Legislating Morality

[Joe_Bland]

How do I explain in an elementary way to someone that we DO legislate morality in this country and that morality is not subjective?

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Society needs some basic order and structure - most people, on some level, would agree that murder, theft, rape and lying (purgury) are all detrimental to the good of society. This is legislating “morality.”

Most people//governments derive laws from personal beliefs, religion, and interpertation of natural law.

 

[BillP]

How do I explain in an elementary way to someone that we DO legislate morality in this country and that morality is not subjective?

Well certainly all laws attempt to codify SOMEONE’S moral view. And while Catholic don’t view morality as subjective, I am afraid that in a Democratic society ONLY the moral tenets that are shared by a majority of society will be codified.

For example, for Catholics artificial contraception is unquestionably immoral, for most non-Catholics, it isn’t. Since in Democratic societies governments derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed, we are unlikely to see laws against ABC in our lifetimes.

 

[rwoehmke]

Legislating morality against the will of the majority can be dangerous as it eventually leads to a certain contempt for all law. I cannot remember their names, but some Catholic theologians/philosophers have recognized this for a long, long time. It is sad because it does make of the Law a lowest common denominator, but that is reality.

 

[1ke]

How do I explain in an elementary way to someone that we DO legislate morality in this country

Well, just start listing out laws. We have laws that regulate:

murder
theft
rape
prostitution
gambling
smoking
pornography
drinking
marriage (ie, bigamy and polygamy are illegal)

In the lesser categories we have:

seat belt wearing
speed limits
littering

If those do not impose a moral code on people, I’m not sure what does. What sort of argument is your friend using to state these are not moral judgments?

and that morality is not subjective?

That is a more difficult subject. For that I’d suggest boning up on moral theology.

 

[DaveBj]

We do not and can not legislate morality. We do and can make morality (at least the morality of the majority in society) more attractive by punishing behaviors that are seen by that majority as immoral.

DaveBj

 

[manualman]

Ask him for an example of a law that is NOT a codification of a moral principle.

I can’t think of any.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

1ke and Computer Geek, I’m completely with you about that being a very simple way of clarifying this principle. To simply tell people about the laws currently in existence where we do legislate morality still should clarify things.

Legislating morality against the will of the majority can be dangerous as it eventually leads to a certain contempt for all law. I cannot remember their names, but some Catholic theologians/philosophers have recognized this for a long, long time. It is sad because it does make of the Law a lowest common denominator, but that is reality.

When you change the law to make an immoral practice legal, that practice tends to flourish in a way it never did while it was illegal. Provided the law against it was enforced, of course.

We should not bend moral law to the will of the people. Even if many people come to despise the law as a consequence, like in the Roaring Twenties. We need to show more backbone. Better to have a severe clash between the government and an increasingly immoral population than to have the government become immoral along with the increasingly immoral population.

DaveBj:

We do not and can not legislate morality. We do and can make morality (at least the morality of the majority in society) more attractive by punishing behaviors that are seen by that majority as immoral.

I don’t agree. Are you suggesting that our laws say, “now we aren’t saying theft is bad, but we will punish it anyway”? That’s not a very just law! It’s like saying, “We don’t think blacks are any different from whites, but we will have segregation anyway.” The segregation laws were removed for moral reasons. Because it was wrong that blacks be treated as an inferior race.

The bottom line is we think certain practices are bad and are harmful, and that’s why we have laws against them. Law has a moral basis. Sometimes an immoral basis. But morality is intrinsically bound up in law. Law wouldn’t exist if ideas about right and wrong didn’t exist.

 

[rwoehmke]

When you change the law to make an immoral practice legal, that practice tends to flourish in a way it never did while it was illegal. Provided the law against it was enforced, of course.

That is not legislating morality, that is unlegislating which is a whole different kettle of fish… Look at the 18th amendment to understand the problems of legislating against something the majority held dear, their beer. You had bootleggers, speak easies and the development of a scofflaw attitude that over half a century later, still has not been ameliorated.

 

[manualman]

Two different things. You assume Prohibition failed because it was a ban on something people “held dear.” I think that’s not quite right. As catholics, we believe there is a Natural Law, based on God’s design. Deep inside the soul of all healthy people there is a sense of what is right and wrong.

Prohibition sought to declare something that, used properly, is GOOD as inherently BAD and to ban its use altogether. The law was NOT consistent with Natural Law and THAT is why people felt free to disregard it in huge numbers, not just because they like their beer.

Something like abortion on the other hand has no redeeming value in any quantity. Thus, however some people now feel about their ‘rights’ it is consistent to legislate against it and expect the possibility of general success in enforcement. (much like laws against OTHER forms of murder).

 

[DaveBj]

I don’t agree. Are you suggesting that our laws say, “now we aren’t saying theft is bad, but we will punish it anyway”? That’s not a very just law! It’s like saying, “We don’t think blacks are any different from whites, but we will have segregation anyway.” The segregation laws were removed for moral reasons. Because it was wrong that blacks be treated as an inferior race.

The bottom line is we think certain practices are bad and are harmful, and that’s why we have laws against them. Law has a moral basis. Sometimes an immoral basis. But morality is intrinsically bound up in law. Law wouldn’t exist if ideas about right and wrong didn’t exist.

No, that’s not what I said at all. Our laws are what they are because we believe that theft, murder, etc., are bad, but what the laws control is people’s actions, not their attitudes. By criminalizing certain actions that we consider to be bad, we can prevent the actions (most of the time), but that does not do anything to the attitudes of the mind, and that, not the actions, is where morality and immorality live.

DaveBj

 

[Swan]

No, that’s not what I said at all. Our laws are what they are because we believe that theft, murder, etc., are bad, but what the laws control is people’s actions, not their attitudes. By criminalizing certain actions that we consider to be bad, we can prevent the actions (most of the time), but that does not do anything to the attitudes of the mind, and that, not the actions, is where morality and immorality live.

DaveBj

Agreed. I used to argue with my philosophy profresson about this all the time. He said we can and do legislate morality; I said we don’t. We can try, but look at how full the prisons are. It is all in the attitude. How many people would steal, commit battery, even murder if there was no fear of jail? I’m betting quite a lot. Sorry to sound so cynical.

 

[Hastrman]

Prohibition sought to declare something that, used properly, is GOOD as inherently BAD and to ban its use altogether. The law was NOT consistent with Natural Law and THAT is why people felt free to disregard it in huge numbers, not just because they like their beer.

Banning alcohol is not necessarily saying that alcohol is inherently bad. In general I’m opposed to prohibition, but it makes sense on the Navajo Reservation–Native Americans are congenitally incapable of processing alcohol, and alcoholism is a huge problem for the Navajo, Apache, and I believe Hopi (although diabetes might be a bigger concern for them just now).
One could try to educate people to drink responsibly, but it’s a little late now, and it’s much cheaper and probably more effective to just set up prohibition.

 

[KathleenElsie]

We can’t force people to be moral.
We can punish people for not ACTING moral. (laws and consequences)

Big difference.

 

[rwoehmke]

Two different things. You assume Prohibition failed because it was a ban on something people “held dear.” I think that’s not quite right. As catholics, we believe there is a Natural Law, based on God’s design. Deep inside the soul of all healthy people there is a sense of what is right and wrong.

Prohibition sought to declare something that, used properly, is GOOD as inherently BAD and to ban its use altogether. The law was NOT consistent with Natural Law and THAT is why people felt free to disregard it in huge numbers, not just because they like their beer.
.

It wasn’t the catholic voting bloc that caused prohibition to be declared law, nor was it the Catholics who caused it to fail. If you would have said “natural law” to my grandparents or parents you would have got a very quizzical look. Like what? Beer and whiskey returned not because they were Good under the natural law, but because for many people they tasted “good.” Folks, particularly from the more Northern portions of Europe, where wine was harder to come by, liked their beer and the French, Italians and Greeks, etc. liked their wine naturally.

 

[Maxply]

I think you CAN legislate morality. And at the very least you can make it more difficult or costly to pursue immoral behaviors.

I agree with the ancient writers who said that one of the chief purposes of government is to help us become better people. It is only in the past 150 or so years that trendy libertarian thinking has come up with soundbites that obfuscate clear thinking.

At minimum, isn’t political correctness a kind of “legislating morality”? and even though political correctness causes people to become hypocrites, it has raised the level of public tolerance.

I say this not at all agreeing with the heavy handedness of the PC crowd.

 

[KathleenElsie]

I think you CAN legislate morality. And at the very least you can make it more difficult or costly to pursue immoral behaviors.

I agree with the ancient writers who said that one of the chief purposes of government is to help us become better people. It is only in the past 150 or so years that trendy libertarian thinking has come up with soundbites that obfuscate clear thinking.

At minimum, isn’t political correctness a kind of “legislating morality”? and even though political correctness causes people to become hypocrites, it has raised the level of public tolerance.

I say this not at all agreeing with the heavy handedness of the PC crowd.

I think we can legislate the penalties for being non-moral. But we can’t actually change hearts. I agree with everything else you said.

 

[cynic]

If you start cirminalising things like homosxuality, adultery etc, then isn’t that interfering with free will?

 

[Verisimilitude]

How do I explain in an elementary way to someone that we DO legislate morality in this country and that morality is not subjective?

Bonk (gently) that someone on the head and then have them explain why you shouldn’t do that. Ask that someone to give you $50 with a promise to return it and keep it. Why are they angry at you?

Morality is not subjective, the application of upholding it and establishing the limts is.

 

[vern_humphrey]

If you start cirminalising things like homosxuality, adultery etc, then isn’t that interfering with free will?

If you start cirminalising things like murder, rape, bank robbery, etc, then isn’t that interfering with free will?