NationStates Jolt Archive

"One cannot legislate morality, but one can legislate freedom." Discuss.

"One cannot legislate morality, but one can legislate freedom." Discuss.

Ah, but can Freedom actually be legislated? Wouldn't legislation as such be oppressing freedom?

While I do believe that legislation should be based aroudnd foundational principles of freedom (as I do with my own NS); that freedom itself should not be subject to legislation; but the other way around. (Anarcho-Liberalism; aka Libertarianism)

As for legislating morality! Any nation-state wishing to base itself upon principles of liberty and freedom; should not be legislating morality... But singly legislating ethics in inter-relation of the freedoms and liberties of the people.

But singly legislating ethics in inter-relation of the freedoms and liberties of the people.

Ahh but whose version of ethics? Ethics and morality tend to merge when people try to legislate the "proper" actions of people.

Ah, but can Freedom actually be legislated? Wouldn't legislation as such be oppressing freedom?
What about legislation to protect people's freedom of speech, or freedom from abuse? There's also the whole "free election" thing, and "free" press, although how free these really are is another matter...

Ahh but whose version of ethics? Ethics and morality tend to merge when people try to legislate the "proper" actions of people.

Well, I do not believe in merging as such.

I guess liberality and freedom are the moral principles; in a sense.

More or less the concept that crime only exists where one or more people have removed the liberties and freedoms of one or more others.

Hense, my concept of murder is based on the "wrong" of removing ones life and liberty. (The idea that ones rights stop where anothers begin).

It even extends to the principle, that I refuse to base law upon my own personal religious beliefs...

This all comes out into very interesting "contradictions" in a sense to some people. For example:

- I Consider homosexuality a sin.
* But I support the right of homosexuals to marry.

- I consider my personal religious beliefs absolutely true in the eyes of the Lord.
* But I support the freedom of each person to the adherance to the religion of their own choosing (I consider atheism and such religions as well).

- I think racism and bigotry are wrong and immoral.
* But I support the right of such groups to speak their mind.

etc.

IOW, there is a firm dividing line between my moral adherence; and my political and legal beliefs.

What about legislation to protect people's freedom of speech, or freedom from abuse? There's also the whole "free election" thing, and "free" press, although how free these really are is another matter...

I do not believe such things should be legislated; such should be constitutionaly foundationable...

If such is already constitutional foundational... There is no need for legislation; If such is being violated; they should be treated under the realm of Constitutional law and not under the realm of legislative code.

Also, my extent of legal basis, is the flowing of the supremecy of the people onto a servile government; and not vice-versa. That is government has its powers enumerated, rather than people having their rights under grant.

What is law, other than the written form of the common morality?

What is law, other than the written form of the common morality?

The oppression of the few or the one by the many. In some instances this isn't a bad thing, but in others it is. Murder and rape are good things to oppress. What one chooses to do to their own body is not.

Likewise, the "common morality" is a very fluid concept as individuals may have difering opionions of what is considered moral. Is revenge moral and thus an excuse for killing another? How about self defense?

Any nation-state wishing to base itself upon principles of liberty and freedom; should not be legislating morality... But singly legislating ethics in inter-relation of the freedoms and liberties of the people.

So freedom somehow transends morality, rather than being a moral concept? If so, how does one justify the claim that states should encourage freedom?

So freedom somehow transends morality, rather than being a moral concept? If so, how does one justify the claim that states should encourage freedom?

I don't believe states should encourage freedom; they should be based upon it. Founded on it.

I think some of this comes from different views of source and result. Most people view "freedom" as a moral grant by an authorotative power.

I see it as an inherant trait, to which government is enumerated arbitrational powers from the source, that is the people.

I would class the difference in operation by motivational characteristics. Morality will define murder, for example, as being either against common good of the people, or against the moral direction of the people; From a non-moral view, it is simply a violation of the freedoms and liberties of another.

Read 'On liberty' by John Stuart Mill.

Freedom itself cannot be legislated. It exists. Legislating morality interferes with the already existent freedom. Freedom is always there. You're either granted access to it or denied access to it.

"One cannot legislate morality, but one can legislate freedom." Discuss.
Both freedom and morality must be learned again and again and again.

Governments are inherently against both freedom and morality as they exist to restrict and take responsibility of action out of the hands of the average person.

Governments are inherently against both freedom and morality as they exist to restrict and take responsibility of action out of the hands of the average person.
Interesting viewpoint. I would agree that the usual structure of goverment tends to arrogate power and money unto itself at the expense of the people.

Amen is all I have to say.
And I'm stealing this quote.
Where'd it come from?

I don't believe states should encourage freedom; they should be based upon it. Founded on it.

I think some of this comes from different views of source and result. Most people view "freedom" as a moral grant by an authorotative power.

I see it as an inherant trait, to which government is enumerated arbitrational powers from the source, that is the people.

I would class the difference in operation by motivational characteristics. Morality will define murder, for example, as being either against common good of the people, or against the moral direction of the people; From a non-moral view, it is simply a violation of the freedoms and liberties of another.

OK, leaving aside the assertion that freedom is an iherant trait (debatable, IMHO), we have the view that acts such as murder are a violation of the freedoms and liberties of another. The question here, then, becomes how does one respond to the person who replies "so what?". That is, how do we make this statement part of a normative statement?