Legislating morality

Originally posted by AThousandYoung

Sure. Your example of the speeding law is indeed devoid of morality. It's not that speeding is immoral; the situation is that the people have agreed to set aside certain areas for public use (roads) and have decided to restrict the speed one could drive on these roads because the people want to be safer. It's not about what's right and wrong. Therefore the rest of this section of your post is based on a false premise and can be discarded.

I disagree completly. A moral judgement decides what is "good", no? A speeding limit is a law because it is judged to be for the general "good" of society, no? The lower the speed limit the less fatalities one will have over the coarse of the year thus the more lives will be saved. This is deemed to be "better"/"good" for society than if no speeding limit were imposed. How then is making the road safer devoid of a moral code of some kind? Who is to say that saving lives is "good" or benificial? I do not see how it is then that you can you dance around the issue of it not being a moral judgement.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I think you have a good point. People will modify their sense of morality subconciously based on what the laws are on average in my opinion, though I haven't seen any studies about it. This is a good argument against free will and thus Christianity, by the way.

Could this happen with gay marriage?

Sure.[/b]

I agree also that this could happen with gay marriage and it is one of the reasons gay acitivists spend all of their time trying to get gat marriage legalized.

I disagree, however, that this negates free will in any way. Free will can either be made independent of other people or made within a group setting. Granted, those decisions within a group setting will be influenced in some way by that group such as in making of laws for that group. Likewise, you could argue that decisions made independent of other people are influenced by the environment in which they exist. Does this not also influence ones will? Therefore, does influence of any kind negate free will? I think not. After all, I live within a country that endorses abortion via legislation and a populace that embraces it, however, despite this fact, I do not agree with the moral code imposed upon me. Thus your assumptions about me not having the free will to do so can be discarded since I apparently have the free will to oppose the moral stance of abortion.

I think those that adopt a certain moral code of the society in which they live are individuals who fall withing three catagories. 1. The individual does not have a moral code based on anything outside the realm of what is socially acceptable. 2. The individual has a moral code that is based outside the realm of social acceptance but is lacking in conviction about that moral code. 3. The individual has a moral code that is based outside the realm of social acceptance and has a great deal of conviction about that moral code but that individual disagrees that this moral code may conflict in any way with that of the society in which they live.

Originally posted by whodey
I disagree completly. A moral judgement decides what is "good", no? A speeding limit is a law because it is judged to be for the general "good" of society, no? The lower the speed limit the less fatalities one will have over the coarse of the year thus the more lives will be saved. This is deemed to be "better"/"good" for society than if no speeding limit it is then that you can you dance around the issue of it not being a moral judgement.

It is my understanding that morality is used to answer question concerning what is right and what is wrong not what is good and what is bad.

It is good to have speed limits set in such a way as to avoid fatal accidents some of the time. Whether or not having a speed limit is right or wrong is a moral issue and not addressed by the law at all. Besides, if it were determined to be morally wrong for people to die in car accidents then we could not drive at all, regardles of speed, because fatal accidents can happen at any speed.

PS - KellyJay, you can pray in school all you want you just can't disrupt class or compell others to join you...what is the problem with that?

Originally posted by TheSkipper
[b]It is my understanding that morality is used to answer question concerning what is right and what is wrong not what is good and what is bad.

Yes, but is it right to be good? Is it wrong to be bad? Is it right to try and save lives via a speed limit? It seems to me that deciding what is good/right or bad/wrong are one in the same in terms of a moral judgement. It is merely a matter of playing with words, no?

Originally posted by telerion
True. Well, except for the part about "seat beats."

You got me there, I stand corrected.
Kelly

Originally posted by whodey
My question is can we legislate morality? There are two aspects to this question. The first aspect is the question of being able to create a law that is devoid of morality. Is this possible? For example, a speed limit is created by law as a moral judgement as to what is best or good for society. In fact, there are no laws devoid of a moral code of some k ...[text shortened]... egal, however, will America then embrace it as they do abortion today in a few decades or so?

It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.
--Thomas Jefferson

Originally posted by frogstomp
It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.
--Thomas Jefferson

So is Jefferson saying that government is present to right the wrongs, so to speak or is he saying that government is habitually in error and therefore can never be on the side of truth? If it is the later then why have government? Is it not there job to create laws that are "right" for society?

im also getting tired of taking god out of the government if you dont like it thats too bad. like trying to get rid of the pledge cuz of the "under god" part, getting rid of prayer in school etc. lets face it, majority of u.s. is christians so thats something you can live with.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
im also getting tired of taking god out of the government if you dont like it thats too bad. like trying to get rid of the pledge cuz of the "under god" part, getting rid of prayer in school etc. lets face it, majority of u.s. is christians so thats something you can live with.

Would it suprise you to konw that I in no way desire a theocracy? Politics is a dirty business. Therefore, I would rather not have politicians doing their "dirty business" in the name of God. However, this does not mean preventing children from praying in schools or wearing religious symbols or taking the ten commandments physically out of our court rooms. After all, we have a religious heritage in this country that we should not frown upon. The laws and documents of our founding fathers were strongly influenced via a Christian heritage. Note that many of the documents refer to God in them. Shoud we therefore burn these docmuments and start over? Does this mean they too were endorsing a particular religion? It does not mean endorsing a particular religion, rather, it means respecting the heritage that made us what we are.

Originally posted by whodey
Would it suprise you to konw that I in no way desire a theocracy? Politics is a dirty business. Therefore, I would rather not have politicians doing their "dirty business" in the name of God. However, this does not mean preventing children from praying in schools or wearing religious symbols or taking the ten commandments physically out of our court rooms. ...[text shortened]... sing a particular religion, rather, it means respecting the heritage that made us what we are.

Deism is where the reference to the "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence came from, not Christianity. What other references to God are you talking about?

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
im also getting tired of taking god out of the government if you dont like it thats too bad. like trying to get rid of the pledge cuz of the "under god" part, getting rid of prayer in school etc. lets face it, majority of u.s. is christians so thats something you can live with.

Except that the majority doesn't always rule in the US. There are safeguards against it. This was intentionally designed by the Founding Fathers.

Originally posted by whodey
So is Jefferson saying that government is present to right the wrongs, so to speak or is he saying that government is habitually in error and therefore can never be on the side of truth? If it is the later then why have government? Is it not there job to create laws that are "right" for society?

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.
George Washington (1732 - 1799)

Irresponsible is a good word for a religious group getting the government to force it's morality on others.
So btw is fascism

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Deism is where the reference to the "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence came from, not Christianity. What other references to God are you talking about?

Some may have been Deists, however, there is no doubt that Christianity was a powerful influence within the society at the time. In fact, it is arguable that this Christian influence is why many were Deists and not atheists.

What other references am I talking about? Did you know that the Continental Congress called for a day of fasting and prayer within the colonies beseeching God to give guidance and direction as to whether they should secede from England before the representatives to the Continental Congress signed the Declaratoin of Independence. In 1777, while the colonies were struggling in the Revolutionary War, the First Continental Congress called the Bible "the greatest political text book of the patriots" and appropriated funds to import 20,000 Bibles for the people.

As far as official written documents just look at the constitutions and legal documents of the colonies right before the United States Constitution was written. After all, the drafters of the US Constitution were aware of these documents and cosidered them when drafting the document. For example, God was referred to as one God in South Carolina and Connecticut; Almighty in North Carolina, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Vermont. He was called, the Supreme Being, the Creator Good, and the Great Legislator of the Universe. He was called the Governor of the Universe in Pennsylvania and Vermont and the inspiration of the Old and New Testaments in South Caralina and Pennsylvania. In Connecticut he was called Savior and Lord.

As far as the signers of the Declaration of Independence goes, it is estimated that 53 or the 56 signers were reportedly Christians. In terms of personal declarations of faith look at Patrick Henry. He said, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ! For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity and freedom of worship here." John Adams wrote a letter to Jefferson and said, "The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Chrisitianity." Even Jefferson, who was considered a Deist made some startling statements. He said, "The reason that Christianity is the best friend of government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart." He also said "I am a Chrisitian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ." The very father of our nation, George Washington said this, "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.
George Washington (1732 - 1799)

Irresponsible is a good word for a religious group getting the government to force it's morality on others.
So btw is fascism

Who said anything about a religious group forcing their beliefs on others? After all, did the founding Fathers force us to believe in Jesus Christ and have a state sponsered church? No they did not. What I am saying, however, is that ALL laws are based upon a moral code of some kind. The moral code of Christianity was a huge supporting factor in how our documents and laws were forged.

I suppose if you take the word religion out of the equation and the "G" word out, then it is OK to then force ones moral code on others, no? Perhaps you view the morality of secular humanism to be superior to that of our Founding Fathers?

Originally posted by whodey
Who said anything about a religious group forcing their beliefs on others? After all, did the founding Fathers force us to believe in Jesus Christ and have a state sponsered church? No they did not. What I am saying, however, is that ALL laws are based upon a moral code of some kind. The moral code of Christianity was a huge supporting factor in how our d haps you view the morality of secular humanism to be superior to that of our Founding Fathers?

Explain this then.

ARTICLE 11

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,4 - as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, - and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

from :
TREATY OF PEACE AND FRIENDSHIP BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE BEY AND SUBJECTS OF TRIPOLI OF BARBARY

Which is the Law of the Land : isn't it?

pretexts arising from religious opinions ???
isn't that what you are saying they made the laws from?