull up the Democrat's Jim Crow Laws. The pointt is both parties try to do it at certain points in history. Doesn't make it right.
 
TeleKat said:
No, not really.
Click to expand...

Rights are moral constructs. And supposing that we ought not violate natural rights is a moral stance by definition. If you want to define "morality" in a different way that it's usually taken to mean, fine, but you're just arguing semantics.
 
Hatuey said:
I think we should stop speaking in parties and speak in ideologies. The same people who today fashion ideas of being like the founding fathers, are also the most likely to be social prudes and private deviants. The same people who don't want to be harsh on men like Bernie Maddoff stealing Trillions want to be tough on Michael by giving him 8 years for stealing a TV. The same guys who want to ban strip clubs have been found in them. With this all in mind, I think, Conservatives try to regulate try to regulate morality far more than Liberals. Liberals however try to regulate activities where people can be hurt. Centrists on a general basis aren't even all that opposed to most things weren't hurt - which morphs into a disregard for law once you get to Libertarians. I'd say from a perspective of activities which don't hurt anyone and can be considered "immoral" - the conservatives are far more likely to regulate them.

As far it being the job of a government's job to regulate morality, I'd say no. However, it's alright to have some precautions in place. If nothing else, to ensure immoral activities which can hurt people don't happen.
Click to expand...

great point
 
vasuderatorrent said:
This really isn't a political discussion. This is a lingual discussion. How should the word moral be defined? That is really what we are arguing over.

We agree on the proper role of government. We strongly disagree on the definition of morality.

Moral = good Immoral = bad

The things that are bad for society or good for society are different than the things that are good for the individual or bad for the individual. Individuals should impose stricter moral codes upon one's own self than the moral code that society must impose upon itself. An individual is a lot less complex than a collective group of individuals. The individual and the government are entirely different entities. Their moral codes should be entirely different.

Yes. The individual should live by a set of morals.

Yes. The government should live by a set of morals.
Click to expand...

That's way too simplistic. What defines something as "good" vs "bad" ?

An individual is a lot less complex than a collective group of individuals.
Click to expand...
I would debate that
 
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...

I don't see this as a moral issue. It's about behaviors. You can have whatever internal moral code you chose but you can not behave however you chose. Where do we draw the line? When the behaviors you chose cause others harm.
 
Morality exists independently of the government. The government should prohibit immoral actions which cause harm to others (and I do not mean that in a strictly materialist way).
 
I suspect we're not all talking about the same thing when we use the words "morals" or "morality". That said, a government is made up of people. Ours, as a representative government, is especially so. It doesn't really decide right and wrong independently of the people in it, and they come from the same culture (more or less) as the rest of us. A government like ours exists only to do the will of the people. That includes issues related to what some might call morality.

Let's ignore the sexual issues for the moment. It is our determination as a culture that a creative person is morally entitled to compensation, moreso than people are morally entitled to experience all the art, music, technology, and culture created. Thus, we have copyrights and patents. That's just as much a moral determination as any.

Our government reflects our views, but it can also be used to help shape some of those views. Racism is far less acceptable today than it was even in 1970. The law changed to reflect what was a growing value for racial equality, and those laws have helped push that value into an increasingly stronger position. It is a positive feedback loop, though it can be used for good or for ill.
 
TeleKat said:
No, it is not the government's job to force morality. If no one is doing me harm, I have no right to use coercion and violence against them. Just because I disagree with them, or find their actions weird, does not give me the right to throw them in a cage or hire someone else (the government) to do it for me.
Click to expand...

Morality is regulated every single day from a Libertarian perspective even if the actions aren't necessarily hurting someone. We don't allow kids to engage in animal sacrifice or allow kids to bring guns to the classroom. We don't allow 10 year old kids to buy cigarettes even if the sale of the product isn't hurting them. Laws are not dependent on whether your actions are hurting someone, they are dependent on what is best to keep a well working society - and that goes for pretty much every system of governance. The degree to which morality should be regulated is what is in question. Which leads to the question of: What moral system should we use to regulate it? Should we regulate immoral behavior if it doesn't hurt people? Should we regulate immoral behavior if it hurts people? Should we not regulate moral behavior even if it hurts people? Should we regulate moral behavior if it doesn't hurt people? Don't get me wrong: Immoral and moral behavior are not the standards that should be used to determine whether something should be regulated or not regulated because what is moral and immoral are subjective. However, they can certainly be used in regulating that which is beneficial and that which isn't beneficial to society and that definitely should be regulated.
 
Some aspects of morality, yes. Like not being able to legally murder, keep substances bad for society and individuals (drugs) illegal and punishing fraud and not upholding contracts. Almost any law can be traced back to an aspect of morality or a moral reason.
 
How can we regulate all that is moral or immoral? What is moral? What is immoral? I would suggest getting a book on ethics because even after reading one you won't know the answer.
 
cpgrad08 said:
You want to stay on topic or should I pull up the Democrat's Jim Crow Laws. The pointt is both parties try to do it at certain points in history. Doesn't make it right.
Click to expand...

I am on topic, you're the one that wishes to change your own thread. Go ahead, pull the Jim Crow card, you probably wanted to make this a black/white issue anyways.

This is the perfect example of government intrusions into people's (especially women's) private lives, vaginal probes, but republicans reworded the law in Wisconsin to make it sound like they're not intruding...

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/07/08/republican-laws-ultrasound-vaginal-probe.html

Now, what were you saying about the topic?
 
Last edited:
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...

It should enforce some morality and "promote" other aspects. It's in the United States' best interest to foster a culture of civic duty and republican responsibility.
 
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...

It is the job of the People/Society UNTIL or UNLESS they choose to regulate Morality improperly OR not to enforce it at all (which is what American Society does now). At the point that the People/Society no longer undertake that responsibility, it is the role of the Government to step in and pick up the slack, enforcing proper Morals BY WHATEVER MEANS ARE NECESSARY.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
Fair enough.

What about victimful crimes? Shouldn't the government protect me from these immoral acts such as rape, murder or assault? These are morals that should be legislated.

That's why I voted yes. The only purpose of government is to enforce morality. That's the only reason that government exists.
Click to expand...

The government should protect people from other people. The government has no business protecting people from themselves.
 
AJiveMan said:
I am on topic, you're the one that wishes to change your own thread. Go ahead, pull the Jim Crow card, you probably wanted to make this a black/white issue anyways.

This is the perfect example of government intrusions into people's (especially women's) private lives, vaginal probes, but republicans reworded the law in Wisconsin to make it sound like they're not intruding...

Busted: Republicans

Now, what were you saying about the topic?
Click to expand...

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom