toldailytopic: People say: You can't legislate morality. Is that true?

[Nathon Detroit]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for September 7th, 2010 10:04 AM

toldailytopic: People say: You can't legislate morality. Is that true?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

I think we have plenty of moral codes for professionals already. And they should live up to it. Especially doctors, who obligation is first to do no harm.

 

[CabinetMaker]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for September 7th, 2010 10:04 AM

toldailytopic: People say: You can't legislate morality. Is that true?

Yes, that is true. All a law, any law, can do is proscribe a punishment for an action. Laws cannot change the heart of people hence our need for a savior. Morals come from our hearts and reveal the person that we are and that can't be legislated.

 

[Alate_One]

Technically you can enforce moral behavior though it would be contradictory to what most people would consider a "free society".

The Taliban and Sharia law would be examples of enforcing moral behavior.

What you can't do is force people to believe in and agree with said morals. i.e. you cannot make someone moral by law, but you can make them behave morally to the extent they are afraid of punishment.

 

[Granite]

Yes, that is true. All a law, any law, can do is proscribe a punishment for an action. Laws cannot change the heart of people hence our need for a savior. Morals come from our hearts and reveal the person that we are and that can't be legislated.

I don't think you can say it better than that.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Technically you can enforce moral behavior though it would be contradictory to what most people would consider a "free society".

The Taliban and Sharia law would be examples of enforcing moral behavior.

What you can't do is force people to believe in and agree with said morals. i.e. you cannot make someone moral by law, but you can make them behave morally to the extent they are afraid of punishment.

I agree. But a person who acts morally for fear of punishment is not necessarily a moral person.

 

[Rusha]

ITA with CM! IMO, a person should choose to do the right thing because it is right, not our of fear, for rewards, etc.

 

[Cracked]

Most law has a moral basis. The speed limit, for example, is directly related to the idea of safety which can be a moral concern. That being said, you can't force someone to be a moral person, as has been noted. Give a person a level of anonymity, unaccountability, and/or power (especially) not available to the majority and watch immorality flow. Perhaps, this is not true for everyone.

 

[Paulos]

1) How should hypocrites legislate morality?

2) In a pluralistic society, who's morality do we legislate?

 

[Alate_One]

I agree. But a person who acts morally for fear of punishment is not necessarily a moral person.

That's what I'm trying to say.

A "moral person" is such because of his or her beliefs. A moral person behaves according to their standards even when there is no punishment for behaving against said standards (or when they know they won't get caught). This latter situation is why even legislating moral behavior is doomed to failure.

A moral person may even behave according to the standard even when the law is AGAINST them, if the power of the moral standard supersedes the standard for obeying the law.

 

[elohiym]

Yes, that is true. All a law, any law, can do is proscribe a punishment for an action. Laws cannot change the heart of people hence our need for a savior. Morals come from our hearts and reveal the person that we are and that can't be legislated.

Are you changing the definition of "legislate" and "morality?"

 

[Newman]

As soon as you introduce incentives (either positive rewards, like giving them money, negative rewards, like relieving taxes, positive punishment, like slapping on the wrist, or negative punishment, like taking away their life by sending them to jail) for people to act morally, you've foregone the very morality that was meant to be encouraged. (I'm using "positive" and "negative" here in a mathematical way, not an evaluative way.)

Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a great example of this. Its purpose was to exterminate, or at least lessen, racism, yet it did nothing of the sort. You can say that we live in a less racist society now, after the act, but it did not cause a less racist society. If anything, it did the opposite and worked against efforts toward ending racism.

 

[pattybarnes]

Maybe you can, maybe you can't. What's really interesting/tricky would be trying to regulate something like that. Right and wrong is different for EVERYONE and is based on past experiences/environment/etc. What I think is okay others may not.

 

[Lighthouse]

Technically you can enforce moral behavior though it would be contradictory to what most people would consider a "free society".

The Taliban and Sharia law would be examples of enforcing moral behavior.

What you can't do is force people to believe in and agree with said morals. i.e. you cannot make someone moral by law, but you can make them behave morally to the extent they are afraid of punishment.

So we are not a free society? We outlaw murder, rape, molestation, theft, etc. We legislate morality, to an extent. So if we are not free, to whom are we slaves?

ITA with CM! IMO, a person should choose to do the right thing because it is right, not our of fear, for rewards, etc.

What of those who refuse to do what is right because it is right?

 

[Rusha]

What of those who refuse to do what is right because it is right?

I can't see that as being a motivation for someone not doing what is right.

 

[Lighthouse]

I can't see that as being a motivation for someone not doing what is right.

What?

There are people who don't care about right or wrong, they just want to do wrong. What should we do regarding those people?

 

[Skavau]

So we are not a free society? We outlaw murder, rape, molestation, theft, etc. We legislate morality, to an extent. So if we are not free, to whom are we slaves?

The things referenced above are outlawed because they are direct infringements upon the liberty of others. The idea of course that people's personal liberty matters and mean something is moral, in nature - but is necessary for any society that doesn't want to implode into anarchy any time soon.

The key here of course is that some actions should be outlawed, and for good reason. This does not mean however, that any action should on the same merit be outlawed. I think the topic is querying whether or not a nation can or should impose specific moral guidelines that control or influence how people live their lives. I would say absolutely not, under all circumstances. All laws that prohibit behaviour should be based solely on protection of others from having their lives ruined.

 

[Newman]

So we are not a free society? We outlaw murder, rape, molestation, theft, etc. We legislate morality, to an extent. So if we are not free, to whom are we slaves?


What of those who refuse to do what is right because it is right?

Nononono. Those aren't "legislating morality". We should never legislate something based on somebody's morality. Those you mentioned (murder, rape, molestation, and theft) are legislating rights, which is a very important concept to grasp. Everybody has a right to life, liberty, and property, and those rights end as soon as another's starts.

 

[Lighthouse]

The things referenced above are outlawed because they are direct infringements upon the liberty of others. The idea of course that people's personal liberty matters and mean something is moral, in nature - but is necessary for any society that doesn't want to implode into anarchy any time soon.

The key here of course is that some actions should be outlawed, and for good reason. This does not mean however, that any action should on the same merit be outlawed. I think the topic is querying whether or not a nation can or should impose specific moral guidelines that control or influence how people live their lives. I would say absolutely not, under all circumstances. All laws that prohibit behaviour should be based solely on protection of others from having their lives ruined.

Completely irrelevant to the point.

 

[Lighthouse]

Nononono. Those aren't "legislating morality".

:rotfl: