If it is not government's job to legislate morality?

Question

why does the government prohibit murder? If not a moral basis, then on what other basis does the government punish citizens who commit murder?

You could say the same for other things too: kidnapping, rape, theft, etc.

If these prohibitions are not grounded in morality, then what?

Coragryph, all you are doing is shifting the question. Ok then, why is it wrong to harm communities? Why is it wrong to disrupt and destroy communities?

And for you to say that an individual is only worth his contribution to the community says a lot too. I believe Stalin felt the same way about individual dignity.

Answer 1

amen sister,,,,,, Bush is pushing a moral issue with torture, and the Geneva Conventions,, I agree with Colin Powell, John McCain, John Warner and other top Republicans,, that have actually fought in wars (McCain a PO W), who point out the obvious, but no matter the argument, Bush, Cheney will push this issue all they way to the Supreme Court, only to get slapped on the wrist yet again,,,,, as they should........ America is a Great Country,, the current administration can tarnish our image,, but they cannot destroy what so many,, intelligent American patriots have built,, the integrity of our nation will always prevail,, a few men from Texas with morally objectionable characters will not win..........

Answer 2

Very simple. All of those rules can be measured by the direct impact their violation as on society and the community.

Killing people removes people from the community, which disrupts community services, hinders community functionality and reduces community resources. And if you kill too many people, the community will cease to exist.

Same with rape or kidnapping. Harm to the individual harms the cohesiveness, stability and functioning of the community. For that matter, the same to a lesser degree with theft or vandalism.

The problem with legislating morality is that there is no clear line. No willingness to require objective harms. If two adults voluntarily choose to have sex, who does that harm? Now, if money is exchanged, who does that harm? Prostitution is illegal becausee the dominant religion doesn't like it, not becaus anyone is harmed by the transaction itself.

And absent any religious framework at all, a country can still have guiding principles that define it's laws. Protection of life, liberty and property. Those ideals can exist completely independently of any religion or any spiritual or moral beliefs. But an entire system of laws can (and has) been written based on those principles.

So, we can easily have laws without religious morality. But once the religious majority gets to impose its morality on everyone else, we stop being a nation of laws and become a theocracy.

{EDIT}

I didn't say an individuals value is only measured by their contribution to the community. You asked for another reason other than morality to make murder illegal. I provided two such reasons, one practical and one philosophical.

And you can substitute "nation" or "society" or "economy" for "community". The point is we only have an economy or a society or a country because we have people in it. Take away the people, and you only have ideas.

But that's the other answer, and the one I personally believe. Even without morality and without treating everyone as a functional resource (which I don't), a country can still have guiding principles that define it's laws. And those guiding principles can be anything chosen by the group or country, whether they happen to match any set of moral rules or not.

Answer 3

Murder, rape, theft and so forth is not a moral question. It is just wrong. All involve a living human victim, this is a protection against life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Moral questions such as consentual sex between two people is a moral question and as long as there is no victim, there should be no legislation prohibiting it.

Answer 4

Social stabilization. It is the government's job to legislate legality. That is not always the same as morality. Many laws have been immoral in the past. Many still are today. Morality comes from the heart, the soul and a common respect. Law doesn't necessarily do so. If it did, we wouldn't have income tax.

Answer 5

All issues have their basis in our religious moral codes, however there are some that are particularly objectionable. Murder for example is a moral issue only in that it is a threat to the social order, and against humans self-preservation instinct. In fact we humans shouldn't need to have that law written, and explained to us. But, those who create our laws think we're to stupid to understand it's wrong without a law.

I have some experience with this. Let me say that if you steal from someone, you can later go back to them and repay them in goods or kind for the crime. But when you kill, you can never go back, never make amends. You take away any chance you have to make yourself right.

Answer 6

Ther is a big difference whether a person's act damages another person or whether whatever they do, they do in private between consenting adults.
Of course it is the state's responsibility to deal with the first category, as it is the sign of a free society that the state keeps its nose out of its citizens' underwear.

Answer 7

Government=people, to bad the government doesn't understand morality changes with people. Look at what was moral 20,100 even 200 years ago.

Answer 8

God legislates morality. It is up to us to create laws that reflect that morality. It is the government's job to enforce man's laws which should be a reflection of God's morality.

We must have a moral compass outside of ourselves (God) so our morals are constant and incorruptible.

Answer 9

Funny you should ask....... I find it striking that the Republicans are tossing morality out the window in the pursuit of terrorists. I always thought Republicans hated moral relativism. Sounds a little hypocritical to me.

Answer 10

those prohibitions are grounded in functionality.

seriously, i think it is a mistake to believe that morality is the only reason for doing good. there are two terms: morality and ethics, and they describe how humans make decisions about treating each other and right and wrong.

morality comes from outside. that's how i think of it anyway... look up definitions for yourself, but for my purposes, that will do. i say this because morality is generally associated with religion, which is external. our ideas about proper sexual behavior come mostly from religion for example, and have more to do with a traditional, social fear of embarrassment and dirtiness. oral sex might be fun and all... but you won't be telling your mom about it and taking pictures to show your neighbors probably.

ethics is internal. i think it is determined by lots of things, but it is less dependent on how society views your activities, and more on your own set of values determined over time. for example, lying. most of us know morally, it is wrong to lie. you don't usually go sharing your lies with people and telling them how proud you are of deceptions because there is a moral prohibition. ethically though, it is much grayer. do you lie to your wife if she asks if she's fat? of course, because you know that it will hurt her if you say "well hon, i wasn't going to say anything..."

right there is a functional reason for deception that everyone immediately understands.

so, i would ask you to consider what societies you are aware of that don't prohibit: rape, kidnapping, murder and theft. all the ones i know of do, at least ostensibly... which leads me to believe that there is a layer of functionality that civilizations can't go beneath or else they crumble. and that is my answer. i believe these prohibitions are grounded deeper than morality... which is something we all argue about constantly, and instead speak about something internal to all of us, evolving over time toward a utopia that might not be built on the fashionable flavors of morality from ancient tribes and arbitrariness, but instead on tried and true reasons that we all understand and value.