I think that it is a governments, any governments, place to protect their citizens and their property. This may be extended to guarding the individuals rights as spelled out by the government, in the USA this would be the Bill of Rights. And that is all they should do. They should not be concerned with what people "should" and "should not" do, but only bother in matters that directly impact citizen health, safety, property, and maybe rights. Such matters should be handled by social institutions, ideally the family.
This would lead to some very different laws, such as no legal penalty for prostitution or pornography. And it would also completly eliminate the possibility of some Orwellian distopia or theocracy.
What say you all?
2007-12-05 08:31:36 · 10 answers · asked by juicy_wishun 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Amen. If it does not directly effect someone else, leave it alone.
2007-12-05 08:35:24 · answer #1 · answered by Waas up 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The difficulty is that there is great disagreement about what constitutes "matters that directly impact citizen health, safety, property, and maybe rights." Some would say that this gives the government the right to ban cigarettes, which are clearly harmful. Others feel this is a matter of personal choice. Not long ago the government banned alcohol using the same reasoning, only to overturn that decision a few years later. There is fierce argument about whether the government has a right to legislate assisted suicide. Even things like education can be argued to have an effect on things like "citizen health."
There really is no way to separate issues of morality from governing, nor should we. But as long as we take care to keep religion out of it, there's a good chance that we'll manage to strike a healthy balance.
2007-12-05 08:43:26 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
There is no doubt that government has a role in legislating morality, this is a critical role of government. When it comes to issues such as murder or rape, it is very clear that the government has a very important role in protecting citizens from these heinous immoral acts, but when it comes to an issue like abortion, the governments role is far more difficult to determine.
It seems that the determining factor should be, does these morally questionable actions harm others. Poisoning the water and air certainly does harm others. Two people engaging in sex in privacy for what ever reason surely does not, but the spreading of disease through sexual content can. Drug usage, which includes tobacco and alcohol, can harm others when those under the influence by their irrational drug induced behavior harm others. Should the public be expected to pick up the tab for drug related health issues? Should drug profiteers be able to advertise their harmful products? At what point does the right of life of an unborn child over ride the right of life of the woman carrying that child.
Then there is the reality that most people are able to engage in controversial behavior like sex and drug usage, or talking on a phone while driving, without ever harming others, so what right does the government have to stop them from this behavior when they have never done any harm to anyone as a result of these types of activities. Where is the burden of proof?
2007-12-05 09:04:35 · answer #3 · answered by poet1b 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We should legislate our morality onto OURSELVES and not project OUR brand of morality onto others!
But... to jump back into reality, here... what about abortion? Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional. I thought the government was supposed to protect life? At the same time, however, who is this entity to tell me what I am to do with MY body? Also, why is the Death Penalty for criminals still enforced?
Hard questions, no easy answers.
2007-12-05 08:43:22 · answer #4 · answered by Sangria 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes I agree 100%
2007-12-05 08:50:03 · answer #5 · answered by Beauty&Brains 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The majority of the worlds problems are caused by, the lack of morals.
2007-12-05 09:54:38 · answer #6 · answered by Johnny Reb 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the government shouldn't have to, but lots of people aren't moral even if it involves their own families. if a person isn't moral, they're more likely to break laws that protect innocent people.
2007-12-05 08:43:33 · answer #7 · answered by wendy_da_goodlil_witch 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Th ye shouldn't have to. Our country has been pretty much immoral since the mid '60s and is getting worse. What happened?
2007-12-05 08:36:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
True one more reason to out law abortion so people will learn their are consequnces for having unprotected sex, which is immoral.
2007-12-05 08:35:15 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
disagree.
2007-12-05 08:37:31 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋