English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

please answer diz too... i need your opinion guys... long answer please.. thanks again

2007-04-01 11:21:08 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities History

14 answers

It already does and has been for years.

no killing, no stealing, no raping, no burning, no noise, no dumping, no speeding. The list is nearly endless.

We're a country of laws. Not that those laws are actually ENFORCED. But a country of laws none the less. All laws do is codify our morality.

2007-04-01 11:25:22 · answer #1 · answered by Sarge1572 5 · 0 0

Government must do a couple of things first. It must learn to regulate it's own moral behavior before trying to create or execute a moral imperative of it's own upon the citizenry. Second, in a great many ways government does regulate moral behavior by means of laws which establish social codes of conduct, to move into a more deeply philosophical regulation, however, would be very difficult and even autocratic.
Government would be forced to establish a singular moral code. Upon what premise and under what mandate? Whose ethics shall establish these moral and ethical codes? Will they be based on religion, cultural understanding, voting? These are the great questions I think that a yes to your question would demand. these are formidable obstacles.
So no, i do not think government should regulate the moral behavior of it's citizens any further than it currently does.

2007-04-01 11:32:03 · answer #2 · answered by bluebear 3 · 0 0

No. The people comprising the government tend to be past their prime (50s and up) so their morals are always 20 years out of date before they reach a position where they could change law.

If they do change the laws regarding morality, we might have to wait another 20 years to get someone in government who agrees with the majority of the people and not the vocal minority who are trying to push their ways on to us.

It's better to keep government out of the lives of everyday citizens EXCEPT where a person's rights affects the rights of others. This is why we have laws. They are not to protect individuals, but societies.

Your right to do what you want and when you want stops where the rights of your neighbors begin.

2007-04-01 12:19:46 · answer #3 · answered by loryntoo 7 · 0 0

No. That is an egregious violation of our civil liberties. It would set us back centuries, putting us in the same place as Cubans, Iraqis, and myriad others--under a fascist government. The idea is appalling--disgusting even. If the government ever takes steps to regulate morality, I'll personally initiate the protest movement against it.

2007-04-01 14:13:59 · answer #4 · answered by Megan Leggett 2 · 0 0

No.

There is a difference between MORALS and ETHICAL LAWS.

A set of morals is a personal guideline that governs the way in which we live our lives. Your morals may be different from mine, morals can be different for different religions, nationalities, etc.....

There is a set of morals that are held my the majority. These are just "known" and when someone doesn't hold those same values, they're considered "immoral".

A moral that is not a law: When someone is dating another person and they cheat...There's no rule stating that the person is legally obligated to remain faithful but it is considered "immoral" to do such a thing.

Sometimes, our morals set the way for laws to be made but they are not always the same...

2007-04-01 11:26:29 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Every government does.

The laws against murder regulate the moral behavior of people who wish they could just kill some disagreeable SOB (their boss, the guy who cut them off on the road, etc.)

Every law exists to regulate the behavior of the citizen.

2007-04-01 11:30:08 · answer #6 · answered by dBalcer 3 · 0 0

They should, but only to the point that your behavior is your own to decide, but you may not impede the free will and behavior of others.

I have the right to do anything I like within my own life. But I can't force my actions or beliefs on my neighbor. This the problem with political correctness. In it's extreme forms it denies people their rights of self expression "just in case" it will tick someone else off.

So yes, there should be some regulation. Protect people from exploitation and protect them from harm. But don't protect people from themselves. (except obvious cases, such as suicide attempts)

2007-04-01 14:55:26 · answer #7 · answered by rohak1212 7 · 0 0

yes

I think education first, especially when people are young and stupid and vulnerable

Teach the kids about sex, bad folks, pregnancy, contraception, std's

Then keep EVERYBODY well informed about these things.

Then, mostly leave folks alone to enjoy each other.

If somebody has AIDs and knows it , and sleeps with some people and doesn't tell them. Its attempted murder and should be treated like that. Send em to jail. Thats what they do in Scandinavia, people there enjoy more sex, more partners, etc, like 1/4 the STDs.

2007-04-01 11:27:41 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

No, but the government needs a reality check on its own morality.

2007-04-01 11:24:12 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

No!
Moral behaviour is very subjective. No gov't can regulate it effectively. Examples, communist soviet union and more recently Talaban Regime in Afghanistan.

2007-04-01 11:25:31 · answer #10 · answered by rizalvi 1 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers