But that isn't "every issue" is it? If everyone in the world agreed on every issue do you think the rates for murder would be where they are now? You are applying the status of a single issue as it stands now into a utopian scenario and methinks that doesn't quite work.
Are you talking about universal agreement regarding just morality, or universal agreement regarding everything
? Certainly, we can have near-universal agreeement on an issue of morality (e.g. murder is wrong) while still having disagreements regarding the best (i.e. the most efficacious or most prudent) methods for dealing with the issue. For instance, even if everyone agrees that murder is wrong, people can still have non-moral
disagreements over the proper form of punishment for murderers.
As I stated early on, I don't see how the government can do anything but legislate on moral issues.
That's true, but that isn't the question either. Governments cannot avoid legislating on some issues that involve morality (e.g. murder), but the real question is whether, in doing so, it should impose a certain version of morality on the general population. And if it should impose a version of morality, which one should it be?
Generally, in our society, the majority generally prevails - provided thr government acts within the confines of the authority we've granted to it. That's the social compact we've all agreed to.
So the government should always impose the majority's morality? What if the majority is racist, sexist, and homophobic?
One would hope that the people in the legislature would contact their constituents (or conduct a referendum) and act in accordance with their wishes and then do whatever the majority decides upon provided it doesn't violate some constitutional restriction. That's the whole purpose in having a representative democracy isn't it?
See my query above.
That's probably a true statement regarding the Libertarian Party position. It sounds pretty close to me anyway. However, for those that argue that government shouldn't legislate morality - are they willing to live with the drug laws as they are now? Or do they think the drug laws should be repealed?
I think, for the Libertarian Party, it's the latter.
If the latter, isn't that a case of government legislating morality too? It's still "legislating" whether the law being decided on makes something illegal or it repeals a previous law isn't it?
That's a good question. Is a "hands-off" policy the same thing as "legislating morality?"