I
IYE
Guest
When does legislating morality violate free speech and freedom of religion?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
J
JulianN
Guest
Most legislation is about moral issues. Murder, robbery, rape, etc. are illegal because we recognize them as immoral.
I
Inquiry
Guest
When it coerces people to say something they don’t want to or not say something they do. When it coerces them to do something that violates their beliefs.
The government can do these things to achieve a goal, but it has to show that the goal is something it should have legitimate interest in achieving and that it is using the least intrusive way possible to achieve the goal.
The government can do these things to achieve a goal, but it has to show that the goal is something it should have legitimate interest in achieving and that it is using the least intrusive way possible to achieve the goal.
P
pnewton
Guest
Should? I would say the answer depends on how far one wants to take that word. The Catholic Church at one time taught that the ideal government would be where Catholic morality was the law of the land. However, as we have seen some much abuse with theocracy, the Church now teaches that pluralistic democracies present a new challenge. So in a democracy, the degree to morality is legislated must depend on the will of the majority. Look at a few examples.
Divorce - At one time divorce was not a given. There was a need for cause and the innocent party received recompense for the injury done. Fifty years ago, the idea of no-fault divorce became the majority opinion in the United States, and thus it became law.
Homosexuality - There were at one time sodomy laws that prohibited this. Yet, as the majority of Americans lost the value of traditional marriage, these laws went away, and most recently, have evolved to allow homosexual marriage. Same-sex marriage has now been ruled as a Constitutional right.
Abortion - I guess my point is that the laws on abortion will follow what the majority want, making changing our culture the only way to change the law.
I would also note that laws that do not reflect the will of the majority never work. Two examples are the Fugitive Slave Law and Prohibition. Also, we are in the midst of seeing the law change on marijuana, and might see the same change on other things in the future.
Divorce - At one time divorce was not a given. There was a need for cause and the innocent party received recompense for the injury done. Fifty years ago, the idea of no-fault divorce became the majority opinion in the United States, and thus it became law.
Homosexuality - There were at one time sodomy laws that prohibited this. Yet, as the majority of Americans lost the value of traditional marriage, these laws went away, and most recently, have evolved to allow homosexual marriage. Same-sex marriage has now been ruled as a Constitutional right.
Abortion - I guess my point is that the laws on abortion will follow what the majority want, making changing our culture the only way to change the law.
I would also note that laws that do not reflect the will of the majority never work. Two examples are the Fugitive Slave Law and Prohibition. Also, we are in the midst of seeing the law change on marijuana, and might see the same change on other things in the future.
R
redal
Guest
Morality is introspective and therefore cannot be legislated with any real effectiveness.
W
whatistrue
Guest
I would say rather that they are illegal because they are detrimental to society as a whole. Something can be against Morality because it is detrimental to oneself (or one’s soul) but not to others.Murder, robbery, rape, etc. are illegal because we recognize them as immoral.
I
IYE
Guest
That is quite true. Much of occidental legislation is derived from Christian principles.
T
Thom18
Guest
Generally speaking, I would think that morality ought to be legislated according to the principle of non-maleficence. Anything which concerns more than one person (murder, including abortion, theft, etc.) and is detrimental to a person ought to be illegal. Here it would refer to anything concerning moral agency- the government would be overstepping its bounds in choosing to ban cars because of traffic accidents, for example.
Anything which concerns only an individual would require more investigation before deciding to “lay down the law”. There’s less concern if an individual chooses to do something which harms themselves than there is when an individual chooses to harm another, though both ought to be discouraged. Insurance companies raise your rates if you’re a smoker, for example, but (unless I’m a special circumstance) don’t drop you for being a smoker. Similarly, government ought not ban something which is unmoral, but promote (and help other entities promote) healthy living and other good choices.
Concerning freedom of religion, there would be little conflict. Most troubles would arise from Satanists who participate in black masses, as those require the theft of the Eucharist, and those religions which oppose things such as blood transfusions and organ transplants- and in such cases, it would be a concern only when one person is attempting to dictate the care of another (a parent and their child). In such a case, it would fall under “group morality” rather than individual morality, since a person is trying to care (or not care) for another rather than themselves.
Freedom of speech doesn’t seem like it would need many adjustments.
Anything which concerns only an individual would require more investigation before deciding to “lay down the law”. There’s less concern if an individual chooses to do something which harms themselves than there is when an individual chooses to harm another, though both ought to be discouraged. Insurance companies raise your rates if you’re a smoker, for example, but (unless I’m a special circumstance) don’t drop you for being a smoker. Similarly, government ought not ban something which is unmoral, but promote (and help other entities promote) healthy living and other good choices.
Concerning freedom of religion, there would be little conflict. Most troubles would arise from Satanists who participate in black masses, as those require the theft of the Eucharist, and those religions which oppose things such as blood transfusions and organ transplants- and in such cases, it would be a concern only when one person is attempting to dictate the care of another (a parent and their child). In such a case, it would fall under “group morality” rather than individual morality, since a person is trying to care (or not care) for another rather than themselves.
Freedom of speech doesn’t seem like it would need many adjustments.
Last edited:
W
Weave
Guest
Laws should be based in virtue. So laws should be drafted in a way that fosters and upholds virtue.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
When it prohibits free speech and the practice of religion.
And then it gets murky. I’m not a moral relativist, but I’m reluctant to legislate Catholic morality. Our freedoms are also protections. The framework that prevents us from legislating Catholic morality is the framework that would prevent a future generation from legislating Muslim morality.
And then it gets murky. I’m not a moral relativist, but I’m reluctant to legislate Catholic morality. Our freedoms are also protections. The framework that prevents us from legislating Catholic morality is the framework that would prevent a future generation from legislating Muslim morality.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
Sort of. I get where you’re coming from. WARNING–GOING OFF TOPIC:Most legislation is about moral issues.
Most legislation, though, is not about the big picture stuff that grabs headlines the way murder, robbery, and rape do. It’s about the business of governing, like tax incentives for business development, farm subsidies, debt for public construction projects, teacher certifications, easements for roadways, permits for drones, licensing for well water inspectors . . . the U.S. federal government is launching a $20.4 billion program to boost broadband access to underserved (mostly rural) parts of the U.S., for example. Interesting to some people but not raising direct questions about morality.
J
JulianN
Guest
True. But those don’t seem to affect imposing morality on others.
Willing_Spirit
Active member
I would say laws shouldn’t be based on morality at all since it is subjective. The wrong sense of morality, the morality that says women deserve control over the natural processes of their bodies, as if someday they will be entitled to ending the inconvenience of urination, is the reason abortion is legal.
The law should stick to the simple basis of restricting one biological human being from harming another biological human being. The social contract came about out of fear of each other, so all it is meant to do is lessen that fear so we can live together and work together. You won’t cheat me, steal from me, physically harm me, and same for me to you or else we will face the consequences we have laid out as a society.
The law should stick to the simple basis of restricting one biological human being from harming another biological human being. The social contract came about out of fear of each other, so all it is meant to do is lessen that fear so we can live together and work together. You won’t cheat me, steal from me, physically harm me, and same for me to you or else we will face the consequences we have laid out as a society.
1
1cthlctrth
Guest
As Pope Benedict said, moral relativism is a huge problem. Random killing is not permitted merely because someone says they think it’s ok. And, we need laws to protect us.
F
Freddy
Guest
All the time.When does legislating morality violate free speech and freedom of religion?
Laws aren’t made to legislate moral views. They are there for practical reasons. Murder isn’t illegal because it is morally wrong. It is illegal and morally wrong.
H
HerCrazierHalf
Guest
Your freedom to swing your fist stops at my face is my view. What would count as morality though? Who’s morality?When does legislating morality violate free speech and freedom of religion?
Should blasphemy be a crime? Should hate speech be a crime? These are crimes in some places and I believe both are too far and violates free speech. There’s no right to not be insulted IMO.
Attempting to legislate morality seems to have side effects. Alcohol prohibition was started as a moral issue but fueled organized crime. The War om Drugs could be viewed as a moral issue but has backfired spectacularly in some ways. So much so that cities and states are decriminalizing some types of drugs.
Last edited:
T
Theban
Guest
I don’t have any short or easy answer to this question, but I thought I could bring up an example from history that seems to me to be a good practical solution to parts of this dilemma. I don’t remember the details, but anyway there used to be a city (or probably a few cities), which the rulers tried to make a moral and virtuos place by their legislation, and as such they had to find a way to deal with the people who didn’t want to cooperate.
What they eventually came up with was a system where all of the vices that they wanted people to avoid (prostitution, gambling, drunkenness etc.), but weren’t necessarily a problem to society like other crimes, were confined to certain parts of the city and harshly banned in the rest. This way they respected (but discouraged) people’s freedom of choice and also prevented them from going underground and commiting to the same vices anyway, while making the rest of the city a better place to live a virtuous life.
What they eventually came up with was a system where all of the vices that they wanted people to avoid (prostitution, gambling, drunkenness etc.), but weren’t necessarily a problem to society like other crimes, were confined to certain parts of the city and harshly banned in the rest. This way they respected (but discouraged) people’s freedom of choice and also prevented them from going underground and commiting to the same vices anyway, while making the rest of the city a better place to live a virtuous life.
S
Socrates92
Guest
That is true, strictly speaking. All that can be legislated is specific, concrete manifestations of the moral law. Ie: We can legislate against murder, but we cannot legislate against someone harboring hatred for another person if they never act upon that hatred.
Last edited:
G
Genesis315
Guest
Under Catholic doctrine, one of the purposes of the state is to be the guardian of public morality, as part of its general purpose to serve the common good.
As such, we do not believe in an unlimited freedom of speech or religion:
St. John XXIII, Pacem in Terris (my emphasis):
A special note on the common good:
St. John XXIII, Pacem in Terris
As such, we do not believe in an unlimited freedom of speech or religion:
St. John XXIII, Pacem in Terris (my emphasis):
CCC
- Moreover, man has a natural right to be respected. He has a right to his good name. He has a right to freedom in investigating the truth, and—within the limits of the moral order and the common good—to freedom of speech and publication, and to freedom to pursue whatever profession he may choose. He has the right, also, to be accurately informed about public events.
CCC2498…It is for the civil authority . . . to defend and safeguard a true and just freedom of information."288 By promulgating laws and overseeing their application, public authorities should ensure that “public morality and social progress are not gravely endangered” through misuse of the media.289
The Second Vatican Council’s declaration on religious freedom. Dignitatis Humanae, specifically lists one justification for limits as “the need for a proper guardianship of public morality.”2109 The right to religious liberty can of itself be neither unlimited nor limited only by a “public order” conceived in a positivist or naturalist manner.39 The “due limits” which are inherent in it must be determined for each social situation by political prudence, according to the requirements of the common good, and ratified by the civil authority in accordance with "legal principles which are in conformity with the objective moral order."40
A special note on the common good:
St. John XXIII, Pacem in Terris
It should be pointed out, that in particular circumstances tolerance can be an acceptable decision when a greater evil might arise otherwise. In the USA, for example, we generally prefer to have a broad freedom for all to mitigate the risk of the state suppressing good and true speech. But this should not be treated like some dogma that cannot be debated or that necessarily must be applied in every place and circumstance.
- Consisting, as he does, of body and immortal soul, man cannot in this mortal life satisfy his needs or attain perfect happiness. Thus, the measures that are taken to implement the common good must not jeopardize his eternal salvation; indeed, they must even help him to obtain it.(44)
Last edited:
H
Hodos
Guest
Literally all legislation is tied to morality. The purpose of legislation is to enforce a minimum standard of morality upon the citizens of a nation. Every law we pass makes a claim on morality.When does legislating morality violate free speech and freedom of religion?
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.