Legislating Morality
If you legislate morality, moral choices lose their value. For example:
Bob chooses not to drink because he believes drunkenness is a sin. Larry chooses not to drink because he doesn’t want to pay a fine. Who does the better thing?
Susan chooses to dress modestly because she honors her body. Leticia dresses modestly because she’s afraid of a public flogging. Who does the better thing?
George prays every day during the lunch hour because he believes that partaking of food without praying shows disrespect for God’s gifts. Tony prays during the lunch hour because he is told to by the voice on the loudspeaker. Who does the better thing?
I think the answers are obvious. When a decision is forced, it loses it’s moral merit. I say that because I believe that morality comes from choice, not law. That isn’t to say that both choices are good- obeying the law is always good. And that isn’t to say that some moral choices shouldn’t be made in the law as well. It is good that murder and rape are crimes. It’s good that they are crimes because those that murder or rape should be treated as criminals- for the protection of the populace. There is also a difference between drinking to drunkenness and doing it in a way that could hurt others. It’s not wrong to be drunk, it is harmful to others to drink and operate machinery or to drink and strip to the nude and parade around publicly- which is why there are laws to prohibit those behaviors.
One should also keep in mind that while morality is subjective to the believer, ethics aren’t. One can make both moral and ethical arguments for things like the value of personal property and the inherent wrongness in stealing. So there’s nothing wrong with arguing that certain behaviors (like stealing) should be prohibited on ethical grounds. Those laws are also about protection.
We as a society should ask ourselves questions like, who are we protecting if we ban gay marriage? Is there an ethical argument for teaching creationism in schools? Does the ethical argument weigh more towards allowing or banning stem cell research?
Do we really have a moral obligation to stop things like abortion- and if we do, would our energies be better spent banging our heads against the legislature or simply going out and helping meet the needs of the pregnant women? (Realizing that the number one reason a woman gives for seeking an abortion is the inability to adequately provide for a child.)
These are the things that occupy my mind while washing dishes. Now they can occupy yours, as well.
Winslie Gomez replied:
The Greater Good and the Golden Rule appear to be some of the yardsticks by which Christians measured morality.
Agree that personal responsibility and choice have greater merit than legislation.
February 19, 2008 at 4:11 pm. Permalink.
Tony replied:
Wow… those dishes took a long time
February 19, 2008 at 4:18 pm. Permalink.
shush replied:
Winslie: The Greater Good and the Golden Rule are universal, as well.
Tony: I was sick for almost two weeks straight- so there are indeed a LOT of dishes. We were totally out of plates, bowls, spoons, forks, AND cups. We were also out of counter space to put the dirties on. (Did you notice this was recycled from Vox? I’m out of inspiration, but I thought it would fit… and maybe no one would notice?)
February 19, 2008 at 4:22 pm. Permalink.
PolitiPornster replied:
Have a choice to be moral…hmm…where has this been explored before? I know, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. Great flick and it explores this theme. I highly recommend it.
February 19, 2008 at 8:53 pm. Permalink.
anita replied:
Wow Shush, if those are the kind of reflections you have washing the dishes then doing the laundry must be downright illuminating! I can’t add to what you said other than those same thoughts have had plenty of air time in my mind too, however I was just going to go unload the dishwasher so I might be back with some profound insights to contribute.
February 20, 2008 at 2:06 am. Permalink.
shush replied:
Anita: thanks! Now if only we could get the world’s leaders to start doing chores, there could be some real change!
February 20, 2008 at 1:02 pm. Permalink.
littletiger replied:
Shush - I’ve been reading your site (found it from Matty the Stranger’s website - and I find your thoughts highly engaging.
You’re bringing up ideas and thoughts that I’ve considered for years. Your thoughts about abortion bring to mind something my parents have noted for years - we need an end to the need for abortion - not an end to abortion itself - also abortion needs to be taken out of the legislature and put back into the hands of Doctors as it is a medical procedure. I know too many Christians who go crazy at the thought of it being “a procedure” - “it’s a child not a procedure,” they argue. But in some cases it really is medically necessary and in other cases - rape or incest - it can be necessary for the mental well-being of the woman involved.
Regarding other areas where we are trying to legislate morality - we have to ask ourselves - whose morality are we trying to push on others? In Kenya (where I lived for a while) it was perfectly alright to have 2-3 wives and for kids to not go to school. Is their morality any less than ours? - because I was also required to wear a long skirt and sleeves that covered most of my arms (and I lived in a predominantly Christian area) which I don’t have to do here in the US.
Anyway, thanks for the forum for more conversations like this one.
March 6, 2008 at 12:24 am. Permalink.
shush replied:
littletiger: thanks for your comment. You raise really salient points! Abortion IS a procedure. If an egg implants before reaching the uterus it could rupture the mother’s internal organs and possibly kill her. The procedure to remove that egg is NOT considered “abortion” because in every case if the pregnancy lasted out the first 8 weeks or so it could kill the mother.
Yet… it is killing a child, isn’t it? Or is it not, since the true ability for that egg to reach maturity does not actually exist?
These are incredibly difficult and complex issues. If we boil them down to black and white, we do everyone a disservice. Including ourselves.
March 6, 2008 at 12:41 pm. Permalink.
David Parkes replied:
Again I love the way you articulate these thoughts. Do you realise that what you’ve done here is spell out a more modern version of the ‘Harm Principal’ from John Stuart Mill’s ‘On Liberty’?
That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right… The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
This post should be a reference for anyone studying liberal philosophy, because you’ve just put the harm principal in context.
Congrats - I’m now officially a fan.
June 5, 2008 at 5:28 pm. Permalink.