Skavau
New member
No, the fact that we do regulate in favour of personal liberty (outlawing murder, theft, rape, torture, slavery etc) is part of the reason why we are a free society.
toldailytopic: People say: You can't legislate morality. Is that true?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
No, the fact that we do regulate in favour of personal liberty (outlawing murder, theft, rape, torture, slavery etc) is part of the reason why we are a free society.
Unless they actually break the law, nothing. All by themselves, laws cannot change morality.
No.
That is why we have laws, to punish people for acting in ways contrary to what society has defined as acceptable behavior. The laws do not change the morals of the person who wants to do wrong, they simply give us a way to attempt to discourage and ultimately punish such behavior.
A_O said it best. A moral person will always act in a moral way regardless what laws are on the books.
You are quite adept at missing the point, aren't you?
My argument is that we are a free society though we do legislate morality to an extent.
Not my argument. I am asking if we should have laws that are based on morality in order to deal with those who want to be immoral?
You are just as skilled in missing the point as Skavau.
It depends, does your definition of morality collide with the personal freedom of others in their personal life?
What types of immorality and laws are you specifically speaking of?
Skavau
New member
From what I understand of the question, no. But I would ask who do you consider those who would want to be 'immoral'? By what understanding of 'immoral'?Lighthouse said:
No matter how clearcut you think morality is. No matter how objective you think morality is - they remain your beliefs. The nations of both the USA and the UK are pluralistic consisting of people that herald from cultures and religious backgrounds all across the planet. Both nations consist of people that have different beliefs on morality. You cannot and should not legislate how people ought to behave.
Last edited:
you can legislate anything you want to
if
it is the will of the people
and
the court does not find it unconstitutional
should we legislate morality?
yes to protect me from you
but
no to protect me from me
if
it is the will of the people
and
the court does not find it unconstitutional
should we legislate morality?
yes to protect me from you
but
no to protect me from me
Newman
New member
lain: [...]Hold on let me read that one more time...
:doh: :bow:
You just have a way with words, don't you?
You know what, Buttface? You're right. I can't believe how wrong and set in my ways I was before you posted that laughing smiley.
There I was, taking a stand on what I thought was a principled, aprioristically-concluded position on public policy issues, and you just took my hand and led me to the enlightened path. What was I thinking?! How could I have been so misguided to think that laws are based on pre-existing rights instead of Your Buttfacedness' Most Holy Moral Code (TM)? I must have been brainwashed at school into thinking that every man has inalienable rights given by God. Haha! What a load of BS! And to think, they said it was in the Declaration of Independence (pfffft... whatever that is).
Everybody knows that "rights" are just some silly contraption made up by Your Most Holy Buttfacedness's (TM) evil nemeses! And to think, without your beautiful display of rhetoric, without your humble approach to logic, without your undying relentlessness for reason, without your magnificent wit, and without your unfailing prose, I would still be in the ranks of those that dared mutter bits of incompetence against Your Most Holy Buttfacedness' (TM) will.
I apologize, Your Buttfacedness.
I repent of my nasty libertarian ways all because of your laughing smiley.
I surrender my position all because of your laughing smiley.
You win this fantastic debate all because of your laughing smiley.
All credit to you, Your Most Holy Buttfacedness (TM) all because of your laughing smiley.
May I never speak ill of you again, all because of your laughing smiley.
May I never speak without your permission, all because of your laughing smiley.
I cast off all of my prior worldviews and cede them to Your Most Holy Buttfacedness (TM) all because of your laughing smiley.
You didn't even need to waste your stubby little fingers' time with typing out a response to whatever else I dribbled onto this forum, because your laughing smiley convinced me of the error of my ways by itself. In fact, you should continue a similar pattern with the people you haven't convinced (unlike me, of course, who is totally on your side about everything, all because of that laughing smile). And if Your Holy Buttfacedness (TM) would grow tired of the same laughing smiley as a response to other people's attempts at approximating Your Most Holy Buttfacedness' (TM) incredible rhetoric, Your Most Holy Buttfacedness (TM) could resort to name-calling, one-line insults, or other similar laughing smileys to ":rotfl:". But I would advise Your Most Holy Buttfacedness (TM) to never acknowledge anything anybody says, much like what Your Most Holy Buttfacedness (TM) does already, and exactly like what Your Most Holy Buttfacedness (TM) did to convince me of my ignorance in your previous post addressed to me.
I thank Your Most Holy Buttfacedness for your unwavering support for all things reasonable and good, especially because of your laughing smiley.
GuySmiley
Well-known member
While I agree with some people who have said no, I'm saying yes.
It depends on what you mean by legislating morality. If you mean it to say can you legislate and make people "moral" as in righteous, no, of course not. If you mean it as in can you make people act in a moral way, then yes, of course you can.
So I'd say, yes you can legislate morality, but you can't make people righteous (moral).
It depends on what you mean by legislating morality. If you mean it to say can you legislate and make people "moral" as in righteous, no, of course not. If you mean it as in can you make people act in a moral way, then yes, of course you can.
So I'd say, yes you can legislate morality, but you can't make people righteous (moral).
What exactly do you think we're legislating when we pass criminal laws?
This is why I despise this phrase. "Legislating morality". It's used precisely because the meaning is so vague. When challenged on it, anyone using it will claim it means that one can't change anyone's moral beliefs by passing some law or other. But when it's actually used in an argument, it's almost always used to imply one can't legislate one how someone should behave. Which is glaringly, stupidly false. That's exactly what criminal laws legislate. How one should behave.
Even here Skavau obviously confuses himself with this ridiculous saying. It's a cheap trick, an act of double-think. I've never heard it used to actually argue against using legislation to change the moral beliefs of any group of people. It's always used to argue against discouraging some form of behavior through the law and relies on the implication against legislating moral belief to hide how that doesn't make any sense at all.
We can and do legislate "moral" behavior all the time. Every single criminal law on the books legislates behavior and much of that is arguably "moral".
We can't legislate belief. Which is not in any way the same thing and hasn't the first thing to do with the question.
Yes, that. Exactly. :thumb:
Newman
New member
Aside from the hypocrisy involved in enforcing such a thing, doing something moral because you are forced to do it negates any morality involved in the prior conception of the desired behavior. For morality to be morality, it must be voluntary.
Skavau
New member
I've already addressed this in prior posts. We do legislate against behaviour that harms others. I don't think this thread is simply wondering whether or not it is possible to successfully pass laws to prevent people from murdering, raping, torturing others. Of course it can and it does. It is asking whether or not legislation can or could be passed to impose restrictions regarding people's lifestyles. Whether or not it should be done to impose government-approved and enforce boundaries onto what lifestyles are and are not acceptable. That seems to be the implication.MaryContrary said:
It is a silly term, yes.
Okay, is murder moral or immoral? Has murder been actively legislated against, specifically with the intent to deter people from committing that act?
This ain't nearly so complicated. Murder is immoral. Abstaining from murder is moral. Criminal law has been legislated against murder, encouraging abstinence from murder. Morality has been legislated.
Obviously morality can, in this sense, be legislated. The question is whether it should be.
Legislating belief likewise is possible. Just ain't very likely to actually accomplish changing anyone's beliefs.
To keep with the point I am making let's stick to the laws that currently exist and are enforced; murder, rape, molestation, theft, kidnapping, perjury, etc.
You just can't help but illustrate, time and again, how dumb you really are, can you?
My point has been, this entire time, that we currently legislate morality as it is, to an extent. We certainly do not make people moral, but we do regulate actions of immorality.
The list I gave Rusha, above, is all the illustration I need to show what I mean. And you are so exceedingly stupid that you could not figure out that is exactly what I meant, and all I meant, in this particular discussion. We do legislate how people ought to behave, no matter how many times you say otherwise.
How sad [read: pathetic] you must be to have to respond with this diatribe to my laughing at your "reasoning." I find it funny that you justify your argument that we do not legislate morality in the least by stating that what we do legislate in regard to im/moral actions is not legislating morality at all.
Hold on let me read that one more time...
:doh: :bow:
You just have a way with words, don't you?
You know what, Buttface? You're right. I can't believe how wrong and set in my ways I was before you posted that laughing smiley.
There I was, taking a stand on what I thought was a principled, aprioristically-concluded position on public policy issues, and you just took my hand and led me to the enlightened path. What was I thinking?! How could I have been so misguided to think that laws are based on pre-existing rights instead of Your Buttfacedness' Most Holy Moral Code (TM)? I must have been brainwashed at school into thinking that every man has inalienable rights given by God. Haha! What a load of BS! And to think, they said it was in the Declaration of Independence (pfffft... whatever that is).
Everybody knows that "rights" are just some silly contraption made up by Your Most Holy Buttfacedness's (TM) evil nemeses! And to think, without your beautiful display of rhetoric, without your humble approach to logic, without your undying relentlessness for reason, without your magnificent wit, and without your unfailing prose, I would still be in the ranks of those that dared mutter bits of incompetence against Your Most Holy Buttfacedness' (TM) will.
I apologize, Your Buttfacedness.
I repent of my nasty libertarian ways all because of your laughing smiley.
I surrender my position all because of your laughing smiley.
You win this fantastic debate all because of your laughing smiley.
All credit to you, Your Most Holy Buttfacedness (TM) all because of your laughing smiley.
May I never speak ill of you again, all because of your laughing smiley.
May I never speak without your permission, all because of your laughing smiley.
I cast off all of my prior worldviews and cede them to Your Most Holy Buttfacedness (TM) all because of your laughing smiley.
You didn't even need to waste your stubby little fingers' time with typing out a response to whatever else I dribbled onto this forum, because your laughing smiley convinced me of the error of my ways by itself. In fact, you should continue a similar pattern with the people you haven't convinced (unlike me, of course, who is totally on your side about everything, all because of that laughing smile). And if Your Holy Buttfacedness (TM) would grow tired of the same laughing smiley as a response to other people's attempts at approximating Your Most Holy Buttfacedness' (TM) incredible rhetoric, Your Most Holy Buttfacedness (TM) could resort to name-calling, one-line insults, or other similar laughing smileys to ":rotfl:". But I would advise Your Most Holy Buttfacedness (TM) to never acknowledge anything anybody says, much like what Your Most Holy Buttfacedness (TM) does already, and exactly like what Your Most Holy Buttfacedness (TM) did to convince me of my ignorance in your previous post addressed to me.
I thank Your Most Holy Buttfacedness for your unwavering support for all things reasonable and good, especially because of your laughing smiley.
And your response is how many paragraphs of an attempt to throw my own attitude and actions back in my face? And it is yet a failure, for so many reasons:
- You use only one name, over and over again.
- You go on and on.
- You come across as a whiny, sniveling little brat who can't take it when someone else calls him a name. You need to grow up and brush it off if you honestly don't think it applies.
GuySmiley
Well-known member
We can make people act in a moral way, so in that sense, we should legislate morality. For instance, its illegal to murder. But we can't make people moral. For instance, we can't make someone not want to murder. I can't really tell from your post if you were disagreeing with me.
I would have to take some issue with this statement. It stems from this verse:
Matthew 5:28
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
The sin is in the thought, not the action. So while a law may stop you from committing a murder to avoid earthly punishment, your desire to commit a murder is still immoral.
Newman
New member
Immoral. But is that the reason why murder is illegal?
Most certainly! Most thankfully!
I love the "ain't". I'm from the south so it feels like home when you do that. :cloud9:
Yes, murder is immoral. Yes, abstaining from murder is moral. Yes, criminal law has been legislated against murder, encouraging abstinence from murder. However, I disagree that morality has been legislated. The point of the legislation was to protect people's right to their own life. I have a right to my life, you have I right to your life, and neither one of us can take it away from the other without trespassing onto one another's rights. The rights existed before the morality. Babies have rights before they know how to make choices between moral and immoral actions. I know it sounds like a technical, 3rd-grader-esque argument to make, but the distinction is incredibly important when it comes to political philosophy and especially the non-aggression principle (the much-too-trampled-on-idea that no one has the right to initiate force on somebody else).
Yeah, we may be getting into some semantics issues, but I remain in my position that "legislated morality" is an oxymoron. And I obviously would argue that it shouldn't be tried, per your second statement.
Newman
New member
Oh, my apologies, your highness. I'll keep my responses to a brief affirmation of whatever you say, in the future.
(You just let me know when you want to actually engage me in debate about the topic at hand, Buttface.)
While that may be true it's also impossible to penalize.
When people talk about "legislating morality" it seems as though they're wondering if law can in and of itself change hearts and motives. I say no: it may be instructive and it may help people along to reconsider their opinions and desires as times change, but you don't get morality from a ballot box.
- Status