Should the govenment regulate social issues? Is it the government's place to allow or disallow a person's voluntary actions i.e. marijuana use, gay marraige, euthenasia, alcohol consumption, etc.? Are these laws valid or invalid in a free society?
2006-12-08 05:45:35 · 22 answers · asked by Brandon 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I believe you have to be pragmatic. In an ideal world you would allow everyone's "voluntary actions". The problem is when those voluntary actions conflict with others. So of the examples you give gay marriage seems to be reasonable - I believe that sexual choices between consenting adults should be free. Euthanasia is also a private choice and there is no reason for society to ban it. Marijuana, alcohol and other drug use should also be free but people need to be educated about the consequences and obviously there would need to be laws against dangerous driving including driving under the influence. I would also mention abortion as a good example of where the government should not legislate. Women should be free to decide whether to have an abortion or not.
2006-12-08 09:06:24 · answer #1 · answered by Euro 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i think that marijuana use and alcoholic consumption should not be regulated by the government, but people operating vehicles under the influence should be, because they are then putting the public at risk.
gay marriage, euthenasia, abortion...these should be regulated by the government just like traditional marriage and other medical procedures, respectively.
the government, should not, however, try to impose religious ideals on society through legislative means. if there is a constitution-related reason why gays shouldn't marry or abortion should be illegal, that's one thing. but there's not. the reason these are such controversial topics is religion-based...the Bible says it's wrong.
i don't agree with that.
2006-12-08 06:00:30 · answer #2 · answered by marissanicole2107 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
To a certain degree, morality has to be legislated to prevent chaos. But I do think a government does more harm than good when it tries to define moral standards as a whole, and over-legislate. Human nature isn't always pretty, and I think laws protect us from ourselves to a certain point. But taking it too far can cause a whole new set of problems because people need to feel like they control their own lives.
2006-12-08 05:54:05 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't believe that morality is, or can be, limited to the private sphere. All human actions -- including those that seek to govern, rule, and administer -- aim at whatever is held to be good, either for the ruler or the ruled, or both. Saying that morality "shouldn't" be prescribed is still a so-called value judgment. Suspension of judgment is impossible because human beings are by nature judgmental, which isn't a bad thing, by the way.
2006-12-08 06:02:46 · answer #4 · answered by Umberto G 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
morality is a personal decision and should not be legislated. It would just be making it legal to discriminate and force your beliefs on others.
You live your life how you think is appropriate and the advantage of a free society, is that others are comfortably able to do the same.
Laws are made to ensure that actions that threaten the stability of general society are not actively perpetrated. Morality or lack thereof is hardly viewed as threatening to society.
2006-12-08 05:53:59 · answer #5 · answered by Tamzi 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Legislation is based on morality. Europe and the Americas (Western Civilization) cultures were based on Christianity. The Middle East cultures are based on Islam. There has been much effort to replace our traditional culture with non-Western (non-Christian) values, as these values speak against abortion, homosexuality, drugs & c. This is the reason for the push towards "multicultralism". It is an attack on our common culture by those who favor a different kind of culture. This is what is know as the "Culture War".
2006-12-08 05:54:52 · answer #6 · answered by iraqisax 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The fall of the Great Roman Empire was due to their hedonistic tendencies.
To some extent, society needs rules so that the quality of life is good for those who are not so selfish as to engage in activities infringing on others rights - IE - smoking bans in public places.
2006-12-08 05:53:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yes, I believe so, especially with drugs and alcohol.
Here's the problem when you allow pot or alcohol consumption to go unrestrained... you'd have a lot more drunk driving, teen drinking (easier access).. it's not just a matter of morality.. it becomes a matter of public safety.
2006-12-08 05:49:36 · answer #8 · answered by MoltarRocks 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
They already do.
Typically they outlaw things like necrophilia to get things rolling. No one want's one of those working as the crossing guard. But they hang all kinds of obscure laws on the necromancer issue. Like protesting within 5 miles of George Bush.
Go big Red Go
2006-12-08 05:57:54 · answer #9 · answered by 43 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Morality for you may not ne the same for me. Since we have different opinions, it should never be legislated. It already has been legislated far too much, because voters have no brains and politicians can always justify their stupidity.
2006-12-08 05:50:46 · answer #10 · answered by Your #1 fan 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋