• 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

cpgrad08

American
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
5,681
Reaction score
3,023
Location
WA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
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?
 
Last edited:
This came up with a discussion with Trigger. 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?

No, absolutely not, please tell your GOP representative to get the f*ck out of America's bedrooms and out of women's lives.
 
No, absolutely not, please tell your GOP representative to get the f*ck out of America's bedrooms and out of women's lives.

The GOP is only party the trys to regulate Morality? Also the thread is about the government in general not about political parties, nice try at derailing the tread.
 
The GOP is only party the trys to regulate Morality? Also the thread is about the government in general not about political parties, nice try at derailing the tread.

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!
 
The GOP is only party the trys to regulate Morality? Also the thread is about the government in general not about political parties, nice try at derailing the tread.

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.
 
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?

Morality is what is right and wrong.So yes it is government's job to regulate it.Thats why we have laws against stealing, murder and many other things.

Moral | Define Moral at Dictionary.com
.
of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
 
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?

I voted yes. Otherwise I don't see what purpose government serves.

However, the government should only enforce the code of morality as defined by law. It shouldn't try to enforce moral codes outside of the written law of the land such as moral codes based on Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism or anything like that. The only morals that should be enforced are the morals that are specifically defined by law.

Does that make sense?

I voted Yes.

The personal morals of an individual aren't even necessary to discuss. A person can follow a moral code that exceeds the law with or without permission. For example: Evangelical Christians may have a moral code that requires them to constantly tell others about their religion. It should not be mandated by law that all persons be required to constantly tell others about their religion. Another example: Someone from a Judeo-Christian background may have a moral code that prohibits all stealing. That doesn't mean the government should arrest people for stealing paper clips. That would be an impractical moral code to enforce. The moral code of government should be a lot more practical in nature rather than dogmatic. That's just two examples. I am sure there are many more.
 
I'm not 100% sure what you're asking. If you're asking if I think the government defines ethics, then no. I'm a moral realist.
 
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.
 
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.

But don't you think the government should force morality on the people who do want to cause you harm in the form of violence? Shouldn't the government at least enforce morals that protects people from physical violence or theft?

They can still enforce those morals and allow people to have sex with pigs at the same time. But is the pig hurt during the sex? Does the pig's constitutional rights apply?

I disagree. The government should protect me from immoral actions by enforcing morals.
 
But don't you think the government should force morality on the people who do want to cause you harm in the form of violence? Shouldn't the government at least enforce morals that protects people from physical violence or theft?

Please read what I wrote again. I addressed that.

They can still enforce those morals and allow people to have sex with pigs at the same time. But is the pig hurt during the sex? Does the pig's constitutional rights apply?

Beastiality, as nasty as it is, should not be legislated. Some weirdo going out and having sex with a pig does not hurt me or anybody else. You could argue that it "hurts" the pig, but in order for this to be a valid justification you'd have to be consistent and also ban slaughtering pigs.

Victimless crimes should not be legislated. When you use violence and coercion against peaceful acting people, you're the criminal.
 
Victimless crimes should not be legislated.
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.
 
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.

That's not legislation of morality, that's protection of natural rights. Big difference
 
The GOP is only party the trys to regulate Morality? Also the thread is about the government in general not about political parties, nice try at derailing the tread.

You are right. Since Republicans have proven unfit to govern they are not to be discussed when talking about "government".
 
That's not legislation of morality, that's protection of natural rights. Big difference

Shouldn't they enforce a code of morality that advocates the protection of natural rights? or should the government just exist for the sake of existing? With no purpose or function?
 
Shouldn't they enforce a code of morality that advocates the protection of natural rights? or should the government just exist for the sake of existing?

It's not about morality, it's about protection of individuals. Murder being against the law has nothing to do with it being wrong, it has to do with the fact that it infringes on somebody's natural rights.
 
That's not legislation of morality, that's protection of natural rights. Big difference

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.
 
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.

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.

Should the government tell us how much soda to drink...not so much.
 
You are right. Since Republicans have proven unfit to govern they are not to be discussed when talking about "government".

It is what it is. Reality should never be ignored no matter how unpleasant it might be. We have to work with what we have. The alternative is not to work at all.
 
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.

Should the government tell us how much soda to drink...not so much.

If society decides it is harmful to society as a whole, then the society as a whole is responsible for making those decisions. Sometimes making society better by upgrading their current code of morality is unenforceable. A good example is prohibition. 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.

I don't think we should give up on making ourselves a better nation, better state, better county, better city or better community. It should just be done with reason and sound judgement.
 
Of course. But most people define morality more loosely than I do.
 
If society decides it is harmful to society as a whole, then the society as a whole is responsible for making those decisions. Sometimes making society better by upgrading their current code of morality is unenforceable. A good example is prohibition. 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.

I don't think we should give up on making ourselves a better nation, better state, better county, better city or better community. It should just be done with reason and sound judgement.

I don't know what a superior moral code is; but in your example the people chose. Whether prohibition stood or if prohibition failed...it was decided by the people. Their moral code, in the end, is the law.

If you fear that society will not chose wisely the laws it passes...that is not a failure of the supreme law of the land. That is a failure in judgement, and judgement cannot be legislated.
 
Murder being against the law has nothing to do with it being wrong, it has to do with the fact that it infringes on somebody's natural rights.

It's still a moral claim. Ought statements are moral by definition. "One ought not to X" (in this case X=infringe on somebody's natural rights) is a moral claim. Another way of phrasing that same exact claim is "X is wrong". Colloquially, they are interchangeable.
 
Government should only prevent acts and behavior that harms others. Being offended or having one's sensibilities vioalated is not harm.
 
Back
Top Bottom