When is it wrong to legislate moral attitudes?

Question

I'm thinking about such issues as abortion, prayer in schools, gay marriage, the euthanasia option for terminally ill people, medicinal marijuana, teaching about evolution, and so on.

What I believe about each of these topics...doesn't matter. I'm aiming for an underlying principle.

What I'm trying to ask is: how can we achieve majority rule with minority rights? When a majority of people share a particular belief, how can they know whether that belief impinges on the rights of a minority? Can the majority be trusted to consider minority rights before making a law?

For a little background, visit:
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/principles/majority.htm

I'm asking this in R&S because this is where I come to defend minority rights against dogmatic attack. I'm looking for a guiding principle that can fairly used by all people, regardless of religious affiliation.

angelpurplewings, would you care to go into more detail?

slo18,

Are you saying that in the case of ballot initiatives that don't directly affect you, you take the side of liberty?

That's how I read your statement, and I think it's a good rule of thumb.

easyericlife, you raise a good point: some laws (such as speed limits) restrict freedoms for a good reason. I agree that speed limits are often broken; on the other hand, speeders are often caught, too.

As for the government spending your tax money to support causes with which you disagree: would you be comfortable sharing an example?

Jade, that's a very mature perspective. I wish it were more widely held.

Who is best situated to promote that attitude? I feel that when I suggest it (less eloquently than you did) to people whose religious beliefs differ from my own, they tend to shrug me off. On the other hand, I rarely hear others speak of it--so I am compelled to say something.

Answer 1

To me, the underlying principle should simply be this: "As long as you aren't causing harm, do as you will" That, loosely, is the guiding principle in Wicca, and though not a Wiccan myself, I find it to be true to what I believe.

Obviously there are grey areas such as abortion, but here I believe the mother's will should take precedence, since she is the one carrying all the risks, responsibilities etc. Her unborn child might or might not have a soul, but that's beside the point. It has had no/very little direct experience, and can't be seen, in my opinion, as anything BUT an extension of the mother's body and soul until the child is actually born. A good friend of mine had a tube-pregnancy with her first baby and had to have an abortion, and the way she describes it, it is as-if a part of her were torn from her. Nobody else has the right to decide but the mom, because she alone gets to live with the consequences, either way.

The same goes for everything else. You might not believe in sex before marriage, or homosexuality, or euthenasia or dancing naked under the moonlight or whatever, but as long as consenting adults are making their own decisions which don't harm you, you have no right to complain or interfere. And no, harm is not spotting a naked bum. You might have a preference not to see me walk naked down the street, but it doesn't harm you to do so, and you are free to avert your eyes - or stare if you like.

The principle applies equally well to other things - murder impacts on my right to life, child porn exploits a minor who cannot consent as an adult, etc.

In reference, I recommend an essay by Dr. Jack S. Willis "The Virtue of Personal Liberation" , which I found in the book "Rebels and Devils: The Psychology of Liberation." The book is a collection of essays about personal freedom, liberation and the like, and I found it completely life-changing. Some of the essays are... challenging, to say the least, but they make you think long and hard about what we accept as the reality of being human.

Legislating morality is wrong, in my opinion. The maximum should be an injunction against causing harm to others by your actions, and enforcing that. Nobody has the right to do more.

Edit:
As to the point of prayer in school - it's a question of preference, one set of preferences want prayer, one set doesn't. I'd solve it by having a couple of minutes of silence in school in the morning, and then everybody can pray, SILENTLY, to whomever they like, or those that don't can use the time to play video games or something. That way everybody gets their PERSONAL preference, without enforcing that preference on somebody else.

As to what to teach in school. If it's a public school using public funds in a secular society such as the US, then it should teach secular subjects. Religion has no place. Evolution is science and does.

Answer 2

Doc I have been round a while and I can tell you that this does not work. People will do what seems right to them. Prayer in schools is not a moral issue. It is a religious one. Morality has nothing to do with religion. Most religions have a moral code, but it is perfectly possible to think one out for any society without reference to any particular religion.

The plain fact is that the world is getting more and more mixed up and I work with people who are nominally and in a couple of cases devotedly Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist. Others are at least nominally Catholic, Methodist, Coptic etc. Most have children at school, or until recently have had. Now is a Buddhist really going to want Baptists running prayers in their childrens' school classes, or the other way about?

Abortion - I am not in favour of it but I recognise that other people think differently and for what seem to them to be good reasons. There is no way to actually stop the practice. it is probably best carried out by qualified people, if it is to be allowed. If it is not allowed it will be done by half qualified or unqualified back room operators.

Gay marriage - I do not feel that the state has much right to stop this and I don't think it is actually a moral issue. Homosexuality is innate in most cases and nothing the ratbag end of Christianity can say will make it any different. They may as well try to convert blonds to brunettes. The truth is that most gay relationships are temporary, they might be fleeting, the might last five years, a few might last a lot longer. So the idea of gay marriages can involve practical difficulties. I'd guess that a lot of gay men and women are in favour of it being available but are not much interested in it for themselves.

Euthanasia has been going on since time out of mind and in some societies has been the rule rather than the exception. Even in western, supposedly "Christian" societies fifty and more years ago it was an unspoken practice to quietly euthanase severely disabled infants at birth. This was not universal of course and it was often more passive than active. At the other end of life an extra large dose of morphine was used often enough for it to be an open secret.

Don't get me started on evolution. This not a moral issue. There is no good reason to teach the entirely unsupported creation myth of ancient Hebrews in state supported schools as if it were fact. Again, what would Hindu parents have to say about this? Their idea of the Universe involves even longer lengths of time than that proposed since the big bang.

Answer 3

The Non-aggression Principle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

Answer 4

You can't legislate moral attitudes.
Despite the best efforts of thousands of governments and dictators and religious groups etc... People are basically selfish and want to do what they want to do. Trying to pass laws does not work. Speed limits are laws designed to protect human life but are broken routinely by most drivers.
I just resent that the government takes my hard earned dollars and supports groups and actions that I consider repugnant.
Most of the Old testament in the Bible is about trying to live up to laws. Eventually We needed Jesus to save us from all of that.
I think the best thing to do is to limit government to basic necessities like roads, national defense and law enforcement across state lines.
They should get out of the business of telling us what to do think and stay out of funding special interests PAC etc.

Answer 5

it is simple to say that it is always wrong to legislate morality. but that isnt right either. killing someone is a moral issue theft is a moral issue, thankfully they are things that most of us agree are wrong, and thankfully in some cases
"he needed killing actualy worked as a defence" when it comes to the more focused issues of abortion, euthnsia, and homosexual Marrage, its much harder for people to agree. thats why befor I decide my own stance on thease issues, I asked, how would a law against this effect me? how would a a law for this effect me? and would it effect me at all? three simple questions . and bassed on the answer to those I decide my stand. gay marrage does not effect me. ther for i am not against it. abortion rights effect me I am a woman. ther for I want to have all the choices that I possably can when it comes to pregnancy. so I am pro choice. if people want to kill themselves because they are suffeing, it does not effect me, but I again when its my time I want to have as many options as possable so I beleive this should be a ligal option. its simple dont say WWJD. say how many options should I have?
and no you can not relie on the majority to look out for the minority. they never have and they never will.

Answer 6

Prohibition is basically the poster child for attempting to legislate morality, and gee, what a wild success that was. It simply doesn't work.

Answer 7

Jesus and his apostles were completely politically neutral.
A genuine follower of Jesus teachings and example would separate himself from state.

Further, Jesus never said "make people follow"
Worship is without value if we are made to do it. Only what we do of our own free will is acceptable to God.

Followers of Jesus were to concern themselves with their own worship- and to offer guidance to others who wanted to learn to follow Jesus.

Attempting to legislate beliefs so that everyone must follow is not anything Jesus would have done.

Answer 8

right now.....the rights of the majority are suffering discrimination so that 1% or less have have their way.

Answer 9

yes,we must find our own moral compass,except for murder or rape,child molestation of course.things that hurt others