Legislating morality
Freedom without reasonable and responsible limits destroys individual lives and ultimately destroys the fabric of a civilized society
If government cannot legislate morality why do representatives say we have a moral obligation to this or that? How can our representatives fulfill their moral responsibility if it's impossible to legislate morality?
Words like right, wrong, moral, or immoral imply standards.
Most of us can distinguish between what is fair and what is unfair; which is why the declaration begins "we hold these truths to be self evident"
Jefferson listed over 25 of the kings offenses which had established an absolute tyranny over the colonies. The colonists sought to replace the Kings unjust legislation with their own just legislation
We know this to be the "law of nature" or the "moral law"
The founding fathers believed that rights are God-given and, as such, they are universal and absolute – they are the rights of all people in all places at all times, regardless of nationality or religion.
Governments are established to protect these rights of the people, and when a government fails to do so, according to the founding fathers, "it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…"
One thing the authors of our declaration didn't declare was "we hold our opinions as our own"
It is important to recognize that the founders were pledging their lives to restore not someone's revealed religion, but everyone's self evident morality.
Both religious and secular governments should be avoided because of the inherent problems of both- religious governments create an environment of intolerance towards those of other faiths and secular government is based on nothing more than personal opinions of their rulers have a tendency to lose the ability and violate the rights of the people when corrupt rulers take power
How can you invoke God without invoking religion? All people regardless of culture have the same moral law imposed on their minds therefore someone had to impose it. You don't need religion to figure that out
FF believe the rights of the people came from God, they did not insist that every citizen believe in God; they simply saw no way to justify those natural moral rights unless there was a God
Thus they set up a government that would recognize and protect God-given rights without establishing a government religion or a creating an environment of intolerance
FF considered religious freedom an unalienable right. Hence, 1st Amendment. Key point being: while the first amendment clearly forbids the federal government from establishing a national religion, it doesn't prohibit the government from establishing a national morality. In fact, the First Amendment itself is a law that helps establish a national morality: it clearly implies that it is wrong for Congress to establish a religion or to prohibit the free exercise of religion
Proper rules of government legislative morality – slavery and polygamy. A Christian nation in the moral sense of the term the court used acknowledged moral principles to override a religious practice to the contrary.
In other words we legislated and thus imposed one set of values on everyone in society, in order to protect the "unalienable rights" of one segment of our society
It may be true that law cannot make a man love me. But it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important -MLK
Abortion as an example -conservatives claim abortion is morally wrong because they believe it ends the life of an innocent human being; liberals claim that since a woman has a moral right to control her own body, she should also have the right to choose an abortion
Each side in this ongoing debate believes it has a moral justification for its position, and each side continually seeks to legislate that position- the pro-choice morality has been legislated, rather, judiciously implemented since 1973.
There are those that say these are really not moral issues, they're commonsense issues. MORAL LAW. Everyone knows it.
One clear bit of evidence that shows the moral law is known by everyone is evidenced by a person's *reactions* rather than by his or her *actions*
Ex- you may not be aware or conscious of the moral law when you are lying to someone but when someone lies to you the moral law becomes bright as the sun.
Finally the moral law is not always the standard by which we treat others, but it is nearly always the standard by which we expect others to treat us.
In other words, it is not the way people do behave but the way people ought to behave
All laws declare directly, or by implication, that one behavior is right and it's opposite is wrong. To legislate justice is to legislate morality.
Since securing justice is the primary function of our government, legislating morality is not only constitutional but unavoidable and necessary-the only question is "who is morality should be legislated?"
Chapter 2- "IS IT ENFORCEABLE?"
When people say "you cannot legislate morality" they usually mean either one of two things:
1-that it is impossible to enact moral laws or 2- that it is impossible to enforce moral laws
Number one has already shown to be not valid because laws normally have moral implications because they declare one behavior to be right and another to be wrong
* they're going to do anyway
* can't make people be good
* laws can't change hearts
Prohibition (1920–1933)
Erroneous assumptions:
1. Prohibition was a complete failure
The initial anti-alcohol movement wasn't as much motivated by a moral objection to drinking as it was by the immorality, family dysfunction, and criminal activity that drinking spawned.
In 1851 Maine became the first state to go dry and by 1855 13 of the 31 states had laws. It wasn't until 1975 that per capita consumption rose to what it had been before prohibition
Interesting stats – during Prohibition admission to mental health institutions for alcohol psychosis drop 60%; arrest for drunk and disorderly conduct went down 50%; welfare agencies reported significant declines and cases due to alcohol related family problems and the death rate from impure alcohol did not rise.
2. Laws with enforcement problems should be repealed
The moral rightness or wrongness of a law is not determined by whether its enforcement is successful or unsuccessful. Enforcement against murder is less than completely effective, but that doesn't mean laws against murder should be repealed.
3. Repeal of Prohibition didn't legislate morality
Those who opposed prohibition overlook the fact that their view also legislates morality. It says that it is morally right to make strong alcoholic beverages available to any adult who wants them. Whose morality should be legislated?
4. Over legislating morality proves morality cannot be legislated
Despite the fact that enforcing drunk driving or under age drinking laws is difficult, few are suggesting we do away with these laws
A persons liberty to drink ends where the exercise of his liberty threatens his life or the life of others
"THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT ANYWAY!"
Laws may not stop prostitution, drug use, alcohol abuse completely, they certainly reduce the frequency of such activities
Apply the same logic to any of the crime problems we are experiencing in our country- murder, Child abuse, spouse abuse, racism. People have always abused children, spouses and those of other races and laws against those crimes have always been difficult to enforce. Should we do away with those laws as well?
What about those who would argue that consenting adults are different from innocent victims? Allowing consenting adults to do as they please actually imposes negative effects on others
Laws are prescriptive – they prescribe what ought to be done, while behaviors are descriptive – they describe what is being done.
If the behavior is objectively evil, the question of enforceability is irrelevant. We must evaluate laws based upon the rightness or wrongness of the activity in question not on the issue of cost, enforceability, or how many people in the country are doing it or what year it is.
"YOU CAN'T MAKE PEOPLE BE GOOD!"
Example of some laws that compel you to do something rather than prohibit you from doing something are; taxes, military service, education, justice, safety.
"LAWS CAN'T CHANGE HEARTS!"
1. Laws are necessary to restrain evil. Their primary intent is not to change hearts but to restrain actions.
2. The vast majority of people will obey the vast majority of laws even in the absence of visible law enforcement. Despite the fact that a larger percentage of people are committing crimes today than they were 35 years ago, studies show that less than 10% of all criminals commit about two thirds of all crimes. Here is the key: many people believe that whatever is legal is moral. That's why legalization only results in more immoral behavior.
3. Even though laws don't change hearts overnight, they often help change attitudes over the long-term.
Slavery, Abortion- for nearly the first 200 years of this nations history, abortion was outlawed in all cases unless a mother's life was in danger. In 1973 by vote of 7 to 2, the Supreme Court overturned 200 years of judicial and legislative precedent as well as the laws of every state – all 50 – which prohibited abortion. Seven unelected judges reversed the expressed will of the majority by judicial Fiat. It stands to reason that in 1973, the vast majority of Americans believe that abortion was immoral; now the country is evenly split. And this is due to the law changing
Chapter 3 - IS IT ETHICAL?
"Don't push your morals down my throat"
We can avoid legislating a particular religion but we cannot avoid legislating morality
1. Imposing moral standards on others is unavoidable
Those who protest the most loudly about legislating morality believe it is morally wrong for others to legislate morality
"You ought not to impose ought nots" or "it's not moral to impose morals"
People are inconsistent with this because they're not opposed to legislating all moral standards – only the standards that are not of their choosing. They simply want to replace the existing moral standards with their own.
* Capital punishment: FOR- those that intentionally kill should die for their crime AGAINST- the murder victim does not merit capital justice and society need not be forever protected from repeat murderers
* Abortion: FOR- impose the morals of the mother on the baby and in most cases the father
AGAINST- impose on the mother the duty of carrying her child to term
Libertarian ? The problem with the strong libertarian position is the total freedom for one individual cannot exist safely in a world where there are other people. Many individual freedoms must be limited or restricted to some degree because others may be harmed by them
Libertarians are famous for this argument, "as long as you don't hurt someone else…"
First of all, define what "hurt" means-does it only pertain to physical harm? Should someone be allowed to bring psychological or emotional harm against others without punishment?
Second, many of the private acts libertarians claim are "victimless" actually can & do "hurt" other ppl.
* legalizing prostitution: would grant more freedom to some sexually consenting adults, but would also impose an environment of immorality on others such as a legal house of prostitution in your neighborhood. Further the spread of an venereal diseases in the community
Granting more freedom to everyone can negatively affect those who do not directly exercise that freedom.
MORALITY: IS IT ABSOLUTE OR RELATIVE?
1. Relativism is self–defeating
Claims:
* there is no absolute truth (Is that true?)
* there are no absolute values (this is an absolute statement about values-Those that deny values value their right to do so)
Relativists are absolutely sure that there are no absolutes
In India the cultural custom was to burn the widow of the deceased husband at the husbands funeral. "If you were a British administrator in India, would you let the natives under your governance burn the widow at the funeral of the man who died?"
If you do not stop it you are an accomplice to murder; if you do stop it you admit that absolute moral values exist-Burning living people is wrong
2. We wouldn't know injustice unless there was an objective standard of justice
Example of the professor and a student who believed in moral relativism turned in his paper and the professor gave him an F because the professor didn't like blue folders.
To get a relativist to admit in absolutes all you have to do is treat them unfairly
No comments:
Post a Comment