Should the state intervene to "safeguard" the morality of its citizens or not? Why? To what extent?

Answer 1

Absolutely not, under any conditions. Legislating morality is very much like trying to grasp smoke, it cannot be done and the more you try the worse it gets. You make a law saying you cannot do something and somebody finds a loophole that allows them to do something very close. So you modify the law or make another one and some other clever person finds a loophole in that. Pretty soon you end up with what we have now, so many laws on the books that nobody can even know all of them. Do you know that it is literally impossible to not break the law? Most of the time even the police and courts don't know what is legal or illegal, that's pathetic!

The other point is that who is to decide morality? You? Are you going to tell me what I can or cannot do behind closed doors? And how do you intend to enforce it? Have all the people spy on one another? Making unenforcable laws only breeds contempt for all laws and those who try to enforce them.

Think about it carefully. When was the last time somebody wanted a law to stop them from doing something they knew they shouldn't do? Never, right? Instead, its always for those people over there. For their own good, right? What gives you or anybody else the right to decide what is for my own good? Perhaps I think you shouldn't wear colognes, for your own good. Or perhaps I think you should take your children to church every Sunday and Wednesday, for your own good. How do you feel about that?

When you start making laws about personal things you start down the path to tyranny. We are too far along that path now.

Answer 2

This depends on your political ans philosophical stance. Generally speaking, the more you are to the left of the political spectrum, the less you would want the state to control such private matters as morality. The more you are to the right, the more you would agree to the state intervening in order to safeguard at least public morality; this would then be seen to be part of "enforcing law and order".

Examples: An extremely right-wing state: Nazi Germany, controlled every tiny part of its citizen's morality.

A rather right-winged, tiny state was Calvin's theocratic rule in Geneva, in the XVIth century; citizens could be expelled for adultery.

An example of a rather left-winged state is given by the present-day Netherlands, where it is impossible for the state to sue a citizen because of his or her morality.

Dutch citizen.

Answer 3

Yes it has to. Murder is a moral issue. Without morals why isn't murder ok in all accounts.Have sin areas all around the top ten major cities. And then we can have alot less violence and sex on regular TV, because of cable. We should have the option to sin or see immoral acts on TV. But it shouldn't be the only thing on.
We should have stricter regulations on free TV NBC ABC CBS.
So they become family friendly. Children are our most important asset and they deserve a moral society. So they can become moral citizens. Our government should have highest moral standards for whatever they create .

Answer 4

Generally no, unless ignoring the issue could cause injury to others as the previous answerers mentioned. We've tried to legislate morality and it didn't work, i.e. prohibition. Did that stop anyone from drinking? No. It just create an underground network of crime ran by gansters like Al Capone. We know pornography has been around since Roman times, because you can find it at archeological sites. Legislating morality ends up driving it underground and making criminals rich; deprives the government of revenue; costs money to enforce the moral crime and diverts the attention of law enforcement from more dangerous crime. Also, by whose morals do we judge acts?

Answer 5

The state should reflect the values of its citizens. If citizens believe that prostitution is immoral and should be punished, then that will be -- is -- reflected in the law and the law enforcement. If citizens believe that employers should not pay the employees anything less than X dollars and cents per hour because paying anything less than that would be immoral, then that belief is reflected in the law. If citizens believe that trading stocks with insider information is immoral, then that belief is reflected in the law.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=As6l0bYYcnrqOyo_0tcacWrsy6IX?qid=20070102222048AA4SBrX&show=7#profile-info-edc7bef1b44d36cc9690c0158b46aecaaa
.

Answer 6

My first question is, who's morality? For example, the Christian faith has one and the Muslim faith has another. Who would decide? In Somalia, the Muslims want to have their morality forced on the people and the government is trying to stop them. Even Al Qaeda is getting into the act (see yesterday's news reports) by asking all Muslims to go to Somalia to help out the Muslims there. Who is right?

Answer 7

Yes, but limited to specifically those areas where another persons welfare is adversely affected by the free will of another.

For example free speech is great unless you use it to incite racist or violent responses.

Whilst the Gov are getting a bit of a hammering over such issues they deserve some credit for actually trying to address them and being the first to do so

Answer 8

I think not. However, if you refer to perhaps public education campaigns, better general education and limiting the midless drivel that Hollywood forces down our thoats, why not?
America had fine morals in the early half of the 20th century- compare then to today?
We certainly haven't morally progressed (excluding of course racial and homophobic attitudes).
Point being- nowadays anything goes and does, yesteryear that shhitt wouldn't fly.

Answer 9

Only to prevent physical or mental harm.
Otherwise the state should mind it's own business.
The state is not judge and jury but acts like it in the case of film censorship for example.

Answer 10

The problem with your question is the problem with the dilemma: philosophers and lawmakers have wrestled for centuries with a definition for morality. Its a little like the pornography issue; if we cannot agree about what it is, how can we possibly control it?