February 4, 2004
-
Legislating Morality
"...where your argument falters just a bit for me is in the assertion that you cannot legislate morality ..."
On Monday I weighed in with some remarks addressed to the current debate over same-sex Civil Unions. My comments section is full of insightful additions to that topic. A couple of the longer responses took issue with my statements about legislating morality. I love it when someone points out areas where my words could be tightened up a bit and I've put some extra thought into this idea of legislating morality. I'd like to acknowledge up front that by using a cliche, I muddied up the thought processes on this one ... My bad. See a cliche may even be true, but because we've heard it so often before, it loses its meaning and we take it at less than face value.
In this case my intent was to say that morality is not caused, created, or brought about by making rules. Say for example, I (hypothetically) believe that eating foods loaded with sugar and saturated fats is an unhealthy thing, I believe it so strongly that I consider these foods to be close to poison on the scale of bad things to eat. Now lets say that I'm able to persuade the local legislators that my view is correct and they pass a law. Suddenly, it's a criminal act for a chef to serve chocolate torte with butter cream. (Oh, yeah, I feel very clever making a torte a tort ...) Anyway, did passing that law instill in the heart of the chef an understanding that serving this food is an immoral act? Probably not.
I wrote that when we attempt to legislate morality that we are really saying that other people are not capable of making and accepting responsibility for their own moral choices. Perhaps I should have said that we are admitting that we don't trust them to make the right moral choices, which would of course be those that we endorse. Scott and Kevin pointed out that there is a connection between morality and legislation. Kevin notes that all legislation derives from our sense of morality in one way or the other and Scott adds that when we legislate, we don't deprive anyone of the opportunity to own up to their choices, we just impose consequences (or offer benefit to reward) the choices they make. Legislation thus attempts to influence our behavior with external reward and punishment.
And to be a bit of a Devil's Advocate against myself, I also recognize that the fact a law may be ineffective at preventing behavior we deem undesireable is not a valid argument against inacting the law. All societies have included some understanding of which actions constitute murder and have provided for penalties against muderers. So far as I'm aware none of these laws have eliminated murder, should we repeal the laws? By, no means. See another aspect of law is that it says something not about who we are but about who we want to be. We want to be a people that affirm life, so our laws punish murder even though we know that the punishment will not eliminate the possibility of murder occuring.
So what do you think? Should we be in the business of writing legislation in the hope of guiding, controlling, or influencing people to make moral choices?
Comments (16)
in my Family in contempory society class we were discussing the fact that rich people make laws that effect the middle and lower class......and that usually it is about something that rarely if ever effects them....this has been a very hot topic at the moment.
hmmm...thanks. i never thought of it that way.
Well, no matter how you look at it, legislation is really the majority (or in some cases a small lobbying group) imposing their will on the minority. There have been many laws in this country that were immoral (thinking of segregation laws in the south etc.) I think laws against murder and robbery are more bulwarks against chaos than morality and exist in all societies, but laws that try to control how people live (like laws in some Muslim countries that force women to wear veils and laws excluding same sex couples from the full benefits of their government) are nothing more than one group imposing their will on another. The key to overcoming these kinds of laws is to become the "bigger" group.
I think we should be allowed to make our own choices....who decides what "sin" is anyway? I mean, some things are obvious, of course..I don't need the big government telling me what to read, who to marry, how many children to have.
I have read the term "laws are for the lawless" there is always someone messing up everything for the rest of us. There are bad people..I married a sociopath, for example..my first hubby. And as a society we have do deal with these things.
I do think that child molestation is horrible and the predators/molesters are sick..and should be treated as such...and perhaps behind bars...I have read that sexual predators don't really ever change.
I think if same sex people want to get married, why not? Who cares?
I also feel very strongly about legal abortion...I am not saying that abortion is right or good (especially partial birth) but I believe that we as women have the right to decide. My daughter had an abortion at age 16 and I am eternally grateful it was legal in the state that we live in. NOt an easy choice. Her life would have been totally different otherwise.
I think I kind of got off the subject...but this are some of the things I think about.
wait.
let me get this straight.
are you saying that if we come to your house, there will be no icecream for dessert? o_0
sorry...gotta go with levity when I have NO intelligent comment to make.
I'm reading all this and can't figure out what the debate is, exactly. It reminded me of a conversation I had with my grandmother last night on the phone that went something like this:
Did you see that mess about the Superbowl? That titty mess?
Yes.
People'll do anything these days. I even heard they're allowing people to say "fuck" on tv.
Yeah, I heard the same.
Well, I say "fuck," but I don't think they should say it on tv. I mean, it's not something little kids should hear. I say it, but they shouldn't say it on tv.
Laughter on both sides.
It's easy to figger, this law business--idealize what should be and make other people do it. Just don't mess with what I get to do.
Whether or not I, or anyone else, believes that this is the business of government, they are going to continue to do so...
A very thoughtful blog...
I think the only business of the government should be preventing people from imposing their morality on others. Like separation of religion and state, we should have separation of morality and state. The only business that government should have in the area of free choice is protecting it. Murder would still be against the law because it takes away someone's free choice to live. I think we should give people the benefit of the doubt that they are capable of making their own choices. We have too much of the opposite going on right now. Most people live up to high expectations when given the opportunity, but if they are not ever given the opportunity, how are they to learn to make responsible choices? We don't learn by being told how to do something; we learn by doing. We learn by being given the freedom to make our own mistakes.
The first part of what you write begs the question of what is morality, and what does it have to do with a sensation that something is "right."
LOL, I'm afraid you've pushed one of my buttons with the next to last paragraph though! By imposing consequences for murder, which I don't think anyone would say is against their best interest, the state is trying to monopolize deadly force. It defines what individuals do in that realm as "murder", but what the state does as "war" or "punishment." Is that legitimate? Is the state capable of a moral act, is what we should be asking, where it has defined the terms, and reserved powers to itself? Is the state beyond morality?
Here's where I'm afraid this line leads us: Morality is a retroactive judgment. After a decision has been made, armchair quarterbacks around the world can say whether or not it offends their sensation of rightness. It's political, and therefore, subjective, this sense. May be influenced by cultural or religious factors, etc., just like the individual in the moment was.
Now, I'm an anti-authoritarian. I'm inclined by my experience to think that the state is not just beyond morality, it's necessarily immoral, in that it's defined by the actions of large groups of people acting in effective or actual secrecy to accomplish largely sectarian ends. It's accumulation of power may be a practical boon in some situations, like the punishment of murder, but it enables great evils to be accomplished on a day-to-day basis, no matter who is at the helm of government. The codification of approbations and prohibitions disguises and legitimizes the actions of hundreds of thousands of actual human beings engaged in whatever evils they may do.
All that said, there are 6 billion plus people on this planet, and over 250 million of them in this country alone, and I would be hesitant to live anywhere if there weren't some kind of structure of "approbations and prohibitions." But it's important to realize that these are not produced by a benevolent God, but by the actions of malleable and fallible human beings, acting in their individual subjective, cultural, religious, biased contexts, and under the guidance of the state, which is (if you accept my logic) immoral in effect, if not intent.
Whew! Is there a conclusion or three in there, or what?
The point, at least to me, has never been should we legislate morality or not; it's always been should we have to?
When I was 17, one of my teachers told me that I was amoral. Not immoral, but amoral.
I'm more of the view that both law and 'morality' evolved to provide the regulations that are necessary for people to live together in any society. So, you can't have people who are living together in a city able to steal or kill whenever they feel like it, because you'd quickly degenerate into anarchy.
So, for instance, in cultures which evolved in really hot desert regions, it's immoral for EITHER sex to wander around without 90% of their skin covered. Doing this in the desert will rapidly kill you - it used to simply be essential to cover your head to survive, now it's a moral imperitive.
I'd be curious to hear your take if you look at the same topic from a purely biblical standpoint, keeping in mind the Christian influence behind the founding of the country, which includes the legal system (which didn't stray from a 10 commandment philosophy until the mid-1900's.
Sam
I got the photos.. thanks so much.. I hope your shoulder heals quickly... I am not much in a debating mood... I am tuckered out.. (LOL I just realized I said Tuckered...LOL) I hope you know I am sending you all kinds of good vibes and lots of love,
Tina
Very thought provoking!
Your essay was extremely thought-provoking, as always, and I (also as always) enjoyed the commentary, particularly blankety and littlered. The point seems clear, and the clarity for me is this: There Is No Right And Wrong. Murder, after all, is not only permitted, but in fact lawful in our country: the murder of a murderer. Personally I'm all for capital punishment as an option, but there are many (and many I know well) who view it as immoral in the extreme. Per force, "government" means establishment of an arbitrarily-chosen social construct, does it not?
I am still thinking, here. And I'm thinking I'm depressed.........!!
Comments are closed.