Pretty straight forward poll to find out where people stand on this(In AD of course).

I voted no, because while I think that laws regarding consensual & victimless crimes should be abolished, there are other laws based on morality that I do agree with. An example would be animal cruelty laws. As has been pointed out in other threads, animals have no rights. They are merely property, but as living beings with the capacity to feel pain, I definitely support laws that dictate what people do with that property...ie. don't beat your dog, make sure you feed it, provide access to proper medical care, etc.

I voted yes because i find the idea disgustiing.

Most of morality is reached by a family or a society in the form of common sense social interaction. The ideas of opened ended laws that only represent the morality of a certain group over all groups or people is wrong, i also find that disgusting. Morality can change between groups of people, in that area it becomes useless in the form of law making. A moral law could be you cant kill cows because they are sacred, you cant have sex with sodomy because its unholy. I get the idea of morality and the need of something like that in law, but the idea of it being the main or only reason for a law is rather weak at beast, whos morality should it be?

All laws have (theoretically) a basis in morality.

From M-W.com:
Moral : 1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL

Is there some other basis for laws? If not for morals, how do we arrive at the conclusion that inflicting pain is wrong?

If not for morals, how can we say that drug use (or abuse) is wrong? That pollution is wrong?

The list goes on and on.

Morals gives us some basis to stand upon. We have already seen what society has devolved into due to the astounding lack of morals in today's society. Sure, let's take it to the next level where there is no reason to respect one's neighbor or care for one's elderly parents.

I guess society isn't going down the tubes fast enough for some people.

Well to go along with me saying that laws that stand on morality should be abolished, let me tell you that i help my neighbor, and elderly people. So for what’s making society go down the drain you might have to take a closer look. I feel the main reason society sucks is because proper education cannot be reached for people, you have kids getting out of high school that cant point to Canada on an unmarked map

The main thing is like most things, good and evil like morality can shift between groups of people, while in those groups of people being accepted like the good word, then being used for a reason to take shots at each other, its silly, but then i guess that’s why the world is going down the drain! America like a lot of other nations in this world is diverse, not everyone subscribes to the same moral authority, its the common sense interaction that has lead to the control of sexuality and violence by many religious institutions, it just goes to show the evolution of culture at work. I would like to find where j-walking is a moral crime, laws by themselves should not be defined by one group that is to rule over all groups, and in this day and age laws should not be defined or made without honest logic that is not bent or bias to any single groups whims, for all people must live under them!

I would draw a distinction between actions which adversely effect others and those which don't. There should be no legal consequences for personal private conduct which effect no one but the consenting (adult) person(s).

Every society must have standards for conduct. All laws are based in morality, so the 'straight forward' poll isn't so straight forward in that regard. It might say 'Should all laws be abolished?' and be synonymous in meaning.

Those who argue that morals are irrelevant must accept that, for such logic to hold true, all actions are reasonable even if they cause another's harm. Society would not last long on such a premise.

Its not that all actions are reasonable, but reason can be found in all actions, even with insane people that kill in serial fashion with an axe(Jason movies anyone)

The idea still sticks, morality and evil/good have no real concrete meaning, like in the commandments, thou shall not kill. How do people morally work their way around that in this world, does that just mean humans?

The need for just pure logic or reason, or as much as humanly possible, needs to be used in law creation. I don’t want any version of the bible, or a Chan Buddhist text or the Koran, or some wondering yogi to be the only one to make laws i live with. Though i would find it funny to see all those different morals in action in the American legal system. We could kill are children for staying out past curfew , ya!

Nile,

Please try to make some sense. You are arguing against your position by saying that killing people with an axe is defensible. It is only defensible if you take your position, not those of the other posters to this thread.

Harsh sentencing is another topic (one that you seem deeply into, at the moment).

Are all actions reasonable, no, are all actions capable of having reason made of them or found in them, yes. Do you want me to define this some more?

They 'morally work their way around' by encouraging actions which are helpful to society in general, and discouraging those actions which are harmful. That is the basis for all law.

I'm not voting as I find the options too constraining. I see the same distinction as Mrs. Pigpen:

What happens when private activity harms the individual, who then becomes a burden upon society? Does society have the obligation to try to prevent such actions? Example : drug use.

What about actions which are not harmful in and of themselves, but lead to more damaging or harmful activities? Should these be allowed or banned or somehow regulated? Example : prostitution.

I stand by my earlier statement:

I guess I need to second MrsP's post. It is morally wrong to harm another, and yes, there should be laws preventing robbery, rape and murder.

Yes, and when people play football they become injured and a burden, the same happens to youth that watch such a thing, Or legal racecar driving. Most anything in society at some point can be found to have some kind of a negative impact. The word polymorphism comes to mind when dealing with folk psychology. The main idea is bill gates has admitted to smoking pot, i doubt many people will call him a failure.

Right now on television is a thing called X-sports, on this people risk life and limb for something, should that be illegal or immoral? After all when you break your neck and become a burden on others, its wrong right. I see your point amlord, but i still think that no law should be passed only on face value of a moral, or killing in self defense should be the same as murder.

Isn't it true that most every morally based law promotes a societal order? Even the "victimless" crime enforcement such as substance abuse and prostitution have a positive effect on society as a whole. While they may be morally wrong, they are at the same time wrong from a social consciense standpoint. Morals and law can overlap but morals cannot justify every law. We need to act for the good of the people and not for the good of those who dictate what is good and what isn't based upon their personal belief set...easier said than done!

Those types of distinctions should be determined individually on the basis of compelling interest to society overriding individual rights. I can't think of any at the moment, to include prostitution or drug use. Regulation is inherent under the 'hurt no one' principle. Free, public, unrestricted red light districts next to school yards harm everyone.

With a strict interpretation of your statement, cholesterol and fat intake should be monitored by the state.

I agree with you that laws are theoretically based on Morals, making the poll somewhat moot. However, I disagree with your assessment of modern society, or at least your assessment of the cause of the "devolution."

The issue isn't clear cut, and I think it's important to differentiate between laws based on what might be called moral absolutes (like laws against killing, raping, beating, stealing), and laws based on particular moral codes which were created and used as methods of control by the ruling few - behaviours which were proscribed, but not inherently harmful to others. After all, the Jim Crow laws were based on a certain morality. Is a moral structure which claims one group to be the "chosen" an acceptable basis for laws which favour only members of that group? Most of us would agree that such laws are unjust, even though they may be moral in the eyes of those who believe in that moral code.

While we need to recognize that laws are often based on morals, laws must also be just and equitable, and equally applied. Many liberals are often accused of "moral relativism," but I think that's a misunderstanding. Morality is relative, that's a fact - not usually about the "big" stuff like murder, but certainly about the more mundane aspects of life.

Respect for one's parents cannot be engendered by laws, nor can respect for one's neighbor. Of what substance would such a law consist?

I guess that what I'm saying is that while a law may have a moral source, morality cannot be the only basis for the law - the law must also be equitable and just.

Yet holding human rights and justice to be the highest basis of law and morality requires a revolution of thought and understanding. Even since their inception, the laws of states, though based on moral codes, have been interpreted in unequal and unjust ways. Morality has never been high on the agenda for governments vying with other states for the end (power), has it?

The devolution of morals, if it is occuring, is more likely to be based on the fact that we, as a society, are buying into the false notion that microcosmic morality is not reflected in, nor is it a reflection of, the moral decisions and behaviours of the state. We accept the idea that war can be moral, that killing 1,000 civilians is "better" than killing 10,000, that when it comes to international politics, it is morally acceptable to value the ends over the means. So many of us have bought into this frightening idea, that we tend to see those who struggle for equity and justice, for peace and human rights, as the radicals who are undermining morality.

Where is the "morality" in promoting a system of government which allows a person to die from starvation, from the elements, or from lack of access to medical care, merely because they were unlucky enough to be consigned to abject poverty? It seems to me that many of the same people who condemn modern society as having lost its "moral compass," are the same people who claim that truly moral behaviours like charity, generosity, and unconditional love are distinctly [i]not[i/] the purview of the government. If we agree that the government has a right to pass laws on "negative" morals (murder, robbery, rape), why should that same government not have the right to pass laws on "positive" morals (charity, health care)? It could be argued that, just as a law against murder benefits the society in an equitable fashion, laws which allow for a social safety net also benefit the entire society.

To those who argue that society is becoming devolved, and less moral, in what way is this so? Surely, the family structure that many social conservatives hark back to is fracturing, but is that worse than what came before? The "family values" which are thought of as synonymous with "morality" were the product of a society in which women were considered chattel, blacks were considered animals, education was considered a privilege.

nileriver,
[QUOTE]Morality can change between groups of people, in that area it becomes useless in the form of law making.[QUOTE]

That's why different groups who share different morals have different laws. Laws must have some root in morality in order to be effective. A law which no one agrees with ethically in in a given society will be considered unjust. For example, if we were to adopt a law similar to the adultery laws in Muslim countries which authorized the stoning of an adulteress, there would certainly be a serious backlash because (almost) every person in the U.S. disagrees morally with such a law. Logically, it makes sense though (as you said any action is defensible by reason) that a patriarchal society would adopt such a law to keep women second class citizens. Because of the moral values of our society that never happened.

Conversely, a law with which members of society agree with morally will be easier to enforce and much harder for a criminal to defend him or herself against. Obviously, logic and reason must enter into the equation at some point. I would have voted no just as vehemently if the poll asked "Should laws based on logic be abolished?"

To defend that statement one more time, is it reasonable to punish a human by stoning for having sex outside of marriage, but can you find reason in it, like why it happened. A serial killer may be unreasonable, but that does not mean no reason in the persons actions, either in cause or why can be found, such as a massive retardation. I do hope that clears that up. Its not reasonable to throw stones through windows, but the reason in it still exists and can be found, understood. Its up to the human element to do such. Thus I guess you have today’s legal system, with the handy defense lawyer

What defines 'just' and 'equitable'? Morality is the distinction of right from wrong. Justice and equitability are defined by morality.

No one should be obligated to suffer against his/her own will for the betterment of another, under fear of prosecution, except under the most compelling of circumstances. That seems to me a rather paradoxical position on moral relativism...government enforced charity.

Obviously, there is a point in which community interests supersede individual rights. Living in a society requires an obligation on the part of its citizens for protection and other mutual benefit. That is the basis for public education, urgent medical care, ect. We don't allow people to die of starvation, unless it's the result of self-induced anorexia. It doesn’t benefit society to allow people to die in the street, and an ignorant populace is a detriment to everyone.

I have made the same assertion and gratefully it has been stated here. There is no such thing as a law that is not based on morality. Show me an example that you feel is free from moral reason and I will show you how it is a choice based upon values. It comes down to the agreement under a social contract to live under some laws that are the conscious of the majority to enjoy the freedoms and rights afforded by the contract. If you make any distinguishing line it would have to be based upon the amount of people on one side or the other of that particular law. Say 60% of the people have to agree there would need to be a law for it to be passed. This idea in itself would be a value, and would support the morality of someone who did not want individuals to be dominated by anything that was not a clear majority.

While justice and equity may be based ultimately on morality, they are more about the fair application of laws, in the context of what I was trying to say. For example, a law which establishes a public school system is a law based on the moral ideal that education is a right, not a privilege. However, if that "public" school system is only available to some, justice is not served. The civil rights movement was fundamentally not about establishing a new code of law; it was about applying the existing protections of the Constitution in a just and equitable way.



That's a good point. Perhaps I can try and clear up the scattered ideas I was throwing out in my last post.

We are taxed for the upkeep of roads, even if we don't drive, right? Why is taxing non-drivers acceptable? Well, because even if we ourselves do not use the roads, we benefit from them - and I realize this may seem obvious - because having well-maintained roads is like grease in the machine of industrial society. Producers don't have to pass on as much in transportation costs to the consumer, because they don't have to build and maintain their own roadways.

We are taxed for schools, though we may not have children; again, though it may seem obvious, we still benefit because, as you said, "an ignorant populace is a detriment to everyone."

So even if I and my children attend private schools, and do not drive, we benefit from the public system of schools and roads. And yet, on one level, a person could argue that they are suffering "against his/her own will for the betterment of another" by these taxes.



And yet there are Americans who die of malnutrition, or of diseases which could be prevented by full and real health care. Don't we ultimately save money and benefit when the populace receives preventive health care, not only emergent care? Providing free urgent care costs the society more than providing free preventive care. That's just common sense.

Do you think that society benefits when one parent can be home with their children? Does society benefit more from a mother working as a hotel maid for less than minimum wage (they do this by paying for rooms completed, not hourly rates, and it is a fairly common practice in the hotel industry), with her child in a crappy daycare staffed by minimum wage workers, or from that same mother being home with her child?

This all may seem off-topic, but I don't believe it is. What I am attempting to address is this:

Laws are based on morals, but are often not applied justly or equally to all. And the morality upon which a nation bases its laws has been, historically, the moral consensus of the governing elite. At one point it was the moral consensus of the United States that owning a human being was acceptable.

If our argument is for a moral consensus which is guided by the idea that governmental coercion is acceptable when the the outcome benefits the entire society, then I place government sponsored charity and universal preventive health care on a par with education, roads, and defense. We have already established that one's personal benefit from any of these things may not be obvious or direct, but exists nonetheless.

mrspigpen, I want to bring this to a personal level, but I don't want you to take offense, because you know I respect you and your opinions greatly.

Your husband flies fighter jets, correct? He is paid by taxpayers' money. His planes cost us millions of dollars. The purpose of those planes, and his job, is to destroy things in warfare. I'm not making a judgement by saying this - we accept that his job benefits our country, because he is helping to provide for our defense, and so while we may groan about the high expeditures of the Defense Dept., we don't complain about our tax money funding Mr. Pigpen's career.

My wife is a Practitioner for the Indian Health Service. She too is paid by the Federal government. She is paid to provide preventive and emergent health care to Native Americans, free of any cost to them. Her work definitely benefits our entire community. Our reservation is one hour from the nearest hospital, two hours from the nearest emergency room, and four hours from the nearest real trauma center (Seattle). Because of the high rate of unemployment here, and the level of poverty, people can not afford insurance, and a private clinic would have absolutely no profit incentive to operate here. So the American taxpayers pay for this clinic, and for my wife's job, and the community profits by being healthier. As the general level of health benefits the community, the healthy community benefits everyone, albeit indirectly.

So why would some people consider it moral to have a law which requires the taxpayers to fund the careers of people whose job it is to make war, and immoral to have a law which requires taxpayers to fund the careers of people whose job it is to provide health care to others?

Mr. P does not 'make' war. He is an enlisted serviceman who puts his life on the line so we may live in a free country.

Look, don't turn this into some kind of spin battle. I respect the people in the armed services - I haven't said otherwise. The fact is, however, that he "puts his life on the line so we may live in a free country" by... making war. If you think I said what I did in order to denigrate Mr P or the armed forces you are wrong, and you must not have understood my point too well.

Quark,

The problem with your analogy is "Where do you draw the line"?

I, as an engineer, benefit society by building and inventing new things. Should the taxpayer subsidize me?

The artist, the chef, the doctor, the lawyer, (mostly) everyone is a benefit of society. Should we subsidize everyone? Where do you draw the line?

Let's get this back to morality--you say that it is immoral for the government to allow people to starve. Yet, the government DOES NOT allow people to starve. There are government run shelters, food stamp programs, etc etc. The same goes for shelter. There IS somewhere to go. The problem, again, boils down to : Where do you draw the line?

Should we, as a society, ensure that every homeless person becomes a millionaire?

The government cannot, ever, at any time, solve everyone's problems. But a community, as a group, SHOULD be allowed to determine what type of behavior is allowed in their community.

If you do not follow the community's standards, then you are, by definition, NOT a part of the community.

Don't like the fact that Los Angeles has outlawed nose-picking? Move to San Diego.
Don't like the fact that New York City has banned combing your hair in the car? Move to Alabany.

The fact that we feel we need to restrict the desires of the local community is outrageous. It is tyranny by the infinitesmal minority. I agree that morality laws are not the types of things the Federal government should be involved in, since this leaves minority views no where to turn to. But local communities should have the right to determine what local community standards are.

Many people are unable to move simply because they will be violating a law if they stay. Local communities at different time have tried to impose rules and laws which violate fundamental principles that should be guaranteed to all people.

All American communities have diversity of practice, custom, and values. To allow a fifty, sixty, or seventy percent of the population say that their values should be the law then you are vivisecting a community by imposing a tyranny of the majority.

The AMerican community works without genocide and greater ethnic or racial tension because we have consistently expanded the freedom of individuals.

Telling people to move so they don't have to face a nose picking law is wrong. That nose picking law better be functional or it needs to be stricken down by the branch of our government that protects the basic rights of the individual from the tyranny of the majority, the judicial branch. That is the way it is in the American community.

If this impinges on your ability to legislate the behavior of your neighbors there are other countries to live and you have the freedom to move tpo one of them. (see Iran, Taliban clusters in Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia for models of this type)

I disagree that the majority should not control the population. A tyranny is an elite group or individual controling a majority so when more than half of the poulation agrees on a subject, it is not a tyranny . When the majority has the say and defines what is indeed morally right, the democracy in place is indeed working properly.



I agree that individuals should have their say and should be heard loud and clear but consider organizations founded on hate. Should the KKK be able to espouse its views on morality and subsequently the effect of this position to our lawmakers (and be considered as valid as any other ideology?)?

Ok then, so America then works in the form of power over weakness then, and that is democracy. If I go out and give a speech on why you as a group of people should do this or do that, from some common social bond I can manipulate then makes you commit those actions or take away the liberty of another group of humans and or human then you are breaking American laws. As much as some people might want to hang other people or make it so they cant go to certain places or get certain jobs, America federally does not allow that, that means you cant do it in your American based community.

The majority does have the right to bend reality to how it likes, as long as it stays in the bounds of the constitution and American federal laws that cover Americans, not just people in certain communities. Thus moral law enforced by certain groups over other groups or in certain areas can be used if not going against American federal laws, foundation of Americas legal system, constitution, you get the point.

To add on it some more, I don’t know how much these I want to give power to the majority to let them rule would react to say Satanists taking a state and making their brand of morality, it applies across the board in something humans call logic and reason.

One example would be some wacky moral law that states rapists cant eat, as much as people like to brutalize criminals that is unjust based on American laws. Though some might see it fitting in some moral fashion.

For the most part, no, but morals like "don't kill" and "don't steal" seem to be pretty good laws in my opinion. Maybe Moore should just leave the commandments that are also laws, it'd be a nice little comprimise.

I think you are misunderstanding the thrust of my argument. To answer your question, there are many engineers, working in government funded labs, in public universities around the nation. What line is there to be drawn? I have not said that all health care workers should be employees of the federal government, I merely said that the societal cost is less, and the societal profit is greater, if we provide every person in this country basic preventive health care.



Yet haven't you argued elsewhere that government should have no role in this arena? Asking where we draw the line in this context is a valid question. I don't know the answer, but I do know that morally, it is better to err on the side of trying too hard to ensure a basic standard of living than it is to leave such things to the whims of fate (or the "market").



Do you really think that was at all what I was saying? This question is not worth answering.



Eeyore answered this quite succinctly, I have little to add to his rebuttal, but this:

How do you define a community? Is it my neighborhood, my town, my county, my state, my country, my world? And what are the limits? Can't we turn your own question onto this issue? Where do we draw the line? Is it acceptable for a community to outlaw blacks? To legalize rape? You see where this is going.

Also, you are assuming that everyone has the resources and willingness to move. This is emphatically not the case.

***********

I think we need to separate morals from values in this debate. To act in a moral way is to act in a way which is not harmful to others - the ultimate moral rule is the golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. To make a law which segregates blacks and whites is based on a certain set of values, but it is not moral - though at one time, many people thought it was. To bar gays from being legally married, is based on values, not morals. A law against murder is moral. A law against rape is moral.

Agreed.

Perhaps I misspoke before, when I said that all laws are based in morality. I was thinking within the paradigm of criminal law, specifically. Tax law isn't necessarily (if ever) ethically based. I don’t believe that federal funding can be dispensed according to varying degrees of morality. Are roads and railways, for example, moral?

If all occupations were to be funded based on the degree of moral significance (by our generally accepted definition), there would be far too many to subsidize. Funds might be (and often are) realistically allocated to pay for certain ‘mutually beneficial’ costs to society- which you mentioned. That is a convincing type of argument I would see in favor of something like nationalized healthcare, but it isn't exactly founded on a 'moral' principle.

Obviously, there are tremendous contradictions. Society hasn't come to any pinnacle of perfection. We spent billions to ostensibly eliminate ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, while there are still homeless here.

We might eliminate homelessness by giving everyone a rudimentary home (certainly everyone should have a roof over there head), but there would be many who would take advantage, and few who would properly care for those homes. Those little homes might be extremely quick to deteriorate (for obvious reasons) and mantainance would also be required. Can't live in a dilapidated shack, especially when you can sue the government because your tenement is unhealthy to live in....It would cost an extreme amount of money beyond the basic structure of that house.

Healthcare is similar. It makes perfect sense that everyone should receive preventative care. A healthy population is good for everyone, without a doubt. There are, however, unforeseeable expenses for that too. Military medicine works as a universal system because it is litigation-free. The care isn't as great as the outside world, but certainly better than none. I don't see that happening in the larger sense because it would be considered a violation of individual rights not to be able to sue. Such a system would bankrupt us. (***I know you don't believe the connection between litigation and medical costs, Quarkhead, but consider why the military and European countries, with much lower costs, have also eliminated, to a large extent, the litigation alternative)

Just as we don't have the ability to eliminate all injustice in the world through our military, we don't have the ability to eliminate all poverty in America without paying an extraordinary price. There is a point of reducing returns to society and we walk the fine line between liberal and conservative, debating the gray area. I would love to see everyone have great medical care, and safe housing in crime-free neighborhoods with good schools, as I believe most everyone else does. There's something about human nature that keeps it from happening. Usually when you hear the term 'human nature' no one refers to it as a good thing. People don't tend to respect or appreciate those things which are given to them, and they do tend to take advantage. There must be some controls somewhere in the equation to prevent 'human nature' from overwhelming human generosity.

A side note about the military...I would love it if my husband was out of a military job because we had reached an eternal peace in this world. Actually, no one would be happier than I. As it stands today, without such funding, there is a good chance that the entire country would cease to exist as we know it. Most of us might disagree on the dollar amount for that funding, but that is the bottom line. Military funding isn’t exactly a demonstration of morality. As with all law enforcement, it is a very necessary evil. In the ideal, non-human-nature world, there would be no need for defense of any kind, or even policemen.

I'll say it again, all laws are enforced morals and because of this, we cannot separate the two in this debate. They are one in the same...

Tax laws are enforced morality? What's moral about a road tax?

It's a much more logical way to pay for road construction and maintenance than running the deficit up. Maybe it's not a moral issue in that particular case, but they still make sense...

I think I did not say this very clearly. I was not trying to say that all healthcare workers should be paid by the government. I was saying this in response to the oft stated idea in these parts, that the government should have no place in the health care, or welfare, of the people. Following such a belief with statements about declining morals, or laws based on morality, it struck me that there was a hypocrisy involved: that we applaud the funding of war, and yet decry the funding of health care.



How do you know that "there would be many who would take advantage, and few who would properly care for those homes?" What leads you to this conclusion? I don't think homelessness can be helped by such a simple plan. You've presented a patently unworkable idea, then used the dismissal of that idea as a way to excuse inaction. Obviously we have other threads for this, but there are other alternatives.



Oh, I can see a certain connection. I'm going to do some research on this, before I speak further.



Then let's get rid of all inheritence. All of it. Upon a person's death, their estate is donated to the charities of their choice, as directed in their will. Money, property, all of it.

After that, we'll stop celebrating birthdays and Christmas.

Let every bastard eke out their own survival.

Sound extreme? Of course it is. It's just that your statement is one of those "stock" statements that people (many libertarians, particularly) say, without really thinking it through. Do you really believe it is true? In what way do they not respect gifts? In what way do they "tend" to take advantage? You know, I hope, that the myth of the welfare queen is just that, a myth. And do you suppose that rich people don't take advantage of subsidies, tax breaks, legacy policies, etc?

I fear this thread is racing off topic, and I accept much of the blame. In trying to make a point, I necessarily brought in several side issues that seem to have distracted from the central debate.

We have obvious examples. Look at the state of government housing. People even reject the obligation to care for their own lawns in exchange for free housing. I have already explained why I think it is an 'unworkable idea'. You didn't. Why is it unworkable, if not for human nature? Nor am I suggesting, or 'excusing' inaction. Our social expenditures, as you know, vastly outnumber our military expenditures. Are we doing enough? That might be debateable, but to suggest we are doing nothing is far from true.


That is self evident. If I buy a present for my child, or work to make his life better through inheritance, it isn't a sacrifice. If I work to make some unknown person's life better through my efforts, it is.

Edited to add: Yes, I really believe that things which are earned are more valued then things which are received for free. That concept is very fundamental to me. Who frames the first dollar that they were ever given? Many frame the first dollar they ever earned. Do you have more of an appreciation for an A in a difficult course or an easy one? It's all part of the same logic and goes well beyond the reality or fantasy of the welfare queen.

Very interesting topic..I will attempt to get it back on track. You cannot possibly seperate laws and morality. Case and point is that whether you want to believe it or not the Constitution was written with the ten commandments in mind. I would dare say that those 10 priciples are needed to have a workable society and basing laws around these ideals is in itself not a bad thing. Think about it...in some parts of the world stoning is still allowed...based on "their" morality and culture. America is unique, one only has to look around and all the different cultures and wonder how we can all get along. I would think the topic should be more like which countries morality. Although we are a country of laws, one cannot deny that these "laws" would be un-enforceable without some sort of common understanding of right and wrong.

Morality laws should be abolished, excluding violent crimes against any living thing as that can lead to violence against humans. When you regulate morality whose morals are you regulating? Mine? No, politicians who think I don't have the intellegence to regulate my own actions. If I'm mature enough to die in a war then I'm mature enough to decide if I want to have sex with a prostitute, smoke a joint, receive oral sex, etc. I figure I can handle these decisions by myself. I don't need Congress to tell me NO!

As has been pointed out in about a dozen threads now, that is simply not true. For a start, the Constitution of the United States doesn't even address laws as such - merely the structure of those bodies which make and interpret laws. The nonsense about our Founders having been informed by some unanimous Judeo-Christian morality has been thoroughly refuted elsewhere and needn't take up more space in yet another debate.


Yeah - and the original adherents to the Ten Commandments were some of the biggest "stoners" in history. Your point?

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

The argument I would put forward about morality - or ethics - in law (in a free society) is that it should only apply to the morality of that society - not the morality of its individuals. So long as the behavior of an individual has no impact on the rights of other members of the society, that behavior should not be legislated.

One example raised here was substance abuse. No law should restrict anything I choose to do with my own body. If I were to become so severely addicted to a debilitating substance that I had to resort to theft, there are laws which address theft. We cannot legislate causes, only effects. Those endorsing drug laws on the grounds that drug abuse can lead to anti-social crime are making a very dangerous argument. There is much domestic violence in this country - should we abolish marriage as a preventative measure? We have many crimes of passion - should we make love illegal?

The point cannot be made often or strongly enough: victimless crime is not crime. And it is only misplaced morality which judges individual actions.

Does the so-called moral workings or mechanisms work today in our society. Alabama as we all know is a very religious state, yet in the year 2000 it ranked 6th for murder out of all the states in America, along with various other stats you can see in the link below. Relativity with morality is very real and in the base of it, the morality issue should be one that is understood. If morality can change then the ability to create better systems of morality can also flourish and be a better benefit to society.

The idea of good and evil goes along with this and is a flawed style to look at the world, it is very old and bias and brings with it the tendency to do as much damage as it does good for humankind, just like with psychology we can see what happens when you throw around words like insanity and other things that touch more then is understood.

Morality not to long ago was a very ugly thing to look at, and all threw time we see it change along with culture. We also see the ability for various subcultures within one to combat each other for dominance, or the i occupy this area mentality of an animal.

Many unbiased studies have gone into what happens to people of various ideas during the progression of their lifespan in relation to other cultures. Many of the statistics that were found were very devastating to what would be considered normal practice to many "moral" families. In that the offspring of this nation alone have very high tendencies for violence due to the family and moral structure we used. The study itself was shut down because it was so counter culture.
I will also post that one when my browser allows for me to view it again.

To sum up my points in the closeing, the relativity of morality and the human being/human society needs to be understood in attempts to make a truly "good" system, or that change is something to deal with, not shun or jump into blindly.

alabama crime stats, 1960-2000

Alabama is also one of the poorest states in the Union. Poverty levels are much more indicative of crime levels than any subjective "morality" indicator.