An update on recent technical problems and more from the admin: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/250292/on-technical-difficulties-mod-coverage-and-other-things/p1?new=1
Options
Does good government legislate morality?
electricitylikesme
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Something I got thinking about from the Israel thread (amazingly).
Currently, we have a lot of politicians in western countries coming to power running on some sort of "morality" platform - family values, wire taps whatever.
What I'm wondering is, is it an intractable function of government that it must legislate morality, or can most issues posed as "moral problems" actually be so justified on logical grounds that the idea of government legislating morality is just perverse.
My personal opinion on the matter is that there is no supposed "moral" issue of the 21st century which can't in fact be resolved by rational means intended to lead to a functional society - which is what I feel the function of government is. Governments are supposed to legislate a framework, not dictate personal behavior etc.
Currently, we have a lot of politicians in western countries coming to power running on some sort of "morality" platform - family values, wire taps whatever.
What I'm wondering is, is it an intractable function of government that it must legislate morality, or can most issues posed as "moral problems" actually be so justified on logical grounds that the idea of government legislating morality is just perverse.
My personal opinion on the matter is that there is no supposed "moral" issue of the 21st century which can't in fact be resolved by rational means intended to lead to a functional society - which is what I feel the function of government is. Governments are supposed to legislate a framework, not dictate personal behavior etc.
electricitylikesme on
0
Posts
Next question, please.
the immorality of slavery and segregation
the immorality of LGBQ discrimination
the moral importance of the right to privacy and control over one's own body
They are moral issues, on some level.
Honestly, just like slavery couldn't be left up to the states to decide, I think there are other issues (like gay marriage) that should not be left up to the states to decide.
THe purpose of the law is not to make people behave in a "morally upright" manner so much as it is to ensure that society can function, murder and theft are immoral but this is not why they are illegal: they are illegal because society could not function were they allowed.
In conclusion, anything that can only be framed as a moral issue is not something that the government should be involving itself in.
I'm not sure if "legislating morality" can be answered affirmatively good or bad unless you restrict it to the pejorative sense for overly restrictive laws or those targeting a very specific set of morals. Unless you are a libertarian or anarchist there are probably some gray area morals that you would support being furthered through legislation, in keeping with what your view on what society should be and how government can aid in getting there.
Edit
I really don't think it is that simple, and that rationality does not exist in a vacuum. What I mean by that is, to come to a rational decision about what optimal governments and laws are, you have to have a moral framework to valuate their effects. How much are the needs of the poor worth relative to those of the rich? How much is it worth giving up to ensure there is a safety net, and how strong do you need to make it? How much is protecting the environment worth?
All of these moral valuations are at least somewhat subjective, and will vary from person to person at least slightly. You may consider the derivations for some of the morals irrational, but you can't handwave away the need for subjective morality. Well, that is unless you are able to find objective morality, but good luck with that.
However, even thought the questions are similar in kind, there are some important differences. For one thing, the sorts of moral considerations we need to take into account when building highways are widely agreed upon and uncontroversial--generally, yes, we should build highways because they maximize productivity and the mutual good in a nonthreatening way, and the general consensus is that's a good thing. When considering something like same-sex marriage, on the other hand, or school prayer, the morality involved is much more contentious.
So despite the fact that all should questions are moral questions, you could maintain that the government should only be in the business of maintaining uncontroversial moral stances. I'm not sure if I entirely believe that, however, I think most people agree that government intervention in the private spheres of life is generally a bad thing, which seems to be the sort of activity being considered here.
Edit: semi-beat'd
That said, I'm for minimal governmental intervention in social stuff. Government's purpose is to minimise the negative effects of power imbalances between people and groups as far as is practical, so I think anything beyond the ability to intervene in domestic abuse situations and the ability to regulate age of consent (to binding contracts and sexual activity) is pretty much none of their business. Its practical to have them oversee marriage-type contracts, but they shouldn't get to say who or how many can sign up together so long as the participants are of age and non-abusive.
This is not to say, however, that governments have no place offering social services like counselling and shelters. They just shouldn't be able to compel people to use them, or jump through hoops to access them. And it goes without saying that they must be unbiased.
If you limit it just to the codeword usage, then the question is sort of stupid. Conservatives and populists will have more of a tendency to say yes, where liberals (not in the American sense) and libertarians will have a tendency to say no.
I think there is plenty of gray area in the middle on the issue, as your examples show. Say, age of consent beyond puberty. There isn't a biological reason why developed adolescents can't procreate, although there are plenty of societal reasons for it. There is plenty of variation on the moral underpinnings of age of consent across the world and in history, as reflected in the wide variety of laws enacted about it. However, having an age of consent law is a good idea.
The assurance of basic rights and care is a governments JOB, not a moral choice. So, I believe that slavery, equal rights, etc are a the role of the govt.
Telling me that these guys over there can get married, but those guys over there cant? Thats not their job.
Ensuring that young people dont get taken advantage of sexually is the governments job (call it morals, if you like - but its just a standard of care as far as I'm concerned), banning sex between 2 consenting adults of the same sex isnt.
Right to practice any religion so long as it doesnt hurt anyone - govts job. Installing a specific religions beliefs into the law, at the expense of anothers? - Not their job.
Alot of these can have a "moral" component. i.e. slavery is BAD. But at the end of the day, the government is really there, because its a better alternative that everyone fending for themselves.
The government should try its hardest to stay out of our way- unless we're playing not so nice with each other. And that means murder and rape- not name calling and racism.
I'm not even talking about it "staying out of our way". I accept that there are certain laws and regulations that may inconvenience me, but need to be there for the greater good - not because someone thought it was morally correct.
I'd actually consider the ability to walk down the street without being racially abused in a major way - a right that the government should try to enforce. I say try, because it would be disingenuous of me to pretend that it's very easy.
The problem is when government invokes morality much like Starcross said - when they have no other justification for their plans. When the policy is pretty much completely divorced from rights and freedoms.
There should be a checklist:
The issue are those laws that only have number three going for them . . .
But whose definition of the 'Greater Good' do we use? The 'Greater Good' of a Fundamentalist Conservative Christian Republican is going to be different from the 'Greater Good' of a Atheist Liberal Homosexual Democrat. Both of them would maintain that they would pass 'moral' laws for the 'Greater Good', but anyone would readily see that such laws would bear a striking disimilarity to one another.
The problem with Government legislating in areas of 'murky morality' is not that they 'shouldn't' or that they 'can't', but that many times they pass legislation which either alienates or angers a large segment of the population. Usually because of such disparities in the population itself over what is the 'Greater Good', and what is 'morally acceptable'.
For proof of this just examine some of the 'moral' issues brought up in this thread:
1. Slavery
2. Homosexuality
3. Abortion
4. Racism
This 'appears' to be a no-brainer. Slavery, after all, is commonly considered in modern American society to be wrong. As it should be, IMHO, since it devalues human life, and stifles economic and technological growth. Nonetheless, slavery was a contentious moral issue in the mid 1800s. Prior to our modern age there had always been slavery in the world. Thus removing something most people considered 'normal' was contentious even among those who didn't necessarily like it. It's kind of like banning smoking. We all know its bad, but some people have a problem with taking away others 'freedoms'. Now I'm not saying I want to ban smoking, but I am just using that as a lesser example.
Now the main point I want to illustrate about slavery is that it is a contentious 'moral' issue that was only resolved after a war that nearly destroyed the nation, lasted five years, and killed more Americans than any other conflict in our history. The Civil War was so devastating that some areas of the South still lag behind the rest of the country economically. Thus, remember, that sometimes government involvement in a 'moral' issue over which a country is stringently divided can be quite costly.
There has been little direct government legistlation on the topic of Homosexuality, and there actually should not be much legislation from the government. Why? Because the Constitution already lays out sufficient rights for all men and women whether hetero or homo. There is still, however, a great deal of moral contention in the US over homosexuality. This, however, the government should do NOTHING to stop.
Why?
Because the main group(s) which oppose the proliferation of homosexuality in the United States do so using tactics and strategies protected by the U.S. Constitution. The main opponents of the homosexual communities are members of the 'Religious Right' who have their freedoms protected by the Freedom of Religion clause of the Bill of Rights. If the US government were to take a 'moral' stance, and prevent opposition to homosexuality in the US then they would have to trod upon the Constitution. While I sympathize with the plight of homosexuals in the US I value Constitutional freedoms far more than I wish to see 'tolerance' rigidly enforced.
On the subject of gay-lesbian marriage this is, essentialy, a state issue. Why? Because the United States Federal Government recognizes marriage between a man-and-a-woman only through the lense of the state system. Furthermore, the issue of gay marriage is a deeply divisive one. While I, personally, believe that homosexual couples should have marriage-equivalent rights (whether or not you wish to call it that is irrelevant to me), I do not think the US Congress should ignore the opinion of (if polls can be believed) about 75% of the US population.
One must, however, look on the bright side. Currently in our country men and women who are homosexual are more accepted than they have ever been. This, however, has had nothing to do with any sort of government legislation. It is mostly a result of homosexuals appearing in popular media as quote "normal people". This trend of acceptance and appearance will likely continue into the future, and thus I would predict that, all things being equal, we will likely see acceptance of the lifestyle and a tendency towards recognition of rights continue to grow. Thus I would say that by, I dunno, off the top of my head 2020 there being gay-marriage laws on the books in most states.
Ah, Abortion, one of the more lovely divisive issues in American history. To one side it is Murder, and to the other side it is a Biological Right. It is also one of the few issues in America in which there is such rampant barbarism in the persecution of both sides' claims. Violence has occured over the issue. Which is why, quite logically, the US Congress, for years, did nothing on the issue. Its a 'lose-lose' proposition for elected officials. A 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' type of scenario. Which is why the issue was ultimately decided by the Supreme Court, and not the Congress.
It is important to note, however, that the Supreme Court did not 'pass' a moral law on Abortion. The Court only said that the Constitution does not bar abortion from occuring. Thus it is a legal act unless the government were to pass a Constitutional Amendment to ban it or the Court were to review its decision. Both scenarios are intensely unlikely regardless of how much Republican conservatives might pledge to their constituents. The issue is far too divisive for the government to actually consider. Either way you go too many people would be upset.
Which is why, in effect, the legislative and executive branches have done nothing on Abortion and never will.
This is perhaps the single most dangerous 'moral' issue that the government could ever engage in. Why? Because at its heart racism is how a person thinks. One person, who is a racist, thinks that another human, whether due to skin color or religious choice, is inferior. This belief is founded in ignorance, and is a bygone relic of a far darker period in American history. This thought process, however, must be one that the government never attempts to combat through legislation.
Why?
Racist thought is just that, a thought. If the government actually tries to change the way people think then we are setting a very dangerous precedent. In effect we are saying that it is okay for the government to punish/reward you for how you think. For, in effect, your own unique beliefs, concerns, etc. While I am sure any sane person would agree that racism is, as a general rule, bad the concept that the government might start to legislate 'thought' is much much worse.
So, should the government stop someone from being a racist? No. They should not, because when they do so they are restricting personal choice, and starting down a very dangerous path. Racism should, instead, be combated through education and outreach programs. You can't 'cure' a racist, but you can work to ensure that his children aren't like him.
Overall my thought is that the government should avoid morally contentious issues, because they generally will cause more harm than good and, in a democracy, a large segment of the population is sure to be angered by a decision one way or the other. Since the whole point of a democracy is to rule at the consent of the governed then a wildly unpopular law (morally right or not) defeats the whole moral point of democracy.
Fire codes and traffic laws would generally be considered amoral restrictions which inconvenience individuals in order to improve public safety. Well, that and to generate revenue for the city via tickets.
- The Constitution protects free speech, but only to a point. When "free speech" starts to demonstrably harm someone it crosses a Constitutional line. Which laws are you referring to?
- Fundamental civil (human) rights shouldn't be determined by majorities.
Yes.
Re: DarthMidget:
Racism has nothing to do with religion. In a similar vein, believing that someone is inferior because of religion (as defined as, were the person in question to not posess those beliefs he would be a better person) is not an inherantly unreasonable belief.
Racism is an issue when it stops someone living their life free of oppression. So someone is more than welcome to think racist thoughts, or spouting derisive rhtoric in private, but if they start abusing me on the street, or refusing to hire me for a job - simply because of the colour of my skin. I'd expect there to be something in place to tell them that its not on.
What terms are we getting mixed up?
I would agree with you that a law protecting people from such an infringement on their rights and freedoms as slavery is morally right . . . but I don't think such a broad usage of "moral" is that the thread is about. Could be wrong though.
I wonder about that. As far as I'm aware, the Constitution doesn't say anything about a need to protect people from harm, nor does the First Amendment mention any exceptions for speech in the same manner as the exception to the right of assembly (they must be peaceable). By a strict interpretation of the Constitution, there should be no legal limits whatsoever on anything that can be considered speech.
The distinction I was making (purely with regards to the OP) is that I feel a better reason is needed than "because I think its morally wrong". Its making the assumption that the government is there for the interests of all its citizens, not to promote one moral outlook.
So, an example where I think the govt shouldn't legislate:
Question:
Why cant I marry a dude?
Answer:
Because the govt says its morally wrong, regardless of whether or not it bothers anyone else.
My Opinion:
The Government shouldn't do things like this.
An Area where its OK:
Question:
Why cant I get loaded then drive my car?
Answer:
Because you might hurt someone else, and they have the right to be safe.
I'm not beirng particularly articulate today, but does that clear things up? I'm not saying its morally OK to keep slaves. I'm saying thats not why the government stops it, because if popular opinion thought that it was morally OK - then the government would allow it.
To be honest, I don't know what the exact reasoning is either, but there's a Constitutional reason that setting fire to a burning cross at night on the front lawn of an African-American family's house is not considered free speech, but rather criminal intimidation.
Also: you can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater when there isn't a fire and claim immunity from prosecution based on free speech.
Also, backing up Fallingman: it is possible for a law to be "moral" and philosophically rational at the same time, but I submit that usually the arguments for such a law's morality are based on very different reasoning than its legal justification.
For example: It is illegal to murder someone because they have a right to preservation of their life under US law.
It is also immoral to murder someone in Christianity (and most secular moral philosophies) because murder violates a religious/philosophical belief.
Thats what I was after.
Hmmm.
I'm assuming that everyone's talking about the US constitution? I'm afraid that aside from being aware you have one... I have no idea what its all about, or how it relates tot he OP.
I see your point. I just treated the question as a more macro spin on the whole "is it right to force your morals onto others" argument.
Meh. This itself is just another moral argument. They are all moral arguments.
Well, theoretically here in the USA we have a separation of religion and government. In practice, people disregard this idea all the time---in particular it seems (to me) to be completely ignored/devalued by the sizable conservative Christian minority. The reason this is important is because any nation like ours that claims secular authority for its law necessarily needs to make sure that all laws have a secular justification. It's okay for murder to be illegal because it violates the secular right to life along with various religions' moral beliefs, but simultaneously it's not okay for smae-sex marriage to be illegal only because Christianity doesn't think it's moral.
I think this tension--secular vs. religious basis of law--is universal in that every democratic government has to address it. If a democratic country decides that it has an official state religion, such as the UK, then the tension is relieved somewhat because then there's a different legitimate moral source for law.
I think I agree with this, and I'd like to expand on it.
There are very few things the government does that aren't controversial. I mean, even tax rates are uncontroversial, and they're not exactly a major moral issue. Of course, it's true that while every "should" question has a moral component, the moral component isn't always - indeed, I'd say it's only infrequently - the thing sparking disagreement.
We accept that schools are a good thing - that's uncontroversial. But should we allow school vouchers? Well, that's controversial, but it's not a moral controversy. The moral component, however you choose to define it, is pretty much agreed upon by everyone, and that makes the question one that can justifiably be broached by the government. The question is more about the best way to achieve what everyone agrees is a good goal.
I think the government is at its best when it's acting on morally unambiguous issues that present all sorts of controversial logistical issues. How should we tailor our social programs to maximize prosperity? How should we tailor our tax code to maximize prosperity? How should we structure our government to best respond to the problems and requests of its citizenry? And so on. If the only things at stake from acting on an issue are which people are going to be pissed off, then the government should pretty much always err on the side of liberty - ie, it should stay out of it.
So yes, politics is about legislating morality. It should not be about legislating 'indecency' or social moors, which is sometimes considered morally outrageous, or mysticism, which is tangentially related to morality to begin with. These are culturally specific outlooks that are not moral questions.
==
Politics should also be about practical questions as well, but for the most part it is a moral sport. A law that abolishes slavery is a moral legislation. A law that gives subsidized health care to children is moral legislation, though of a different sort. Even taxation is a problem of morality.
Or we can just keep arguing the merits of the question itself, and the nature of morality...
Ethics is necessarily a broad field. It is only a code of behavior to determine how people should live, in all circumstances everywhere. In some philosophies it even encompasses aesthetics.
The original post was too broad, and really wanted the question of "Should Politics legislate cultural normative values that are not necessarily philosophically or logically defensible." I disagree, but I'm in a very real sense a proponent of a unified human race which requires the deconstruction of segmented culture, language, and borders. There are plenty of people who are not.
This view is inconsistent or incomplete. Sexual behavior that is moral, must necessarily be treated same as any other moral behavior.
Rape, for instance, is a moral issue that is a sexual issue as well; yet we legislate against rape.
I have no qualms with a person arguing that legislation should legislate against sexually immoral behavior. My qualms is that which they consider to be sexually immoral is either not immoral, or if it is, is considering it to be immoral would be inconsistent with other moral beliefs they hold (often including the concept of individualism).
That's lovely but it doesn't make your remarks anything but an attempt to silence the intended question.
Age of consent might have been a more appropriate example than rape.
these days it's code for "rabid funide agenda"
for example (and this is entirely hypothetical since i can't come up with anything better), heroin. Say that the government makes heroin illegal not because it's immoral to use heroin, but rather because it makes you act in a manner that is dangerous to the people around you. sure you can argue that the "real" morality that the state is legislating is that i should behave in a way that does not endanger the people around me, but i think you're reaching.
I think that the issue of the state legislating morality isn't an issue of them legislating on a moral issue, but rather that they legislate a certain way because of a perceived immorality. if they happened to have outlawed slavery for non moral reasons, then they aren't legislating morality.
in response to the opening post, that's a tricky question. I've noticed, studying ethics, that people are really resistant to even rational discourse on what is or is not right (in a moral sense), thus legislating based on morality is also something that people are going to be resistant to. Until humanity has "grown up" and is capable of actual large scale argument on the matter, legislating due to moral imperatives is not something that the government should do.
makes me feel dirty inside my socialist soul to say that....
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche