S/O Legislating Morality

[Kathleen in VA]

In Mrs. Mungo's thread about when life begins, a couple of people have said that they believe life begins at conception but that no one should legislate morality. Pardon me, but isn't that a little difficult? When you make laws, you are legislating morality. Laws against murder, theft, drunk driving, paying taxes, etc. are all about morality. Moral behavior is right behavior toward one another. Laws are made to insure that people treat each other right and to have recourse to punish those who don't. Every law is a legislation of morality. The question is who's morality?

 

I think politicians who say they have no business legislating morality are sidestepping the issues and really just don't have the guts to stand up for the right thing against the opposition. These folks just want to please all the people all the time. Didn't someone famous once say that was not possible.;)

[Mama Lynx]

How are laws about paying taxes about morality?

[Jugglin'5]

Well, I'll take a stab at the tax question. They concern morality because choices are made as to the fairness of making this group or that group pay a higher percentage, or taking taxes from one group and redistributing it to another. To my mind it is Legalized Theft. Others feel that it is the moral thing to do. Also, choices are made to make us pay taxes for things we can't in good conscience support.

[Lovedtodeath]

I totally agree. The vast majority of laws are legalizing morality.

[Kathleen in VA]

FDR thought taxing personal income was the right thing to do so laws were passed during one of his terms that require us to pay them. Lots of folks consider the income tax outright theivery, which I've always thought to be morally wrong.

 

http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php#Taxes

 

Whatever Happened to Justice? by Richard Maybury discusses this as well.

[Mama Lynx]

I see the tax laws about the government making sure it gets the money it's decided to take from us. That's a financial and business transaction.

 

If that's about morality, and if a tax law is legislation of morality, then yes, you'd have to argue that all laws legislate morality. Which is, of course, your point.

 

I'm too tired to think about this right now. Right now, I don't see the difference between this argument, and the one we had the other day about whether there was any such thing a secular education.

 

I do not believe that you are right, but I'll see if I can come up with a coherent argument tomorrow.

[klmama]

In Mrs. Mungo's thread about when life begins, a couple of people have said that they believe life begins at conception but that no one should legislate morality. Pardon me, but isn't that a little difficult? When you make laws, you are legislating morality. Laws against murder, theft, drunk driving, paying taxes, etc. are all about morality. Moral behavior is right behavior toward one another. Laws are made to insure that people treat each other right and to have recourse to punish those who don't. Every law is a legislation of morality. The question is who's morality?

 

I think politicians who say they have no business legislating morality are sidestepping the issues and really just don't have the guts to stand up for the right thing against the opposition. These folks just want to please all the people all the time. Didn't someone famous once say that was not possible.;)

 

:iagree: I tried to say this in another post, but you explained it much more coherently than I. Thank you!

[kokotg]

Laws are made to insure that people treat each other right and to have recourse to punish those who don't. Every law is a legislation of morality. The question is who's morality?

 

 

 

yes, I think whose morality is the crucial point. No one objects to laws that codify things that nearly everyone agrees on. I think when people say you shouldn't legislate morality they really mean you shouldn't make laws that privilege one set of moral standards above another. (Of course, then someone's always going to say, "but, but...some people think it's okay to steal because, like, property is theft.")

[nakitty]

In Mrs. Mungo's thread about when life begins, a couple of people have said that they believe life begins at conception but that no one should legislate morality. Pardon me, but isn't that a little difficult? When you make laws, you are legislating morality. Laws against murder, theft, drunk driving, paying taxes, etc. are all about morality. Moral behavior is right behavior toward one another. Laws are made to insure that people treat each other right and to have recourse to punish those who don't. Every law is a legislation of morality. The question is who's morality?

 

I think politicians who say they have no business legislating morality are sidestepping the issues and really just don't have the guts to stand up for the right thing against the opposition. These folks just want to please all the people all the time. Didn't someone famous once say that was not possible.;)

 

 

Murder, theft, drunk driving, paying taxes.....those are not laws about morality....those are laws about public safety and protection....

 

If we were to pass a law against, say, adultery...THAT would be much more along the morality lines....

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

What are laws against hate speech? What about laws against cruelty to animals? Would you consider those attempts to legislate morality?

[Mrs Mungo]

What are laws against hate speech? What about laws against cruelty to animals? Would you consider those attempts to legislate morality?

 

I'm pretty sure the only laws we have in *this* country with regard to hate speech are those that incite a riot, etc.

 

Most of the laws of our country (aside from taxes, etc) deal with personal protection. My right to swing my fists ends where your nose begins. I can swing my fists but I can't hit you.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

I'm pretty sure the only laws we have in *this* country with regard to hate speech are those that incite a riot, etc.

 

Most of the laws of our country (aside from taxes, etc) deal with personal protection. My right to swing my fists ends where your nose begins. I can swing my fists but I can't hit you.

 

There are no laws against threats or threatening behavior? What about stalking? (and cruelty to animals :))

[Mrs Mungo]

There are no laws against threats or threatening behavior? What about stalking? (and cruelty to animals :))

 

Threats are still threatening someone's health, property, etc. Animals have rights too under the law.

[kokotg]

I'm pretty sure the only laws we have in *this* country with regard to hate speech are those that incite a riot, etc.

 

Most of the laws of our country (aside from taxes, etc) deal with personal protection. My right to swing my fists ends where your nose begins. I can swing my fists but I can't hit you.

 

Well, but then marijuana is illegal. Prostitution. Gay marriage in most states. Polygamy. But those are the laws that are controversial, because they clearly DO legislate morality. One could argue that some people don't think it's immoral to hurt other people, so laws that protect people or property are based on morality, too, but, since it's a morality that you are diagnosed with a mental disorder for not sharing, it's kind of a stretch. So I'm kind of contradicting myself. But I'm okay with that :tongue_smilie:

[Mrs Mungo]

Well, but then marijuana is illegal. Prostitution. Gay marriage in most states. Polygamy. But those are the laws that are controversial, because they clearly DO legislate morality. One could argue that some people don't think it's immoral to hurt other people, so laws that protect people or property are based on morality, too, but, since it's a morality that you are diagnosed with a mental disorder for not sharing, it's kind of a stretch. So I'm kind of contradicting myself. But I'm okay with that :tongue_smilie:

 

Yes, they are controversial precisely for those reasons. There are certainly some areas of gray where it's hard to say whether those things (drugs, prostitution, etc) are harmful to society at large.

[nakitty]

Well, but then marijuana is illegal. Prostitution. Gay marriage in most states. Polygamy. But those are the laws that are controversial, because they clearly DO legislate morality. One could argue that some people don't think it's immoral to hurt other people, so laws that protect people or property are based on morality, too, but, since it's a morality that you are diagnosed with a mental disorder for not sharing, it's kind of a stretch. So I'm kind of contradicting myself. But I'm okay with that :tongue_smilie:

 

Gay marriage is the only one of those that are absolutely, without a doubt, morality based. Marijuana and prostitution.... are still arguably about protecting society....:D

 

Something having moral implications....doesn't make it inherently moral.... just a coincidence, so to speak.:tongue_smilie:

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

Threats are still threatening someone's health, property, etc. Animals have rights too under the law.

 

I'm not trying to be picky, but if no people or their property are actually hurt, aren't laws against threats legislating morality? You said I can swing my fist as long as it stops before it makes contact with your nose. Isn't swinging a fist threatening behavior?

 

If I stalk someone, but never touch them or their property. Why should there be laws against it?

 

And why are animals protected under the law? If I am cruel to my own animals what difference does it make to anyone else or society at large?

 

Can't some sexual harrassment laws be considered legislating morality? If the harrasser only uses words not actions, aren't they still breaking the law?

 

Smoking could be considered harmful to society at large, why aren't there laws against it?

 

Why must government do what is good for society? Isn't it a moral obligation? If it is not, why does it matter what kind of government we have?

 

Just rambling.

[Mrs Mungo]

I'm not trying to be picky, but if no people or their property are actually hurt, aren't laws against threats legislating morality? You said I can swing my fist as long as it stops before it makes contact with your nose. Isn't swinging a fist threatening behavior?

 

If I stalk someone, but never touch them or their property. Why should there be laws against it?

 

Because you *are* doing harm with those actions. Physical harm isn't the only type of harm.

 

And why are animals protected under the law? If I am cruel to my own animals what difference does it make to anyone else or society at large?

 

Animals have their own rights, they aren't just your property.

 

Can't some sexual harrassment laws be considered legislating morality? If the harrasser only uses words not actions, aren't they still breaking the law?

 

No, it's not morality. Harrassment is harmful. Harm doesn't have to be physical.

 

Smoking could be considered harmful to society at large, why aren't there laws against it?

 

There are laws about where and when you can smoke.

[Lovedtodeath]

In Mrs. Mungo's thread about when life begins, a couple of people have said that they believe life begins at conception but that no one should legislate morality.

 

Murder, theft, drunk driving, paying taxes.....those are not laws about morality....those are laws about public safety and protection....

 

If we were to pass a law against, say, adultery...THAT would be much more along the morality lines....

 

If a human life is in danger due to an abortion, then wouldn't that law be about public safety just as much as a law against murder, or spousal abuse?

[nakitty]

If a human life is in danger due to an abortion, then wouldn't that law be about public safetly just as much as a law against murder, or spousal abuse?

 

If you are referring to the woman getting the abortion....then, no, it would be a medical risk...a decision that she would be making for herself. If you are talking about the fetus than I am done with this conversation because a) I am not about to get into ANOTHER abortion debate...and b) I do not agree with the assertion that an embryo or fetus is "a human life"...

[Mrs Mungo]

If a human life is in danger due to an abortion, then wouldn't that law be about public safety just as much as a law against murder, or spousal abuse?

 

Current law is about human safety. It was decided that women seeking illegal and dangerous operations was the bigger risk as far as public safety goes. Even John McCain agreed with that until it was politically necessary for him to change his mind.

[Mrs Mungo]

The original post in this thread brought up the issue in a round about way: If human life begins at conception then are we legislating morality with abortion laws?

 

That's a big if.

[Lovedtodeath]

Current law is about human safety. It was decided that women seeking illegal and dangerous operations was the bigger risk as far as public safety goes. Even John McCain agreed with that until it was politically necessary for him to change his mind.

 

 

I know I said no more responses, but you explained that so well! The safety of the pregnant woman who seeks an abortion will be at risk if the law is changed to protect the "fertilized egg" so an abortion law would not actually be about public safety. And I never realized this. ::DOH:: (feeling really stupid for not realizing it.)

 

I have actually wondered if crime would go down if certain drugs or prostitution were legalized. Much like crime going up in the past due to alcohol being illegal, so you would think I would have thought of that.:001_huh:

[Mrs Mungo]

I have actually wondered if crime would go down if certain drugs or prostitution were legalized. Much like crime going up in the past due to alcohol being illegal, so you would think I would have thought of that.:001_huh:

 

Organized crime probably *would* go down if you made drugs and prostitution legal. OTOH, I don't think it would get all women off the streets. When we lived in Germany prostitution was legal but kept to brothels where they received health checks and such. However, *in the town we lived in* this just shifted demand. The girls walking the streets were 13-15 years old and usually had STDs (most were HIV positive).

[hsmamainva]

There's social morality and there's religious morality.

 

There are laws that are passed so that society doesn't descend into anarchy. Taxes must be passed so that the streets are cleaned and the roads are paved, the elderly and the disabled are cared for, etc. Police are there to protect you from the 'criminal element'.

 

What happens in a doctor's office between a woman and her physician is between the two of them. Society will not descend into anarchy because she makes a decision and her doctor obeys her wishes. Her decision does not affect you. If you don't believe in abortion...don't have one.

[Mama Lynx]

I'm pretty sure the only laws we have in *this* country with regard to hate speech are those that incite a riot, etc.

 

Most of the laws of our country (aside from taxes, etc) deal with personal protection. My right to swing my fists ends where your nose begins. I can swing my fists but I can't hit you.

 

That's the argument I was looking for last night. Personal protection and basic property rights.

[Kimber]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virginia Dawn View Post

I'm not trying to be picky, but if no people or their property are actually hurt, aren't laws against threats legislating morality? You said I can swing my fist as long as it stops before it makes contact with your nose. Isn't swinging a fist threatening behavior?

 

If I stalk someone, but never touch them or their property. Why should there be laws against it?

Because you *are* doing harm with those actions. Physical harm isn't the only type of harm.

 

Quote:

And why are animals protected under the law? If I am cruel to my own animals what difference does it make to anyone else or society at large?

Animals have their own rights, they aren't just your property.

 

Quote:

Can't some sexual harrassment laws be considered legislating morality? If the harrasser only uses words not actions, aren't they still breaking the law?

No, it's not morality. Harrassment is harmful. Harm doesn't have to be physical.

 

Quote:

Smoking could be considered harmful to society at large, why aren't there laws against it?

There are laws about where and when you can smoke.

__________________

 

 

But there is a moral code underneath these rights. It's that it is immoral to violate someone else's rights.

 

Otherwise, why not violate someone else's rights. It seems the question is why are the rights of others important, even animals.

[Jugglin'5]

But WHY must we care for the elderly and disabled with our taxes? Note: I am not objecting to this, I am asking a philiosophical question. There have been societies in the past where it was considered the elderly's duty to lay down and die, or the tribe would abandon them. The disabled where certainly not cared for with tax money, and disabled infants were exposed to die or be carried off and eaten by wild animals. I submit that these ARE moral questions. And I submit that societies have developed these mores in response to religion - namely, Judaism and Christianity in Western Civilization. I must now run away to the dentist, so I won't be able to respond unfortunately.

 

There's social morality and there's religious morality.

 

There are laws that are passed so that society doesn't descend into anarchy. Taxes must be passed so that the streets are cleaned and the roads are paved, the elderly and the disabled are cared for, etc. Police are there to protect you from the 'criminal element'.

 

What happens in a doctor's office between a woman and her physician is between the two of them. Society will not descend into anarchy because she makes a decision and her doctor obeys her wishes. Her decision does not affect you. If you don't believe in abortion...don't have one.

[Kathleen in VA]

Oxford English Dictionary definition of morality:

 

morality |məˈralətē; mô-|

noun ( pl. -ties)

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

 

There is no difference between "religious" morality and "social" morality except that one religion may think something is wrong and another may not. All morality is just a code of behavior based on what someone thinks is right and wrong. I'm reminded just now of the book Peace Child by Don Richardson which deals with the Sawi tribe of Irian Jaya who glorified the notion of betrayal. When taught the Bible they cheered Judas on because his behavior lined up most closely with their moral code. In this country we have basically all agreed on many, many points of morality and I think an argument can be made that the Judeo-Christian heritage of this country has largely determined the principles we agree on, although that was not my point in bringing this up.

 

My point was simply that politicians who say they hold to certain principles themselves but do not want to "legislate morality" are just trying to please as many people as they can and really don't have any backbone. I did not intend this to become a debate about abortion - it just was a spin-off of a poll about when life begins because that is the thread I was reading when I encountered the "I don't want to legislate morality" notion and I felt I needed to explain that at the outset.

 

Our Constitution does allow for the government to levy taxes, btw, but it does not allow for income taxes. I have no problem with paying taxes to support roads, police, animal control and other needed services. I do have a problem with a law that taxes income. I think that is wrong and therefore immoral. Here in Virginia there was a huge debate about whether there should be a personal property tax on cars and one gubernatorial candidate won his office by promising to eliminate it. Whether or not to levy a tax is a moral issue.

 

Let's pick another issue to discuss my point - something we can all agree on as being moral. Suppose a politician says he personally does not think it is right to rob a bank at gunpoint, but he doesn't want to legislate morality so therefore he will not make any laws about that. When it is something we can all agree on, the notion seems ridiculous. Why would someone think it is wrong to do something but not want to make laws restricting it? To me, that is just a smarmy way of trying to please two groups of people at the same time. It has such a noble ring to it, so tolerant and open-minded, but, in reality, it is just spineless. Kind of reminds me of that line in The Sound of Music by the self-serving Uncle Max, "What's going to happen is going to happen. Just make sure it doesn't happen to you." He knew the Nazi's were wrong, he just didn't want to do anything to displease them so that he could go on living peacefully.

 

My point was that politicians who use this rhetoric about *any* issue are revealing that they have no backbone. They say they believe one way about an issue personally, but they do not want to lose votes from those with whom they do not agree, so they refuse to support laws against that issue. Again, it has a way of sounding so honorable - "I won't push my beliefs on you" - but they are pushing someone's beliefs on me. They just think that by saying they agree with those they are disappointing they will gain sympathy and approval from them, while all the while pandering to those they supposedly disagree with by refusing to support laws that would restrict those people from having their way. I find it very hard to believe they are sincere when they state they believe something but don't consider it important enough to back up that belief with action. Smarmy.

 

smarmy |ˈsmärmē|

adjective ( smarmier , smarmiest ) informal

ingratiating and wheedling in a way that is perceived as insincere or excessive : a smarmy, unctuous reply.

[kaylk in tx]

in our society, murder, theft, child abuse, etc. are all things that the vast majority of people agree are wrong. killing in self defense has been determined by our society to be ok. on issues where the vast majority agree, laws have been written to protect that vast majority against the small minority that would violate it.

 

on issues where society has not come to consensus (ie abortion, medicinal marijuana use, etc.) i believe the government should butt out.

[Kathleen in VA]

in our society, murder, theft, child abuse, etc. are all things that the vast majority of people agree are wrong. killing in self defense has been determined by our society to be ok. on issues where the vast majority agree, laws have been written to protect that vast majority against the small minority that would violate it.

 

on issues where society has not come to consensus (ie abortion, medicinal marijuana use, etc.) i believe the government should butt out.

 

I respectfully disagree. What if society as a whole believes it is perfectly ok to do something that is wrong? (I recall a society that believed holding people in slavery was perfectly acceptable and a whole bunch of other folks who didn't agree. Those other folks were willing to fight a war to impose their morality.) Yes, I realize that whether something is wrong is debatable, but some societies believe it is ok to kill young women who disobey their father's wishes concerning marriage. It's happening here now. Some societies think is perfectly acceptable to put the widow of a dead man on his funeral pyre because - well, I haven't the foggiest notion why - but they do it and they do it with a clear conscience. What if that society were to become the dominate force in America? I don't think it is safe to rely on "what everybody thinks" as a moral compass. When is it time to say something is wrong because it is wrong and for no other reason? And, again, I realize this gets into the whole morality is related to religion issue, which does make it similar to the thread about whether or not it is possible to have a secular education. But that's not really the point.

 

The point is politicians using this rhetoric to appeal to everyone's sensibilities as a ploy to get into office is smarmy. It makes everything they say seem less authentic and less believable, imo.

 

Didn't Thomas Jefferson say slavery was wrong but still owned slaves? What do we think of him for dealing with slavery in that manner?

[Lovedtodeath]

Ignore. I have poor impulse control! LOL It is better for me to stay out of debatable issues.;)

[Mrs Mungo]

I did not intend this to become a debate about abortion - it just was a spin-off of a poll about when life begins because that is the thread I was reading when I encountered the "I don't want to legislate morality" notion and I felt I needed to explain that at the outset.

 

But the quote (from Joe Biden, not something someone here said) was about abortion. And I think a better way to phrase it would be "you can't legislate tenuous religious views which may or may not be held by members of that religion."

 

Our Constitution does allow for the government to levy taxes, btw, but it does not allow for income taxes.

 

Constitutional amendments *are* part of the Constitution.

 

The Sixteenth Amendment says:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

 

Without Consitutional amendments women don't have the right to vote and people can still own slaves are you actually going to argue that?

 

Let's pick another issue to discuss my point - something we can all agree on as being moral. Suppose a politician says he personally does not think it is right to rob a bank at gunpoint, but he doesn't want to legislate morality so therefore he will not make any laws about that. When it is something we can all agree on, the notion seems ridiculous.

 

Because that *is not* about morality it's about the protection of property.

 

Why would someone think it is wrong to do something but not want to make laws restricting it? To me, that is just a smarmy way of trying to please two groups of people at the same time. It has such a noble ring to it, so tolerant and open-minded, but, in reality, it is just spineless. Kind of reminds me of that line in The Sound of Music by the self-serving Uncle Max, "What's going to happen is going to happen. Just make sure it doesn't happen to you." He knew the Nazi's were wrong, he just didn't want to do anything to displease them so that he could go on living peacefully.

 

The comparison simply isn't valid. You could certainly apply it to civil rights or censorship but not abortion.

 

I respectfully disagree. What if society as a whole believes it is perfectly ok to do something that is wrong? (I recall a society that believed holding people in slavery was perfectly acceptable and a whole bunch of other folks who didn't agree. Those other folks were willing to fight a war to impose their morality.)

 

Because the argument was that African slaves were *not human* and it was therefore OK to treat them like property. It may have moral implications but the bottom line wasn't about morality. The slaves were human and therefore endowed with the same rights as everyone else.