:up: My thoughts.
toldailytopic: People say: You can't legislate morality. Is that true?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
:up: My thoughts.
Or this, since it depends on what you mean by "legislate morality". :up:
Give me an example of any law, written by man, and I will show you an attempt to enforce somebody's idea of what is right or what is wrong. The phrase "You can't legislate morality" is stupid, stupid, stupid!
Exactly. A law will not change a persons opinions, desires or beliefs. A law may cause a person to consider their actions more closely to avoid a penalty without changing their thinking.
After watching this thread a bit, I think that "legislating morality" has a different connotation than criminal laws. I think that most of us agree what criminal behavior is, things such as murder, assault, theft and so on. It seems that when the term " legislate morality" is used it is used to impose criminal penalties on things that are are viewed as immoral but not criminal in today's society. These things would include homosexuality and adultery and other things from OT law. My response would remain unchanged. You cannot legislate morality. You can legislate based on a moral code and criminalize certain actions. But people will continue to believe that certain acts considered to be immoral by God are in fact, moral. A law cannot change a heart.
As you know, I am of course in favor of these illegal activities being punished to the fullest extent of the law.
However, just because someone does not do the deed doesn't necessarily mean in their heart that they are innocent. IF the law is the only thing keeping some people from these acts, IMO, those types are still immoral.
I'm not suggesting any act in and of itself is immoral. Obviously it's the desire and intent at the heart that's the matter. But having the desire and acting it out are both immoral acts because of that desire.
If my axe head flies off accidentally and kills someone, I've no guilt. It was an accident. No intent, no desire that the other person come to any harm.
If I throw an axe at someone and kill them, I've sinned. Both in the desire and in the act.
Since the desire itself is the root of the problem, Christ is simply pointing out I haven't abstained from sin simply if I wanted to jab someone in the head with an axe but didn't.
The act matters because it's carrying that desire to its end. Is it better, worse or immaterial whether one carries out a desire? Obviously worse to carry it out, because you're giving yourself over to that desire. But that sinful desire is still there. Christ is simply pointing this out, lest we convince ourselves we're righteous for not acting on our sinful desires.
Newman
New member
:dizzy: Thrice stupid?! :chuckle:
Sure, people can attempt it. Legislators can write laws that say anything, but does it make the people more moral?
If I break into wherever the original copy of the Constitution is, National Treasure style, and take a sharpie and write "Henceforth, no one shall be permitted by law to say, do, think about, or encourage anything forbidden in the Holy Bible", would the nation be more moral for my doing so?
Then perhaps you should give us some examples of what you consider morality, outside of the obvious like rape, murder, theft, etc... I fear we are now going to step into the realm of homosexuality, etc... am I right?
Cruciform
New member
Of course not. That is precisely what civil laws are designed to do. Every law reflects and expresses an ethical norm.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Did I ever say I wanted you to affirm what I say? You are quite the fool, and a hypocrite to boot. Complaining when I mock and deride you without actually engaging in debate and then turning around and doing the very same thing of which you accuse me.
At least I only resort to mockery and derision when I have debated and found my opponent to be completely stupid.
I never said it would make these people moral, only that it may keep many of them from committing certain immoral acts even when they want to commit them. It is then fear of punishment that drives their behavior, against their desire for immorality rather than any desire to do right for right's sake.
That is not even the point. You have heard the phrase before. Any time someone utters the phrase "You can't legislate morality" what point are they trying to make? It is always the same point. "you shouldn't make laws that control my actions!" Then why write laws?
Newman
New member
You can't legislate morality in the same way you can't speak chocolate brownies into existence. You can read the recipe. You can scream the recipe. You can make people memorize the recipe. You can bribe people to make them. You can force people to make brownies for you against the penalty of death. You can even make them yourself. But you cannot speak them into existence (as much as I would like to be able to do so).
I think that we are attempting here to discuss two different types of morality... one is the morality of laws intended to keep society as a whole safe, ie murder, rape, theft, speeding, etc; the other is the morality of soul or religion if you will, such as incest, homosexuality, coventing what others have but not acting on it, adultery, keeping the Sabbath, obeying one's parents, etc.
One can and certain should be legislated, the morality intended to keep society safe; but the other morality can not be legislated and when a society attempts to do so, there is usually a lot of breaking of those laws, often in private. Take for instance the laws against sodomy or oral sex, many states carried these laws for decades, but were unenforcable. We are seeing such a case in California with the attempt to legislate against gay marriage, even though the "majority" have voted against it, the courts found that this type of "morality" does not fit into the category of one that would harm society.
One can and certain should be legislated, the morality intended to keep society safe; but the other morality can not be legislated and when a society attempts to do so, there is usually a lot of breaking of those laws, often in private. Take for instance the laws against sodomy or oral sex, many states carried these laws for decades, but were unenforcable. We are seeing such a case in California with the attempt to legislate against gay marriage, even though the "majority" have voted against it, the courts found that this type of "morality" does not fit into the category of one that would harm society.
Of course I would mention homosexuality, and abortion. I would also say, "adultery" and "fornication." Then there is "lying." A couple of these things are agreed upon, by everybody, to be immoral. But they are not currently illegal. But we do insist on some form of punishment for those who do them, most of the time. When a child lies to its parents, for instance. And in that sense we legislate morality even in the home, in order to teach morality to our children.
Yes, we could go on and on with a list, and spend even more time arguing over things on the list that some say should be there, and others say should not. But in the end none of that has anything to do with the point in the here an now. So why do you ask?
Newman
New member
Yes sir, right away sir. You're right, I should have read between the lines (line?) of your ":rotfl:". I should have responded to what I knew you meant by that. Your ":rotfl:" most certainly was "engaging me in debate", just like you said. Unfortunately, Your Buttfacedness, I can't read people's minds as well as you and must kindly and humbly ask for your assistance in interpreting your ":rotfl:", so that I may continue our debate so that you may once again triumph over me in verbal sparring. Huzzah!
Uh, not really. My point is that you can't rely on laws, from a ballot box or a gavel, to change the hearts and attitudes of people.
I would only add one thing to your statement, "You shouldn't make laws that control my actions, when those actions do not directly harm society as a whole, or individuals outside of the direct action being legislated."
It has everything to do with the current OP, that asks should we legislate morality. When society attempts to legislate and punish behaviors like fornication, adultery, homosexuality, etc... it never works and it never will..... You are now leaving the realm of objective laws and entering the world of subjective laws, and then you leave open the door for intepretation of what is "moral" and what is not... who makes said determination?
Newman
New member
To protect every man's rights to life, liberty, and property. The very idea to enforce anything else contradicts the very idea to enforce anything else.
Laws to protect these three things are not based on "morality". They are based on the idea that I own myself, whatever I produce, and whatever I get in voluntary exchanges for things that I produce. Rights exist before whatever rude ("rude" as in "basic") concept of morality enters the scene.
- Status