In their long, intellectually empty ranting in the "Trans" thread (where one transgender high schooler winning a couple of track and field events inevitably leads to the extinction of women's sports and the endless refrain of "But it's a dude" is the height of logical argument), I found an actual interesting thing a right winger said:
mike 69: Would you agree that rules, laws are meant to control and direct the masses and set what’s acceptable and morally acceptable in our society?
My response:
no1: No, I don't agree that the State should decide what is "morally acceptable"; I believe in a limited government who's main function is protecting individual rights.
Obviously, we're not talking about acts which inflict direct harms and intrude on the People's rights like violence and theft.
So as Prof. Goldstein used to say (I remembered his name; undergrad Constitutional Law at SUNY Albany circa 1986) "Who's right and who's wrong"? Is the main goal of government to set rules for the masses so that they know what is "morally acceptable"?
I think there's a Hobbes v. Locke component lurking here but let's start simple.
EDIT: OOPS, I "misremembered". It was actually this guy: https://sunypress.edu/Books/D/Democratic-Theories-and-the-Constitution
@no1marauder saidIn an uncorrupted representative democracy, laws reflect morality they do not dictate it.
In their long, intellectually empty ranting in the "Trans" thread (where one transgender high schooler winning a couple of track and field events inevitably leads to the extinction of women's sports and the endless refrain of "But it's a dude" is the height of logical argument), I found an actual interesting thing a right winger said:
mike 69: Would you agree that rule ...[text shortened]... d". It was actually this guy: https://sunypress.edu/Books/D/Democratic-Theories-and-the-Constitution
The morality is set by the people, not the laws.
@wildgrass saidGovernment exists to protect all our rights equally.
In an uncorrupted representative democracy, laws reflect morality they do not dictate it.
The morality is set by the people, not the laws.
As for morality, my main rule is to do as you please as long as you don’t harm, impose on, or place others at risk without their consent. 😆
Mhmmm…
Morality is a set of beliefs of what is right and what is wrong. And has nothing to do with government.
Government is elected, so can and cannot reflect the morality of voters.
Most people will find the idea of shooting anyone over the age of 32 (like in Logan’s
Run) to curb the population growth morally unacceptable and the government generally reflects those morals.
Take abortion. Some people find it acceptable, some people call it
murder and some people find it a human right.
No matter what the government does, it’s not going to represent everyone’s morality on the issue.
There are various sorts of law.
Some laws are created to secure individual freedoms (like the EU laws on human rights, which is basically the same as the UN declaration of human rights… which is a guideline and not law). These are put in place to protect everyone.
Then there are laws which reflect the morality of certain groups. Like the US’s current trend in banning abortions. These laws reflect majority morality (as in the elected government is the majority… not that this is always the case, but theoretically).
And there are laws which are passed to adjust behaviour. Like seatbelt laws.
So, ultimately I don’t think it’s a yes or no answer to your question.
@AThousandYoung saidEquating rights to morality in the sense mike used suggests that rights can be altered to conform to the beliefs of the majority.
Rights are one way to describe morality. Because of this the two positions are not necessarily opposed.
EDIT - e.g. "Protecting rights" is equivalent to "controlling immoral behavior"
I know you believe in inalienable rights, as did the Founders, so the statements are in conflict.
@no1marauder saidRights and morality are not equivalent concepts. Rights are a brake on government power to interfere in people’s lives. Rights are not benefits, which the government undertakes to provide to people; that’s why it’s nonsense to talk about a right to education or a right to welfare or a right to public housing. These are more properly called entitlements, which is a form of government largess the public has voted should become a shared resource ( what average Joe decries as free stuff; of course it is not free, it is paid for through taxes ).
Equating rights to morality in the sense mike used suggests that rights can be altered to conform to the beliefs of the majority.
I know you believe in inalienable rights, as did the Founders, so the statements are in conflict.
Obviously, every society regulates to some extent the causing of grievous bodily harm to other members of the group. This has very little to do with legislating morality, since any society which did not regulate grievous bodily harm to other people wouldn’t survive more than two generations to pass on its dysfunctional behavior. The same goes for regulating private property; any society which did not take care to regulate the keeping and transfer of private property would discover that the only people left in the society were pirates, whereas all the sensible people would’ve left. That isn’t morality; that is simply fundamental to group dynamics.