Legislating Morality

[Paul the Human]

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.

The reference to a 'grey area' was what I feel puts that into the category of 'legislating morality' (your example concerning whether or not a fetus has rights points one of these 'grey areas' out nicely). The 'personal freedoms' thing is separate, i.e. 'grey area' was not in reference to 'personal freedoms'.

I knew that you would (probably) bring up the thief claiming that laws against theft infringe on his rights. Heheh. Here is the difference: The act of theft infringes upon the personal freedoms of the thief's victims. Theft, by default, has 'victims'. Legislation against actions that 'victimize' another... are the very laws that keep society afloat.

However, if a law is passed that makes it illegal to, say, eat meat on Friday... that law serves no purpose other than to force dogmatic morality upon everyone, whether they agree or not. It does nothing to prevent victimization.

Don't get me wrong, I am also against legislating "Mommy knows best" ideals, as well. Why should it be a law that I must wear a seatbelt when I drive? I do... but I do it for my own safety... not because the government is concerned for my safety. The government should not tell me what I must do to keep myself safe. It may suggest, but not force. And, once I am elected Emperor, that is how it will be.

[rjh4 is back]

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.

The reference to a 'grey area' was what I feel puts that into the category of 'legislating morality' (your example concerning whether or not a fetus has rights points one of these 'grey areas' out nicely). The 'personal freedoms' thing is separate, i.e. 'grey area' was not in reference to 'personal freedoms'.

I knew that you would (probably) bring up the thief claiming that laws against theft infringe on his rights. Heheh. Here is the difference: The act of theft infringes upon the personal freedoms of the thief's victims. Theft, by default, has 'victims'. Legislation against actions that 'victimize' another... are the very laws that keep society afloat.

However, if a law is passed that makes it illegal to, say, eat meat on Friday... that law serves no purpose other than to force dogmatic morality upon everyone, whether they agree or not. It does nothing to prevent victimization.

Don't get me wrong, I am also against legislating "Mommy knows best" ideals, as well. Why should it be a law that I must wear a seatbelt when I drive? I do... but I do it for my own safety... not because the government is concerned for my safety. The government should not tell me what I must do to keep myself safe. It may suggest, but not force. And, once I am elected Emperor, that is how it will be.

I think I understand your whole position here and mostly agree (with the exception of the abortion thing as I would argue there is a victim...but that would be for another discussion/thread ). Thanks for responding.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Of course laws are often based on morality,which in turn is based on pragmatism. The law is primarily about maintaining order and the status quo,not justice.

Many laws are purely about the dominant power paradigm: EG Tax Law, conscription, intellectual property rights.

We can and do legislate morality all the time. However, laws only work if enough people agree with them or can't get away with breaking them.. Laws reflect social attitudes,they don't create them.Eg; tax evasion is a national sport in most countries,as is internet piracy, and who can forget the US disaster of prohibition. (18th Amendment) Drug laws are a political solution to medical and practical problems. Most of the problems would disappear with the legalisation of all illegal drugs.

It took a full generation in my country before drink driving became socially unacceptable. No fault divorce and our family law act reflected social values at the time. Gay marriage will be legalised when enough want it to be. I think within a decade here and I think that's encouraging. From homosexuality being illegal to legal gay marriage with in a 50 year period speaks well of the secularisation my country. Other good signs are our divorce laws,licensing laws and Sunday trading of all kinds*

*Until I was 18. Pubs closed here at 6 PM and were not open on Sunday. No restaurants or cinemas were open on Sunday,and no organised sport was allowed. All businesses closed at 11 AM Saturday and did not open again until Monday. I think milk was delivered on Sunday;our milkman had his own cows;our milk was raw and great. South Australia was known as "the wowser state''.

The rest of Australia still think Adelaide is the dark side of the moon. You can imagine what it was like here until about 1970.

[Eilonnwy]

Yes and no. It's really a subjective issue.

Certain legislative moves do attempt to legislate morality and are successful. Such moves involve civil rights issues. Certain legislation has made discrimination against blacks or more recently gays, illegal. Historically with the black civil right issues, legislation came before the moral social stance changed. Gay marriage is currently in the process of being legislated while public opinion is mostly against it. I believe that once Gay marriage is fully legal across the board in this country, public opinion will change and most will look back and recognize how immoral it is to prevent gays from enjoying the same freedoms that straight people do.

On the other hand, people tried to make alcohol illegal and that failed miserably. Prohibition eventually ended and gradually blue laws are being stripped away. It used to be illegal to purchase alcohol on Sunday in Massachusetts. That changed a few years ago.

It really depends on the issue.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

It really depends on the issue.

I think it also depends on one's concept of morality. An egoist, mine is that morality is based on pragmatism. I reject the notion of a transcendent and/or absolute morality.