Legislating Moral Imperative

[Guest]

I'm short on time but I just want to throw this out there for dicussion. The thread was triggered by some comments in the TN fire thread about how that town had a moral imperative to provide fire protection to every household within reach of the fire department.

I am somewhat of a disagreement on using moral imperative as the main consideration for legislation. But my opinion on this is a bit shaky having grown up in the Philippines where a big majority (upwards of 70% of the population) are Catholics who share the same moral standard. So that legislation ended up reflecting a lot of that moral standard with divorce and abortion and gay marriage being illegal. But, having migrated to the US where it's a melting pot of different cultures and religion, this presents more of a challenge.

Statement 1: Morality is not Universal.

Statement 2: In a society of 5 wolves and a sheep, democracy is great unless you're the sheep.

Case #1: Legislation on Alcoholic Substances

LDS, Islam, Baptists other sects consider alcohol consumption against moral standards. Other people do not believe so. Legislation on alcohol (18th Amendment) was enacted.

The main reasoning used for the legislation was not on moral grounds but on societal impact - saloons and brewers holding a lot of political power feeding the society an addictive substance in exchange for votes. The prohibition was lifted as the prohibition exhibited a far bigger societal threat - rum runners and mobsters controlling the flow of alcohol.

The moral imperative takes a backseat.

Case #1: Legislation of Abortion

Catholics believe that spiritual human life begins at conception, therefore, there is no justification for abortion. When the life of the mother is at risk - this is not a matter of deliberately aborting a fetus to save the mother - it is a matter of expending the effort to save the mother's life with the death of the fetus a consequence of the decision. There's a difference in nuance. Abortion for rape, incest, etc., is against moral standards.

LDS and other sects believe that there are 2 components to a spiritual human life - the body and the spirit. The body begins at conception, the spirit joins the body sometime between conception and birth. Abortion can be morally acceptable in cases of rape, incest, or if the life of the mother is at risk upon consultation with a religious authority for moral guidance.

Majority of non-religious groups believe that individual human life does not begin at conception. A fetus, especially before the 2nd trimester, is similar to one's finger. You can remove it if you so desire. Abortion is, therefore, morally acceptable.

Rowe versus Wade legislated abortion as legal not by moral imperative but by medical privacy.

There are other cases we can present, of course, but the argument is that: Moral Imperative cannot be the basis of legislation because the US is a melting pot of different moral standards. If a majority of the members of society are mafia mobsters, legislating moral standards would mean you may kill somebody who is competing against your business. The 5 wolves may eat the sheep.

Just to make sure you understand my position - yes, I am leaning towards legislation not based on moral imperative but by socio-political impact - but, I can be convinced if a good case is presented.

[annewandering]

Isnt most law based on moral imperatives? Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not murder. Thou shalt not covet someone elses property?

The problem comes when you make a law making it illegal to covet your neighbors wife.

Recently we have come to a point that we pick and chose what is ok to make laws about, mostly based on what society will tolerate.

Society will not tolerate interference in physical ownership issues. Property, body etc.

It will tolerate abuse of intangibles such as sanctity of marriage.

Perhaps priority of value is the deciding factor, or even the ability to value. If it has no dollar value it is more difficult to enforce laws regarding.

[NeuroTypical]

Moral Imperative cannot be the basis of legislation because the US is a melting pot of different moral standards.

What anne said. If your statement is true, where do we get off having laws against murder and assault and whatnot?

[Guest]

Isnt most law based on moral imperatives? Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not murder. Thou shalt not covet someone elses property?

The problem comes when you make a law making it illegal to covet your neighbors wife.

Recently we have come to a point that we pick and chose what is ok to make laws about, mostly based on what society will tolerate.

Society will not tolerate interference in physical ownership issues. Property, body etc.

It will tolerate abuse of intangibles such as sanctity of marriage.

Perhaps priority of value is the deciding factor, or even the ability to value. If it has no dollar value it is more difficult to enforce laws regarding.

What anne said. If your statement is true, where do we get off having laws against murder and assault and whatnot?

Just because a law aligns with your moral standard doesn't mean it was that moral standard that caused it to be written into law.

Case in point:

Thou Shalt Not Kill.

LDS and Catholic - killing is against moral standards except in the case of war or in the act of defending oneself or when God commands it.

The Godfather - killing is not against moral standards when the family/business is at stake.

In the US, killing is against the law except when the government performs or authorizes the killing (i.e., capital punishment, war, etc.). This ruling in government has existed since time immemorial. There is, of course, a socio-political reason to this. If you don't make killing illegal, anybody who wants to gain majority vote may kill as many as they need of the opposing viewpoint to gain the majority. If you want to change government, you can kill the people running it. Etc. etc.

Thou Shalt Not Steal. Assault, etc. etc.

I don't think I need to present the case here. For a democratic society to function, one must have property rights. It's the main reason America seceded from the British.

And in regards to what Anne said about intangibles - sanctity of marriage being one case. Sanctity of marriage is not a government function. Marriage as far as the law is concerned is nothing but a contractual agreement to protect property and the basis by which children are assigned wards - the use of the religious word "marriage" was made because it was the common term that describes such unions. The conflict that is occuring these days - which was not present in the older days - is that we have now a societal shift that is upsetting the majority vote. It used to be that there was a super majority of people where the contractual legality of marriage aligned with their moral standard. Now, though, we have a shift in the majority so that the minority that have a different moral standard is now threatening the status quo. The marriage issue that is being fought in government is a difficult one because people are using moral standards as a basis for their argument - with 2 factions having completely opposite moral standards, you have an unending fight going on. And this really works to support my point some more. If people would put their moral standard to the backseat, as in the case of prohibition of alcohol, and address the issue on its socio-political impact, you'll have a better chance at solving the problem in a democratic society.

The question that begs an answer here is: The US Constitution was drafted by Christians. It is, therefore, aligned to Christian moral standards. But what of those areas where Christians are a minority? Shouldn't we then allow them to change the rule of law to align to their own morality? Sharia Law, perhaps? If we make laws based on moral standards - WHOSE moral standard should we follow?

Edited December 9, 2011 by anatess

[annewandering]

Moral does not equate religion but it is a big part of religion. I think that it is going to be pretty convoluted to debate what isnt a moral premise and what isnt. To be honest I cant think of any law that doesnt have a moral basis.

[sister_in_faith]

Surprisingly enough I have to agree with anne on this one. I think that a lot of laws (if not all of them) have some basis in attempting to set a moral standard.

On the other side of the coin, I think that there should be a very clear separation of church and state, and I think we should avoid doing things like trying to legislate one religion's morals over another (like making drinking coffee illegal or some such thing).

[Guest]

Moral does not equate religion but it is a big part of religion. I think that it is going to be pretty convoluted to debate what isnt a moral premise and what isnt. To be honest I cant think of any law that doesnt have a moral basis.

There's a jillion of them.

For example: What's the moral imperative of not allowing people who live in my zone to have pet chickens?

And only in Florida: What's the moral imperative of making it illegal to put a pregnant pig in a pen?

[annewandering]

Laws are probably based on moral codes that are common to most people, under that legal system. Very few moral codes condone murder, thievery, bodily harm to innocents. Even those without a religion of some sort tend to regard those actions as immoral.

Most laws are probably based, one way or other, on those three concepts. It used to be that in regions there would be more laws like against adultery. As more and more people have come to regard that as a private matter those laws have been gradually tossed out. The harder it is to prove a public harm the less likely laws pertaining to private behaviour are enforced and upheld.

It seems to me that labeling a law as a moral law makes it wrong in our society now, even though, probably, most of the laws are moral based. In the public eyes any thing 'tainted' with religion is automatically filed under separation of church and state and is therefore questionable.

[annewandering]

There's a jillion of them.

For example: What's the moral imperative of not allowing people who live in my zone to have pet chickens?

And only in Florida: What's the moral imperative of making it illegal to put a pregnant pig in a pen?

Some people think they have a moral right to be silly? Actually the chickens law is for public health but carried a bit far. Public heath is a law preventing harm to others.

I have no real idea why a lot of the blue laws were made. The pregnant pigs one was probably something to do with protecting the baby pigs from being eaten by pen mates. Who knows lol.

[NeuroTypical]

In the US, killing is against the law except when the government performs or authorizes the killing (i.e., capital punishment, war, etc.).

Not true, as in cases of justifiable homicide like defending your or another life from the immediate threat of harm.

This ruling in government has existed since time immemorial.

Not true. There have been many governments that have not made it illegal for it's citizens to kill one another for various reasons.

I'm having a hard time figuring out what you're saying, and an even harder time buying it.

[annewandering]

Not true, as in cases of justifiable homicide like defending your or another life from the immediate threat of harm.

Not true. There have been many governments that have not made it illegal for it's citizens to kill one another for various reasons.

.

You have to admit that most governments make the instances where murder is legal very limited. Usually only if attacked or if the government itself is doing the killing.

[Vort]

You have to admit that most governments make the instances where murder is legal very limited. Usually only if attacked or if the government itself is doing the killing.

By definition, murder is always illegal. That's what murder means: Illegal killing of a human being. This is why pro-abortion-rights people can say with utter confidence, "Abortion is not murder." By definition, they are right. Abortion is not illegal, and therefore cannot possibly be considered murder in a legal sense.

[Guest]

Not true, as in cases of justifiable homicide like defending your or another life from the immediate threat of harm.

.

Yes, you are correct. Point taken.

Not true. There have been many governments that have not made it illegal for it's citizens to kill one another for various reasons.

Non sequitur. I didn't say ALL governments make killing illegal. All I was saying is - the law against killing is something that has existed since... time immemorial... definitely before the Bible came into existence. So that some people who have never heard of God's wrath when Cain killed Abel had laws against killing.

I'm having a hard time figuring out what you're saying, and an even harder time buying it.

Let me know how I can help you in this regard.

[annewandering]

By definition, murder is always illegal. That's what murder means: Illegal killing of a human being. This is why pro-abortion-rights people can say with utter confidence, "Abortion is not murder." By definition, they are right. Abortion is not illegal, and therefore cannot possibly be considered murder in a legal sense.

And the debate is about whether it is for a moral imperative or not so we are back to the beginning. Murder/killing are emotion laden terms and used in this case to incline the reader to my viewpoint. In my opinion law oking murder is justifying murder but for overriding circumstances.

[mordorbund]

I'm a bit confused also. It sounds like you're saying we don't base our laws on moral principles but on socio-political stability (although there is much overlap between the two). I think the reason why you're finding lots of overlap between the two is because the definition of morality includes social stability. Some of the earliest illustrations of moral choice I was given as a child consisted of the question "how would you feel if someone ___ to you?" From this I learned something was "good" or "right" based on group benefit (does it hurt anyone? does it bring joy?). It is this sense of morality that most of our laws are based on because, as youve pointed out, doing right by others yields a stable society.

Another aspect of morality (and the one that I think you're using to define morality) is whether or not something is right by God (does it make Jesus cry? does it bring Jesus joy?). I can't think of many laws that are based on this sense of morality. We don't have any legal imperative to bless our meals or attend church or even celebrate Christmas.

[annewandering]

Morality doesnt need to be attributed to Jesus or any religion. We attribute it to Jesus but it is inherent in mankind to know right from wrong. Even those who are atheist or pagan.

It is still morality and that is what we base our laws on. If you can think of one that does not have a base in the sense of right or wrong I would be interested in hearing of it.

[Guest]

Mordorbund, Anne, the way I'm using morality is not dependent on a belief in a God/Jesus.

Anne - you hit it in the head - morality is a sense of right or wrong.

Okay, so let me re-iterate a few of my statements to clarify my position:

Statement 1: Morality (or the sense of right or wrong) is not Universal.

Statement 2: In a society of 5 wolves and a sheep, democracy is great unless you're the sheep.

And finally:

The question that begs an answer here is: The US Constitution was drafted by Christians. It is, therefore, aligned to Christian moral standards. But what of those areas where Christians are a minority? Shouldn't we then allow them to change the rule of law to align to their own morality? Sharia Law, perhaps? If we make laws based on moral standards - WHOSE moral standard should we follow?

So, I'd like to hear what your answer is to the question above.

[annewandering]

Actually I think right and wrong tends to be pretty universal, at least concerning basic laws like murder or theft.

Shari law, no doubt, addresses the same issues but in a different way, one that most modern countries do not follow, Christian or not.

We can not allow two sets of law for US citizens. It would be very confusing to both enforce and to know which law you are following in your interactions with other citizens. If followers of Sharia law can convince the majority of people that they have a better system then we would change.

[mordorbund]

Mordorbund, Anne, the way I'm using morality is not dependent on a belief in a God/Jesus.

Anne - you hit it in the head - morality is a sense of right or wrong.

Okay, so let me re-iterate a few of my statements to clarify my position:

Statement 1: Morality (or the sense of right or wrong) is not Universal.

Statement 2: In a society of 5 wolves and a sheep, democracy is great unless you're the sheep.

And finally:

The question that begs an answer here is: The US Constitution was drafted by Christians. It is, therefore, aligned to Christian moral standards. But what of those areas where Christians are a minority? Shouldn't we then allow them to change the rule of law to align to their own morality? Sharia Law, perhaps? If we make laws based on moral standards - WHOSE moral standard should we follow?

So, I'd like to hear what your answer is to the question above.

Definition: Morality is a sense of right or wrong

Sure, but how is right or wrong defined. That's why I talked about two moral influences: being right by others, and being right by God. The first is the kind that you'll find even among atheists. It's the reason why I disagree when you state that we don't have moral laws. Of course we do. One of the major aspects of morality is to behave in a socially acceptable manner (doing right by others). The laws you cited are concerned with social stability. It's the same cause in both.

Statement 1: Morality (or the sense of right or wrong) is not universal

I disagree. There seems to be a nearly-universal standard of modesty. Open a National Geographic and look at photos of cultures without much western influence (obviously they've been exposed to our cameramen and journalists). There is still a standard of modesty (obviously not ours) to the extent that men wear gourds and women have loincloths. Where the line is for modesty is not universally agreed upon, but the moral principle is still there.

Statement 2:In a society of 5 wolves and a sheep, democracy is great unless you're the sheep. Agreed. That's one of the reasons why our founding fathers chose a Republic, applying Hume's filters to the Senate, and set up the courts as a check. Ideally, we would choose our representatives from the best among us. That means the wolf that gets elected would hopefully be wise enough to remember the sheep. If not, that's where the Senate was supposed to come in. From among the wise representatives, a Senator would be chosen by them to represent the entire state. Hopefully, even if the gruffest wolves were elected, they would have the wisdom to choose a tempered wolf. If all that failed, there is an unelected court system that is above the vagaries of popular opinion. If no one else will speak for the sheep, they will.

The question that begs an answer here is: The US Constitution was drafted by Christians. It is, therefore, aligned to Christian moral standards.

I'm going to have to stop you there. I reviewed the constitution and didn't see the alignment to Christian morality (by calling out Christian morality, I assume you're calling out the right-by-God aspect of it). The constitution proper is a reflection of a mistrust of people with power and their inclination to abuse it. The Bill of Rights continues on the same theme, but with a pluralistic variation (free speech and religion is important if you want a stable society with a variety of opinions and worship practices).

Is there some specific portion of the Constitution you have in mind that reflects Christian (god-fearing) morality? Or do we disagree even more fundamentally (with my social definition of morality)?

[norah63]

I'm with Anne on this one. The ten commandments are the root of law. What man may consider right and wrong is so variable . However we have all been given a measure of faith, that lets us know the difference, whether we choose to agree with it or not.

Sure makes a mess of governments when men try to decide on right and wrong, with out the inspiration of the living truth.

[james12]

I have considered this issue of legislating moral imperatives from time to time with no completely firm conclusions in my mind. Here is the problem as I see it...

The Lord has given us many commandments and laws, of which the ten commandments are just a few. I myself completely agree with God's commandments. However, when we sart to apply them to society as a whole and enforce laws with punishments to make sure society obeys I start to see problems. When moral laws are enforced, in keeping with God's commands, freedom is lost. That most precious gift, the freedom to act, is taken away as morality is forced on others.

One could take the view that individual liberty should be the guiding principle behind all moral laws. With this view government only intercedes when one person's conduct interferes with another's freedom. This would cover issues such as murder, stealing, rape, and to some extent property rights, among others. However, this leaves people to do many things which are against the laws of God such as sexual perversion in various forms, drug use, etc. Plus there are a number of grey areas where one persons freedom bumps up against another persons.

The founding father's may have had it right. As individuals, by themselves, follow the commandments freedom is gained. Benjamin Franklin said, "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." (Ben Franklin, April 17, 1787) Perhaps, until then we must perform a balancing act by legislating against extreme immoral behavior.

[Martain]

Antess,

You have some very real and valid questions. Had you asked this question but a few weeks ago I would have very little in response.

You're leaning towards legislation by socio-political means because you can't seem to determine how to properly do it based on moral imperative.

If you're willing to be convinced then the case you seek to read I now present by referring you to where it is presented.

The Moral Basis of a Free Society

H. Verlan Andersen

ISBN: 1-57636-027-X

(you can download a free copy via the link above)

A quote from within it's pages:

The power to participate in the governing process is the power to determine under what circumstances it is legal to use force on our ellow men. Governments exist for only one "purpose" to make and enforce rules governing human conduct. Every rule or law which is passed has attached to it a penalty. The penalty invariably takes from the disobedient either his life, his libery, or his property. . . .

This is a moral question of the most serious nature and for that very reason, it is also religious. Thus, the central problem of government, is a religious one, and anyone who assumes that he can form his political beliefs without consulting his ethics, which have their basis in religious conviction, is deceiving himself either about the true nature of government, or his moral responsibility for his actions.

Moral Imperative cannot be the basis of legislation because the US is a melting pot of different moral standards.

This statement is only true if you accept that there is no universal moral standards that all accept and agree on. There is indeed such a set of moral standards. What is this standard? Read the book and have light burst upon your mind.

It did upon mine.

His son added a letter he wrote his mother which shares a line from his patriarchal blessing which reads:

Your voice shall be raised in the defense of truth and many shall rejoice and glorify God on account of your diligent labors in bringing knowledge and light to them.

Having read his books, I declare that I am one of these individuals and that the above statement is true.

Edited December 18, 2011 by Martain