Morality and the role of the Government

  • Thread starter Thread starter simpleusername
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

simpleusername

Guest
I have a question about the role Government in regards to morality. Things across the spectrum, marijuana, abortion, homosexual marriage, etc. Now these things are clearly morally wrong, but I am confused on why the government should address these things. How is it the governments job to decide what is morally correct for a country? maybe on a state level or city level it maybe more appropriate but for a federal government? It seems to be beyond the reach the federal government has. Isn’t that part of separation of Church and state? the Church takes care of the religion and the state takes care of the governing?
 
The way that I see it is that government can act in a positive way or a neutral way in regard to matters that affect those being governed.

For example, If they are persuaded that something is not harmful, such as certain sexual acts, then they will either refuse to make them illegal, or move to have them excluded from the legislation as illegal acts.

If they are persuaded that having something like access to certain drugs would be injurious to society as a whole then they would act in a positive manner to prevent those drugs from being available by possibly making the possession or the use of them illegal, as long as it didn’t impinge too greatly on personal freedom.

What would constitute too great a restriction on personal freedom is a grey area. Smoking is legal although it kills a lot more people than marijuana does. Drunk driving is illegal because you may injure others, but adultery is not, even though the cost to society might well be higher.

But…they are not interested in the moral aspects of any matter.
 
Bradski said:
The way that I see it is that government can act in a positive way or a neutral way in regard to matters that affect those being governed.

For example, If they are persuaded that something is not harmful, such as certain sexual acts, then they will either refuse to make them illegal, or move to have them excluded from the legislation as illegal acts.

If they are persuaded that having something like access to certain drugs would be injurious to society as a whole then they would act in a positive manner to prevent those drugs from being available by possibly making the possession or the use of them illegal, as long as it didn’t impinge too greatly on personal freedom.

What would constitute too great a restriction on personal freedom is a grey area. Smoking is legal although it kills a lot more people than marijuana does. Drunk driving is illegal because you may injure others, but adultery is not, even though the cost to society might well be higher.

But…they are not interested in the moral aspects of any matter.
Click to expand...
In fact, there are laws against adultery in some locales. These laws are quite old.

But such laws are very hard to enforce, particularly now that the behavior has become socially acceptable.

ICXC NIKA
 
Government does have an interest in morality, because it depends for its operation on everybody maintaining at least a minimum moral standard. There could be no legal system if everybody committed perjury, for example.

While enforcement of legal standards is necessary as well, there could never be enough enforcement to overcome a generalized lack of morals.

ICXC NIKA
 
Government has a practical interest in everything, but this does not mean it should be involved in everything. Similarly, I have a practical interest in how my neighbors raise their children, but it is decidedly wrong for me to interfere without permission. On the other hand, if they decide to kill their child, I not only have the right, but the moral obligation to interfere, as does government. Government has the same moral code as we do, it gets its power from us. In the case of abortion, the murder of a child, of course they should make laws. In the case of marijuana… do you have the right to hold someone against their will for doing drugs? Whatever your interest, you would be taking an eye from someone who had not done the same.
 
simpleusername said:
I have a question about the role Government in regards to morality. Things across the spectrum, marijuana, abortion, homosexual marriage, etc. Now these things are clearly morally wrong, but I am confused on why the government should address these things. How is it the governments job to decide what is morally correct for a country? maybe on a state level or city level it maybe more appropriate but for a federal government? It seems to be beyond the reach the federal government has. Isn’t that part of separation of Church and state? the Church takes care of the religion and the state takes care of the governing?
Click to expand...
It depends on how you define “morality.” When you think about it, the purpose of a law is to say what you must do or what you cannot do. Speed laws, for example, were established because government determined that you as a driver do not have a right/privilege to risk the safety of others beyond a reasonable point. This illustrates the moral element of a law. Selwyn Duke has written extensively on this. Every law ever coded was someone’s concept of right or wrong. See “The Reality About Legislating Morality” thetruthpage.homestead.com/TheRealityAboutLegislatingMorality.html
 
It’s an old canard that you can’t legislate morality. Think about it. EVERY law is a legislation of morality that compells the general populace to comply. Examples:
  1. Income Tax: The judgement that people must be obliged to equitably pay for the services government provides.
  2. Murder Prohibitions: obvious morality imposition
  3. Theft Probitions: obvious
  4. Drug regulation: medicine is a complex subject and the populace needs assistance from competent authorities to ensure that drugs sold are safe, effective and prperly studied for interactions.
  5. Slavery abolition: Human dignity doesn’t permit one to own another like property.
  6. Traffic laws: motor vehicles are dangerous if improperly used, so standards for use are required to prevent the death of innocents.
  7. Indoor Smoking bans: It’s immoral to force others to breathe your carcinogens.
You get the idea. ALL laws are an imposition of moral judgements on everybody, even those who don’t want them. So the critieria can’t be “don’t legislate morality” it must be “decide which moral principles are the most critical and address only those in law.”

Historically, the most successful laws have been those that match the fundamentals of human rights in harmony with Natural Law.
 
manualman said:
It’s an old canard that you can’t legislate morality. Think about it. EVERY law is a legislation of morality that compells the general populace to comply. Examples:
  1. Income Tax: The judgement that people must be obliged to equitably pay for the services government provides.
  2. Murder Prohibitions: obvious morality imposition
  3. Theft Probitions: obvious
  4. Drug regulation: medicine is a complex subject and the populace needs assistance from competent authorities to ensure that drugs sold are safe, effective and prperly studied for interactions.
  5. Slavery abolition: Human dignity doesn’t permit one to own another like property.
  6. Traffic laws: motor vehicles are dangerous if improperly used, so standards for use are required to prevent the death of innocents.
  7. Indoor Smoking bans: It’s immoral to force others to breathe your carcinogens.
You get the idea. ALL laws are an imposition of moral judgements on everybody, even those who don’t want them. So the critieria can’t be “don’t legislate morality” it must be “decide which moral principles are the most critical and address only those in law.”
…
Click to expand...
👍 This is in essence what Selwyn Duke was saying.
 
Yes, the argument against legislating morality is a rather silly one, even if you take into account the fact that most people merely mean “don’t legislate morality that isn’t universally agreed on.” But neither should legislation be based solely on what is most seriously morally evil. For one thing, every immorality comes from the heart. We cannot practically legislate that. The unforgivable sin, refusing God’s mercy, is certainly the most serious, and completely impossible to make illegal. For another, the government itself must be bound by the laws of morality. To harm another, except in defense, is immoral. So any penalty exacted by the government must be in response to harm done.
 
simpleusername said:
I have a question about the role Government in regards to morality. Things across the spectrum, marijuana, abortion, homosexual marriage, etc. Now these things are clearly morally wrong, but I am confused on why the government should address these things. How is it the governments job to decide what is morally correct for a country? maybe on a state level or city level it maybe more appropriate but for a federal government? It seems to be beyond the reach the federal government has. Isn’t that part of separation of Church and state? the Church takes care of the religion and the state takes care of the governing?
Click to expand...
The federal government cares about growing the federal government. Just like every business cares about growing itself. The problem is that the federal government is a territorial monopoly that uses force as a business tool. Unfortunately for me it seems that most individuals in the territory are comfortable with this fact.

Peace,
Bill
 
Bradski said:
What would constitute too great a restriction on personal freedom is a grey area.
Click to expand...
What reaction do you think the founding fathers of the US gov’t would have to the degree of restriction on personal freedom that exists today? (please keep in mind that all taxes restrict freedom as do all laws)

Peace,
Bill
 
sedonaman said:
It depends on how you define “morality.” When you think about it, the purpose of a law is to say what you must do or what you cannot do. Speed laws, for example, were established because government determined that you as a driver do not have a right/privilege to risk the safety of others beyond a reasonable point. This illustrates the moral element of a law. Selwyn Duke has written extensively on this. Every law ever coded was someone’s concept of right or wrong. See “The Reality About Legislating Morality” thetruthpage.homestead.com/TheRealityAboutLegislatingMorality.html
Click to expand...
One of the big problems is that government lies, misleads, contorts information when speaking to us. And ‘we’ are supposed to be the government! FYI your speeding example: back in the 1970’s when there was a restriction on gasoline and you could only put $5.00 worth of gas in your car at a time it was popular for government to assert: “Drive 55, it saves lives” (when speaking of highway driving). When the real issue with respect to highway driving is cars traveling at different speeds. Driving 55 doesn’t save lives if everyone else is driving 65mph, or worse if everyone else were traveling at 80mph. Cars travelling too slow on the highway in comparison to the other cars, cars quickly changing speeds on the highway, cars weaving in and out of traffic, not looking when changing lanes, travelling too close to one another regardless of the speed they are travelling… these are the real issues that are the risky and dangerous behaviors when driving on the highway.

When traveling in thickly settled area’s off of the highway speed definitely matters. But speed on the highway doesn’t matter (at least on streaches of road where one can see far into the distance in front of them- I hear there is a high speed limit on such a highway in Germany), what matters is everyone travelling at the same speed. A small % of cars traveling at 30mph on the highway if the speed limit were 55 is more dangerous than having a speed limit of 65mph that everyone sticks to. In some area’s there are actually minimum speed limits on highways for exactly this reason. But the gov’t choose to use our money to lie to us, putting out advertizing everywhere ‘drive 55, it saves lives’. This just happens to be one silly example of the gov’t lying to us I used as an example based on the law referenced in this post.

Peace,
Bill
 
manualman said:
It’s an old canard that you can’t legislate morality. Think about it. EVERY law is a legislation of morality that compells the general populace to comply. Examples:
  1. Income Tax: The judgement that people must be obliged to equitably pay for the services government provides.
  2. Murder Prohibitions: obvious morality imposition
  3. Theft Probitions: obvious
  4. Drug regulation: medicine is a complex subject and the populace needs assistance from competent authorities to ensure that drugs sold are safe, effective and prperly studied for interactions.
  5. Slavery abolition: Human dignity doesn’t permit one to own another like property.
  6. Traffic laws: motor vehicles are dangerous if improperly used, so standards for use are required to prevent the death of innocents.
  7. Indoor Smoking bans: It’s immoral to force others to breathe your carcinogens.
You get the idea. ALL laws are an imposition of moral judgements on everybody, even those who don’t want them. So the critieria can’t be “don’t legislate morality” it must be “decide which moral principles are the most critical and address only those in law.”

Historically, the most successful laws have been those that match the fundamentals of human rights in harmony with Natural Law.
Click to expand...
The problem is that there is no end to it, no end in sight. Gov’t (individuals who work for government) benefits by creating laws as it grows in size and power. Law after law after law will continue to be created until the end of time. IMO it should be clear to everyone that this is not necessary, and since laws restrict our freedom and since we must also pay to have them created and enforced, this is morally wrong IMO.

If gov’t really “decided which moral principles are the most critical and addressed only those in law.” we would be much better off IMO. But it keeps stacking laws upon laws upon laws, tweaking laws, etc. IMO this has reached a point of insanity. That guy from Ruby Ridge said something like “If government made it a law to have a ‘walking’ license, half the population would be down at city hall the next week to sign up and pay their fee”. I feel like I’m lost in a mass of people who are conditioned to be sheep, just going along for the ride, no control over where the trip is taking them and perfectly content to just sit on the bus and keep paying the fees as they go up and up and up while the seatbelt gets tighter and tighter on them.

Peace,
Bill
 
simpleusername said:
I have a question about the role Government in regards to morality. Things across the spectrum, marijuana, abortion, homosexual marriage, etc. Now these things are clearly morally wrong, but I am confused on why the government should address these things. How is it the governments job to decide what is morally correct for a country? maybe on a state level or city level it maybe more appropriate but for a federal government? It seems to be beyond the reach the federal government has. Isn’t that part of separation of Church and state? the Church takes care of the religion and the state takes care of the governing?
Click to expand...
Separation of Church and State is a myth and a recent construct.

The government cannot impose religion, but religion should propose.
 
Bill_7154 said:
The problem is that there is no end to it, no end in sight.
Click to expand...
I’ll certainly agree that in many ways, we’re over the line on government role. But your post implies that the solution is wild west anarchy. No thanks. The solution is to outline a limited responsibility for government and hope that the voters continue to hold the government leaders accountable to those limits.

It’s as good a system as fallen humans are ever likely to create. Perfection will never be achieved on Earth before Jesus returns.
 
Bill_7154 said:
What reaction do you think the founding fathers of the US gov’t would have to the degree of restriction on personal freedom that exists today? (please keep in mind that all taxes restrict freedom as do all laws)
Click to expand...
I think they’d be astonished, Bill. But we do live in different times.
GEddie said:
Government does have an interest in morality, because it depends for its operation on everybody maintaining at least a minimum moral standard. There could be no legal system if everybody committed perjury, for example.
Click to expand...
But I don’t think that any government specifically legislates for morality. In the case of perjury, they make it illegal because of practical reasons. They want people to tell the truth in the witness box and they specifically don’t want to rely on the morality of the person giving evidence to ensure it does. They don’t say that lying is illegal, but they say that lying in particular circumstances is illegal.

The same with murder, or theft. You can’t rely on morality to prevent it happening, so you need another type of prohibition. So the position is not: ‘Murder is immoral therefore you will go to jail’. It’s: Murder is immoral AND you will go to jail (as punishment, as a deterrent to others and to prevent you committing another).

All things that are illegal are also sometimes immoral. But not all things immoral are illegal.
 
manualman said:
I’ll certainly agree that in many ways, we’re over the line on government role. But your post implies that the solution is wild west anarchy. No thanks. The solution is to outline a limited responsibility for government and hope that the voters continue to hold the government leaders accountable to those limits.

It’s as good a system as fallen humans are ever likely to create. Perfection will never be achieved on Earth before Jesus returns.
Click to expand...
I think that any solution that involves ‘hoping’ is deluding ourselves. I am not going to ‘hope’ that individuals with great power over society are going to relinquish any of that power. IMO they will continue to lie and decieve while continuing to grow their own wealth and power off of the backs of citizens. I think we can start today by cutting laws which will cut spending. Voting? No thanks. That ammounts to putting a name in a suggestion box when the choice of names was rigged to begin with, people selected by very wealthy people who have them in their pockets. Looking to someone in power to solve our problems is a waste of time IMO.

I want to see us work toward solutions. That means slashing government power, the size of government. Neither party wants to do that. They both play games and pander to different parts of society, which in turn puts different parts of society against one another. Divide and concur. This has happened. Voting perpetuates it. Where is the opt out checkbox on the ballot?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top