Legislating morality

[Ziggurat]

Libertarians would argue that it IS possible to decide on such issues based on principle- that laws should only prevent people from infringing on each other's rights. Of course, this principle leads to a lot of policies that are very unpopular, such as (for starters) drug decriminalization, legalization of prostitution, abolishment of anti-discrimination laws (for private firms, that is), etc...

Yes, a lot of libertarians would argue that. I happen to think they're wrong - not necessarily on all the specifics (I'm quite sympathetic to a lot of it), but on the rigidity of it. As I mentioned, animal cruelty laws don't fit with libertarian notions of law. Thai said he was OK with getting rid of them, I'm not.

However, I think using this principle is far better than the use of the phrase "for the good of society"- which is used by liberals to mean one thing, Christians to mean something else, fascists to mean something else...

Sure, libertarianism hasn't really seen the sort of horrific abuse that various government-heavy ideologies have led to. Part of that is intrinsic to libertarian notions of small government (and government malice can be much worse than government neglect), but it's also because, well, libertarianism has never really been very popular.

 

[Earthborn]

However, I think using this principle is far better than the use of the phrase "for the good of society"- which is used by liberals to mean one thing, Christians to mean something else, fascists to mean something else...

That principle hardly solves that problem, it just shifts it onto another concept; from "the good of society" unto "rights". There is still the problem that liberals, Christians and fascists mean different things when they speak about rights.

 

[Art Vandelay]

If you made an equivocation between animals and humans, for instance those people who believe that their dog is their child, then would it not make sense to outlaw cruelity to animals?

I'm not sure you're clear on what "equivocation" means.

And couldn't an argument be made that someone who tortures animals is a risk to society in general? We lock up drunk drivers because their behavior is a danger to those around them.

We lock up drunk drivers because the drunk driving, in and of itself, is dangerous, not because it's an indicator of risk. If you're going to lock up animal torturers, what about locking up child abuse victims? They have a much higher rate of high than the general population. People should be charged with what they've done, not what you think they will do.

We should only make those things illegal that interfere with a person's ability to be happy.

So, I take you think that fundamentalist Christianity should be illegal?

Why is prostitution illegal, but being a slut not?

Perhaps it's for the same reason why a Senator screwing up the country for free is legal, but taking bribes to do it isn't.

If we define an immoral act as anything that is counterproductive to the ongoing maintenance of cooperative society, which is as good a definition as any I've heard,

So it's immoral to spend money on beer rather than a charity?

For example, "homosexuals are more likely to be child molesters- let's make gay sex illegal." It's not true that there's a correlation,

I would imagine that there is a correlation between child molestation and same-sex intercourse, simply because child-molestors are less likely to be discriminating regarding the sex of their "partners". The issue shouldn't be whether the correlation is real. The issue is that even if it is, that's not a valid basis.

I agree. About 80% of the country supports an amendment to the Constitution prohibiting flag burning- that doesn't mean Congress should be allowed to pass it (that's the reason we have the 1st amendment).

The First Amendment would have no bearing on an Amendment prohibiting flag burning.

1) Morals and Laws. Does legal authority carry moral authority? I would say no. There have been several bad laws in America that were overturned by civil disobedience, and other measures. Law has no concept of fairness, and the Law can be an ass, as the saying goes.

The claim wasn't that they're identical, only that law helps make people think of something as moral.

Yes, a lot of libertarians would argue that. I happen to think they're wrong - not necessarily on all the specifics (I'm quite sympathetic to a lot of it), but on the rigidity of it. As I mentioned, animal cruelty laws don't fit with libertarian notions of law.

And, to me, that is a rather compelling argument against it.

They are not members of society, they have no real rights, they can be killed pretty much arbitrarily, so why make torturing an animal illegal when killing that same animal is perfectly legal? This is, ultimately, a moral decision. I'm quite happy with it, but that's what it is.

Animals are a rather bizarre area of the law. If you stick something up a cow's vagina to atificially inseminate her, that's legal. If you do it for sexual reasons, that's illegal. If you shoot a cow in the head to get meat, that's legal. If you do it because you enjoy watching cows suffer, that's illegal.

The question there is whether a fetus is a human. If it is, then abortion is equivalent to murder (I'm pro-choice, but I can see how there are multiple sides to this issue).

If someone were to, against my will, suck blood out of my body, that would be assault, wouldn't? And if I killed him, wouldn't that be self-defense? Rather than murder? If we force a woman to have something travel through her vagina, isn't that rape? Doesn't a woman have the right to do whatever it takes to prevent being raped, even if it includes killing an innocent human being?

The idea that the fetus is a human being is actually not sufficient to establish that abortion should be illegal. We also must accept that it is okay for the law to confiscate one person's body in order to save the life of another. I accept neither principle. If someone needed my kidney to survive, I have the right to refuse to give it to him. And if someone needs a woman's womb to survive, she has the right to refuse.

 

[billydkid]

I recently had a debate with a friend of mine about whether or not prostitution ought to be legalized. In the course of that discussion, I made that statement 'We should not legislate morality."

With which he disagreed. He felt that we can and ought to legislate morality, based on the morals of society.


Can we legislate morality? Should we have laws against drugs, prostitution and other consensual crimes?
What about abortion laws? Isn't that another way to legislate morality?

What about murder? Aren't you enforcing a moral code there?

What do you guys think?

This is of particular interest to me because we have talked about it before and I would like to know where my thinking falls apart. I really wanted to start out saying - yes, they should legislate morality, so long as it's my morality - and that's the crux of the problem isn't it.

The way I look at is this - law, or at least criminal law should be based on the preservation of individual liberty. Murder and rape, as examples, are certainly morally repugnant, but they should be illegal because they involve the violation another's individual rights and liberty. I think it is clear that basing law on morality is incredibly stupid. In the Muslim world it's moral to stone your daughter to death for having been the victim of rape. I think it makes for a very poor basis for civil law. Can anyone give me an example (in criminal type law, since I haven't really thought about other kinds.) where basing laws on the preservation of people's rights falls down?

As far as I can see, the only laws that do not fit into this paradigm are specifically those laws which have only morality as their basis. There will always be a segment of the popultion who feel that it's their perogative to tell other people what they can and can not do, even if what they are doing does not effect (affect???) anyone else. Now I know some people will stretch that idea like this - prostitution lowers the moral standard of society and makes us more coarse - or something. You could make some sort of similar argument about virtually anything you don't personally approve of. It doesn't make you right. Man, imagine a society in which everything that anyone doesn't approve of is banned - I wonder what would be left that a person can still do?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I recently had a debate with a friend of mine about whether or not prostitution ought to be legalized. In the course of that discussion, I made that statement 'We should not legislate morality."

With which he disagreed. He felt that we can and ought to legislate morality, based on the morals of society.


Can we legislate morality? Should we have laws against drugs, prostitution and other consensual crimes?
What about abortion laws? Isn't that another way to legislate morality?

What about murder? Aren't you enforcing a moral code there?

What do you guys think?

We can and out to legislate morality. That's not the debate.

The debate is whether prostitution is immoral.

I say it isn't.

 

[Ziggurat]

Can anyone give me an example (in criminal type law, since I haven't really thought about other kinds.) where basing laws on the preservation of people's rights falls down?

Paedophilia. Yes, I know the argument regarding "age of consent", but that doesn't remove it from being a moral argument, because it's illegal even with the parent's consent (in contrast to, say, medical care for children). From a strictly libertarian perspective, there's no reason to outlaw paedophilia.

Now I know some people will stretch that idea like this - prostitution lowers the moral standard of society and makes us more coarse - or something. You could make some sort of similar argument about virtually anything you don't personally approve of. It doesn't make you right.

That's what the democratic process is for: balancing those conflicting opinions. Absent unconstitutional measures, I see no intrinsic problem with laws motivated by morality (though there can certainly be problems with particular laws of that nature, just as there can be problems with laws based on any other motivating factor).

 

[Art Vandelay]

Paedophilia. Yes, I know the argument regarding "age of consent", but that doesn't remove it from being a moral argument, because it's illegal even with the parent's consent (in contrast to, say, medical care for children).

You still can't reject out of hand the assertion that in the case of sex, parents do not have the right to give consent of behlaf of their children.

From a strictly libertarian perspective, there's no reason to outlaw paedophilia.

Only if you don't think that having sex with children is a violation of their rights.

 

[clarsct]

We can and out to legislate morality. That's not the debate.

The debate is whether prostitution is immoral.

I say it isn't.

So it is a question of WHICH morality we legislate?


Who decides? Majority rule? *ponders* Ad Populum?


I am fairly uncomfortable with that idea, and I haven't put my finger upon why yet.


*ponder*

 

[Admiral]

So it is a question of WHICH morality we legislate?


Who decides? Majority rule? *ponders* Ad Populum?


I am fairly uncomfortable with that idea, and I haven't put my finger upon why yet.


*ponder*

A lot of democratic thinkers (Madison, Tocqueville, etc) wrote about the idea of the "tyranny of the majority." That is, a democracy allows a faction that controls 60% of the population to force its will onto 40% of the population.

This is the reason we have a Bill of Rights- to say that there are some things the government must not be allowed to do even if a majority supports it.

 

[clarsct]

Well, Ok. I get that.


But we're still stuck with 'Who decides?' when we decide that morality can be legislated, aren't we?

 

[Admiral]

We can and out to legislate morality. That's not the debate.

Actually, it is (some people disagree with you). Who says we can legislate a particular morality?

Actually, I should ask you how you define morality. Not just what you find moral and immoral, but rather what the definition of morality, or of a moral, is. Is it particular values, like "It's immoral to drink alcohol"? Is it a list of things that should be illegal? Is it a framework to judge actions?

I'm not sure everyone agrees on what "legislating morality" means. From the context of the first post, I took it to mean judging certain actions as wrong and passing laws against them, even if they don't harm anyone. (The reason I make that distinction is that I think what seperates prostitution from crimes such as murder or robbery, in the OP's mind, is that prostitution is consensual.)

 

[Whoracle]

We shouldn't be legislating religious morality, which is what we are really talking about when it comes to legislating morality, not any sort of universal morality like stuff about murder.

 

[Admiral]

Well, Ok. I get that.


But we're still stuck with 'Who decides?' when we decide that morality can be legislated, aren't we?

I personally don't think that morality should be legislated (if morality means what I think you mean by it).

The reason I prefer small government is that government is essentially a tool used by the majority to force the minority into something. Whether that's imposing their values onto the minority or taxing the minority or whatever, it's not a good "power" to be lying around. In fact, the situation is even worse- thanks to corporate donors and lobbyists, it's often the minority forcing their will onto the majority.

Essentially, I'd say the best answer is "limiting the government to protecting people's rights from infringement by each other." Obviously the interpretation of this mandate is something that has to be decided by someone, and it would have to be a democratic system (I'd be OK with the checks and balances we have now as a system for interpreting and enforcing laws meant to protect people from each other).

That way, a majority of whites can't decide to pass laws harming blacks, a majority of non-drug-users can't criminalize drugs, a majority of Christians can't impose a state religion, a majority of pizza-haters can't make pizza illegal... there have to be these "rules" for what government can do.

 

[Admiral]

We shouldn't be legislating religious morality, which is what we are really talking about when it comes to legislating morality, not any sort of universal morality like stuff about murder.

Can you define "universal morality"? Not everyone shares the same values you do.

My principle would be that "People should be free to do what they want until they begin to infringe upon other people's freedoms." You can get quite a bit of legislation out of that, but, in my opinion, that's where it stops.

 

[Earthborn]

... not any sort of universal morality like stuff about murder.

Universal morality? Does such a thing even exist? Even the definition of "murder" is not universal.

 

[sphenisc]

My principle would be that "People should be free to do what they want until they begin to infringe upon other people's freedoms." You can get quite a bit of legislation out of that, but, in my opinion, that's where it stops.

Are you against all forms of property ownership?

 

[Francesca R]

The reason I prefer small government is that government is essentially a tool used by the majority to force the minority into something.

How can that not happen? Unless no rule can be made without 100% consent then there will always be a minority—even if it is a minority of 1—in disagreement that has majority preferences forced onto it.

Whether that's imposing their values onto the minority or taxing the minority or whatever, it's not a good "power" to be lying around.

The alternative appears to be no laws at all. And in that situation the power vacuum (nobody controlling anyone else's decisions) would hardly stay a vacuum. The result would simply be informal force exercised by some onto others against their will. I contest that this "power" you refer to—if democratically dispensed—is indeed a "good" power.

In fact, the situation is even worse- thanks to corporate donors and lobbyists, it's often the minority forcing their will onto the majority.

This occurs whenever "one person = one vote" is corrupted into "one [currency unit] = one vote". It is usually a subversion of democratically-inspired legislation and to oppose it is to oppose corrupt government, not to oppose government which is not intended to embody such corruption. And of course, money is not the only means of corrupting legislation.

Essentially, I'd say the best answer is "limiting the government to protecting people's rights from infringement by each other."

I think the de-facto answer is that "government powers (in equilibrium) are limited to what the majority of the people want them to be limited to" in general—but there are many exceptions I guess.

There is no escape from making hard decisions on a topic like this by defering to some simple (and hence inflexible) principle. Sometimes in life, case-by-case is the best we can do.

Agreed.

 

[The Painter]

most religions are also opposed to prositution.

Didn’t Jesus have a hooker in his entourage? Mary Magdalene?

 

[Ziggurat]

You still can't reject out of hand the assertion that in the case of sex, parents do not have the right to give consent of behlaf of their children.

But WHY? I agree that they cannot, but I think the only justification for why they cannot is ultimately a moral one. After all, parents can grant consent for most other actions that children cannot consent to themselves. What's special about sex? I see no libertarian argument that makes it any different.

Only if you don't think that having sex with children is a violation of their rights.

How can it be, if they and their parents were to consent to it? The only out I see is for some right to be asserted on moral, not libertarian, grounds. And I'm OK with that.

 

[marksman]

I think that the concept of "morality" is much too vague for that question to be really meaningful....

Nominated!