Can We Legislate Morality?
It's been said many times by many people that we should not legislate morality. On the surface this seems like something that is both true, and even possibly desired, but when one actually examines this statement we can see that it leads down the path of moral and philosophical relativism. To some this is still desirable, but I hope to illustrate why they are incorrect.
For example, there are those who consider some of the debates of today to be battles of morality and thus unfit for legislation: Abortion, gay marriage, drug laws, censorship, prostitution, and so forth and so on. They feel that some or all of these issues are all based on an idea of morality that not everyone may share. Because of this lack of universal consensus no action should be taken. Without engaging in an act of reductio ad absurdum (hopefully), if this were the case then we'd have no laws at all since there is no universal consensus about anything - even most murders and rapists can 'justify' their acts.
Let's take a look at some other examples that might enable us to understand that, yes, in fact we are engaging in legislating morality all the time. I found this example from Robert Bork in relation to some debate he was having regarding this issue and it is very striking and clear: Imagine a person who purchases a small island (part of the US though), and on that island he builds a large kennel where he breeds dogs and cats. No one can see nor hear these animals because of the location of the island and the kennel itself.
Every so often this guy goes out and he takes some of the cats and dogs and tears off their limbs and eats them while these animals watch. He then practices other various forms of torture and cruelty on them until they die a slow, horrible death. Most everyone would say this behavior is completely unacceptable, but on what grounds? Do animals have Constitutional rights? No, of course not. Animals do not pay taxes, cannot vote, and have no sense of duty, responsibility, or much of anything else - and in fact they are the property of this man.
Because we feel a sense of disgust, and to most of us it is wrong to do those horrible things, we make laws enabling us to help end the suffering of non-humans that are not even our own property. Based on that argument, should such laws based simply on our outrage and disgust even exist?
It is here that the libertarian arguments fall completely apart. Unless the person is a heartless sociopath, one would not want animal cruelty laws that prevent this type of behavior eliminated, but that very law is only based in emotion and forcing your own beliefs on others who do not feel the same way.
While many people also would like some (or all) drugs legalized, the same argument can be made about this. We, as a society, know the effects drugs have on the family, friends, and most everyone else even slightly associated with someone who is addicted to drugs. This can ruin a marriage, destroy childhoods, and of course drive a family into destitution before all is said and done. Because our society - as a whole - does not feel the individual liberty of using drugs freely is worth the trouble, we make them illegal.
Thus when some states vote on gay marriage, it should left to the states to decide what to do and not up to a federal court to strike down anti-gay marriage laws. If the people of certain states feel one way while those in another feel differently then it should be up to those places to decide. I hear some liberals paying lip service to this notion (only on this issue), but I'm willing to wager they'd be backing such groups as the ACLU who would sue in some federal court.
And on what grounds might they sue? The Fourteenth Amendment of course!
See reference: http://grimkoalas.blogspot.com/2005/07/argument-for-states-rights.html
For example, there are those who consider some of the debates of today to be battles of morality and thus unfit for legislation: Abortion, gay marriage, drug laws, censorship, prostitution, and so forth and so on. They feel that some or all of these issues are all based on an idea of morality that not everyone may share. Because of this lack of universal consensus no action should be taken. Without engaging in an act of reductio ad absurdum (hopefully), if this were the case then we'd have no laws at all since there is no universal consensus about anything - even most murders and rapists can 'justify' their acts.
Let's take a look at some other examples that might enable us to understand that, yes, in fact we are engaging in legislating morality all the time. I found this example from Robert Bork in relation to some debate he was having regarding this issue and it is very striking and clear: Imagine a person who purchases a small island (part of the US though), and on that island he builds a large kennel where he breeds dogs and cats. No one can see nor hear these animals because of the location of the island and the kennel itself.
Every so often this guy goes out and he takes some of the cats and dogs and tears off their limbs and eats them while these animals watch. He then practices other various forms of torture and cruelty on them until they die a slow, horrible death. Most everyone would say this behavior is completely unacceptable, but on what grounds? Do animals have Constitutional rights? No, of course not. Animals do not pay taxes, cannot vote, and have no sense of duty, responsibility, or much of anything else - and in fact they are the property of this man.
Because we feel a sense of disgust, and to most of us it is wrong to do those horrible things, we make laws enabling us to help end the suffering of non-humans that are not even our own property. Based on that argument, should such laws based simply on our outrage and disgust even exist?
It is here that the libertarian arguments fall completely apart. Unless the person is a heartless sociopath, one would not want animal cruelty laws that prevent this type of behavior eliminated, but that very law is only based in emotion and forcing your own beliefs on others who do not feel the same way.
While many people also would like some (or all) drugs legalized, the same argument can be made about this. We, as a society, know the effects drugs have on the family, friends, and most everyone else even slightly associated with someone who is addicted to drugs. This can ruin a marriage, destroy childhoods, and of course drive a family into destitution before all is said and done. Because our society - as a whole - does not feel the individual liberty of using drugs freely is worth the trouble, we make them illegal.
Thus when some states vote on gay marriage, it should left to the states to decide what to do and not up to a federal court to strike down anti-gay marriage laws. If the people of certain states feel one way while those in another feel differently then it should be up to those places to decide. I hear some liberals paying lip service to this notion (only on this issue), but I'm willing to wager they'd be backing such groups as the ACLU who would sue in some federal court.
And on what grounds might they sue? The Fourteenth Amendment of course!
See reference: http://grimkoalas.blogspot.com/2005/07/argument-for-states-rights.html
posted by Edward W. Prather at 22:24
<< Home