Should you (or we) legislate morality?

[Kludge]

Prequel of http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=198344

[paulitics]

We should legislate to protect individual liberty, whether this is immoral or moral. Most actions that take away someone's liberty (theft, murder) I consider to be immoral. Many of the laws on the books that don't protect someone's right to liberty, but steal from them is immoral in the other direction. All that matters is that the law should be designed to maximize liberty.

[heavenlyboy34]

"we" should'nt legislate anything unless "we" can conclusively prove that "we" have the right to do so.

[MRoCkEd]

If "you can live your life as you want as long as you don't take the life, liberty, or property of another person" is a type of morality, then yes.

[Brian4Liberty]

Universal morality can be used to define crimes, and that can be legislated. This would be crimes that are timeless and transcend cultural boundaries. Murder, rape, theft, fraud, battery, destruction of property, etc.

Minority morality should not be legislated. (For instance if the religion of the Chickenfoot believes that eating chicken is immoral, they don't have to eat chicken, but that should not be legislated for the whole society).

[Brian4Liberty]

Your poll needs more options. It is not a yes/no answer.

[kojirodensetsu]

I have no problem legislating morality so long as it's needed to obtain order. Luckily the only ones needed are life, liberty, and property. Anything else is not necessary and therefore should not be legislated.

I'm sure the anarcho-capitalists will disagree that we need even those 3 legislated but this is what I believe myself.

[Kludge]

Universal morality can be used to define crimes, and that can be legislated. This would be crimes that are timeless and transcend cultural boundaries. Murder, rape, theft, fraud, battery, destruction of property, etc.

Minority morality should not be legislated. (For instance if the religion of the Chickenfoot believes that eating chicken is immoral, they don't have to eat chicken, but that should not be legislated for the whole society).


Your poll needs more options. It is not a yes/no answer.

??? What have you given, other than a "yes"? This poll does not ask if we should legislate the moral demands of the Sikhs or any other specific collective. It asks if we should legislate morality, which implies any person's and any type of morality.

Ultimately, I intend to check the results of this poll against the anarchist/minarchist results.

[erowe1]

Ultimately, I intend to check the results of this poll against the anarchist/minarchist results.

That's a good idea. The only problem I see is that they're relatively small data sets I assume, and not quite the same people will have taken both polls (I know I never answered an anarchist/minarchist poll). But if minarchists are turning around and saying they don't support legislating morality, then they're obviously confused. So if there's a wide disparity in the results between those polls, that might be interesting.

FWIW, I definitely can't claim to be an anarchist, and I'm not sure if any given minarchist would say I make the cut to be one. But I definitely do believe that some things should be legislated, and in every case it is consideration for certain moral principles that determines that they should. Likewise, the determination of when it would be wrong to legislate something (or for that matter, the claim that nothing at all should be legislated) is also always based on some moral considerations (even when the people claiming it insist otherwise).

[Brian4Liberty]

??? What have you given, other than a "yes"? This poll does not ask if we should legislate the moral demands of the Sikhs or any other specific collective. It asks if we should legislate morality, which implies any person's and any type of morality.

Ultimately, I intend to check the results of this poll against the anarchist/minarchist results.

I say "yes" to a very limited set of universal crimes. A simple "yes" in your poll implies that I would want to legislate people's personal preferences and condone every rule that the whiny few want to impose upon all of us.

[Kludge]

A simple "yes" in your poll implies that I would want to legislate people's personal preferences and condone every rule that the whiny few want to impose upon all of us.

I don't see it, and that wasn't the intention of this poll.

If I asked if a person uses drugs, I'm not asking if they use all drugs or if they're an addict.

[Imperial]

Yes we should in my view. What is moral is the debate I suppose.

Of course, I also prioritize. So I wouldn't pursue much of these ideas.

[mediahasyou]

morals differ from man to man, so no. we should coexist while retaining as much freedom as possible.

[erowe1]

morals differ from man to man, so no. we should coexist while retaining as much freedom as possible.

Your last phrase, "as much freedom as possible" looks like a hole big enough to drive a truck through. Are you an anarchist or not? If so, then why that turn of a phrase? If not, then you do believe in legislating some things, which means you do support the legislation of morality. Your observation that people do not entirely agree about moral matters does not lessen this.

[slothman]

I have no problem legislating morality so long as it's needed to obtain order. Luckily the only ones needed are life, liberty, and property. Anything else is not necessary and therefore should not be legislated.

I'm sure the anarcho-capitalists will disagree that we need even those 3 legislated but this is what I believe myself.

[offtopic]Does the life part of that phrase mean you can have universial health care to allow that?[/offtic]

Regardless, I am against general laws based on morality.
But even murder has some morality in it.
I could come up with a fake society that allows murder.

[Theocrat]

Those who say we should not legislate morality are themselves imposing their standard of morality upon everyone else. A "should" or a "should not" implies an imperative based on a standard of morality. Legislation of morality is inevitable, and all laws are based on moral codes or ethics. A law forbidding murder is enforcing the Christian moral standard of "Thou shalt not kill," for instance.