Law and morality

[jemfinch]

I’m curious about something that’s been nagging me for awhile, I’m curious what information I can get by asking about it here.

There are a number of cases in the past century where American law has ceased to enforce matters of morality: it is no longer illegal (in most jurisdictions) to engage in sodomy, to use contraceptives, to commit adultery, and of course, to procure an abortion.

The Church’s stance on abortion is very clear: supporting its legality is not moral. But, as far as I know (which isn’t very far, I’ll admit) I haven’t seen the Church take a stance on supporting the legality of these other moral issues.

Should adultery, sodomy, and contraceptives be legal, or illegal? I’m not sure what stance I should take. Politically, I tend toward the libertarian end of the spectrum, but I’m not sure if that’s an orthodox political view to hold, and would like to hear from other Catholics on this issue.

Jeremy

 

[ribozyme]

I’m curious about something that’s been nagging me for awhile, I’m curious what information I can get by asking about it here.

There are a number of cases in the past century where American law has ceased to enforce matters of morality: it is no longer illegal (in most jurisdictions) to engage in sodomy, to use contraceptives, to commit adultery, and of course, to procure an abortion.

The Church’s stance on abortion is very clear: supporting its legality is not moral. But, as far as I know (which isn’t very far, I’ll admit) I haven’t seen the Church take a stance on supporting the legality of these other moral issues.

Should adultery, sodomy, and contraceptives be legal, or illegal? I’m not sure what stance I should take. Politically, I tend toward the libertarian end of the spectrum, but I’m not sure if that’s an orthodox political view to hold, and would like to hear from other Catholics on this issue.

Jeremy

You are not a libertarian if you think the government should interfere with the affairs that go on within someone’s bedroom.

I loathe pornography, too, but for an extremely different reason that Catholics hold. However, I do not believe the government should intervene unless it harms people. This is congruent with the harm principle advocated by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty. Also, morality is independent from authorities, and this is a necessary truth one must acknowledge to make it to stage 5 on the Kohlberg scale.

However, it seems to me that “libertarians” simply have an antipathy towards paying taxes (in contrast to moral issues) according to this essay by China Mieville.

inthesetimes.com/article/3328/floating_utopias/

 

[jemfinch]

You are not a libertarian if you think the government should interfere with the affairs that go on within someone’s bedroom.

Many things might happen in the bedroom which a Libertarian government would still interfere with: for instance, rape. It’s not the bedroom which would make the act impervious to government interference, but some other quality, which I’m trying to discern.

However, I do not believe the government should intervene unless it harms people.

Contraceptives can harm people, if they’re abortifacient. Adultery clearly harms the innocent spouse. And it could easily be argued from Catholic morality that sodomy harms both parties involved.

This is congruent with the harm principle advocated by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty.

Mill is a utilitarian, an ethical system Catholics explicitly reject.

Also, morality is independent from authorities, and this is a necessary truth one must acknowledge to make it to stage 5 on the Kohlberg scale.

You’ll note that stage 6 is a deontological ethical system, so Kolhberg’s scale itself seems to indicate that Mill is inferior to Kant

Though I’m interested in your opinion, unless you’re arguing from specifically Catholic moral/legal principles, I’m not sure it’s really applicable to this thread.

Jeremy

 

[AgnosTheist]

Many things might happen in the bedroom which a Libertarian government would still interfere with: for instance, rape. It’s not the bedroom which would make the act impervious to government interference, but some other quality, which I’m trying to discern.

the point is, the government should only intervene if someone is getting hurt without their full consent.

 

[manualman]

I think that civil law involves prudential decisions about the proportionate impact of actions on the community and individuals.

Abortion is fundamentally different than contraceptives or sodomy in that an abortion always kills another human being. That is proportionately more serious than the negative consequences of the other two sinful actions.

Thus, abortion can never be endorsed or tolerated by the state (morally). Contraception and sodomy both cause genuine harm to their participants, but not like abortion causes to a child. I’d say that banning such things is appropriate in a society in which the great majority support such a ban. In a society like ours, we need to first work to change people’s hearts about these issues. Imposing a law on matters not directly impacting human rights against the will of the majority is not helpful to the cause of conversion.

 

[jemfinch]

Abortion is fundamentally different than contraceptives or sodomy in that an abortion always kills another human being.

But most chemical/hormonal contraceptives can act as abortifacients, potentially causing an abortion.

Thus, abortion can never be endorsed or tolerated by the state (morally). Contraception and sodomy both cause genuine harm to their participants, but not like abortion causes to a child.

Contraception can cause such harm, though.

I’d say that banning such things is appropriate in a society in which the great majority support such a ban.

I think that’s an incoherent stance to take. Either an action is moral or it is not; either the state has the right and obligation to enforce a certain rule of morality or it does not. Even if the majority of a society held that child sacrifice should be legal, that would not make it any more reasonable for the government to permit child sacrifice.

Jeremy

 

[manualman]

Nobody knows for sure how often the pill or even UID’s work via abortifacient outcome instead of the primary method. While participants are surely guilty of contraception, I’m not sure I agree that they are guilty of murder. I’m not aware of the church ever stating this either.

I made a perfectly coherent distinction in that moral issues that deny a fundamental human right to another must be treated differently than moral issues that don’t by civil government. Think about your logic for a moment. Must catholic politicians support criminal measures against employers that operate businesses on Sunday? Must they advocate for the imprisonment of, say, indigenous pantheists who insist on worshipping false gods?

No. Those issues don’t deny anyone’s basic human rights. It can’t be conclusively proven (though highly probable) that contraceptives do either.

Don’t hear me wrong. I’m as against ABC as the pope. But not moreso.

 

[Byzcat]

Should adultery, sodomy, and contraceptives be legal, or illegal? I’m not sure what stance I should take. Politically, I tend toward the libertarian end of the spectrum, but I’m not sure if that’s an orthodox political view to hold, and would like to hear from other Catholics on this issue.

Jeremy

I’m against laws against adultery and sodomy. Enforcement would involve police, or nosy neighbors who might report offenders to same, peering into people’s bedroom windows. I am against peering into people’s bedroom windows. Contraceptives, it gets a little iffy. Many people of faith don’t believe that contraception is wrong, and as long as they aren’t abortifacients, well, let people who don’t share our moral views use them.

 

[jemfinch]

Nobody knows for sure how often the pill or even UID’s work via abortifacient outcome instead of the primary method.

That’s true, but it is known that they do operate via that mechanism.

While participants are surely guilty of contraception, I’m not sure I agree that they are guilty of murder.

I’m certainly not saying they would be guilty of murder. But criminal negligence? Perhaps.

Think about your logic for a moment. Must catholic politicians support criminal measures against employers that operate businesses on Sunday? Must they advocate for the imprisonment of, say, indigenous pantheists who insist on worshipping false gods?

I don’t know, that’s why I asked the question. If it’s not the case that the state exists to legislate morality (I’m not intentionally using a catch-phrase there; that’s just, in fact, what it does in a number of situations), then what is it, exactly, that the state is obligated to legislate?

Those issues don’t deny anyone’s basic human rights.

Do humans have a basic human right to engage in objectively evil acts?

If your response would be that they have a human right to do that evil which does not infringe another person’s human rights, then I’d ask what the distinction is between, say, killing one’s child and raising one’s child in a false religion? Children raised in a false religion don’t choose their religion, but have it forced on them (against their presumed human right to choose their religion) by their parents.

Don’t hear me wrong. I’m as against ABC as the pope. But not moreso.

I understand. Please don’t hear me wrong, either: I don’t necessarily hold all the views I’m arguing in this thread. I just need a stronger, more logical basis for whatever stance I end up taking. And the only way to work that out is to examine the issues.

Jeremy

 

[jemfinch]

I’m against laws against adultery and sodomy. Enforcement would involve police, or nosy neighbors who might report offenders to same, peering into people’s bedroom windows.

That’s true, but what about cases where people publicly announce their practice of sodomy, or public marital affairs? If you take the bedroom-peering out of the picture, ought the government make adultery and sodomy illegal? If not, why not?

Many people of faith don’t believe that contraception is wrong, and as long as they aren’t abortifacients, well, let people who don’t share our moral views use them.

Many people of faith don’t believe that abortion is wrong, but it’s clear that it is gravely, intrinsically immoral and should be made illegal. Why shouldn’t contraceptive usage or fornication, both of which are also gravely, intrinsically immoral, be likewise illegal, no matter who shares our moral view or not?

Jeremy

 

[Byzcat]

That’s true, but what about cases where people publicly announce their practice of sodomy, or public marital affairs? If you take the bedroom-peering out of the picture, ought the government make adultery and sodomy illegal? If not, why not?

Well… if they’re doing it in the road and frightening the horses, then at the very least they are creating a public nuisance. So, sodomy, yeah. Misdemeanor offense, if it’s between consenting adults. Adultery, well, let’s make that a matter for the civil courts.

Many people of faith don’t believe that abortion is wrong, but it’s clear that it is gravely, intrinsically immoral and should be made illegal. Why shouldn’t contraceptive usage or fornication, both of which are also gravely, intrinsically immoral, be likewise illegal, no matter who shares our moral view or not?

Jeremy

With contraception, assuming you’re not dealing with an abortifacient, you’re not killing a human being. It’s definitely an offense against life, but you’re not actually taking the life of an existant human being. And people will find ways to contracept. I used to work with an elderly lady who told me that when she was young, she had friends who would keep a bottle of Coke in the glove box of their cars for the purpose. I didn’t press for details, and prefer not to imagine… Fornication- well,we’re back to the issue of peering into people’s bedroom windows, which I am opposed to.
Since I think adultery should be a civil offence, not a criminal one, I guess that if a couple marries and one of the spouses finds out after the fact that the other had engaged in sexual relations and had represented themselves as a virgin, you could have grounds for a civil suit.

If my attitudes between sodomy and adultery/fornication seem inconsistent, my only defense is that with sodomy, the act itself is intrinsically gravely disordered, but with a/f, it’s the context of the act. OK, I’m weird, and I’m tired, and I haven’t really thought this through, but there has to be a point where protecting life and order in society leaves off and using the force of law to impose the moral views of your particular religion begins. It can be a fuzzy boundary.

 

[ribozyme]

That’s true, but what about cases where people publicly announce their practice of sodomy, or public marital affairs? If you take the bedroom-peering out of the picture, ought the government make adultery and sodomy illegal? If not, why not?

Many people of faith don’t believe that abortion is wrong, but it’s clear that it is gravely, intrinsically immoral and should be made illegal. Why shouldn’t contraceptive usage or fornication, both of which are also gravely, intrinsically immoral, be likewise illegal, no matter who shares our moral view or not?

Jeremy

How is abortion immoral?

I will agree that some of the causes of abortion maybe immoral such as poverty (which is an ultimate evil in the utilitarian framework as it prevents people from reaching their potential). However, abortifacients do not harm embryos as they could not experience any harm.

Regarding libertarianism, I do not think Catholicism and libertarianism mix, unless libertarianism is simply the argot for people who have an extreme antipathy towards that regulatory bogeyman known as the FDA and towards paying taxes. But those are probably stereotypes that on the Internet only. However I usually think libertarianism is synomymous with the views of the economic right.

You’ll note that stage 6 is a deontological ethical system, so Kolhberg’s scale itself seems to indicate that Mill is inferior to Kant

One could argue that the maxim of Kant’s philosophy is that we should do reduce suffering and maximize pleasure. For example, in Practical Ethics, Singer condones abortion of a hemophiliac child for the reason that it would lead to greater happiness in the world if the mother of that child had another child without hemophilia. This view is morally acceptable in utilitarianism (it is not mandated though), and the child is unlikely to be harmed because it does not have the capacity to hold interests.

 

[RyanL]

How is abortion immoral?..One could argue that the maxim of Kant’s philosophy is that we should do reduce suffering and maximize pleasure. For example, in Practical Ethics, Singer condones abortion of a hemophiliac child for the reason that it would lead to greater happiness in the world if the mother of that child had another child without hemophilia. This view is morally acceptable in utilitarianism (it is not mandated though), and the child is unlikely to be harmed because it does not have the capacity to hold interests.

Ribo,

Yes/No question for you: Is it ever morally permissible to intentionally kill an innocent human person?

Follow-up: If your answer is ‘yes’, under what circumstances is it moral to intentionally kill an innocent human person? Please be as comprehensive as possible.

Specific example: would it be justified under utilitarian thought to kill 10 innocent school-aged children to quiet the blood-lust of an angry mob of thousands?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[AliciaCL]

The sodomy question has been resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years. Consensual sodomy is legal under the federal Constitution. Justice Scalia wrote a scathing dissent opinion stating the ruling would open to door to gay marriage, poligamy, abuse of underage children, etc. He was legally correct. Whether is should be so is a jurisprudential question that is decided. It will be many years, if ever, that it can be undone.

Re: pornography. It absolutely harms individuals and the public. There’s no question about the addictive nature of it, especially child porn. It does contribute to negative attitudes towards women and to their misstreatment. The women and anyone else who works in the porn industry are harming themselves and others but the bad example. They dehumanize themselves and others see it and think it’s ok. This often contributes to crime. Only half jokingly, I say that Hugh Hefner is the original source for half the world’s problems today. It’s just that legally, definining what should be so objectionable as to be criminalized is like trying to scrape up mercury from a table top. Fortunately child porn is criminal but the pervasiveness of “regular” porn is also incredibly destructive.

 

[ribozyme]

Ribo,

Yes/No question for you: Is it ever morally permissible to intentionally kill an innocent human person?

Follow-up: If your answer is ‘yes’, under what circumstances is it moral to intentionally kill an innocent human person? Please be as comprehensive as possible.

Specific example: would it be justified under utilitarian thought to kill 10 innocent school-aged children to quiet the blood-lust of an angry mob of thousands?

God Bless,
RyanL

Thank you for using the word “person”; embryos are not “persons” under most utilitarian systems.

Well, of course, for your specific example, all other options have to be exhausted before considering immolating the 10 school children.

BTW, why does God require the suffering of animals in the Old Testament for atonement for sins? I find that extremely barbaric.

 

[jemfinch]

The sodomy question has been resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years.

The U.S. supreme court has no bearing whatsoever on what’s right and moral to do, and whether immoral actions should be made illegal.

Consensual sodomy is legal under the federal Constitution.

That’s irrelevant to this discussion.

I’m asking whether all immoral acts ought to be illegal, not whether they actually are. And if it’s not the case that all immoral acts ought to be illegal, what’s the difference between an immoral act that ought to be illegal and an immoral act which ought not be illegal?

Jeremy

 

[AliciaCL]

This is a guess re: God “requiring” the suffering of animals in the Old Testament.

The sacrifice was from the owner of the animal who was to give his/her best animal (goat, lamb, a dove purchased at the temple) in honor of God, and hence do without it. Killing the animal permanently deprives the owner of it and the thought of giving it to God is an active statement of honoring God. I don’t think there was any requirement that the animal suffer. I’m guessing that animals were promptly killed. Probably no worse, maybe even less suffering that a victim animal to a predatory one would feel when killed, e.g. the gazelle who runs away from the lion and is bitten in the neck, paralyzed and then killed.

Jesus became the replacement sacrificial lamb, the Lamb of God, the best of the best, offered to God on behalf of humanity.

 

[AliciaCL]

Oh, an re: whether all immoral acts should be illegal. Theoretically, probably yes. But throughout history and cultures people cannot agree on what is immoral. The only human way to impose a moral conclusion that something is immoral and will be made illegal is a theocracy. Sharia law in Islam does impose punishments and death penalties for things that they think are immoral but we don’t. We have elected not to have that. Rather, we have opted to lobby through our sluggish inefficient democratic system to convince a majority that the things we think are immoral should be made illegal. Despite great disappointment on some issues there’s ground being gained on child porn for example, sex offenders generally, for example. Things like the gay lifestyle – the majority isn’t convincing people that it is immoral. But there could be grounds gained in the long run. I’ll make a prediction that in 20 yrs.or so the social scientists will be lining up parroting each other saying how is was ill advised to allow gays to adopt children because the children were deprived of both gender parents.

 

[Newbie2]

the point is, the government should only intervene if someone is getting hurt without their full consent.

How about “without their knowledge and full consent”?