Government should not legislate morality

Government makes a moral decision every time it legislates.

Acquiunk wrote:

Government makes a moral decision every time it legislates.

I disagree. Certainly, there are laws where morality is simply not an issue. For instance, if the law prohibits jaywalking, are we to believe that the law is somehow imposing a moral precept, such that jaywalking is inherently "immoral?"

Acquiunk: I'm not sure I follow you. Are you saying that jaywalking is, in and of itself, immoral, albeit insignificant?

First, I suspect we are using the concept of morality in two slightly different ways here. But I have seen people get quit incensed over jaywalkers (mostly drivers). So secondly, yes. If a behavior violates peoples understanding of the accepted rules of conduct, from an anthropological perspective it is immoral. Many minor deviation from accepted cultural rules are often complained about but not much is done about them otherwise. Unless for some reason a point is being made that the rules are to be recognized as correct, even if that recognition is often in their breach.

Likewise, we may posit that obedience to the law is a fundamental rule of morality. That, however, only makes jaywalking a moral issue if it is first a legal issue.

joe from Chicago poses an important question. His comment that all legislation is concerned with morality is quite correct since any examination of legislation throughout the ages will reveal that it has, in fact, been based on bedrock morality and will continue to do so.

No, it is the reverse, law codifies what a society perceives to be moral.

If the law deviates widely from what a society perceives to be moral the law is ignored or enforced only by conventional sanction ie force, which will ultimately fail (though it may take a while)

Yes, society SHOULD not legislate morality. Since morals, like values, almost always vary across individuals and subgroups in complex societies, to give the strength of law to morals that not all people share is very undesirable and potentially repressive.

If a law deviates widely from what a society perceives to be moral, then how can we say that the law embodies, or "legislates," morality? Aren't you really saying that such laws legislate "immorality" or "amorality?"

The assumption here is monolithic concept of what is moral.

In societies that lack a great deal of complexity this may be a valid assumption, such a band or tribal societies, even small chiefdoms. It is not the case in large complex societies such as our own, which is why the law becomes a political issue.

For in this case it generally reflects a majority opinion which the minority opinion must either accept or attempt to change. When you add to that the idea that individuals should be allowed to express their own personal set of cultural values, you get major conflict over the law (such as we now have).

It seems to me that legislation of laws has more to do with interests than it has to do with values and morals. That is not to say that (1) a law that is widely held to be immoral or to not reflect the dominant values of a society will be difficult to pass, and (2) that legislators, or their sponsors, will not make efforts to pass their private interests off as public values, to claim the law serves morality. This is the political dimension of law.

Joe, in considering your question, I am having difficulty thinking of instances where moral behavior is rewarded. I can only think of instances where laws punish law breakers, with the ASSUMPTION that they are morality violators.

I remember the sixties when young people thought the anti-pot laws were unjust, and that those who enforced them were "pigs" , and the most despicable of creatures were the "Narcs." These laws, in other words, were not considered morally legitimate.

Drug laws are good examples of cases where people claim the government should not legislate morality (see the third and fourth links in my initial post). But how are drug laws different from laws, such as the law on charitable contributions, which also arguably legislate morality?

In a very lose and broad assuption I'd say that in most cases where people say we should NOT legislate morality in reference to a specific issue, the individual saying it holds a position that is in opposition to the majority.

But that really just reflects that there is a difference of opinion (or in moral beliefs) between individuals or groups within the society.

The reason I chuckle a bit at the statement that morality shouldn't be legislated is because the concept of passing laws is exactly how we have structured our society to handle those difference between us. If every issue had near universial agreement we wouldn't need a law making body.

The statement is simply a way for people with a minority opinion to try to claim a moral high gound. In almost every case not legislating the issue results in the law favoring their view.

Maybe so. In the case of drug use, however, I think the libertarian position (see the third link in my initial post) is not so much in favor of drug use as it is opposed to government interference in private decisions. It's not that drug use is necessarily good, but rather that government regulation is necessarily bad.