Can morality be regulated by the government?

[A Drowned Fish]

In my mind, no. If there's anything that American prohibition, "Old West" evangalism, the Crusades, and Constantine's epiphany (The king, not the movie) have taught us, it's that human morality cannot be effectively regulated by a ruling body, regardless of wether or not the enforced ideals are even beneficial to them. My thoughts, at least.

[Operation Shoestring]

1) REPEAT

2) The government can (and does) pass laws based on moral priciples, but you'd need mind control to relgulate morality.

[Pom Graines]

AyanamiRei

1) REPEAT

2) The government can (and does) pass laws based on moral priciples, but you'd need mind control to relgulate morality.

I agree with this statement here actually I was about to post the same thing- more or less.

[Proles]

I don't know though.

All governments' purpose is to <i>legislate</i> some sense of morality. This is reflected in everything from murder to copyright infringement laws.

The problems arise when morality which is not accepted by all (or virtually all) is legislated. Even if 51% (or 60%) of the population are against gay marriage, legislation would be inappropriate because of the dissenting minority.

I agree with the concept that "that government is best which governs least." Ultimately, if the morals are agreed upon, there is no need for laws. Of course this is extremely impractical, proportionally more so in relation to the size of the society. With absolute unanimity in regard to the laws (and their underlying morals), there would be no difference between a government which governed most or which governed least - as the laws would be agreed upon and consequently not questioned.

I think that government should only legislate morality if, like, 98% of the population is in accordance with the moral concept.

Of course, government cannot determine morality for its citizens; rather, the reverse is true.

[SilenceofaSiren]

If they didn't then rape, murder, and drug use as well as other things would not be controled...

[Fiddlers Green]

I honestly fell that the law has absolutely no bearing on right and wrong. The lawmakers of my nation are already bought and paid for by lobbyistes long before they can effect the laws of the land. An institute as corrupt and self serving as my nations assembley is incapable of tending to their own morality, much less mine. The purpose of law is to promote order and social harmony. This occassionaly overlaps with right and wrong, but is more often just a tool to keep people under control. There are so many laws in the municipality I currently live in, that I don't know anyone who has managed to go a year without breaking at least one. There's a law against having your blinds down after sunset for heaven's sakes....

Now that I've calmed a bit, laws should provide for the protection of the people. Often times laws based off morality(a very subjective concept), end up oppressing the people they should defend.

So my call is no.
Law has no bearing on morality.
At least not for me.....

[Proles]

Order, social harmony, and the protection of the people are morals, or moral values. Government <i>most definitely</i> makes laws based upon morality.

Consider the origin of society. For the purpose of arguing this, I'd like to define society as a social group which perpetuates its own existence, has laws, and has a governing body. A society is formed, obviously, for the betterment of the lives of its citizens. The laws are made to "keep order," or more clearly, valuate property and the importance of the individual's life.

Or another argument: Any law made necessitates that we sacrifice some sort of freedom in order to follow it; it follows, then, that any law values the goal of that law (or what that law protects) over the freedom it negates.

[Darth_Nader]

SilenceofaSiren

If they didn't then rape, murder, and drug use as well as other things would not be controled...

but this isnt strictly basd on the abstract principle of mmorality.
these things result in harm to oneself and others, and thus are not purely moralistic.
things like gay rights, on the other hand, are victimless crimes, and thus based on morality.

[x.Nashayla Potter.x]

noooooo

[AronaDaal]

Of course it can, its how they come up with laws, cos laws need inspiring as much as anything else.

so they take inspiration from that which guides them morally through everyday, we dont want people in power that are amoral now do we, we want them to have conviction...not pious obviously but conviction in what they say and what they say must be inspired...you get the idea.

so quite frankly.

Well d'uh!

[Proles]

Darth_Nader

these things result in harm to oneself and others, and thus are not purely moralistic.

That is a certain type of morality, dig?

[Fiddlers Green]

Proles

Order, social harmony, and the protection of the people are morals, or moral values. Government <i>most definitely</i> makes laws based upon morality.

Consider the origin of society. For the purpose of arguing this, I'd like to define society as a social group which perpetuates its own existence, has laws, and has a governing body. A society is formed, obviously, for the betterment of the lives of its citizens. The laws are made to "keep order," or more clearly, valuate property and the importance of the individual's life.

Or another argument: Any law made necessitates that we sacrifice some sort of freedom in order to follow it; it follows, then, that any law values the goal of that law (or what that law protects) over the freedom it negates.

While I agree with your origin of society, I believe, that in modern times, many legislative bodies have grown beyound making laws for the public good and instead have wrought self serving and restrictive laws designed to either perpetuate their reign, glorify those that support them, or generate revenue (for legitimate expenses as well as personal greed). Also keep in mind the references of numerous regimes of the past century, Nazi Germany, Stalin's USSR, Pol Pot's Cambodia... the list goes on.
I was wrong to say they are unrelated, however, they can be at cross paths, depending on who institutes them and why....

[Proles]

Yeah, I think I agree with you. Like most of your posts which I've read. biggrin

It's just when the morals are not virtually unanimously accepted that problems arise. Nazi Germany was certainly immoral, to use one of your examples. We can clearly see that from an outside perspective, and because of the many dissenting voices within, the citizens of Germany could most likely see it too.

In democracies it's "tyranny of the masses," in most other governments it's "tyranny of the ruling party." Either way, there will always be a significant minority which acts as a voice of reason in such circumstances (though sometimes the consequences can be dire).

[XxMusikJunkiexX]

SilenceofaSiren

If they didn't then rape, murder, and drug use as well as other things would not be controled...

meh.

that's kind of an international thing, more human rights... at least the first two.

if you're talking about the issue of gay marriage, then no, it should not attempt to regulate that because it is strictly opinion based with no actual facts to base it on.

if you're talking about rape, murder, etc, where people are actually being hurt/killed, then yes, it is the governments job to protect its citizens.