Reflections on Morality Part 1 of 2: Morality and Law
This will be the first of two posts on morality and society.
It seems to me that many people have it wrong when they make various statements about morality. For the purpose of this discussion, I am going to use abortion as my example. One of the most common slogans that I've seen by the pro-abortion campaigners is "You Can't Legislate Morality" or "Keep Your Laws Off My Body", which basically amount to roughly the same thing. The implication is that the moral values of one group can't be imposed on another group that rejects those moral values. Whether it's pro-abortion groups or any other group that opposes so-called "morality legislation", their argument is commonly that it is both unfair and impractical to impose the moral will of one group on another group that is dead set on opposing it.
Now, I think it's totally cliche to bring out a dictionary definition and use in a debate or discussion, but that's what I'm going to do right now. Morality:
The point that I want you folks to take away from the definitions is that morality is, at its core, a choice of one course of action over another on the basis of quality. In other words, if I have the choice between one course of action and another, then the moral choice is the better of the two. There are, of course, some choices that aren't moral choices, as illustrated in this following exchange from The Simpsons...
Of course, if he's reading this, Shiitake might point out that some automobile purchasing choices include ethical or moral decisions; for example, if one's moral code includes an extreme dedication to strict environmental preservation, a moral or ethical issue would be which is better, to buy a Hummer or a Prius. However, this is a tangental issue; the point is that while many of the decisions we make in our personal lives are not decisions of great moral consequence, many are; and many of the decisions we make as a society or nation are of great moral consequence.
Whether it's the issue of euthenasia, abortion, legalization of cannabis, or any number of other issues, many rally around the claim that you can't legislate morality. Personally, I think this argument is a farce, and using it degenerates the dialogue we should be having. Why do I say this?
Take the chosen issue of abortion. For the record, I am against abortion, though I believe that exceptions should be made for cases of rape and incest; even then, I think that bringing the child to term and giving it up for adoption is a better alternative, but in cases of rape and incest I don't have a strong objection to leaving room in the law for abortion. That having been established, when pro-abortion activists make imperative statements like "Keep your morals off my body!" or "You can't legislate morality!", the base of their claims is a mistaken belief that the beliefs of the majority as to what is the best choice should not be binding to those who disagree. On the surface, it's not an unreasonable statement; for example, our Declaration of Independence states:
One of the unalienable human rights affirmed in the Bill of Rights is the right to freedom of religion; and in fact, this has been used frequently throughout our nation's history to defend members of religious minorities. Unlike Communist and Islamic nations, which have an overwhelming tendency to deny the rights of the minority in such matters as religion and speech, Western culture affirms the rights of both minority and majority parties, insofar as the exercise of those freedoms does not infringe upon the rights, freedoms, and safety of others. Frankly stated: in at least some cases, the will of the majority should not be imposed on a dissenting minority.
The problem with the statement "you can't legislate morality", though, is this: all legislation is morality. All legislation is a legal statement that one course of action is preferable to another. Well, that should be qualified; not all legislation is moral legislation. For example, there's legislation (or at least, ordinances; some of it's legislation) regarding the posted speed limit in various areas; if this is legalized morality, it's "morality" that's very loosely, arbitrarily, and subjectively defined; or morality that exists in shades of grey. There are laws about property zoning that aren't specifically morality. However, most law is a choice of one policy or another in an attempt to make the nation/world a better place. We have, for example, laws that provide for national defense, because our nation's majority moral belief is that it is a superior situation for our citizens to be safe than it is for them to be unprotected. We have laws against murder, because a near-universal belief exists that murder is inherently evil and immoral; in fact, we even have laws regarding homicide, negligent homicide, and manslaughter, because our collective morality states that life is so precious, that extra care should be taken to avoid ending it accidentally. These are legislations of morality.
In fact, our very system of government, whether strict democracy in the Athenian sense or representative democracy in the Roman sense, is arranged and established in such a way that the morals, or values regarding the best courses of action for given situations, are decided based upon the opinions, beliefs, and values of the majority of the population. Sometimes referred to as the "tyranny of the majority", the very purpose of our form of government is to enforce the collective will of as many citizens as possible. For this reason, in theory at least, we elect those representative leaders who best fit our own mindset, and based upon their views and their stated objectives, they vote accordingly. Thus, our entire system of government is based on the supposition that yes, you can and should legislate morality.
Of course, every decision, whether an issue of ethics and morality or not, comes with consequences; for example, the decision of successive Roman emperors to take an indecisive position on the enforcement of the Empire's borders eventually led to economic, cultural, and political death at the hands of German barbarians. To offer a non-moral example, if one chooses not to brush their teeth on a particular day, they risk lousy breath that could offend those they come into contact with. Basically, every choice we make, be it moral/ethical or trivial, carries with it both apparent and unforeseen consequences. In fact, there are many cases in which important moral decisions become difficult because of the severe consequences carried by each available option, and I will discuss this in my concluding post.
It seems to me that many people have it wrong when they make various statements about morality. For the purpose of this discussion, I am going to use abortion as my example. One of the most common slogans that I've seen by the pro-abortion campaigners is "You Can't Legislate Morality" or "Keep Your Laws Off My Body", which basically amount to roughly the same thing. The implication is that the moral values of one group can't be imposed on another group that rejects those moral values. Whether it's pro-abortion groups or any other group that opposes so-called "morality legislation", their argument is commonly that it is both unfair and impractical to impose the moral will of one group on another group that is dead set on opposing it.
Now, I think it's totally cliche to bring out a dictionary definition and use in a debate or discussion, but that's what I'm going to do right now. Morality:
1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.
The point that I want you folks to take away from the definitions is that morality is, at its core, a choice of one course of action over another on the basis of quality. In other words, if I have the choice between one course of action and another, then the moral choice is the better of the two. There are, of course, some choices that aren't moral choices, as illustrated in this following exchange from The Simpsons...
Krusty flashes back to his youth.
Man 1: Should I finish college?
Rabbi Krustofsky: Yes. No one is poor except he who lacks knowledge.
Woman: [babe in arms] Rabbi, should I have another child?
Rabbi Krustofsky: Yes. Another child would be a blessing on your house.
Man 2: Rabbi, should I buy a Chrysler?
Rabbi Krustofsky: Eh, couldn't you rephrase that as a, as an ethical question?
Man 2: Um... Is it right to buy a Chrysler?
Rabbi Krustofsky: Oh, yes! [chuckles] For great is the car with power steering and dynaflow suspension!
Of course, if he's reading this, Shiitake might point out that some automobile purchasing choices include ethical or moral decisions; for example, if one's moral code includes an extreme dedication to strict environmental preservation, a moral or ethical issue would be which is better, to buy a Hummer or a Prius. However, this is a tangental issue; the point is that while many of the decisions we make in our personal lives are not decisions of great moral consequence, many are; and many of the decisions we make as a society or nation are of great moral consequence.
Whether it's the issue of euthenasia, abortion, legalization of cannabis, or any number of other issues, many rally around the claim that you can't legislate morality. Personally, I think this argument is a farce, and using it degenerates the dialogue we should be having. Why do I say this?
Take the chosen issue of abortion. For the record, I am against abortion, though I believe that exceptions should be made for cases of rape and incest; even then, I think that bringing the child to term and giving it up for adoption is a better alternative, but in cases of rape and incest I don't have a strong objection to leaving room in the law for abortion. That having been established, when pro-abortion activists make imperative statements like "Keep your morals off my body!" or "You can't legislate morality!", the base of their claims is a mistaken belief that the beliefs of the majority as to what is the best choice should not be binding to those who disagree. On the surface, it's not an unreasonable statement; for example, our Declaration of Independence states:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
One of the unalienable human rights affirmed in the Bill of Rights is the right to freedom of religion; and in fact, this has been used frequently throughout our nation's history to defend members of religious minorities. Unlike Communist and Islamic nations, which have an overwhelming tendency to deny the rights of the minority in such matters as religion and speech, Western culture affirms the rights of both minority and majority parties, insofar as the exercise of those freedoms does not infringe upon the rights, freedoms, and safety of others. Frankly stated: in at least some cases, the will of the majority should not be imposed on a dissenting minority.
The problem with the statement "you can't legislate morality", though, is this: all legislation is morality. All legislation is a legal statement that one course of action is preferable to another. Well, that should be qualified; not all legislation is moral legislation. For example, there's legislation (or at least, ordinances; some of it's legislation) regarding the posted speed limit in various areas; if this is legalized morality, it's "morality" that's very loosely, arbitrarily, and subjectively defined; or morality that exists in shades of grey. There are laws about property zoning that aren't specifically morality. However, most law is a choice of one policy or another in an attempt to make the nation/world a better place. We have, for example, laws that provide for national defense, because our nation's majority moral belief is that it is a superior situation for our citizens to be safe than it is for them to be unprotected. We have laws against murder, because a near-universal belief exists that murder is inherently evil and immoral; in fact, we even have laws regarding homicide, negligent homicide, and manslaughter, because our collective morality states that life is so precious, that extra care should be taken to avoid ending it accidentally. These are legislations of morality.
In fact, our very system of government, whether strict democracy in the Athenian sense or representative democracy in the Roman sense, is arranged and established in such a way that the morals, or values regarding the best courses of action for given situations, are decided based upon the opinions, beliefs, and values of the majority of the population. Sometimes referred to as the "tyranny of the majority", the very purpose of our form of government is to enforce the collective will of as many citizens as possible. For this reason, in theory at least, we elect those representative leaders who best fit our own mindset, and based upon their views and their stated objectives, they vote accordingly. Thus, our entire system of government is based on the supposition that yes, you can and should legislate morality.
Of course, every decision, whether an issue of ethics and morality or not, comes with consequences; for example, the decision of successive Roman emperors to take an indecisive position on the enforcement of the Empire's borders eventually led to economic, cultural, and political death at the hands of German barbarians. To offer a non-moral example, if one chooses not to brush their teeth on a particular day, they risk lousy breath that could offend those they come into contact with. Basically, every choice we make, be it moral/ethical or trivial, carries with it both apparent and unforeseen consequences. In fact, there are many cases in which important moral decisions become difficult because of the severe consequences carried by each available option, and I will discuss this in my concluding post.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home