Shouldn't morality, and ethics be dictated by society and not legislated by the government?

Question

Shouldn't moral and ethical issues be placed in the hands of the people? I understand that certain areas were delegated to government to handle. Overall the general idea was that we fostered freedom in the U.S. What we did not want was a controlling government telling us what to do at every turn. The U.S. was set up in such a way as to allow freedom of expression, religion, press etc. At no point in time do I see reason for the government to be a moral compass for individual citizens. If the citizens of a state or nation decided that a moral view or ethical stance should be acceptable, shouldn't that be considered the will of the people? The framers certainly believed in our natural rights as people...why should our rights stop at morality? Shouldn't there be an avenue for the majority of the populace to set their own moral code, as long as it did not take away those specific rights given in the Constitution...Doesn't that make more sense then legislatived morality?

I know what a representative democracy is. My point means to say that morality should not be a subject of the representative. That the actual people should dictate morality not the laws. If it you legislate morality then you legislate a natural right that does not belong in that realm.

Answer 1

Absolutely.

With the caveat that they still are something each person chooses for themself, as part of their religious or personal code of behavior.

In other words, it's not something decided by the majority for everyone. Either directly or through representatives. It's something person to each individual. If you want to try to convince people to adopt your morals, that's fair game.

But it still must in the end be individual choice.

Answer 2

If an elected government was actually elected by a majority of voters, and the system was not corrupted by money, there is some legitimate cause for the majority to set some standards. However, in a true democracy, an elected majority protects the rights of each minority. In the US, the fundamental principle of separation of church and state, for example, is a myth. The trick is to ensure that the rights of those with opposing views are respected and protected. If the US political system was, in fact, the election of those with a majority of votes, instead of 'first past the post', then you might have less cause for concern. (Most European states, for example, have run-off elections if one candidate does not earn a majority.) The same concern can be raised with respect to the judicial system. Does the system protect the rights of all equally? A look at the US prisons might cause many observers great concern.

Answer 3

I agree and fine in theory however when your neighbors immoral
or unethical activities start causing you serious problems, what are you going to do ?
I do not agree on the governments foolish war on drugs & prostitution etc. but there must be some enforcement of individual preferences...

Answer 4

It is in the peoples hands. We elect those who create these laws. If we don't like the laws we can elect new people.

That is what a representative democracy is all about.

Answer 5

People should dictate what are moral laws and not the legislators whose decision are their personal views.