Morality

If you define morality as "right vs. wrong" as opposed to legal and illegal, I agree. However, anytime you make a law, you are legislating something. Can you legislate anything? yes...can you efectively legislate morality, no!

 

I don't believe you can legislate morality. Whose morality do you choose? Every individual, every culture, every religion sees things a little different. As a doctor, Berman, i'm sure you've at least thought about the moral implications of medically assisted suicide for terminally ill patients living in a lot of pain. On the one hand, it's immoral to kill someone, but on the other, it's immoral to allow someone to live in such pain and not to help them fulfill their wish.

Now, you can legislate specific scenarios like that, and get a code of justice that appears to be mostly moral. But in no way can you create a law that punishes the "bad" across the board. There are many other examples. A real easy one that comes to mind is the thief that robs from the rich and gives to the poor (aka Robin Hood) - As the story goes, he was acting very morally to undermine a corrupt system and help his fellow man, and yet at the same time we all know that stealing is wrong.

 

Wow, a post by dr berman that does not mention algore, GW, Islam. Not even trollish at all (yet).
That being said, I agree with dr berman. You can not legislate morality. You can not legistlate stupidity either. Laws should only prevent someone from interfering with another citizen's right to life, liberty, or the pursiut of happiness. A lot of those things are likely to be labeled "immoral". But the term morality is pretty subjective. Obviosly stealing is immoral and also interferes with other's rights and is hence illegal. Many people here would consider driving a hummer immoral, but it doesn't interfere with my rights to L,L, and the PoH, so it is not illegal. Abortion, is very distateful and immoral, but should not be illiegal as it does not interfere with my rights. Though pro lifers will say it affects the rights of the unborn, which again gets down to a subjective opinion on when life begins and etc. (Please, lets not get into the 9th month brain sucking crap again, that is BS and counterproductive).

All the more reason that Godwin's law is stupid. Gambling laws are stupid. Helmet laws are stupid. Prohibition is stupid. Neighborhood associations dictating how high and what color a fence can be are STUPID.

 

An excellent question. Since many laws can really be interpreted as "enforced morality", I guess we can/do legislate morality. However, as TonyP pointed out, morality is supposed to be a self-enforced act, the adherence to it dictated not so much by legal consequences, but by belief in a more enlightened way of life.

 

You mean "immoral," right? As opposed to "morally neutral?"

The assisted suicide example is a good one, and I'd take it a step further and look for examples of immoral acts being supported by law. Laws, after all, are designed by the people in power, who are not always (should I say "ever"?) selfless people.

Different people have different qualifications for "moral" behavior, and I'm not just comparing religious to non-religious. But even more importantly, I think many of us Americans might agree that part of our national moral belief system relies on the idea that legislating morality would be distinctly immoral.

 

I think we do legislate morality; I just don't know how well it works.

Capital murder is against both the law and morality, for instance.

It becomes sticky when parties can't decide what's moral or not. Hence the preponderance of some wedge issues in today's society--one side wanting to legislate their own morality vs. the other that says "no." (And these sides flip depending on the topic.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 23 2007, 11:10 AM) [snapback]410851[/snapback]</div>

You're actually supporting my point.

Person A kills person B, premeditatively, because person B is sleeping with his wife, then that person is tried for capital murder.

Person A kills person B because person B is trying to kill him, then person is tried for MAYBE manslaughter, or maybe nothing at all.

These are levels of morality, and all legislated. Yes, in both situations, our boy B is dead, and that's a fact. The punishments are not the same based on the reasons/interpretation/morality of the crime.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 23 2007, 11:37 AM) [snapback]410866[/snapback]</div>

False constructs? There are lots of levels of morality in OUR (not just mine) world, hence why one murder is a murder and another is a "justifiable homicide." And we legislate to those levels. Do we not? Last time I checked, we did...that's not false. How do you call it so?

There was nothing difficult in the least about my response; it seemed pretty simple to me. We have legislated morality in this country (the answer to your OP) to the best of our ability in very particular circumstances. There's a continuing debate about other "morals" being legislated. That's all I'm pointing out.

I'm not sure what your argument is. Again.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 23 2007, 11:50 AM) [snapback]410882[/snapback]</div>

I'll ignore your obvious baiting, and address your last sentence.

You agree with what I've said--YES--the morality of it is how it's viewed by people. And we legislate that. In answer to your OP. Again. For the third time.

One question, not a debate: you're saying that all people responsible for killing another person should be treated as capital murderers, regardless of circumstance?

 

He's trying to pick a fight with you again.

We (and our politicians of questionable morals on both sides) factor our personal morals into how we vote on an issue. So morals affect legislation, but you cannot actually legislate morality per se. It fails every time. Islam banning music will fail, US prohibiting pot will fail, its' not much different.

Also, the world is a vast mixtures of grays, very little is black and white.
(drberman likes to make you choose black or white, so he can point out the gray and prove you wrong)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Mar 23 2007, 11:56 AM) [snapback]410889[/snapback]</div>

I don't know that it fails every time, but I certainly think it doesn't work some of the time (prohibition, for instance). Do you really think, for instance, that pot will be legalized? (as an example ONLY) We've been legislating more and more for morality, e.g. what's now called statutory rape is an example of something that when I was a kid was just a way of life (lots of 16 year olds dating 20 year olds, etc.) is now legislated.

And an "I see that" to your first statement. Why in the world, though?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Mar 23 2007, 12:19 PM) [snapback]410905[/snapback]</div>

No. Answer the question.

And once again, you are agreeing with me that we DO, in this great country of ours, legislate morality. What it looks like you're about to pounce on is that we SHOULDN'T. Entirely different question.