You can't legislate morality

[Scooter .45]

"You can't legislate morality."

Inasmuch as murder and other crimes (using guns) is a moral issue, I'm wondering if this angle has been used as part of a pro-gun argument. Banning guns won't change the attitude of murderers, robbers, rapists, etc. In short, you can't legislate morality.

Since this phrase seems to be a favorite phrase among liberals, so why not turn it around against them?

 

[Preacherman]

Nice try - but they're legislating against things (i.e. guns), not people. Therefore, they would argue that they're not "legislating morality", but rather trying to get an intrinsically evil, nasty object off the streets.

 

[Standing Wolf]

...trying to get an intrinsically evil, nasty object off the streets...

That's what the leftist extremists want us to believe; their actual objective, however, is obvious: they seek to disarm every last law-abiding American citizen.

I personally like moral approaches to issues—I'm a moral being, after all—but doubt they stand any chance in the contemporary marketplace of ideas: the word "moral" has been heavily undermined by the leftist extremists for decades, and is now used as a perjorative.

As I see matters, there are two avenues that may actually lead us forward: legal and practical. Legally, we can easily claim the Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and in purely practical terms, I believe we can equally easily claim firearms ownership by law-abiding American citizens is a social good, whereas prohibiting it clearly leads to social problems. I'd very much like to take a moral approach, but fear it's been preempted.

 

[GoRon]

All legislation is a reflection of somebodies morality. The issue is WHOSE morality? There is no such thing as morally neutral.

Traditional morality formed by Christian/Judeo ethics as the foundation of our law is being replaced by materialistic secularism.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Unfortunately, most of the liberals calling for gun bans have no morals. Plus, they blame the gun for causing the murderers, robbers and rapists to commit crimes. Without the gun, they would all be upstanding, law abiding citizens.

 

[RobW]

In his book "Why I Am Not a Christian" Bertrand Russell demands that atheists have to have a higher morality than religious people.

The Intolerants, aka as "Liberals" have no morals at all, they indulge in "everything goes, who cares about you". Their way ist just to destroy morals, values and thus the whole society.

Seen in numerous perished societies in the past.

And they are so shrewed, they'll blame YOU that they are sitting on ruins. Last example: the former communist part of Germany.

 

[Waitone]

Sure you can. Morality is legislated all the time. Every society did it. The issue is what religion is going to serve as the foundation of a societies moral code.

Morality is the practical outworking of religious beliefs.

Law is the codification of moral code.

Law is the clear and somewhat unamigious statement of a sociiety's collective religious belief.

 

[rich2u]

Well the way there righting laws today i guess that means were just _ucked arn't we...:banghead:

 

[HBK]

Sure feels like it.

 

[Cal4D4]

Pretty well put, Waitone. Dominant religious viewpoint drives law thru it's influence on common morality norms. There's a little food for thought.

 

[Cal4D4]

The effect is to get a true democracy/mobocracy where the majority viewpoint is unfettered by individual rights. The individual requires a bill of rights and a written contract (constitution) with his governing body to protect him from the potential tyranny of the majority.

 

[palehorse]

Law is the codification of moral code.

Law is the clear and somewhat unamigious statement of a society's collective religious belief

I completely agree with your philosophy, but have to argure for the sake of the thread:

Is all morality religiously based? If all law is coded morality, I think it is safe to say that not all morality comes from religion. In fact, I can think of a couple of instances where "law" violates "collective religious belief".

But I don't think religious history is a safe topic; safe meaning free from opinions leading to emotion? I am too new to presume too much.

 

[GoRon]

Religion is a philosophy and view of reality that includes a diety. A moral code is part of the does and don'ts to please that diety and live in harmony with reality.

There are "moral" codes or ethics that are derived from philosophies and views of reality that don't include a diety.


The problem in the US right now is our rights are supposed to be givin to us from God. But those who would rule us no longer believe in the God who endowed us with these inalienable rights.


No Sacred God = No Sacred Rights

 

[buzz_knox]

"You can't legislate morality."

Actually, using the law to reflect and reinforce morality as been a basic principle of the American legal system since long before the United States existed. It's only been in the last couple of decades that people have decided that morality and legislation conflict. Ironically, the "liberalization" of the law has resulted in some of the worst abuses of the legal system since the days of Dred Scott and Jim Crow in an effort to remove morality from the equation. All the liberals did was replace conventional morality with their own.

 

[cloudkiller]

Morality

The problem with the left is that they are pragmatic, rather than principled in their approach. Basically they react to a perceived problem by " treating the symptoms" as they say in medicine.

I don't believe they are any more or less sinister in their motives than anyone else. They simply don't look far enough beyond "immediate effect". Once you add POLITICS to the equation we all suffer. Basically the political view is that we want results right now to gain re-election! No long term thinking, planning etc, which is something the founders excelled at. Now the idea of a legacy involves what kind of deal a politician can get from a company after term limits force him out!

The problem with religion as a source of values is how arbitrary it can be applied. In the last 50 years churches in the US have taught that Christian Values include everything from "don't steal" to "God hates fags" "you can't be a christian and vote Democrat" "they are dark-skinned because God marked Ham and his descendants, therefore discrimination is OK" "God loves all his children" "women shouldn't hold political office" "segregation is immoral" etc. The easy out is to say that when people were using the name of God for evil, they weren't really being good christians/jews/moslems.

Anyone who says that "traditional values" made for a better America is picking and choosing very carefully which values, and who benefitted. Religion is a very positive force when it comes to individuals, and personal transformation into a better human being. However, as a social force, religion is too dangerous a tool, with too checkered a record to be part of any legislated action.

 

[dischord]

A society of atheists still would have laws. Though I am religious myself, I realize that the absence of religion does not mean the absence of morality and ethics.

In any event:

Some laws -- like those against murder and rape -- derive from the society's moral code. They preclude acts the society deems inherently evil (mala in se).

Some laws -- like those against jaywalking and tax evasion – simply codify rules the leaders think will make the society function better. There is no or very little moral judgment against those who violate them (mala prohibita).

 

[Smoke]

{official government rep. voice}

Since when? We, the distinguished persons, in the House and Senate have been legislating morality since our inception. The dirty masses that make up our constituency have no morals, thus it is up to the government to make sure you folks behave right.

{official condescending tone off}

 

[TallPine]

Of course you can legislate morality.

But enforcing it is another matter .....


If you don't believe me, just ask Warren Druggs.

 

[GoRon]

Even those who do not have any religious leanings benifit from the influence of religion in their societies. They hack away year after year at the foundations of their society and culture and then wonder why things seem to be getting worse year after year. This is not only a Christian thing, I am sure other cultures with different religions experience the same problems.


Where do our rights derive from?

 

[Justin]

Warning, I am about to ramble.

Pretty much all of the mainstream religions share the same moral codes, all of which pretty much boil down to 'treat others the way you wish to be treated.' For those not inclined to worship a deity there is the non-aggression principle, which is a completely rational and moral worldview with no theological overtones.

But contrary to popular, and apparently misinformed, belief, one does not need to be religious in order to also be moral. The two are not mutually exclusive (despite what James Dobson would have you believe.)

During the course of my life I've known people who adhere to many different religions, as well as a number of agnostics and atheists.

Guess what?

Never once did I feel ill at ease when in the company of any of these people, regardless of whether they were Evangelical, Methodist, Catholic, Muslim, or through-and-through atheist.

Religion, or lack thereof has nothing to do with the current level of statism in the US. Were you to poll all the members of the Senate and House I would be shocked if more than a handful of them didn't subscribe to some Judeo-Christian flavor of belief. But that is neither advocation of a 'Christian bedrock' to the nation, nor evidence that faith leads to state-based oppression.

I see no difference between religious faith, guns, or any other human implement. Whether it is used for good or evil is completely up to the end user.

However, on one final note I will agree that being religious does offer one societal advantage: It's a good way to find a mate. After all, athiests don't get together on Sunday to talk about the lack of a deity, and then follow it up with a hot dish social.

 

[GoRon]

Thats all fine and dandy Justin, I don't disagree about good people with no religeous beliefs. But where do our inalienable rights come from? Governmental fiat? If they came from man then they can be taken away by man.

Where are your rights derived from?

 

[braindead0]

I prefer to think of non-religious 'tenets' as ethics... as opposed to morals. As far as murder, rape, etc, this type of thing is depriving someone else of their property and is not a moral/ethical issue.

 

[GoRon]

Whether it is used for good or evil is completely up to the end user.

This statement presupposes an understanding of what is right and wrong.

Even the terms good and evil are religious in nature.

Right and wrong according to who's standards? The common culture of Judeo/Christian ethics?

The law of the jungle? Social contract?

Right and wrong do not arise out of a vacume of nothingness, niether do our rights.

I choose that I have been endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.

Protection of myself, my family and property are God given rights recognized by the 2nd Amndt.

The law of the jungle is might makes right and contracts as they say are meant to be broken.

 

[GoRon]

this type of thing is depriving someone else of their property and is not a moral/ethical issue.

"Thou shalt not steal"

This isn't a moral dictate?

 

[Justin]

But where do our inalienable rights come from? Governmental fiat? If they came from man then they can be taken away by man.

It can be argued that civil rights are the natural state of a human, just as having a pair of wings and the ability to fly is the natural state of an eagle.

An eagle cannot live its life to the fullest without the ability to fly. Likewise, humans cannot innovate, design, create, or prosper in an environment that doesn't foster individual liberty.

If you are so inclined, Ayn Rand published a most excellent collection of essays on this topic entitled "The Virtue of Selfishness." It contains some fantastic writing dealing with the topic we are talking about, though it can be a bit dry at times.

Rights do not come from Governmental fiat, and is, on its face both a farcical and highly irrational concept.

Whether rights come from God or not is really quite irrelevant. Just because you think they do doesn't mean that you can't be repressed. After all, I have yet to see even one modern instance of God smiting a tyrant because he was trampling on people's rights. I'm not trying to be flippant, but if God grants rights to people that has never stopped other people from trying to take those creator-endowed rights away.

Also, just for the record, I'm not an atheist. (Oddly enough, there has been more than one occassion when I've had to tell an atheist I'm not a Bible-thumper.)