NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm going to assume for a moment that the vast majority of you agree with laws against murder, laws against theft, etc. etc.

To those of you who say legislating morality is wrong, have you ever stopped to think, and realized that laws against murder, laws against theft, etc. ARE legislations concerning morality? Every sort of value is a form of morality.

It is your morals that tell you, murdering someone is wrong. Your morals that tell you, stealing is wrong. Morals that tell you, cheating is wrong.

So on so forth.

So to all of you who say legislating morality is wrong, what do you have to say to that?

They'll probably say something to the extent that those are religious morals, etc.

Sigh.

These are morals that everyone can agree on.

Its like a deal you make with the rest of society. You promise that you wont do it, and everyone else wont either. Its not a question of morality.

We legislate the morals that actually deal with harming someone other than the perpetrator. Theft affects a victim. Murder affects a victim. Many things that some people view as degenerate or evil have no effect on anyone else.

We legislate the morals that actually deal with harming someone other than the perpetrator. Theft affects a victim. Murder affects a victim. Many things that some people view as degenerate or evil have no effect on anyone else.
all I have to say

Such laws are not made out of morality. They exist out of need, out of the necessary stability in the interaction of humans.

It isnt that sometimes some guys didnt diserve to get stolen. But we legislate against theft because if society did not agree that theft was counter-productive, it could not exist, or at least, exist supporting the concept of private property, and so on. Its all game theory gentlemen.

They'll probably say something to the extent that those are religious morals, etc.

Sigh.

To that Let me just say.

Cthulhu Fhatagn!

http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~tabby_cat/cthulhu/cthulhuC.jpg
http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~tabby_cat/cthulhu/cthulhuF.jpg

Such laws are not made out of morality. They exist out of need, out of the necessary stability in the interaction of humans.

It isnt that sometimes some guys didnt diserve to get stolen. But we legislate against theft because if society did not agree that theft was counter-productive, it could not exist, or at least, exist supporting the concept of private property, and so on. Its all game theory gentlemen.

truer words were never uttered

We legislate the morals that actually deal with harming someone other than the perpetrator. Theft affects a victim. Murder affects a victim. Many things that some people view as degenerate or evil have no effect on anyone else.

I completely agree. It's like Hobbes said, without these laws, the life of man is nasty, cruel, brutish, and short. Society develops rules that limit a person's actions; but that limitation should be as small as possible. You have the right to swing your fist, but it stops in front of my face, etc. Therefore, you can't kill anyone because that infringes upon their rights, but you can do whatever you want to yourself on your own time. At least, that's how it's supposed to be...

We legislate the morals that actually deal with harming someone other than the perpetrator. Theft affects a victim. Murder affects a victim. Many things that some people view as degenerate or evil have no effect on anyone else.
Yes, and legislating some of the morals that people want to actually victimise people in their own right.

I completely agree. It's like Hobbes said, without these laws, the life of man is nasty, cruel, brutish, and short. Society develops rules that limit a person's actions; but that limitation should be as small as possible. You have the right to swing your fist, but it stops in front of my face, etc. Therefore, you can't kill anyone because that infringes upon their rights, but you can do whatever you want to yourself on your own time. At least, that's how it's supposed to be...
dude, dont get me started on hobbes, the man was seriously athoritarian

We legislate the morals that actually deal with harming someone other than the perpetrator. Theft affects a victim. Murder affects a victim. Many things that some people view as degenerate or evil have no effect on anyone else.

What about abortion? Abortion effects a victim.

What about abortion? Abortion effects a victim.

no dude, it really, really doesnt

What about abortion? Abortion effects a victim.
There are whole threads on this topic. It'll be hard to address everything here. And is denying someone a right of controlling their own body not creating another victim?

A man consents to a law punishing murderers and agrees not to become a murderer , in order that he will not himself be murdered.

A man consents to a law punishing theft and agreeing not to become a thief , in order that he will not himself be stolen from.

Laws against murder and theft are not "legislated morality" they are legislated self interest.

An example of "Morality Laws" people are against are things like banning gay rights. How are you being damaged by some random people you don't know and have never seen loving each other? And don't say that they disturb you on a religious background- Separation of Church and State means that your argument is null and void.

Such laws are not made out of morality. They exist out of need, out of the necessary stability in the interaction of humans.

It isnt that sometimes some guys didnt diserve to get stolen. But we legislate against theft because if society did not agree that theft was counter-productive, it could not exist, or at least, exist supporting the concept of private property, and so on. Its all game theory gentlemen.


Exactly.

I'm going to assume for a moment that the vast majority of you agree with laws against murder, laws against theft, etc. etc.

To those of you who say legislating morality is wrong, have you ever stopped to think, and realized that laws against murder, laws against theft, etc. ARE legislations concerning morality? Every sort of value is a form of morality.

It is your morals that tell you, murdering someone is wrong. Your morals that tell you, stealing is wrong. Morals that tell you, cheating is wrong.

So on so forth.

So to all of you who say legislating morality is wrong, what do you have to say to that?

Theft and murder involve person and property. Those things that can be quantified and regulated. When "moral issues" are brought into political discussion, it's invariably wedge issues that evoke an emotional response. That's what I say to that.

[QUOTE=LordaeronII]To those of you who say legislating morality is wrong, have you ever stopped to think, and realized that laws against murder, laws against theft, etc. ARE legislations concerning morality? Every sort of value is a form of morality.[QUOTE]

While it is true that um, refraining from killing people can be called a good moral, this is not why it is enforced by legislation. It is enforced because our constituted declares that everyone has the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Laws against murder are protecting our rights, not enforcing morals.

Writing legislation on the basis of morals is simply wrong because not everyone has the same morals: some people believe abortion is immoral, some do not; some people believe gay marriage is immoral, some do not. We cannot force the morals of those in power upon everyone.

Murder and theft aren't good examples.

I prefer national healthcare (or healthcare in general) and welfare to be better examples. A lot of people will tell you the reason we have those is because its "immoral" for us to let people die and not help them out. I agree, but then again I'm for legislating morality.

I'm going to assume for a moment that the vast majority of you agree with laws against murder, laws against theft, etc. etc.

To those of you who say legislating morality is wrong, have you ever stopped to think, and realized that laws against murder, laws against theft, etc. ARE legislations concerning morality? Every sort of value is a form of morality.

It is your morals that tell you, murdering someone is wrong. Your morals that tell you, stealing is wrong. Morals that tell you, cheating is wrong.

So on so forth.

So to all of you who say legislating morality is wrong, what do you have to say to that?

What you should realise is that law does not necessarily have anything to do with morality. Laws against murder, theft etc.... are all necessary without the moral context. They are needed quite rationally to prevent the disintegration of society. Morality need not have anything to do with it.

In the moral context; I would concur.
Murder is wrong.
Stealing is wrong.
A variety of other crimes are wrong.

However, in a logical and pragmatic sense, they are still wrong because they lead to disorder and chaos which is in essence a threat to our survival. Morality is not necessary to justify the existence of laws against such crimes.....

Like all things, attempts to codify into true science what is necessary and what is not in law is an area of grey between black and white extremes

For example

Obviously killing someone should be illegal

Obviously what flavour of ice cream you eat should be a choice that you decide and is not legally coded for you


However, the middle question, such issues as 'is killing yourself ok - because you're not hurting anyone else, and yet you are killing none the less' become murkier and it is best to accept that these are contentious issues, and that while society will and does have to decide which side of the issue to go with - legalise, criminalise or ignore - it should be recognised that it is a lot less clear cut than the moral absolutes.

However, the middle question, such issues as 'is killing yourself ok - because you're not hurting anyone else, and yet you are killing none the less' become murkier and it is best to accept that these are contentious issues, and that while society will and does have to decide which side of the issue to go with - legalise, criminalise or ignore - it should be recognised that it is a lot less clear cut than the moral absolutes.
Behold! One wiser than us all!

We legislate the morals that actually deal with harming someone other than the perpetrator. Theft affects a victim. Murder affects a victim. Many things that some people view as degenerate or evil have no effect on anyone else.
Yes, this is the answer of we libertarians.

Writing legislation on the basis of morals is simply wrong because not everyone has the same morals: .... some people believe gay marriage is immoral, some do not. We cannot force the morals of those in power upon everyone.
Not to mention that banning gay marriage infringes on the right to pursuit of happiness.

Yes, this is the answer of we libertarians.
Liberals as well. We just differ on the economy.

Murder and theft aren't good examples.

I prefer national healthcare (or healthcare in general) and welfare to be better examples. A lot of people will tell you the reason we have those is because its "immoral" for us to let people die and not help them out. I agree, but then again I'm for legislating morality.
Well you might conceive the matter morally, that is not the only rational. I see appropriate healthcare and welfare provisions as being functional and utilitarian in a cooperative type society, for various reasons.

Evidently there is a difference between morality and ethics, even though they overlap in many areas. Morals are personal, they are about you and your life. Ethics are public, they are about what you can rightfully expect from all others. Ethics because they are public are open to testing and reasoning, you cant justify an ethic by saying, 'because it's ethical'. So morally people might say that you shouldnt have protected sex outside of marraige even if you are both infertile and neither have any disease anyway, because it's immoral to do so, but ethically there is no justification for censoring such behaviour in the scenario described. We can reason that society will not function if we allow people to kill each other with impunity, so we can ethically justify murder prohibitions.

I'm going to assume for a moment that the vast majority of you agree with laws against murder, laws against theft, etc. etc.

To those of you who say legislating morality is wrong, have you ever stopped to think, and realized that laws against murder, laws against theft, etc. ARE legislations concerning morality? Every sort of value is a form of morality.

It is your morals that tell you, murdering someone is wrong. Your morals that tell you, stealing is wrong. Morals that tell you, cheating is wrong.

So on so forth.

So to all of you who say legislating morality is wrong, what do you have to say to that?And LordaeronII gets it wrong once again. (nice streak you have going there, chuckles)

Let me set you straight, we all acknowledge laws are based upon morality.

We just don't want you deciding what is 'Moral'.

That's the impasse, not that laws shouldn't be about morals.
It's about who decides what is moral and what is not.

Jeez... buy them books... send them to school....and what do they do?

Eat the freakin' teacher.

Legislating moral issues is often necessary, and the argument is no proper defense of the pro-choice side.

I'm going to assume for a moment that the vast majority of you agree with laws against murder, laws against theft, etc. etc.

To those of you who say legislating morality is wrong, have you ever stopped to think, and realized that laws against murder, laws against theft, etc. ARE legislations concerning morality? Every sort of value is a form of morality.

It is your morals that tell you, murdering someone is wrong. Your morals that tell you, stealing is wrong. Morals that tell you, cheating is wrong.

So on so forth.

So to all of you who say legislating morality is wrong, what do you have to say to that?

The government is there to protect it's citizens. Thus, any action on the part of one person which can be clearly and objectively shown to harm another can be legislated against.

Some "morals" however, include bans on actions which cannot be objectively shown to harm another. While any person can choose to follow their own morals and not partake of these actions, trying to force (by legislation) that "morality" on others removes their freedoms, and is thus obviously harm.

I'm going to assume for a moment that the vast majority of you agree with laws against murder, laws against theft, etc. etc.

To those of you who say legislating morality is wrong, have you ever stopped to think, and realized that laws against murder, laws against theft, etc. ARE legislations concerning morality? Every sort of value is a form of morality.

It is your morals that tell you, murdering someone is wrong. Your morals that tell you, stealing is wrong. Morals that tell you, cheating is wrong.

So on so forth.

So to all of you who say legislating morality is wrong, what do you have to say to that?


ZOMG!! U KAME UP WITH AN ARGUMENT NO 1 ACTUALLY EVAR THOT ABOUT B4!!!!!ONE!!!ELEVENTYTHREE

Thats what id say if you tried to use that tired old hack against me to my face.


A society that lets its populace murder and steal from one another soon breaks down into chaos. Just because your religion says theyre bad doesnt mean the concept is based in christian morality (which is what the anti-morality legislation people actually mean in general when they argue against it, a religions morality enforced through law). Hell the ancient greeks and romans had laws against murder and theft. They'd be dirty pagans doomed to burn forever in hell by your standards, fifteen minutes of thought before you posted that might have reminded you of that.

Such laws are not made out of morality. They exist out of need, out of the necessary stability in the interaction of humans.

It isnt that sometimes some guys didnt diserve to get stolen. But we legislate against theft because if society did not agree that theft was counter-productive, it could not exist, or at least, exist supporting the concept of private property, and so on. Its all game theory gentlemen.
What does society say is counterproductive though? It's still back to this morality thing, where we figured out that theft was counter-productive.

Murder and theft aren't good examples.

I prefer national healthcare (or healthcare in general) and welfare to be better examples. A lot of people will tell you the reason we have those is because its "immoral" for us to let people die and not help them out. I agree, but then again I'm for legislating morality.
I don't argue for national healthcare because I think it's moral (I tihnk it is, but that's not why I argue for it). I argue for it because it helps us be more efficient from a labor standpoint--if people are able to get preventive health care, we lose less time to avoidable illness and are able to raise the standard of living for everyone in the US. That it's moral in my view is just lagniappe. But moral or not, it's still a plus in my book.

What does society say is counterproductive though? It's still back to this morality thing, where we figured out that theft was counter-productive.
Most societies tend to contend that counterproductive things are those things which interfere with the smooth flow of production and/or things that are contrary to either their ethical ideology, their moral ideology, or both. Most societies have tended to travel primarily on foot or by animal, that doesnt mean we should ignore technological advances that make other more efficient modes of transport possible. Morals cannot be legislated, because you cant have different laws for different people and different people do have different morals. Again I point out the difference between morality and ethics. Morality is a 'feeling' that purportedly justifies itself, or a belief that is justified within a non-empiracally testable belief system, by virtue of that belief system itself. Ethics are rules derived from empiracal understandings, that are justified by applying sound reasoning to cause and effect relationships.

I'm going to assume for a moment that the vast majority of you agree with laws against murder, laws against theft, etc. etc.

To those of you who say legislating morality is wrong, have you ever stopped to think, and realized that laws against murder, laws against theft, etc. ARE legislations concerning morality? Every sort of value is a form of morality.

It is your morals that tell you, murdering someone is wrong. Your morals that tell you, stealing is wrong. Morals that tell you, cheating is wrong.

So on so forth.

So to all of you who say legislating morality is wrong, what do you have to say to that?

Like most people, I support laws against murder, theft, etc, etc. However, I support them not because they are based on morals, but because they are practical. It is in the interest of everyone to live in a society where there are laws against murder.

I am against "legislating morality" in the sense that I would oppose a law that is proposed just because is against a certain religious doctrine. Gay marriage is a good example of this. There seems to be no practical reason not to have gay marriage, but people are trying to stop it by "legislating morality."

Two words : victimless crime.

i am all for legislateing morality.
wait you mean legislateing IMmorality.which is what christians want.
there is only one immoral action,harming another.
takeing there choices clearly harms them.so do you really wish to legislate immorality?

Behold! One wiser than us all!

BURN HIM!!!
LOL

I disagree with social safety nets. Government healthcare ect ect is wrong in my oppinion. What right does the government have to tell me I should help other people who are sick. I infact do believe in helping people who are down on their luck, I donate money to various causes, what I disagree with is being forced to donate to causes.

I disagree with social safety nets. Government healthcare ect ect is wrong in my oppinion. What right does the government have to tell me I should help other people who are sick. I infact do believe in helping people who are down on their luck, I donate money to various causes, what I disagree with is being forced to donate to causes.

Because a dispossessed homeless and indigent population doesnt reflect well on the richest country in the world? Have you no pride in your country?

How about enlightened self interest? People who cannot get health care tend to lose jobs from injury or illness. Also, if a poor person catches some hugely contagious disease, and doesnt go to the doctor because he's too poor to do so, its likely it wont be diagnosed and will spread..even to those of you who DO have health care.

I work very hard (as a baker for those curious) a necessary job, providing food to people who lack the time or skills to prepare it themselves. Three years ago at 22 I caught viral miocarditis. Which as explained to me in dumbed down terms from the medical, was an infection related to the flu, that swelled bloodvessels shut, you can get it in any major blood vessel, in my case it hit the heart and i had cardiac arrest as i staggered into the emergency room. I died on the table and had to be resucitated, a pacemaker was inserted for a time, and i spent four days in the hospital. As i make about 600 dollars a month I couldnt afford my own insurance...moreover the bill came to right around 25 thousand dollars. Were it not for the "horrible" socialized health care in oregon, id still be paying that off, or have had to declare bankruptcy and destroy any chance of getting ahead any time soon. Without that socialized health care, my options would have been....die....or be stuck with a debt that odds are would have tipped me from the brink of poverty down to it completely. Its simply a case of Preventative medicine. A healthy working populace fuels the economy and helps our country grow....a sickly dying populace does not.

Society has set up guidelines called laws to prohibit or promote some actions by members of society. Some acts are considered illegal (you are subject to punishment if you are caught committing that act) and some acts are considered compulsary (you are subject to punishment if you do not do this thing).

Actions considered harmfull to society are often made illegal. Examples: Murder and theft. Other actions, considered to enhance or benefit society, are often made compulsory. Driving on the a particular side of the road is an example of this. Obviously not all of these laws are about morality. I do not think a reasonable person would consider the people of New Zealand immoral for driving on the opposite side of the road from Americans. These types of laws are simply a social agreement designed to allow the members of the society to benefit through general adherance to an established code.

So should we use the law to legislate what is moral?

I think that this is dangerious.
1. Our (humankinds) expectations of what is right/wrong has changed greatly through history. Things that we look back on today as grossly unfair (like trial by ordeal) were considered right and good when they were first implimented. Old example but what about segrigation or teaching evolution is schools? Is information immoral?

2. We run the risk of law equaling what is moral. Creating the effect of legal=moral. illegal=immoral. You broke the speed limit so you are a bad person. Maybe reckless but immoral? What if they broke the law with good reason, does that mean morality is flexible? Maybe it is. Here's an excuse to break the law: I don't agree with your judgement on this being immoral so I choose to ignore it. If law is law then there is no argument (you broke the rules so you get punished) if law is morality then there is an argument (no matter who wins).

3. Laws are created by an empowered section of society. Should an empowered majority be allowed to determin not only what is permissible in society but also what is right and wrong (moral and immoral). If the wrong people gain power and subvert the cause of justice can I rightfully ignore the law?

4. Laws try to put into language what people feel and desire. Language changes and can be interpreted. Would a law put in place now still mean the same thing in 100 years time? Would its moral basis still be the same? Would questioning the "outdated law" be considered immoral and hence illegal?

My personal opinion
I do not look to my government to provide me moral guidance, I look to myself, my family, peers and my upbringing. I don't steal, not because I'm afraid of the law, but because I don't want to be stolen from and I believe stealing to be generally wrong.

As I sit here and try to write that I believe we shouldn't legisalte morality I find it difficult. Certainly my ego says that my moral judgements are correct and would make a fine basis for law. Yet its so dangerious (see above) and what if I am wrong?

In the end, I live in a democracy. The majority of people represented by our elected representatives make the laws that bind the people of my country. I don't agree with all of the laws but I choose to live here and hence I choose to live by those rules (I know big gaping hole, what if you can't choose where you live?).

I think most people are like myself: caring, a little selfish and occasionaly a little careless. If we all do our best to make our society the best place it can be through what we say and do then I believe the law will reflect the believes of the majority.

Of course, if you think the majority is wrong, then this won't work for you.

Laws should always be based on mutual protection.

Society is and has always been based on the power of numbers. To have numbers you must an adhesive force holding people together. Laws are what society invented to fulfill this need. When a society guarantees the mutual protection of its citizens the citizens will bind together inside it. That is the purpose of laws.

If you look at your Christian laws they all relate back to ancient Israel and were nothing more than codes that were to be followed in societies back then. They were so strong that they still manage to bind people today.

However, if you begin to legislate morality, the mutual protection provided by the laws tends to break down. This leads to a growing disrespect for the laws and causes an unraveling of society as wedges are driven in it and people are less and less protected by it.

That is why morality cannot be legislated, at least not in this country.