Politics and Morals

In a free society do you think morals can be legislated by the govenment or do you think that morals are the domain of the religious community exclusively? Is it even possible to legislate morals and which morals would you legislate?

 

Only when morally questionable/non-linear behavior breaks the law should the govt step in.

Take Care
Ben

 

Only when A persons morals causes them to harm others...otherwise the government should have better things to do. I dont think morals are exclusively religion though...a person can have strong morals without religion as long as they have respect for their fellow man and human rights.

 

What about moral issues like homosexuality, postitution, abortion that some groups seek to restrict. Some of these activities are or were illegal mainly due to those that had moral objections to the practices. You can argue that no one is really harmed if someone is gay or choses to sell there body for money, or has an abortion (fetus aside). Yet we have those that seek to use the power of government to pass laws restricting the rights and privileges of certain sects of our society.

It's more than just a line drawn between those that do harm and those that are harmed. It's one group saying that they find some else's behavior sinful or morally objectionable because of their own personal belief system and using the power of government to stop someone else from participating in one of these or some other personal activity. You could include hunting, fishing, selling cars on Sundays, eating lemons on Christmas, etc... If all it takes is for one group to gain enough political clout through lobbying or direct participation in the political process to restrict some other groups rights, we are headed down a very slippery self-destructive slope in this country.

Now again, can morals truely be legislated by our leaders or should morality be left out of the process as much as possible?

 

I tend to think things like that should be left to a national or local referendum, let the people decide Prostitiution is legal in parts of Nevada...I assume because the people okay'd it...thats probably the best way to deal with such things.

 

Activities that harm society as a whole must be regulated. This includes everything from pollution regs to prostitution.

 

Well, I guess it's safe to say that you're not a Libertarian. :mouth:

Regulate EVERYTHING that ANYONE thinks may be harmful to society? Is that even possible? Think again.

 

A national referendum certainly wouldn't accomplish the local decision strategy and even a local referendum can subvert the rights of a large number of individuals in that area. I guess what you are saying is that if enough people vote to restrict let's say assisted suicide, then that is good enough for the rest of us and we should just give up our own morals and convictions and assume the other group's morals in their place. Is this what you meant to say?

 

I like the NRC checking the local nuke plant (I am sure that you agree).

 

Governments can make things legal or illegal; but they can't make them moral or immoral. Left to its own devices, a government will make the things they want to do and have everyone else do legal and moral, and what they choose not to permit people to do will be made illegal and immoral. If government determines that tree-huggers epitomize morality, they'll eventually start giving out medals to the tree-huggers and imprison those who are so immoral that they actually use their fireplaces for heat This is why the founders instead preferred a Constitutional Republic with limited powers delegated to the federal government. If enforcing morality was a legitimate function of government, they could have just used existing religious texts instead of drafting the Constitution in the first place. When things reach a point where governments are permitted to regulate everything that could conceivably harm "society" then we have moved from limited government to collectivism.

We had a real life example of this in New Jersey in the 90s. It was decided that eating runny eggs was unhealthy and harmed society, so it was banned. The state had a group that became known as the "egg police" go around the state and order eggs sunny side up in diners and restaurants. Whatever establishments served them were fined -- all for the good of society of course. But this went over the line even by NJ standards and was soon abandoned as another great Trenton fiasco.

 

How do you create a prohibitive law that is not based on morality? Murder, theft, slander... these acts are considered morally reprehensible, and that is why there are laws prohibiting and providing punishment for them. Of course, not everyone agrees on the moral aspect of these acts... we've still got hitmen and thieves, but the greater number of individuals do believe that these acts are improper (immoral) and therefore banned. Should these laws be repealled simply because the thieves and hitmen don't agree? No, of course not.

If morals were left out of legislation, then there would be no such laws protecting life or property. There would be no Constitutional rights at all.

 

yes, pretty much...like in Navada there was obviously enough people for prostitution that it was made legal (in some areas). Those people who do not want it legal were not enough to stop it. In cases like assisted suicide, if enough people felt it was okay and voted it to be legal...it doesnt effect anyone else but the person who is doing it thus if people get all up in arms about it, it is simply because they are angry others around them dont share their morals, not because it hurts them somehow. I am fine with a democratic referendum to test how the majority of people in that area feel about things...I cant think of a better way as I do not want to place the burden of makeing these choices on just one person or a small group of people who are as flawed and opinionate as anyone else. making a choice on a clear majority...this gives both sides a chance to give their point of view if they care...if they lose then they can live with it or do something about it, or move to areas that share their view. I hear a lot about making pot legal, how so many people seem to think it should be, but in the end a CLEAR majority in the US do NOT think this although in some areas a clear majority DO think this...thus they decriminalize in some areas and bust them hard in others...seems like a good way. It may seem unfair to those who lose but then again, lifes not fair and they have full right to try to change it if they choose or go to a community that shares thier point of view.

Certain things are, IMO, not moral based but logic and human rights based like murder and theft...these are not subjective...they harm others around you. Other things are not so clear cut...so leave it to the people of that area...

Like in east Texas there are dry counties...these counties are dry because a clear majority of people wanted it this way. In other places they are decriminalizing pot and allowing gays to wed...I assume because a majority wanted it this way in those areas...I am okay with this when it comes to more subjective moral issues. Objective moral issues like murder should not be in question.

I think today most people, in the end, think that homosexuality should not be a crime, but most do not want gays to wed...some area dont share this view thus they have a right to debate and petition and do everything the other side does to change the law...its democratic and in my opinion the best way to deal with subjective moral issues...mostly at a local level.

 

Here in Arkansas there are many dry counties... there is one east of me in particular. I know a sufficient number of knowledgable people there that the situation is quite clear. The county is officially dry, and there are no liquor stores or bars, but alcohol IS indeed available. The Sheriff personally controls alcohol in the county, and charges cash bribes from anybody who wants to make moonshine or sell alcohol, or you can buy direct from the deputies. It is a very tightly controlled and corrupt money making scheme. The sheriff runs the place like a personal fiefdom, and makes the rounds of the churches to make sure everybody votes to keep it dry. Everybody knows what's going on, but they figure that if the sheriff is selling, then he knows all the people buying and can keep a lid on it when things get out of hand. And anybody coming in from the outside with more than a bottle had better steer clear of these guys, because they play rough.

So here in Arkansas anyway... that's how we legislate morality.

 

that sheriff is playing a dangerous game. They just love johnny law in the pen.

 

In East Texas (hunt county) I dont know about anything like this but there is a college in one town (commerce) and they are the only town allowed to sell booze, everyone just goes there and brings it back....of course the consequence is that people end up buying booze, coming home and drinking it, then they run out, want more, get in the car and drive drunk back to commerce. I DO know that booze is banned by a clear majority of the popular vote...its a heavily religious area.

 

How does that constitute a moral issue?

 

I like the many viewpoints in this discussion so far. Some good points for and against moral-based laws. Some laws are clearly for the benefit of society as a whole and some laws seem to have been enacted for purely partisan or special interest group supporters. Once it is accepted that morals, to some degree at least, are necessary and inseparable from the act of governing a society, the next question is from which group in that society do we accept our moral values from? Should any one group dominate the field or should we leave it to the majority to decide which morals are going to be applied to the entire group?

 

The elephant in the room that nobody has addressed yet is "what is moral?" If we simply say that "harming others around you" is the definition of immorality, then wouldn't the guy next door who never mows his lawn be immoral because his actions harm me by devaluing my property? "But's that money, not personal harm," you say. For some people (too many, in my opinion, in the US), money defines them, so harming their personal worth is harming them.

Not that I think that all truths are equal. There is a moral law. Mine is defined by the God revealed in Scripture. However, it is inappropriate for the government to use the Bible as its benchmark. We the people, through our elected representatives, must find our own benchmark. My "what is moral?" question asks "what is that benchmark?"

 

Democracy... I remember when I was a child and the concept was explained to me. I thought that We the People had actual power. I thought that the government was there to make up the laws, but that we actually had a real say in what they were. How devastating it is to learn that money has the real power.

Personally, I believe in the concept of majority rule. However, my concept would require a serious change to the process. Senators I expect to be pompous political types... they're senators, after all. Representatives however should be just that... representative in Congress of their constituents. By that, all major issues should be publicly presented to voters in a simple and concise manner and left to popular vote for the consideration of the Representative for his stance in Congress... thus giving us a true voice and true representation.

By this, a two-thirds majority in the House and a 51% majority in the Senate should suffice for any bill relating to restrictions placed on the actions of the individual.

Of course, I would also require that bills be brought that are as simple and concise as the Constitution itself... not requiring a team of analysts and days or weeks to review the damn thing.... and no piggybacking seperate agendas to a popular bill to slide less popular legislation in. ARRRGGH!

 

Really KLJ, I'd of said that the elephant in the room is "Who's morals"?