Do you believe there to be a difference between government attempts to "legislate morality" vs. government attempts to "moralize legislation"? If so, with which would you side if forced to choose one or the other?
J.W. Howler
2012/04/29 00:18:31
|
|
|||||
|
5 votes
|
|
21% | |||
|
5 votes
|
|
21% | |||
|
14 votes
|
|
58% | |||
Top Opinion
-
DS in Oak Ridge NC 2012/04/29 00:23:41There is NO difference whatsoever in any way between the two because__________
+8Both are means to the same end... via paths of overreach in an attempt to force conformity and compliance by fiat or mandate rather than by presenting a better way. Virtue is its own reward - that's why it never attracts top talent.
Legislating morality is basicly isolating a percieved ideal and establishing it as the standard that everyone must abide by. While the ideal may be a view held by many it isn't necessarily the one held by everyone. Denying the institution of marriage to same sex couples by legislating a narrow interpretation of the definition of what constitutes a marriage or family.
If we as a nation are to be expected to observe "only" modern christianity's view of a marriage being between one man and one woman and make that a law. Then are we also expected to accept that a person should be able to sacrifice one's child because God told them to do it? As in the story of Abraham and Issac.
Of course that's rediculous. But once we start down that path, where do we draw the line. That's why this nation was begun with the basic goal in mind to avoid integrating any one religion's or ethnicity's specific ideals above another's into our legal system. That's why we don't have and should never have things like an offical st...
Legislating morality is basicly isolating a percieved ideal and establishing it as the standard that everyone must abide by. While the ideal may be a view held by many it isn't necessarily the one held by everyone. Denying the institution of marriage to same sex couples by legislating a narrow interpretation of the definition of what constitutes a marriage or family.
If we as a nation are to be expected to observe "only" modern christianity's view of a marriage being between one man and one woman and make that a law. Then are we also expected to accept that a person should be able to sacrifice one's child because God told them to do it? As in the story of Abraham and Issac.
Of course that's rediculous. But once we start down that path, where do we draw the line. That's why this nation was begun with the basic goal in mind to avoid integrating any one religion's or ethnicity's specific ideals above another's into our legal system. That's why we don't have and should never have things like an offical state religion or language. There are of course basic ideals that all beliefs adhere to. Don't commit murder or steal from your fellow citizens or neighbors, etc. These are basic truths. Without whitch, any society would quickly fall into chaos. These things are necessary for maintaining basdic social order. To create legislation which would limit or stifle the social evolution, integration and growth of American's as a common people is a mistake which would have devestating results in successfully maintaining the future cohesion of our diverse society.
To be clear. There have been mistakes made in our nation's past concerning this subject. Mistakes that we continually must strive to rectify. Just because something has always been a way. Does'nt mean that it always should be that way. When a society ceases to evolve. It begins to stagnate and decay. Change is often difficult and uncertain. But nevertheless it is necessary for the long term continuity and stability of an open and integrated society such as ours.
"Moralizing legislation" would seem to imply that the government takes some morality issue, such as "fairness", usually from religious teachings, and tries to force the citizens to follow that morality.
The purpose of the legislation or expected outcome would be the determining factor.
The purpose or objective would form the basis as to what I would chose.
wrong morality is a personal concept and should be treated as such. there is no "natural law" or "right and wrong," and it is ridiculous to assume otherwise.
wrong Moral is an individual value. State can only interfere in things that concerns society in general, like providing security, education, health, etc., and the preservation of individual rights itself.
wrong morality is not a universal constant.
wrong My values are my own. I don't need government to force beliefs on me.
wrong Law is simply systematized violence, in which personal preference has no place.
wrong morality involves far too great range of things, such as courtesy and ettiquette for me, a libertarian, to trust the government to enforce it. Let the society do it in the same way they have done for millenia---by peer pressure.
wrong already being done by all Governments
wrong morality doesn't vary b...
wrong morality is a personal concept and should be treated as such. there is no "natural law" or "right and wrong," and it is ridiculous to assume otherwise.
wrong Moral is an individual value. State can only interfere in things that concerns society in general, like providing security, education, health, etc., and the preservation of individual rights itself.
wrong morality is not a universal constant.
wrong My values are my own. I don't need government to force beliefs on me.
wrong Law is simply systematized violence, in which personal preference has no place.
wrong morality involves far too great range of things, such as courtesy and ettiquette for me, a libertarian, to trust the government to enforce it. Let the society do it in the same way they have done for millenia---by peer pressure.
wrong already being done by all Governments
wrong morality doesn't vary by how many people believe or don't believe in it, if something's right it doesn't matter who does or doesn't take it up.
wrong I could go either way on this one, depending on how/what we are talking about, but the basic unit of legislation is social contract, which is in turn based in people's morality. But it is that little separation that makes me click wrong.
wrong State should not interfer with private lives and morality
wrong own choice of every man
wrong Everyone's got their own.
wrong The big moral questions are already legislated (murder, theft, ect.) What's left is stuff that doesn't work cross culturally.
right some things needs to be regulated, like child rapists and such.
wrong your morals ain't mine
wrong morals are personal, and what is right for me may not be right for you (et vice versa). Perhaps some morals, but it becomes a very slipperly slope...
wrong it uses centralized authoritative punishment to force subjective morals on others
wrong Morality is relative. The "Moral Majority" is neither moral, nor the majority. If you think it's immoral, don't do it, and leave the rest of us alone!
wrong what's wrong for you may be right for me.
wrong you would require a standard of morality to get everyone to adhere to, and there just isn't one that works without taking away personal freedom.
wrong everything is relevant and dependant on perspective
wrong conservatives have silly values and i would hate for them to affect me. Each to their own when to neither's detriment!
wrong it reduces civil liberties
wrong morality, ethics or faith are one's personal choise
wrong the only people who want to control the morals of others are the ones with very questionable morals of their own.
right morality and law should overlap.
wrong NEVER. That is the most oppressing thing you can do to another person.
wrong coersion causes harm.
7% RIGHT 93% WRONG
But then we are just reading, eh? Look at this:
Is there a secret posting style? he he he I like head-butting also! I love America and here I am and had been a citizen for a very long time no...
But then we are just reading, eh? Look at this:
Is there a secret posting style? he he he I like head-butting also! I love America and here I am and had been a citizen for a very long time now! And I was born in a territory and yet, I am more qualified to be a US President then Obama as his papa is an Africa and therefore he is disqualified and we are being run by a foreign student and a Felon and a LIAR, harsh words and then you should see my body language!
Since entitlement legislation is already implemented and being enforced even though the current distribution of it is overloading the health of the economy, is the Obama admin not trying to "moralize" the respective legislation to garner continued support for more and more funding?
The govt has been looting the Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid trust funds since 1968. Had they kept their thieving hands out of the cookie jar, it would be a viable plan.
When I opined that the Obama admin was trying to "moralize" legislation, and used the entitlement legislation as an example, I should have made clear that I was specifically referring to the admin's morally-based(according to the admin and respective legislators) "social justice" agenda, and its injection of Jesus
Christ into the entitlement issue.
Always a pleasure having online discourse with you.
The only question I have since I was not witness to the originality of any entitlement legislation is, do you think the supporting politicians explicitly pushed the initial entitlement idea as a moral issue, or did they use another strategy such as selling such an idea as a "safety net" to be used only in a pinch, for instance.
http://www.welfareinfo.org/
And that'e exactly the kind of thing I am trying to get across as I try to differentiate between legislating morality vs. moralizing legislation, at least in my own mind.
If the gov't. moralizes legislation, who, what, where is the moral "guide"?
Or can you see a difference at all?...Personally, I can, but that is just my opinion.
I know which one I would pick regarding "social justice" legislation as it is trying to be aggressively implemented via our federal government.
But, I am curious as to your thoughts.
The only thing that should be considered, imo, is if the law is a just law...does it pass the test of being Constitutional..."social justice" laws do not, they impose a moral code upon everyone no different than if it were the "moral" laws they do not like.
Re: "Whenever legislation is mandating things such as this, I believe they are trying to legislate morality".
With that, I personally tend to currently see it more as an attempt to moralize legislation, mainly because such entitlement-minded, mandated legislation is, and has for some time now been passed into law -- not to say that there were not ANY moral arguments - whether valid or invalid - made before such laws being passed in its debatable stages...There may have been, which would certainly demonstrate an attempt to legislate morality.
The above is assuming that the common "moral" thread, whether before such laws being passed, or after such law being passed, is the supposed "rightness" to help others in need.
Does that infer a belief in moral relativism from your perspective?
the only sincere and honest choice-
"Moralizing legislation" takes the concept too far.