Legislating Morality

[rjh4 is back]

Have you ever heard someone say the following or something like it:

"You can't legislate morality?"

I have. Usually the context is a discussion of whether or not certain behaviors should be against the law. For example, one individual might argue that some behavior should be against the law because it is immoral and the other individual will respond and say "But you can't legislate morality." I have always thought that such a response doesn't make much sense because in my view laws are always codifying someone's morality.

From reading alot of the discussions here on the issue of morality, I know that many of you hold that morality is essentially adhering to what society has agreed upon as being acceptable behavior. (I hope I characterized this accurately. If I have not, please correct me.) In this case, it would seem to follow that you would also agree with me that the argument "you can't legislate morality" is not a good argument in such discussions because all laws are codifying some morality.

Am I correct in my conclusion? If not, I would appreciate hearing your take on the issue.

[Scented Nectar]

I agree. Laws pretty much ARE the legislating of morality, so it looks like it can be done after all. Morality is an opinion about how right or wrong, beneficial or harmful, something is. Laws are there to control those things. That's not to say they are always in agreement with everyone's morality, but they do enforce a moral code.

[The Omnissiunt One]

It depends on your definition of morality, I suppose. If morality is just a set of laws that are required for society to operate, then the civil law is exactly that. If your morality, as mine does, takes into account the interests of non-humans too, then it goes beyond what is necessary for human society to function. Having said that, we have laws against animal cruelty (though only, it seems, for cute fluffy animals which we don't eat), which shows that our civil law incorporates other aspects of morality too.

[Paul the Human]

I think that when people say that (and I do say that on occasion), it is usually in response to something like abortion, where there is a grey and ill defined area of contention. It is probably an inaccurate use of the word morality.

I've used that phrase when I actually mean, 'you can't legislate your dogmatic beliefs.'

[Minimalist]

Abortion is a good one although there are so many other facets to it.

Let's consider the so-called "Drug Wars." This is an attempt to legislate "morality" by criminalizing behavior. It has not worked and a case could be made that it has backfired. It's been illegal for a long time but people still do it with no noticeable effect of what are in many states Draconian laws.

People are now seizing the opportunity to vote for marijuana when they get the chance and the state of Californian is realizing that it could use the revenue generated by taxing pot. Oddly, this was the primary rationale for the repeal of Prohibition, another attempt to legislate "morality."


Perhaps, rjh, I could suggest an amendment to your OP.

You can not successfully legislate morality.

[Cego_Colher]

I don't consider the drinking or using drugs to be immoral. Driving while impaired is another matter or other things that could endanger other people.

I'd say gay marriage would be a good example of it too, because a lot of religious people think that it's not right and that they would be living in sin, etc, etc.

[lrh9]

Maybe the more appropriate statement would be, "Fuck theocracy."

[rjh4 is back]

I think that when people say that (and I do say that on occasion), it is usually in response to something like abortion, where there is a grey and ill defined area of contention. It is probably an inaccurate use of the word morality.

I've used that phrase when I actually mean, 'you can't legislate your dogmatic beliefs.'

Paul, I don’t understand how the level of belief in an issue would suddenly make the argument reasonable. On both sides of most issues there are ranges for how people believe about the issue, e.g., dogmatically for the issue, moderately for the issue, moderately against the issue, and dogmatically against the issue. One side wins in congress and a law is passed. No matter which side prevails in the law making, isn’t someone’s dogmatic belief being legislated?

Abortion is a good one although there are so many other facets to it.

Let's consider the so-called "Drug Wars." This is an attempt to legislate "morality" by criminalizing behavior. It has not worked and a case could be made that it has backfired. It's been illegal for a long time but people still do it with no noticeable effect of what are in many states Draconian laws.

People are now seizing the opportunity to vote for marijuana when they get the chance and the state of Californian is realizing that it could use the revenue generated by taxing pot. Oddly, this was the primary rationale for the repeal of Prohibition, another attempt to legislate "morality."

Perhaps, rjh, I could suggest an amendment to your OP.

You can not successfully legislate morality.

I agree with you on your conclusion that you cannot successfully legislate morality at least in the sense that no matter what the laws prohibit I think you could find someone who goes against it. Laws against murder, slavery, stealing, blackmail, etc. are also attempts to legislate “morality” by criminalizing behavior but people still do these things.

Maybe the more appropriate statement would be, "**** theocracy."

What does theocracy have to do with anything in this thread? Don’t atheists have morals that they desire to legislate also (see my comment to Min)?

[Paul the Human]

Paul, I don’t understand how the level of belief in an issue would suddenly make the argument reasonable. On both sides of most issues there are ranges for how people believe about the issue, e.g., dogmatically for the issue, moderately for the issue, moderately against the issue, and dogmatically against the issue. One side wins in congress and a law is passed. No matter which side prevails in the law making, isn’t someone’s dogmatic belief being legislated?

Okay, I see what you're saying. Let me clarify a bit. Let's say that a large number of people (for whatever reasons) feel that abortion is immoral and, so thinking, wish for a law preventing anyone in the country from getting one. Now, even if it is a majority that feels that way, there are going to be those that feel that the choice of whether or not to get an abortion should be up to the individual to decide - and not up to those who wish to legislate their morality upon everyone. If a law is passed banning abortion, one group has forced their morality upon another.

I understand that all laws are the legislation of morality in one way or another, but not everything has such a grey and undefined area of contention that an issue like abortion does. Laws should never infringe upon anyone's personal freedom and right to choose what is moral or immoral to them as an individual. Laws about theft and murder and rape... do not fall into that category, as there is no grey area, so to speak. And the rule of law is necessary to maintain a society.

Another example: Not long ago, the county just south of the one I live in finally repealed a law prohibiting the sale of liquor on Sundays (last one in the state to repeal said law). I, personally, felt such a law was wrong, as it enforced the sanctity (for lack of a better word) of the Christian Sabbath upon everyone in the county... and yes... that is the origin of the law in question. That was a case of legislated morality in the "you shouldn't legislate morality" sense. Why can't I buy liquor on Sunday? What's different about Sunday? To me? Nothing at all... except that some religious people don't think I should be able to buy liquor. If they don't want to buy liquor on Sundays... no one is forcing them to... so why force me not to?

That is what I (personally) mean when I say something like, "Don't legislate your morality upon me."

[rjh4 is back]

Okay, I see what you're saying. Let me clarify a bit. Let's say that a large number of people (for whatever reasons) feel that abortion is immoral and, so thinking, wish for a law preventing anyone in the country from getting one. Now, even if it is a majority that feels that way, there are going to be those that feel that the choice of whether or not to get an abortion should be up to the individual to decide - and not up to those who wish to legislate their morality upon everyone. If a law is passed banning abortion, one group has forced their morality upon another.

I understand that all laws are the legislation of morality in one way or another, but not everything has such a grey and undefined area of contention that an issue like abortion does. Laws should never infringe upon anyone's personal freedom and right to choose what is moral or immoral to them as an individual. Laws about theft and murder and rape... do not fall into that category, as there is no grey area, so to speak. And the rule of law is necessary to maintain a society.

Another example: Not long ago, the county just south of the one I live in finally repealed a law prohibiting the sale of liquor on Sundays (last one in the state to repeal said law). I, personally, felt such a law was wrong, as it enforced the sanctity (for lack of a better word) of the Christian Sabbath upon everyone in the county... and yes... that is the origin of the law in question. That was a case of legislated morality in the "you shouldn't legislate morality" sense. Why can't I buy liquor on Sunday? What's different about Sunday? To me? Nothing at all... except that some religious people don't think I should be able to buy liquor. If they don't want to buy liquor on Sundays... no one is forcing them to... so why force me not to?

That is what I (personally) mean when I say something like, "Don't legislate your morality upon me."

For the most part I understand your position and I think your example of liquor sales on a Sunday is a good one. I don't think the abortion example is quite as clear, however, as there is the issue of the whether or not the unborn child/fetus has rights. (Note, I am merely mentioning this as one possible distinction as to where lines may be drawn. This statement was not an indication that I want to debate the abortion issue. I don't.)

I do have a couple of questions, though, about some of what you said. You said:

"Laws should never infringe upon anyone's personal freedom and right to choose what is moral or immoral to them as an individual."

And then went on to say:

"Laws about theft and murder and rape... do not fall into that category, as there is no grey area, so to speak."

What does whether or not there is a "grey area" have to do with whether or not a law infringes upon anyone's personal freedom and right to choose what is moral or immoral to them as an individual? A thief could certainly argue that the laws against stealing infringes upon his personal freedom and right to choose what is moral or immoral to them as an individual, right? And it seems to me the thief would have a reasonable point. Consequently, I think that in discussing pros and cons to potential or existing laws, the argument relative to "legislating morality" is weak.

One statement of yours I can certainly agree with:

"And the rule of law is necessary to maintain a society."