• 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
sangha said:
Because it's what works

Legal systems based on morality are failures.
Click to expand...

"What works"? What is the definition of works?

And apparently not, because you think it "works". The idea that it's good that someone can have something of their own and laws will protect their possession is, indeed, based upon someone's morality.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
"What works"? What is the definition of works?

And apparently not, because you think it "works". The idea that it's good that someone can have something of their own and laws will protect their possession is, indeed, based upon someone's morality.
Click to expand...

I am sure that most people see the protection of property as the moral thing to do. However, such laws can be justified on the basis I described. Ockham's Law says that which is not necessary should be discarded. Justifying laws on a moral basis is not needed as the justifications I supplied are adequate. On the other hand, moral justifications are not sufficient to explain our legal system (ex what is the moral justification for zoning laws?) and therefor cannot be said to be the basis. Furthermore, using morality as a basis for law leads to silliness like making lying a crime.
 
sangha said:
I am sure that most people see the protection of property as the moral thing to do. However, such laws can be justified on the basis I described. Ockham's Law says that which is not necessary should be discarded. Justifying laws on a moral basis is not needed as the justifications I supplied are adequate. On the other hand, moral justifications are not sufficient to explain our legal system (ex what is the moral justification for zoning laws?) and therefor cannot be said to be the basis. Furthermore, using morality as a basis for law leads to silliness like making lying a crime.
Click to expand...

No one said they were needed to justify it; just that they are indeed based upon it. No one said morality should be used as a basis, either.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
No one said they were needed to justify it; just that they are indeed based upon it. No one said morality should be used as a basis, either.
Click to expand...

I don't see the difference between "justify" and "based" Saying "We need this law because x is immoral" is both justifying and basing the law on morality.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
No one said they were needed to justify it; just that they are indeed based upon it. No one said morality should be used as a basis, either.
Click to expand...

By using moral opinion to set law...we justify penalty.

Thus we gather multiple opinions of said morality through vote...or through those we vote to represent us.

It is obviously imperfect....but, it is the best system humans have come up with as of yet....IMHO.
 
tecoyah said:
By using moral opinion to set law...we justify penalty.

Thus we gather multiple opinions of said morality through vote...or through those we vote to represent us.

It is obviously imperfect....but, it is the best system humans have come up with as of yet....IMHO.
Click to expand...

Laws based on morality will almost always be unjust laws because they will be based on somebody's idea of what morality is.

The only justifiable law is to secure the unalienable rights of the people among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and/or promote the general welfare, meaning EVERYBODY'S welfare and not a targeted group or demographic.

Making it illegal to intentionally hit a person with your vehicle falls within the concept of the unalienable right of the pedestrian to not be intentionally harmed or killed. Some might attach a concept of morality to that but it mostly falls within the concept of one person's rights ending where another person's rights begin.

Jay walking laws fall within the category of promoting the general welfare. The authorities measure the inconvenience to the person who has to go to a cross walk to cross the street legally against the inconvenience and traffic jams that result when motorists try to avoid hitting pedestrians if pedestrians can legally walk in the street just wherever. In that case the practical need to keep traffic moving in an orderly fashion justifies a small amount of inconvenience to the pedestrian. Morality has nothing to do with it.

But if there is no consequence for breaking a law, then too many people will not be inclined to obey it when it is inconvenient to do so. So the fine or legal action resulting from violation of the law is not a 'punishment'. It is a consequence for disobeying the law.

Certainly laws that do nothing to secure our rights or promote the general welfare should all be questioned. And the federal government should only be passing the laws that are necessary for all the states to function as one cohesive nation--all others should be left to the states, counties, and local communities.
 
If a law is just then it is a moral law.
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
If a law is just then it is a moral law.
Click to expand...

But whose morality? Most of us do not embrace most components of Sharia Law, for instance, but those who advocate Sharia law would describe it as not only as just and moral, but the only righteous way. Would a very rigid fundamentalist Christian define justice in the same way as a fanatical tree hugging environmentalist? Do you want either writing your laws?

Far better to adopt a principle that secures our rights and/or promotes the general welfare that all can embrace and then adopt laws and regulation that enforce that principle and leave morality out of it.
 
AlbqOwl said:
But whose morality? Most of us do not embrace most components of Sharia Law, for instance, but those who advocate Sharia law would describe it as not only as just and moral, but the only righteous way. Would a very rigid fundamentalist Christian define justice in the same way as a fanatical tree hugging environmentalist? Do you want either writing your laws?

Far better to adopt a principle that secures our rights and/or promotes the general welfare that all can embrace and then adopt laws and regulation that enforce that principle and leave morality out of it.
Click to expand...

I would say laws are based on the morality of whoever or whatever is in charge, in general. Here in the US, it is the morality of the majority (of either the legislatures or the people, or you could say both) but it is checked by the moral beliefs enshrined in our Constitution (which requires the approval of a supermajority rather than a simple majority), those that guarantee life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to all and make several promises of treating people fairly under laws. The Constitutional guarantees we have are based on a belief that it is right to treat people equally and that it is wrong to have some people treated better than others just due to arbitrary conditions (someone is born a king, some people own more than others, some people are of a certain race, religion, or sex/gender, and many more).
 
sangha said:
I don't see the difference between "justify" and "based"
Click to expand...

The northern border of Kentucky is based upon the Ohio River. It could've been 50 miles north or south either way, you don't need need the Ohio River to justify Kentucky having a northern border. Two very different things. Basketball is based upon the idea of throwing a soccer ball into a peach basket. But that has nothing to do with justifying its place as a global game. Again, two very different concepts.

Saying "We need this law because x is immoral" is both justifying and basing the law on morality.
Click to expand...

Saying "I think it's a good thing that private property is protected, so let's create a law to do that" is basing it on morality. You can justify it in a multitude of other ways, but that's how it came about.

I feel like you're arguing against religion in law and I agree. I'm pretty much amoral in general, anyway, but just because I'm not a huge fan of morality doesn't mean it's not what a society (any society's) laws are based upon.
 
tecoyah said:
By using moral opinion to set law...we justify penalty.

Thus we gather multiple opinions of said morality through vote...or through those we vote to represent us.

It is obviously imperfect....but, it is the best system humans have come up with as of yet....IMHO.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't care.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Jay walking laws fall within the category of promoting the general welfare.
Click to expand...

What is and isn't general welfare is very much a subjective thing, depending on your moral viewpoint. So even jaywalking laws are based in morality. If you didn't care whatsoever about people getting hit by cars, you would be totally ambivalent to the idea of a law against jaywalking.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
What is and isn't general welfare is very much a subjective thing, depending on your moral viewpoint. So even jaywalking laws are based in morality. If you didn't care whatsoever about people getting hit by cars, you would be totally ambivalent to the idea of a law against jaywalking.
Click to expand...

Again it is a matter of focus. If you believe that it is an immoral act to hit somebody with your car, and that is the only reason you choose not to do that, then it is a matter of morality.

But if your rationale for not allowing people to hit people with their cars is to secure an unalienable right to life, that can involve no moral considerations whatsoever. You might think it the moral thing to run down that scumbag or person you believe to be evil, but you value recognition and security of unalienable rights more.

And the term 'general welfare' is not at all subjective if it is interpreted as the Founders intended it.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Again it is a matter of focus. If you believe that it is an immoral act to hit somebody with your car, and that is the only reason you choose not to do that, then it is a matter of morality.

But if your rationale for not allowing people to hit people with their cars is to secure an unalienable right to life, that can involve no moral considerations whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Do you think it's immoral to prevent someone from having an unalienable right to life?

You might think it the moral thing to run down that scumbag or person you believe to be evil, but you value recognition and security of unalienable rights more.

And the term 'general welfare' is not at all subjective if it is interpreted as the Founders intended it.
Click to expand...

Do you think they defined it and wanted it in the government because they thought it was morally right? If not, why did they include it?

I don't think you're understanding that your idea of what rights are and should be are based upon your own morals.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Do you think it's immoral to prevent someone from having an unalienable right to life?

Do you think they defined it and wanted it in the government because they thought it was morally right? If not, why did they include it?

I don't think you're understanding that your idea of what rights are and should be are based upon your own morals.
Click to expand...

You cannot take away a persons unalienable right to anything. You can only infringe on or prevent that person from exercising that right. An unalienable right is ANYTHING that does not require participation or contribution of any other. It is something the Founders believed in and valued because recognition of and security of unalienable rights is what liberty is. Liberty is what each wanted for himself and they all understood that only by recognizing and securing everybody's unalienble rights could any enjoy the blessings of liberty.

You may consider that morality based. I see it, and I believe the Founders saw it, as basic human desire--something we naturally cherish and seek and part of what being human is.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
The northern border of Kentucky is based upon the Ohio River. It could've been 50 miles north or south either way, you don't need need the Ohio River to justify Kentucky having a northern border. Two very different things. Basketball is based upon the idea of throwing a soccer ball into a peach basket. But that has nothing to do with justifying its place as a global game. Again, two very different concepts.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to be difficult, but I don't see how that difference applies here. I do see how they can be different, just not in this case.



Saying "I think it's a good thing that private property is protected, so let's create a law to do that" is basing it on morality. You can justify it in a multitude of other ways, but that's how it came about.

I feel like you're arguing against religion in law and I agree. I'm pretty much amoral in general, anyway, but just because I'm not a huge fan of morality doesn't mean it's not what a society (any society's) laws are based upon.
Click to expand...

Saying "it's a good thing" doesn't necessarily imply morality to me. In some cases "good" can mean nothing more than beneficial.

And I do acknowledge that there is a moral component to our laws, I do not think their purpose is in any way to ensure that people behave in a moral manner. I think the preamble to the constitution does a pretty good job of describing the purpose of our legal system and nothing in there can be described as saying the purpose of the law is to ensure that people adhere to a particular moral code.
 
AlbqOwl said:
You cannot take away a persons unalienable right to anything. You can only infringe on or prevent that person from exercising that right. An unalienable right is ANYTHING that does not require participation or contribution of any other. It is something the Founders believed in and valued because recognition of and security of unalienable rights is what liberty is. Liberty is what each wanted for himself and they all understood that only by recognizing and securing everybody's unalienble rights could any enjoy the blessings of liberty.

You may consider that morality based. I see it, and I believe the Founders saw it, as basic human desire--something we naturally cherish and seek and part of what being human is.
Click to expand...

I don't believe in unalienable rights at all, and I find it to be a very moralistic way of thinking. But look at the words you use to describe the concept. They're telling.
 
sangha said:
I'm not trying to be difficult, but I don't see how that difference applies here. I do see how they can be different, just not in this case.
Click to expand...

Just because something was the initial reason doesn't mean the effect is perpetually dependent upon the cause.

Saying "it's a good thing" doesn't necessarily imply morality to me. In some cases "good" can mean nothing more than beneficial.
Click to expand...

But "beneficial" is a subjective thing. If something is "beneficial" to helping a rapist get away with is it beneficial to the victims? No.

And I do acknowledge that there is a moral component to our laws, I do not think their purpose is in any way to ensure that people behave in a moral manner. I think the preamble to the constitution does a pretty good job of describing the purpose of our legal system and nothing in there can be described as saying the purpose of the law is to ensure that people adhere to a particular moral code.
Click to expand...

Except that what rights are guaranteed and what aren't is very much a moral stance. If I think I should be able to infringe/negate your "right to life" is that immoral?
 
MadLib said:
Is morality a bad thing? :lol:
Click to expand...

I find it to be a crutch when it comes to debates about any type of policy, just because it's subjective. Kind of a waste of time unless you're talking about what's gonna play as far as popular opinion goes- not necessarily related to what's effective at all.
 
AlbqOwl said:
But whose morality?
Click to expand...
Laws that are just are based on reason and ethics. Ethics are derived from natural law and natural law is moral law. e.g. don't murder. Laws that are unjust are immoral laws. e.g.: slavery

Most of us do not embrace most components of Sharia Law, for instance, but those who advocate Sharia law would describe it as not only as just and moral, but the only righteous way. Would a very rigid fundamentalist Christian define justice in the same way as a fanatical tree hugging environmentalist? Do you want either writing your laws?
Click to expand...
Well, if I had to choose, I guess I'd choose the tree huggers because their ideology is more in accord with natural law. Protecting the environment that we all depend on to live is natural and moral. For example, trees are a finite resource, so protecting a forest for the common good is moral ...whereas destroying an entire forest for the short term gain of a few without regard to others or the future is immoral and unjust. See "Tragedy of the Commons".

So in short, protecting finite resources that many depend on to live is just basic self defense and I think most people no matter what time or culture they live in can agree that self defense is natural law. Ergo...generally speaking, environmental laws fall into the category of just and moral laws.


Far better to adopt a principle that secures our rights and/or promotes the general welfare that all can embrace and then adopt laws and regulation that enforce that principle and leave morality out of it.
Click to expand...
Moral is good. Immoral is bad. One doesn't need to believe in God to be moral. All one needs is ethics and reason. Laws without ethics and reason are immoral.
 
Last edited:
OldWorldOrder said:
I find it to be a crutch when it comes to debates about any type of policy, just because it's subjective.
Click to expand...

Is subjectivity necessarily a bad thing? There are people who argue that reality is subjective; does that mean that reality shouldn't enter into political debates?
 
Moot said:
Laws that are just are based on reason and ethics. Ethics are derived from natural law and natural law is moral law. e.g. don't murder. Laws that are unjust are immoral laws. e.g.: slavery

Well, if I had to choose, I guess I'd choose the tree huggers because their ideology is more in accord with natural law. Protecting the environment that we all depend on to live is natural and moral. For example, trees are a finite resource, so protecting a forest for the common good is moral ...whereas destroying an entire forest for the short term gain of a few without regard to others or the future is immoral and unjust. See "Tragedy of the Commons".

So in short, protecting finite resources that many depend on to live is just basic self defense and I think most people no matter what time or culture they live in can agree that self defense is natural law. Ergo...generally speaking, environmental laws fall into the category of just and moral laws.

Moral is good. Immoral is bad. One doesn't need to believe in God to be moral. All one needs is ethics and reason. Laws without ethics and reason are immoral.
Click to expand...

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.

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. 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.
 
OldWorldOrder said:
Just because something was the initial reason doesn't mean the effect is perpetually dependent upon the cause.
Click to expand...

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

But "beneficial" is a subjective thing. If something is "beneficial" to helping a rapist get away with is it beneficial to the victims? No.
Click to expand...

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.

Except that what rights are guaranteed and what aren't is very much a moral stance. If I think I should be able to infringe/negate your "right to life" is that immoral?
Click to expand...

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.
 
MadLib said:
Is subjectivity necessarily a bad thing? There are people who argue that reality is subjective; does that mean that reality shouldn't enter into political debates?
Click to expand...

Does it ever?

There's nothing more annoying then someone, in a serious discussion with real world ramifications (ie, not here on DP, not something in undergrad classrooms, etc) leading in with what's morally "right" before even investigating what would be be effective with regards to the issue at hand. The latter should always come first, because the former will always simply be subjective.

I have zero interest in what someone's heart is telling them, in those situations, until after we deal with the head.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom