• 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
TurtleDude said:
yet there are other sound reasons to make murder illegal-ie to prevent anarchy and vigilante justice. however, there are no other reasons to say ban liquor sales on sunday or hunting on sunday
Click to expand...

why ban things on specific days? it's ridiculous.
 
Krhazy said:
Common sense. It's my notion that punishing someone for actions that don't harm anyone is unfair.
Click to expand...

And what makes your understanding of "harm" better than anyone else's? I can play this game all day. No matter what argument you put forth for or against a certain law, you are still arguing morality.
 
Government, at least here in the USA, is an extension of the people. Do the people have the right to legislate morality? Yeah, I think we do, and we excersize that right daily. :)

Tim-
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
And what makes your understanding of "harm" better than anyone else's? I can play this game all day. No matter what argument you put forth for or against a certain law, you are still arguing morality.
Click to expand...
I fully realize this. My point is that there is a clear distinction between the type of morality that can be legislated and the types of "morality" (aka prejudice, ignorance, etc.) that cannot be.
 
Krhazy said:
I fully realize this. My point is that there is a clear distinction between the type of morality that can be legislated and the types of "morality" (aka prejudice, ignorance, etc.) that cannot be.
Click to expand...

I would like to see you define that distinction. Because my point is that there isn't one. There is only the morality of one person, as contrasted by the morality of another.
 
Barbbtx said:
Don't we have incest laws to keep them from reproducing? I thought the law was to protect against that and not the ick factor. Anyway, for whatever reason, I think brother/sister father/daughter marriages should remain illegal.
Click to expand...

Probably, but I honestly don't care. Not that many people in the country who would even think about having a sexual relationship with a close relative. I'm just saying that the government doesn't really have the right, in my opinion, to make anything consenting adults wish to do illegal. Once government starts, history has shown they just keep on going. Inter-racial marriages were once illegal. Marriages between people of differing religions was once illegal. Marriages between individuals of certain tribes was once illegal. Polygamy and bigamy are still illegal.

Government has been panty-sniffing consenting adults too long. Time for them to "butt" :)mrgreen:) out!
 
DiAnna said:
Once government starts, history has shown they just keep on going.
Click to expand...

I've found the opposite to be true. As you note... interracial marriage was once illegal. A lot of things were once illegal, but have since been allowed.
 
I've never understood for the life of me...people who label themselves "conservatives", yet advocate for huge big government in the social arena.
 
disneydude said:
I've never understood for the life of me...people who label themselves "conservatives", yet advocate for huge big government in the social arena.
Click to expand...

The history? Because they found that they couldn't win elections often enough based on a small government platform alone, so they had to absorb a bunch of control freak social conservatives who had really no one representing their desires. It was an unholy alliance.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
And what makes your understanding of "harm" better than anyone else's? I can play this game all day. No matter what argument you put forth for or against a certain law, you are still arguing morality.
Click to expand...

I value security, order and liberty because when I have them I am happy. I want laws to be instituted that foster these things.

Can you please point out where morality comes into this rationale?
 
Dezaad said:
I value security, order and liberty because when I have them I am happy. I want laws to be instituted that foster these things.

Can you please point out where morality comes into this rationale?
Click to expand...

In your definitions of "security", "order", and "liberty".
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
I would like to see you define that distinction. Because my point is that there isn't one. There is only the morality of one person, as contrasted by the morality of another.
Click to expand...
I already have offered one suggestion. If concepts of "fairness" and "harm" are not sufficiently defined for your liking I cannot help you, but I think they are clear enough to eradicate most of the problematic "morals" legislation in our books.
 
Krhazy said:
I already have offered one suggestion. If concepts of "fairness" and "harm" are not sufficiently defined for your liking I cannot help you, but I think they are clear enough to eradicate most of the problematic "morals" legislation in our books.
Click to expand...

The point is that this legislation is only "problematic" because you don't agree with the moral notions it is based upon. That morality legislation was passed because some people did agree with it.
 
digsbe said:
I voted other, some things they should and others they shouldn't. I think the government should legislate morality in some cases like abortion. However other things the government should not, such as gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Treating gay people equally is moral...















morals are subjective
 
TurtleDude said:
yet there are other sound reasons to make murder illegal-ie to prevent anarchy and vigilante justice. however, there are no other reasons to say ban liquor sales on sunday or hunting on sunday
Click to expand...

Keep the Sabbath Day holy.... well, the Christian Sabbath (Sunday) anyway
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
In your definitions of "security", "order", and "liberty".
Click to expand...

Security: the knowledge that I am reasonably safe financially, that I won't suffer bodily harm or death, and that my belongings are safe from being pilfered.

Order: Examples: that I can leave my home and be safe from inadvertent harm from others. That there is a structure in law for commerce to freely occur, but with rules so as to reduce risk to participant citizens. The aim being an environment of increasing or stable prosperity in which I can operate.

Liberty: That I am free from interference from others when my actions do not harm them. That I have an equal opportunity with others, under the law, to participate in the competitive marketplace and in society.

And so forth.

These are the things that provide an opportunity for happiness. As an exchange with the others who live in this society, I will do my part to ensure that others have these things as well. I have no moral justification for striking this deal, it is merely enlightened self interest. No moral justification is necessary.
 
Tucker Case said:
One aspect of law is to define the basic, agreed upon morality of a given society, so it is appropriate for government to "legislate morality". The debate then becomes about the agreed upon morality. Generally speaking, almost everyone is going to push for at least a few laws which are a part of their own moral code, but that are not "agreed upon" by the society as a whole. These proposed laws tend to be shot down.

One of the reasons I consider myself an anti-federalists is because of the interconnected nature of morality and law. I believe that there is a greater likelihood of gaining a social agreement on a specific morality on the small scale, but that as the population affected by the morality increases, the likelihood of agreement decreases and this leads to disenfranchisement and discord within the population.
Click to expand...


Tucker, I think that's one of the best posts you've ever made.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
The point is that this legislation is only "problematic" because you don't agree with the moral notions it is based upon. That morality legislation was passed because some people did agree with it.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Almost all laws are a legislation of morality, or at least a reflection of it. Morality is "what is right, what is wrong." Murder is illegal because we collectively believe it is wrong: this is a moral belief. Laws against having sex with a 13yo are laws because enough people believe it is wrong to do so... this is a societal expression of what we believe is immoral.

The only laws that are not an expression of morality in some sense, are those where Senator Bubbajay gets a special tax exemption for Developers Inc, in "thanks" for their campaign support... that's just plain old graft.

Adultery is widely considered immoral, but not as strongly as was the case 50 years ago. Then, many states had laws making adultery an actual crime. In the years since, society has become morally looser and collectively decided that that was too harsh... and most of those laws went away. You could call that a legalistic expression of our immorality, perhaps...

The point is, there's no point in arguing whether we should "legislate morality". We do. All the time. The only real question is "WHOSE morality do we legislate, yours or mine?"

In practice, it ends up being a little of both. What ends up being law, specifically what ends up being a crime, is often because a large majority of people find it morally reprehensible. Things that are considered morally reprehensible by a small minority are less likely to achieve legal standing.

That's just an overview of a much more complex subject, and skips over a lot of details, but you get the drift.
 
Last edited:
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...

Morality cannot be legislated as people are endowed with free will, laws reflect the morality or the lack thereof of a culture they do not manufacture it. Any law is only as moral as the people who choose to obey it. If every citizen in the US decided they did not want to obey the law of the land do you think all the civil servants combined could enforce all the laws? Of course not, people obey the law because they make a free will choice to obey the law. Where do you think our laws come from...BIG BROTHER, no, they come from the will of the people who appointee representatives to reflect their will, if they do not....they get fired. We the People are the LAW in this Constitutional Republic, as only they have the authority to CHANGE the CONSTITUTION through a super majority ratification process.

Look at EGYPT...why did the PEOPLE revolt? BECAUSE they are endowed with FREE WILL.
Think about it....if the Government could legislate morality...there would a 0% rate of crime. The quickest way to reduce the crime rate in this nation by 50% or more would be to do away with 50% of the superfluous law where BIG BROTHER has his nose half way up THE PEOPLE'S hind quarters.
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
Exactly.

Almost all laws are a legislation of morality, or at least a reflection of it. Morality is "what is right, what is wrong." Murder is illegal because we collectively believe it is wrong
Click to expand...
It's illegality does not have to be justified by morality. We can, as a society, simply agree that we will perforce refrain from murder because we want to be reasonably free of the threat of murder.


: this is a moral belief. Laws against having sex with a 13yo are laws because enough people believe it is wrong to do so... this is a societal expression of what we believe is immoral.
Click to expand...
Again, we can agree to strike a bargain, here, because we simply want our children to be happy, and we believe that they are unable to make informed consent with a person so much more mature than they are.

The only laws that are not an expression of morality in some sense, are those where Senator Bubbajay gets a special tax exemption for Developers Inc, in "thanks" for their campaign support... that's just plain old graft.
Click to expand...
Only certain laws require moral justification because they have no other. These laws should not be on the books.

Adultery is widely considered immoral, but not as strongly as was the case 50 years ago. Then, many states had laws making adultery an actual crime. In the years since, society has become morally looser and collectively decided that that was too harsh... and most of those laws went away. You could call that a legalistic expression of our immorality, perhaps...
Click to expand...
Adultery laws can be justified by the notion that we want to reduce our risk of emotional harm from others, and we want to spare our children of the emotional harm that adultery leads to. Again, these laws can be justified by the striking of a bargain.

The point is, there's no point in arguing whether we should "legislate morality". We do. All the time. The only real question is "WHOSE morality do we legislate, yours or mine?"
Click to expand...
This is precisely why laws are best not legislated on morality. They must find their justification in the bargain that is struck between us and the rest of society. We may not agree on what best meets the requirements of the bargain, but at least this can be reasoned upon. We can agree on the basis for the bargain, regardless of religion or sect. We cannot agree on religion. In fact, the seeking of agreement on religion is a fools errand that disrupts the prospects for a society where security, orderliness and liberty hold sway.

In practice, it ends up being a little of both. What ends up being law, specifically what ends up being a crime, is often because a large majority of people find it morally reprehensible. Things that are considered morally reprehensible by a small minority are less likely to achieve legal standing.

That's just an overview of a much more complex subject, and skips over a lot of details, but you get the drift.
Click to expand...
The drift is that we have no common basis on which to frame our justifications for laws. Thus, reason cannot play a role. This is a bad situation.
 
Last edited:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Click to expand...

So, how does legislating morality help to secure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
 
Krhazy said:
I fully realize this. My point is that there is a clear distinction between the type of morality that can be legislated and the types of "morality" (aka prejudice, ignorance, etc.) that cannot be.
Click to expand...

Prejudice and ignorance have been enforced by the law, and moral arguments were made both for and against...
 
Dezaad said:
The history? Because they found that they couldn't win elections often enough based on a small government platform alone, so they had to absorb a bunch of control freak social conservatives who had really no one representing their desires. It was an unholy alliance.
Click to expand...

Your post made me lol... but it would be different if there were two kinds of Republicans; small government and social conservatives. When I read these threads I think most Republicans believe in both small government and social conservatism
 
Goshin said:
The only laws that are not an expression of morality in some sense, are those where Senator Bubbajay gets a special tax exemption for Developers Inc, in "thanks" for their campaign support... that's just plain old graft.
Click to expand...

Pretty much sums it up.

In my opinion, there are only two reasons laws get made: Morality and money. The bigger the government is, It becomes less able to succesfuly pass the former, and more likely to pass the latter.
 
Goshin said:
Exactly.

Almost all laws are a legislation of morality, or at least a reflection of it. Morality is "what is right, what is wrong." Murder is illegal because we collectively believe it is wrong: this is a moral belief. Laws against having sex with a 13yo are laws because enough people believe it is wrong to do so... this is a societal expression of what we believe is immoral.

The only laws that are not an expression of morality in some sense, are those where Senator Bubbajay gets a special tax exemption for Developers Inc, in "thanks" for their campaign support... that's just plain old graft.

Adultery is widely considered immoral, but not as strongly as was the case 50 years ago. Then, many states had laws making adultery an actual crime. In the years since, society has become morally looser and collectively decided that that was too harsh... and most of those laws went away. You could call that a legalistic expression of our immorality, perhaps...

The point is, there's no point in arguing whether we should "legislate morality". We do. All the time. The only real question is "WHOSE morality do we legislate, yours or mine?"

In practice, it ends up being a little of both. What ends up being law, specifically what ends up being a crime, is often because a large majority of people find it morally reprehensible. Things that are considered morally reprehensible by a small minority are less likely to achieve legal standing.

That's just an overview of a much more complex subject, and skips over a lot of details, but you get the drift.
Click to expand...

Whose morals do we govern on... yours or mine? Well, depending on the individual, the laws based on one person's morality can be extremely oppressive and violent to certain people under the law or most of the people under the law. And then when the law isn't based on your idea of morality, is it still based on morality at all?

Thomas Aquinas wrote a lot on natural law... He discussed laws and governments that are immoral and oppressive, and said that immoral or unjust laws are a violation of natural law and shouldn't be honored or obeyed. Breaking immoral laws, is an act of morality...

*since nobody has brought up the issue of immoral acting governments and regimes, I thought I would.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom