"You can't legislate morality, for it will never come from the heart if one is compelled to do it."
This is a quote from a book review. Without stepping into the religious aspect of it, I agree with this statement. What say you? Hopefully it can be discussed without COC infractions and mud slinging because I'm really curious to know how others feel on the subject.
Mods/Admins, if you feel this will get out of hand I totally understand if you choose to delete it.
Morality is for the individual to decide upon and live according to. The role of government is, imo, to protect citizens from harm. Outlawing murder is, in a sense, legislating morality, but murder is the greatest form of harm to another, so the government has a duty to protect us from it.
Things like outlawing marijuana, forbidding gay couples from adopting and, well, other topics that I know better than to get into, fall outside of the window that government noses belong in, and should be left up to individual citizens to decide upon for themselves.
It is a true statement. There is really very little to discuss about it.
Simple don't do it. No secret I believe governments only real role is the protection of life and property.
Let me add to that saying government shouldn't legislate morality also means government shouldn't correct social injustices. Segregation, discrimination, religious exclusion, no matter how horrendous we might find them are not issues for government to legislate.
Quote:Simple don't do it. No secret I believe governments only real role is the protection of life and property.
Let me add to that saying government shouldn't legislate morality also means government shouldn't correct social injustices. Segregation, discrimination, religious exclusion, no matter how horrendous we might find them are not issues for government to legislate.
I think there is a difference between legislating morality and protecting rights of people. At least I think there should be a difference. To me, protecting rights of the individual is the same as protecting life.
Quote:I think there is a difference between legislating morality and protecting rights of people. At least I think there should be a difference. To me, protecting rights of the individual is the same as protecting life.
I understand where your coming from, but at what point are you protecting ones right by infringing on another. I think a better way to address the issue is to give people the freedom to associate with who they please. I hate making the argument because people mistake me as a segregationist when nothing could be farther from the truth.
As an individual I don't have a "right" to shop where ever I want, to live where ever I want, to force others to accept me where ever I want. Those are things that we should strive for but it's not a right.
Quote:I understand where your coming from, but at what point are you protecting ones right by infringing on another. I think a better way to address the issue is to give people the freedom to associate with who they please. I hate making the argument because people mistake me as a segregationist when nothing could be farther from the truth.
As an individual I don't have a "right" to shop where ever I want, to live where ever I want, to force others to accept me where ever I want. Those are things that we should strive for but it's not a right.
I suppose I agree with you to an extent here. Where one would say their beliefs are being infringed by not being able to discriminate against w/e they want, others would say they want their intolerance tolerated. It is a sticky situation one that is nearly impossible to discuss here.
Ummmmmm, all of our laws are codified morality. The law against murder expresses the societal decision that killing another person is bad, that makes it morality.
Quote:Ummmmmm, all of our laws are codified morality. The law against murder expresses the societal decision that killing another person is bad, that makes it morality.
You are correct. We want and expect government to legislate morality. That's what laws are - expressions of the morals of the community.
Otherwise, you have might makes right (i.e., what Eric seems to be advocating).
Besides protecting life and property we have decided that government exists to provide a level playing field via representative democracy. The Bill of Rights is perhaps a good example of "legislative morality".
I suppose where I'm coming from is more along the lines of same sex marriage, abortion, legalizing pot, what people do on their own property (if people want to smoke on their own front -I'm looking at you California!), assisted suicide for the terminally ill, etc. Things that are.....subjective, for lack of a better word.
I would go into more detail but am typing on my Kindle which is a pain. But I think you get the picture.
Quote:I suppose where I'm coming from is more along the lines of same sex marriage, abortion, legalizing pot, what people do on their own property (if people want to smoke on their own front -I'm looking at you California!), assisted suicide for the terminally ill, etc. Things that are.....subjective, for lack of a better word.
I would go into more detail but am typing on my Kindle which is a pain. But I think you get the picture.
They aren't subjective, they are victimless. The ethical concept of autonomy, that you own yourself, is anathema to statists who believe that we are all connected and that connection gives them input into how you live your life. For that list of items that you mentioned (aside from abortion which I believe affects a second person), there are no victims, no damages, only free persons making a personal choice that should be beyond the purview of the state or surrounding community. The irony is that the USSC ruled that women have a right to privacy as it pertains to abortion, but I don't have that same right as it pertains to growing a plant.
Quote:I suppose I agree with you to an extent here. Where one would say their beliefs are being infringed by not being able to discriminate against w/e they want, others would say they want their intolerance tolerated. It is a sticky situation one that is nearly impossible to discuss here.
The issue is the factors we choose to prohibit as the basis for discrimination. You can certainly discriminate by a "No shirt, no service" sign, but you can't use a "Whites Only" one. The difficulty is in choosing those factors, because when we're honest we admit that every factor selected whittles away at private property rights. We're balancing one against the other and we have to be certain that we don't unbalance the scale in either direction. Previously we were too far to property rights evidenced by the fact that some people were considered property. Now we're moving too far the other way with laws like the ADA that place numerous requirements on "public access" or that require business owners to violate personal religious beliefs to serve customers that they don't want.
Quote:Ummmmmm, all of our laws are codified morality. The law against murder expresses the societal decision that killing another person is bad, that makes it morality.
Couldn't disagree more.
That law exists to protect you--- from me.... killing you.
Quote:The issue is the factors we choose to prohibit as the basis for discrimination. You can certainly discriminate by a "No shirt, no service" sign, but you can't use a "Whites Only" one. The difficulty is in choosing those factors, because when we're honest we admit that every factor selected whittles away at private property rights. We're balancing one against the other and we have to be certain that we don't unbalance the scale in either direction. Previously we were too far to property rights evidenced by the fact that some people were considered property. Now we're moving too far the other way with laws like the ADA that place numerous requirements on "public access" or that require business owners to violate personal religious beliefs to serve customers that they don't want.
Agreed on most points. I just find it hard to swallow the idea of allowing personal religious beliefs to impact the lives of others... I do accept that people have them no matter how much I despise them. For me it's a tricky situation. One I do not see a clear solution to. Like you said, it a balancing issue and not an easy one.
Quote:Couldn't disagree more.
That law exists to protect you--- from me.... killing you.
Best of luck with that...
Quote:Agreed on most points. I just find it hard to swallow the idea of allowing personal religious beliefs to impact the lives of others... I do accept that people have them no matter how much I despise them. For me it's a tricky situation. One I do not see a clear solution to. Like you said, it a balancing issue and not an easy one.
It is tricky. I'm a Christian and go back and forth with this myself. On the one hand, though I don't agree with it, I understand why religious businesses don't want to serve folks whose life they don't agree with, and they shouldn't be told by government how to run their privately owned business. On the other I don't think it's right that folks discriminate because they don't agree with something which makes the government step in and make laws.
I can totally see both sides.
Quote:They aren't subjective, they are victimless. The ethical concept of autonomy, that you own yourself, is anathema to statists who believe that we are all connected and that connection gives them input into how you live your life. For that list of items that you mentioned (aside from abortion which I believe affects a second person), there are no victims, no damages, only free persons making a personal choice that should be beyond the purview of the state or surrounding community. The irony is that the USSC ruled that women have a right to privacy as it pertains to abortion, but I don't have that same right as it pertains to growing a plant.
I used the word subjective because according to who you talk to the things I listed can be not too big of a deal or can be the worst things a person could do. It depends on the individual.
Quote:I used the word subjective because according to who you talk to the things I listed can be not too big of a deal or can be the worst things a person could do. It depends on the individual.
But the punitive power of law should require damages to a victim who is not the perpetrator. If it doesn't have that aspect then it shouldn't be prohibited by law.