• 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!

legislating morality

which laws?


  • Total voters
    33
Yes, but I suspect your'e trying to make a point here, but if so, I'm not seeing what it is.

The point was that based on and justified on, in this context, don't mean the same thing.

Well, sure. Morality can be just as subjective so on that score it's not superior; it's a wash. And that's why a democratically based system for resolving those issues is used. After all, the maintenance of a civil society requires a certain amount of buy in from the general public and a democratic system helps provide that.

A roughly agreed upon morality, in that sense.

IMO, the decision as to which rights to protect and which not should be based on its' effect on the maintenance of a civil society and the promotion of the general welfare. There's no "magic formula" that can be used to tell us for certain where to draw the line. That's why we have a political process.

But you believe a civil society and the general welfare as defined by the Founders to be a good thing. That's based in your morality.
 
The point was that based on and justified on, in this context, don't mean the same thing.

Ahh, I see. But in that case, I disagree. In this thread we have seen some argue that because the framers based the constitution on their moral beliefs, that allows us to justify laws on their morality.

A roughly agreed upon morality, in that sense.

Generally speaking, yes. I think the poll in this thread shows that many do use morality as their basis. However, that does not mean that morality can be the basis of laws. Abortion is a good example of this because even if the majority felt that abortion was immoral, the constitution would still not allow the govt to ban it. However, I will admit that might not be enough to stop a politically minded SCOTUS from allowing the govt to do so.


But you believe a civil society and the general welfare as defined by the Founders to be a good thing. That's based in your morality.

No, it's based on self-interest. It may also be what I think is the moral thing, but it can be justified on the grounds of self-interest alone, making morality superfluous.
 
Ahh, I see. But in that case, I disagree. In this thread we have seen some argue that because the framers based the constitution on their moral beliefs, that allows us to justify laws on their morality.

Someone can argue that, that doesn't mean it's true. The initial basis for something and it's current justification need not be the same thing, at all. The internet was created by the Department of Defense to share research with different universities, does that justify its existence today? Tang was invented for astronauts, astronauts don't justify its existence today. Like...it's the closest something that's not physical can be to a fact: the initial basis for something and it's current justification don't need to be the same. They can be, but they do not have to be. No reason to ignore that that very apparent truism (the initial basis for the creation of Teflon was refrigerator coolant and later usage in nuclear testing; is the justification for Teflon's use either of those things now? Come on, man) just because some people are using it ways you don't agree with.

Generally speaking, yes. I think the poll in this thread shows that many do use morality as their basis. However, that does not mean that morality can be the basis of laws. Abortion is a good example of this because even if the majority felt that abortion was immoral, the constitution would still not allow the govt to ban it. However, I will admit that might not be enough to stop a politically minded SCOTUS from allowing the govt to do so.

The government wouldn't ban it because of another moral principle, mainly that regarding wide-sweeping ideas about freedom and liberty. That, too, is a moral principle, ya know.

No, it's based on self-interest. It may also be what I think is the moral thing, but it can be justified on the grounds of self-interest alone, making morality superfluous.

The protection of private property is not in the self-interest of anyone very poor. I don't think you realize that basically every time you think something is "good" or "bad" that's morality. It's not just religion. You think the protection of private property and general welfare to be good. Ask yourself why: that's your moral principles answering.
 
Someone can argue that, that doesn't mean it's true. The initial basis for something and it's current justification need not be the same thing, at all. The internet was created by the Department of Defense to share research with different universities, does that justify its existence today? Tang was invented for astronauts, astronauts don't justify its existence today. Like...it's the closest something that's not physical can be to a fact: the initial basis for something and it's current justification don't need to be the same. They can be, but they do not have to be. No reason to ignore that that very apparent truism (the initial basis for the creation of Teflon was refrigerator coolant and later usage in nuclear testing; is the justification for Teflon's use either of those things now? Come on, man) just because some people are using it ways you don't agree with.

Yes, I agree. Just because someone argues something doesn't make it true. And in this case, I think it is completely false. Not only does it not mean that the laws must now be based on morality, but I don't believe that the framers based the constitution on their morality.

However, just because the basis doesn't have to remain the justification, that doesn't mean that the basis can not be the justification. It can, and some are using that as their argument - an argument I disagree with and it seems you do too.


The government wouldn't ban it because of another moral principle, mainly that regarding wide-sweeping ideas about freedom and liberty. That, too, is a moral principle, ya know.

I could justify freedom and liberty using self-interest, promotion of the general welfare, etc. I could not justify the banning of abortion in that way.




The protection of private property is not in the self-interest of anyone very poor. I don't think you realize that basically every time you think something is "good" or "bad" that's morality. It's not just religion. You think the protection of private property and general welfare to be good. Ask yourself why: that's your moral principles answering.

Even the poor benefit from the protection of their property, even though they may have less property than most. In addition, the protection of private property (in concert with other laws) allows for the development of an economic order through which they can lift themselves out of poverty.
 
Yes, I agree. Just because someone argues something doesn't make it true. And in this case, I think it is completely false. Not only does it not mean that the laws must now be based on morality, but I don't believe that the framers based the constitution on their morality.

However, just because the basis doesn't have to remain the justification, that doesn't mean that the basis can not be the justification. It can, and some are using that as their argument - an argument I disagree with and it seems you do too.

All I'm saying is that all laws are based on morality. Someone's morality. Whether or not I agree with that morality is a completely different discussion.

I could justify freedom and liberty using self-interest, promotion of the general welfare, etc. I could not justify the banning of abortion in that way.

Sure you could. But you being a proponent of self-interest for all is very telling. Even if you were espousing self-interest for only yourself, screwing over the rest of us in the world, that would still be based on your personal moral code.

Even the poor benefit from the protection of their property, even though they may have less property than most.

And if they have none?

In addition, the protection of private property (in concert with other laws) allows for the development of an economic order through which they can lift themselves out of poverty.

Sometimes. Sometimes it doesn't. Do you like the idea of the poor lifting themselves out of poverty? That's a moral principle, either way.
 
All I'm saying is that all laws are based on morality. Someone's morality. Whether or not I agree with that morality is a completely different discussion.



Sure you could. But you being a proponent of self-interest for all is very telling. Even if you were espousing self-interest for only yourself, screwing over the rest of us in the world, that would still be based on your personal moral code.

I think the difference between us here is that you consider any judgement concerning what is desirable and what is not must be based on some sort of moral code. I disagree with that conclusion.




And if they have none?

Everyone has property




Sometimes. Sometimes it doesn't. Do you like the idea of the poor lifting themselves out of poverty? That's a moral principle, either way.

No, the poor lifting themselves out of poverty is something I can prefer on the basis of selfishness. There situations where one can say "One way is right, but the other benefits me so I'll go with the latter". When people ignore what they think is right, and choose instead that which they like, they are not making a decision based on morality.
 
I think the difference between us here is that you consider any judgement concerning what is desirable and what is not must be based on some sort of moral code. I disagree with that conclusion.

I literally cannot see any possible way in which that conclusion can be wrong.

Everyone has property

What do babies own?

No, the poor lifting themselves out of poverty is something I can prefer on the basis of selfishness. There situations where one can say "One way is right, but the other benefits me so I'll go with the latter". When people ignore what they think is right, and choose instead that which they like, they are not making a decision based on morality.

Morality doesn't need to be something nice. Someone can have a "bad" moral code.
 
I literally cannot see any possible way in which that conclusion can be wrong.

Not seeing something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

What do babies own?

You got me there, but babies can own things. Anyway, the property rights of its' parents does benefit the baby




Morality doesn't need to be something nice. Someone can have a "bad" moral code.

True, but decisions can be made without any regard to any moral code. Sure, there might be a moral code out there that addresses and even condones the position, but that doesn't mean that the position was determined by referencing that moral code.
 
You're right. The left never seeks to control the behaviors of others. Lol.

It's a matter of degree. Which side does it more?

Which side wants to criminalize LGBT behavior, much less let them marry? Which side wants to include teaching creationism in school - as long as it's the "mainstream Christian" version of creationism? Which side outlawed (in OK) any town or county within that state from raising the minimum wage? So much for small government. Which side wants to get rid of sex education in school? If we look at just DP in the poll asking which is better, the freedom to discriminate or freedom from discrimination, which side exclusively defended their 'right' to discriminate on any grounds, including racial? And y'all wonder why so many more racists pop up among conservatives than among liberals....
 
Not seeing something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You realize any opinion you have about what's right or wrong that's not based on something objective is based upon your subjective preferences: morality.

You got me there, but babies can own things. Anyway, the property rights of its' parents does benefit the baby

Assuming they're not an orphan. The point is other systems could benefit the very poor better. Something they might think is more moral, as it were. Because protection private property isn't an objective truth: it's subjective with regards to what one owns. Your preference for it based on your personal morality.

True, but decisions can be made without any regard to any moral code. Sure, there might be a moral code out there that addresses and even condones the position, but that doesn't mean that the position was determined by referencing that moral code.

About what's right and wrong? Like what? We're not talking deciding on a flavor of ice cream.
 
It's a matter of degree. Which side does it more?

Actually, it's a question of quality, not quantity

Which side does it for reasons that are (more) consistent with the constitution, and that promote the general welfare while protecting people's rights?
 
You realize any opinion you have about what's right or wrong that's not based on something objective is based upon your subjective preferences: morality.

No, something being subjective does not make it a matter of morals.



Assuming they're not an orphan. The point is other systems could benefit the very poor better. Something they might think is more moral, as it were. Because protection private property isn't an objective truth: it's subjective with regards to what one owns. Your preference for it based on your personal morality.

If they are an orphan, then the property of its' guardians.

And again, I disagree with subjectiveness makes something a matter of morals.

About what's right and wrong? Like what? We're not talking deciding on a flavor of ice cream.

Again, I can favor a particular tax scheme, not because I think it's right and fair, but because it benefits me. I can favor that tax scheme, not because it benefits me directly, but because it's good for society as a whole which benefits me indirectly.
 
No, something being subjective does not make it a matter of morals.

Subjective about if it's "right" or "wrong" is.

If they are an orphan, then the property of its' guardians.

Orphanages rarely give their property to the children, but regardless: The point is other systems could benefit the very poor better. Something they might think is more moral, as it were. Because protection private property isn't an objective truth: it's subjective with regards to what one owns. Your preference for it based on your personal morality.

And again, I disagree with subjectiveness makes something a matter of morals.

And again, I never said it did. I said subjectivity about something being "right" or "wrong".

Again, I can favor a particular tax scheme, not because I think it's right and fair, but because it benefits me. I can favor that tax scheme, not because it benefits me directly, but because it's good for society as a whole which benefits me indirectly.

But that's about what's "right" or "wrong".
 
which are not based on morality
so now were down to this: are too...is not...are too...is not. We disagree, I had the better argument, and that's ok. Thanks for the discussion.
 
Well if you want the people who apply their own personal sense of right and wrong, i.e. morality, in all things, including the enviroment, to write the laws you will be required to live by in your country, go for it. But let me know where that is because I may not want to come even visit, much less live there.
What, you don't like trees now? In this country we elect our leaders, so if you don't like or trust someone to legislate fairly, then don't vote for them...or vote them out. Or you can organize, sign a petition, lobby and protest to change the laws. But I suggest you learn what a natural law is, first, otherwise you're just going to be spinning your wheels.



Any day of the week, I will vote for a legal system based on the principle of unalienable rights ahead of anybody dictating to me what is or is not moral.
Murder is not moral. So whaddya gonna do now, go out and murder someone because you don't like any moral laws?

Having sex with a child is not moral. Torturing animals is not moral. Using up all of a finite resource that others depend on, is not moral. By simply not doing these things, you are freely "obeying" moral law and giving it legitimacy.

The first Americans arrived in this country to get away from those who would dictate to them what was and was not moral, what they were allowed to speak, what they were allowed to worship, what they were required to be. They wanted a place where they could live by their own sense of morality, whatever that might be.

The Founders risked all that they owned of material possessions and their very lives to fight a bloody war to free the people from the dictates of monarchs or popes or archbishops who would dictate to the people what rights they would have and who they were required to worship and what they were required to be; i.e. what they would require to be morality.
The pilgrims didn't get away from the persecution....they brought it with them and probably persecuted more people in the name of religion than the Church of England ever did.
 
Subjective about if it's "right" or "wrong" is.

No, subjective about "good" and "bad" which isn't necessarily a moral issue (though you seem to think it is)

Orphanages rarely give their property to the children, but regardless: The point is other systems could benefit the very poor better. Something they might think is more moral, as it were. Because protection private property isn't an objective truth: it's subjective with regards to what one owns. Your preference for it based on your personal morality.

They don't give *all* of their property, but they do use it to feed, cloth and shelter them. And while other systems might benefit them more, the poor don't exist in a vacuum. Our system, at least in theory, balances things in order to promote the *general* welfare; not the welfare of orphans only.


And again, I never said it did. I said subjectivity about something being "right" or "wrong".

But one can can support a position without regards to whether it is right or wrong. The decision can be made by deciding which is good and which is bad.


But that's about what's "right" or "wrong".

No, it's not.

If I make a decision by ignoring what is right and what is wrong, then my decision is not based on what is right and what is wrong.
 
No, subjective about "good" and "bad" which isn't necessarily a moral issue (though you seem to think it is)

Yes, it is.

They don't give *all* of their property, but they do use it to feed, cloth and shelter them. And while other systems might benefit them more, the poor don't exist in a vacuum. Our system, at least in theory, balances things in order to promote the *general* welfare; not the welfare of orphans only.

And not everyone's moral system may agree with that.

But one can can support a position without regards to whether it is right or wrong. The decision can be made by deciding which is good and which is bad.

I never said otherwise.

No, it's not.

If I make a decision by ignoring what is right and what is wrong, then my decision is not based on what is right and what is wrong.

And why do you think your decision is right?

It seems kinda obvious that you're against religion having a place in politics and thus are defending these absurd positions.
 
Yes, it is.

I don't think so, and I believe I have shown that decision can be made without reference to any moral code.

And not everyone's moral system may agree with that.

Which supports my claim that decisions can be made without reference to any moral code.


I never said otherwise.

You seem to have said otherwise. Perhaps I've misunderstood, but you seem to be saying that laws are always justified by some form of morality


And why do you think your decision is right?

It seems kinda obvious that you're against religion having a place in politics and thus are defending these absurd positions.

I've already explained why it's right - because it benefits society, which benefits me
 
Honestly, I don't think you know what a moral code is.

Furthermore, I've argued for pages that laws are BASED on morality, not justified by it.
 
Honestly, I don't think you know what a moral code is.

Furthermore, I've argued for pages that laws are BASED on morality, not justified by it.

Then maybe I haven't understood you.

Are you saying that because the constitution was based on a certain morality, the laws are also based on morality? Or are you saying the laws in and of themselves are based on morality?
 
Then maybe I haven't understood you.

Are you saying that because the constitution was based on a certain morality, the laws are also based on morality? Or are you saying the laws in and of themselves are based on morality?

I'm saying ALL laws- not just American- are based on morality. I've specifically argued against morality justifying them.
 
I'm saying ALL laws- not just American- are based on morality. I've specifically argued against morality justifying them.

Thanks for the clarification

However, I disagree. I think that some laws are based on economics without concern for morality.
 
Actually, it's a question of quality, not quantity

Which side does it for reasons that are (more) consistent with the constitution, and that promote the general welfare while protecting people's rights?

Very true - the problem lay in how our respective sides define the above. That's why we have majority rule and a representative government (though thanks to the conservative Supreme Court, we're fast becoming an oligarchy).
 
Which laws are examples of people forcing their morals onto others?

any law could be categorized that way, silly question.

Youd have to be more specific and when people use that line its typically used in a way when morals are being used,rights are being ignored and forced is used only on those that dont agree.

perfect example would be gay marriage.

Those trying to stop it are trying to deny others RIGHTS and use force, only people that SHARE thier morals would be allowed to marry and the others are not and thier rights are violated.

If its legal, no rights are violated and force isnt used against those that do not believe in it as they are STILL free and allowed to not be in a gay marriage, in reality they are not effected.

Please be more specific so actual answers can be given
 
Back
Top Bottom