When is it OK and appropriate to legislate morality?

[caracarn]

Per the suggestion of @Glenstache in this thread https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/officially-calling-it-trump-has-been-normalized/, I started this one, as this has been a topic of conversation with me for decades with various people.  I will be very interested in the conversation.

My stance is simple:  It is never OK and appropriate NOR effective to try to legislate morality unless another person or property is harmed.  Prohibition is the prime example of the failure of this thought process.  The never ending war on drugs is another.  We moved from Prohibition to laws around drinking but not banning the substance itself.  With drugs, certainly lower level ones like marijuana, a similar tactic would eliminate a lot of our prison overcrowding and judicial bottlenecks.

From a morality question, it's virtually impossible to force someone to believe something.  They need to get there on their own.

[Davnasty]

Per the suggestion of @Glenstache in this thread https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/officially-calling-it-trump-has-been-normalized/, I started this one, as this has been a topic of conversation with me for decades with various people.  I will be very interested in the conversation.

My stance is simple:  It is never OK and appropriate NOR effective to try to legislate morality.  Prohibition is the prime example of the failure of this thought process.  The never ending war on drugs is another.  We moved from Prohibition to laws around drinking but not banning the substance itself.  With drugs, certainly lower level ones like marijuana, a similar tactic would eliminate a lot of our prison overcrowding and judicial bottlenecks.

From a morality question, it's virtually impossible to force someone to believe something.  They need to get there on their own.

I think I agree with your stance but there is more than one argument for the prohibition of drugs and alcohol. I think prohibition and current drug laws were and are a failure however the fact that some find their use immoral is not the only reason they were banned. There is also the argument that they degrade society and have negative consequences on other people and the economy. (To make it a little more complicated these views are often born from a moral stance whether those who hold them know or admit it)

So in these examples is the question "Is it OK to legislate morality" or "Is banning substances an effective way curb their usage/improve society". I think the answer to both is no but one clouds the other. Are there any laws that legislate morality which do not have another argument besides morals for why that law exists?

ETA: Trying to think of answer to my own question but having some trouble. Maybe prostitution? Is there any plausible argument for why prostitution should be illegal outside of morals?

[FINate]

What is morality? Or for that matter, love, freedom, liberty or any number of words which are empty vessels into which people pour whatever meaning they wish to confer?

I find it entertaining when people claim that morality has no basis in law or ethics... that people should be allowed to do whatever they wish as long as no harm is done to others. Really now, is that what you really believe? Because an awful lot hinges on the specific definition of 'harm' here; it's not as straightforward as it may seem.

For example should suicide be legal? Not just end of life euthanasia (which, tellingly, the courts have also struggled with to come up with a coherent legal framework w/o getting into moralism), but also just straight up suicide. Is that harming others? What if someone in your neighborhood setup a suicide center and then made money by selling tickets to watch, suicide for entertainment? I think most people would say that has a pretty high ick factor and would not want it in their community, but if everyone is consenting and no one is hurting anyone else what's the issue? Or, take it a step further, what if two adults agree to a fight to the death and a promoter sells tickets for the spectacle (either person can tap out at any time, but there's no guarantee that either will come out alive). There's a chance for death, but like the suicide case both people are consenting (and either can choose to quit at any time). Again, I think most people would say this is icky, should not be allowed.

The issue here is a question of the sanctity of human life. Are we nothing more than animals, simple meat machines, or is there something special about human life that it should not be ended prematurely even by one's own choosing <-- this is fundamentally a question of morality, of religion even... what is the purpose and meaning of life.  Furthermore, is human life special such that people should not be profiting from the ending of human life. Yes, I understand about the military industrial complex, but the fact that people rightfully point this out as an issue makes the point that we still belief there's something special about human life.

It's easy to say trite things like "don't legislate morality" but in practice this is much more difficult when you get into the nitty gritty.

[netskyblue]

Whose idea of morality?  That's the question.  One group may think something is immoral that another group does not think is immoral.

We already *do* legislate morality.  Laws that deal with fraud, for example.  It's generally recognized that misleading someone for financial gain is Bad, and so laws have been made to penalize people who do that.

Heck, some of the most important laws have a basis in morality.  Don't murder people.  Why?  Because we as a society think that murdering people is Bad.  Don't steal things, don't damage other people's property, don't assault people.  It's wrong to do.

[RetiredAt63]

Whose idea of morality?  That's the question.  One group may think something is immoral that another group does not think is immoral.

Oh this.  In the eyes of my great-grandparents I would be a massive sinner.  Because I occasionally drink alcohol.  Alcohol is a fairly safe topic because it is legal but controlled, so we can see where society is on it.  It is legal to purchase alcohol if you are a certain age (18 or 19 in Canada depending on province, 21 in the US (you people are nuts, there is my take on that)).  There are laws and social prohibitions on alcohol use that will cause harm, like drunk driving.  Basically social attitudes have more effect overall than laws. 

If a society thinks that alcohol is a social enhancer for meals etc, then you will have lots of wine/beer being drunk with meals, a nice aperitif before or a nice liqueur after, and a culture where public drunkenness is "not the thing" . If alcohol is seen as a way to get drunk fast (you know, "blasted"), then you have lots of drunken brawls in bars. 

If a society thinks nothing of someone going out and having several drinks and then driving, you gets lots of DUIs.  IF society thinks that it is not acceptable for someone to have several drinks and then drive, you have free non-alcoholic drinks for designated drivers and actually have the concept of designated drivers.

Basically I have watched the shift over my lifetime, I shudder remembering the amount of drunk driving done by those around me when I was in my 20s and 30s.  And no designated driers, btw, the concept did not exist except that people might discuss who was less drunk.  But I remember many guys who drove even though their wives/girlfriends were a lot more sober.

I could give the same example for smoking.  I have lived the shift from smoke-filled restaurants/bars/concerts to the enjoyment of smoke-free venues.

And as a former Quebecker, I watched the shift in social attitude from the Roman-Catholic control of a province's thoughts on birth control to a more liberal one, as just one part of the Quiet Revolution.

[GuitarStv]

Whose idea of morality?  That's the question.  One group may think something is immoral that another group does not think is immoral.

We already *do* legislate morality.  Laws that deal with fraud, for example.  It's generally recognized that misleading someone for financial gain is Bad, and so laws have been made to penalize people who do that.

Heck, some of the most important laws have a basis in morality.  Don't murder people.  Why?  Because we as a society think that murdering people is Bad.  Don't steal things, don't damage other people's property, don't assault people.  It's wrong to do.

Agreed.  To a certain degree, concepts of morality have to be legislated.  Theft, murder, rape, torture, slavery . . . these are considered immoral and thus we have legislated laws against them.  It gets tricky of course where there isn't unanimous agreement in what course is moral.

[formerlydivorcedmom]

I struggle with my own hypocrisy on this.  My attitudes have most definitely changed in the 20 years I've been an adult, and I hope I'm still evolving.  My family, OTOH, especially the extended family, prays for my soul because obviously there's something seriously wrong with me.

I'm working on the concept of live-and-let-live unless your actions harm others.  Which makes it easy to draw a line and say that things like murder, theft, pedophilia, assault, fraud, drunk driving, etc, are bad, and pretty much anything of an intimate nature that two consenting adults do together is none of my business, and where people go to the bathroom is DEFINITELY NOT my business, unless they decide to pee in public, because that's stinky and I don't want urine ruining my shoes.

It's more difficult where there are genuine disagreements on what constitutes harm.  Abortion, for example - although my stance on this is basically that if the fetus isn't viable, then the woman should get to make whatever choice she wants to make, and if it is viable....then we get into more questions.

We still have blue laws - the lady in front of my at the store was told she couldn't buy alcohol on Sunday because it was only 11:45 am.  She said she'd wait in the parking lot until noon and come right back in for it.  There's no non-moral reason why that 15 minutes should make a difference to whether or not you could buy a bottle of wine.  That law is still in place so as not to offend church-goers.

[the_fixer]

It will be interesting to watch what happens with the social credit system in China.

The next gen of regulating morality and driving behavior.


Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[ABC123]

I struggle with my own hypocrisy on this.  My attitudes have most definitely changed in the 20 years I've been an adult, and I hope I'm still evolving.  My family, OTOH, especially the extended family, prays for my soul because obviously there's something seriously wrong with me.

I'm working on the concept of live-and-let-live unless your actions harm others.  Which makes it easy to draw a line and say that things like murder, theft, pedophilia, assault, fraud, drunk driving, etc, are bad, and pretty much anything of an intimate nature that two consenting adults do together is none of my business, and where people go to the bathroom is DEFINITELY NOT my business, unless they decide to pee in public, because that's stinky and I don't want urine ruining my shoes.

It's more difficult where there are genuine disagreements on what constitutes harm.  Abortion, for example - although my stance on this is basically that if the fetus isn't viable, then the woman should get to make whatever choice she wants to make, and if it is viable....then we get into more questions.

We still have blue laws - the lady in front of my at the store was told she couldn't buy alcohol on Sunday because it was only 11:45 am.  She said she'd wait in the parking lot until noon and come right back in for it.  There's no non-moral reason why that 15 minutes should make a difference to whether or not you could buy a bottle of wine.  That law is still in place so as not to offend church-goers.

I live in Tennessee.  Here, they are currently discussing doing away with the "no buying alcohol on Sunday" rule, but would still not be allowed on Christmas and Easter.  Just last year, my county did away with the "wine and liqour can only be sold in liquor stores, not in grocery stores" law.  Beer could be bought at the grocery store, but not wine.  These are things I think are ridiculous, and cause no problem with being repealed.  But many people I know thought it was perfectly rational to have strict limits on where and when alcohol could be bought.

I grew up in a far right Republican home.  As I have aged, it has been a huge switch for me to come to the realization that gay marriage being legal is not going to lead to the ruin of our nation.  Being on government assistance doesn't mean you are just a lazy bum.  Women who have abortions aren't heinous baby killers. 

The US being a "Christian" nation has caused many people to feel like we need to regulate "Christian" morality.  I think that as we get more diverse and less religious, some of these moral laws will continue to change.

[Sibley]

Re the Blue laws - I'm in Indiana, and they just got rid of a restriction on selling alcohol on Sundays. I honestly couldn't tell you what changed though. I do know that if someone's a drunk, then they'll get around whatever restrictions anyway. Case in point: my next door neighbor, who is the town drunk, a drug addict, and has had police called to his house an average of once a month since I moved in.

To me, while I may struggle to understand something (transgender for example), I also try to be accepting. I am more interested in are you a good person based on your actions than other things. IE, if you're abusing animals or people, you're not a good person and I will hate your guts for that reason. If you're gay, as long as it's consensual, IDGAF.

Regarding abortion, realistically, there are 3 basic situations where an abortion is going to happen:
1. Medical issues of some sort require the pregnancy to be ended. This is a tragedy, don't make it worse.
2. Rape/incest - these are crimes. As such, they should not happen. Since they still do happen, why are we trying to traumatize an already traumatized victim? That's cruel, and see the point above are you a good person.
3. Didn't want to get pregnant in the first place - we can prevent these! Seriously, we have how many versions of the pill, and implants, and IUDs, etc? Ignorance and lack of access to birth control are the real problem here, and we can fix that. Require comprehensive sex ed that covers all the biology, STDs, problems, and let's throw in healthy relationships vs abusive behaviors. Make everyone go, and while we'll miss some people because they don't pay attention, we're going to greatly increase the average level of knowledge. Make birth control affordable and easily obtained. The numbers of unwanted pregnancies and thus abortions would plummet. And this is the category that everyone hates anyway - the first two are much less controversial.

[sui generis]

I am also of the belief that almost everything we do legislate is morality.  It's hard to remember for things that have been illegal in most societies for a millennia or two, but that's how most things get started. 

It would be nice to have bright line rules that don't change much over time, but in practice it just is not that easy.  I think we have to get used to the discomfort of that.  These are conversations we need to keep having over and over, particularly in cases where science or other changing circumstances regularly add new elements to the discussion.  In the case of abortion, that probably means that we need to keep talking about it, as timeline for viability and survival outside the womb changes, and unfortunately that means that we are still gonna hear from people that really do basically think of women as hosts and not as moral agents with equal rights to the fetus and/or that they "deserve it" because they (gasp!) had sex.

I generally agree that legislating where there is no harm to another is going to be unsuccessful and is, itself, an immoral thing to do.  That kind of moral legislating, that often comes from religion (don't touch pigs, don't eat shellfish, don't have sex with people who have the same genitals) is no place for society's laws to tread.  But it's not because it's legislating morality, but because it's no business of society's to get involved in those types of questions of morality.

[Glenstache]

PTF

[kaizen soze]

I generally agree that most if not all laws are expressions of a general sense of morality. Even seemingly arbitrary laws like which side of the road to drive on exist because we've decided it's best to have a rule for that rather than experience chaos and death that might result otherwise.

A different question might be when is it appropriate to legislate when the only harm being prevented is that someone else might be offended. Drug and alcohol prohibitions probably do not fall under this type of legislation since drug and alcohol use does cause more harm than mere offense. But maybe certain laws regarding sexual behavior, religious practice, offensive speech prohibitions, and so forth are purely issues where the sole harm caused or addressed is someone being offended.

[BudgetSlasher]

Whose idea of morality?  That's the question.  One group may think something is immoral that another group does not think is immoral.

We already *do* legislate morality.  Laws that deal with fraud, for example.  It's generally recognized that misleading someone for financial gain is Bad, and so laws have been made to penalize people who do that.

Heck, some of the most important laws have a basis in morality.  Don't murder people.  Why?  Because we as a society think that murdering people is Bad.  Don't steal things, don't damage other people's property, don't assault people.  It's wrong to do.

Agreed.  To a certain degree, concepts of morality have to be legislated.  Theft, murder, rape, torture, slavery . . . these are considered immoral and thus we have legislated laws against them.  It gets tricky of course where there isn't unanimous agreement in what course is moral.

Even within a category that at first glance seems to have unanimous consent is still tricky.

Take murder, it is the unlwaful killing of another human being (to greatly over simplify) with a certain mental state or to put it another way illegal homicide. The mental state varies by local law and with laws covering self defense (from duty to retreat to stand your ground) and defense of others. The questions of what you have to be thinking when you kill another and when killing another are also morality judgment (that I would argue are not settled).

All that is to say I also agree we already legislate morality. And any way I can think to draw a line on what should be legislated is to protect some core agreed upon set of values, such as human rights or those in the bill of rights. But, that is right back to the embodiment of the values and ethics of a group. 

[LWYRUP]

Lots of good responses so far.

There are things that many in our society think of as immoral that are legal.  There are things that many in our society think of as perfectly moral to do but that are illegal.  But, that being said, generally speaking our laws are an expression of our moral system.  There's not a perfect correlation, and there is under and overinclusivity, but the larger point many prior posters have made is accurate.

Even though I am generally a traditionalist Christian, I am also a strong believer that we should err on the side of fewer laws and more freedom.  Unless there is a clear and strong reason to make an act criminal (e.g., risk if imminent harm to persons or severe harm to property), it should be allowable.

I don't know if that makes me open-minded or tolerant or not.  Sometimes I think that just gives people the rope to hang themselves with.  But, to be totally honest, I am not sure there is another way to keep a cacophonous empire of 320 million people of various races, religions, cultural backgrounds, political belief systems, etc. together for the long haul without giving people wide berth to create their own destiny within reasonably acceptable rules of the game.

But making things legal that used to be illegal legal, or making things illegal that used to be legal, can have lots of interesting knock-on effects that reverberate through our society in unexpected ways.  For example, when no-fault divorce was enacted, very few people foresaw quite how many divorces would happen.  Or how that would effect the desire of the next generation to marriage.  Or what that would then in turn to do the birth rate.  Or what that in turn would do to the sustainability of various social welfare schemes, such as social security and medicare.  I'm not sure we could put the genie back in the bottle, culturally or legally though, even if we wanted to, so at this point we just need to watch and wait and see how it all shakes out.

[GuitarStv]

Whose idea of morality?  That's the question.  One group may think something is immoral that another group does not think is immoral.

We already *do* legislate morality.  Laws that deal with fraud, for example.  It's generally recognized that misleading someone for financial gain is Bad, and so laws have been made to penalize people who do that.

Heck, some of the most important laws have a basis in morality.  Don't murder people.  Why?  Because we as a society think that murdering people is Bad.  Don't steal things, don't damage other people's property, don't assault people.  It's wrong to do.

Agreed.  To a certain degree, concepts of morality have to be legislated.  Theft, murder, rape, torture, slavery . . . these are considered immoral and thus we have legislated laws against them.  It gets tricky of course where there isn't unanimous agreement in what course is moral.

Even within a category that at first glance seems to have unanimous consent is still tricky.

Take murder, it is the unlwaful killing of another human being (to greatly over simplify) with a certain mental state or to put it another way illegal homicide. The mental state varies by local law and with laws covering self defense (from duty to retreat to stand your ground) and defense of others. The questions of what you have to be thinking when you kill another and when killing another are also morality judgment (that I would argue are not settled).

All that is to say I also agree we already legislate morality. And any way I can think to draw a line on what should be legislated is to protect some core agreed upon set of values, such as human rights or those in the bill of rights. But, that is right back to the embodiment of the values and ethics of a group.

Agreed.  We generally agree that torture and kidnapping is bad, but the US government has made no secret of the fact that they operate a torture facility in Guantanamo Bay where people denied due process are illegally held (and occasionally die under very suspcious circumstances - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_homicide_accusations).  There's little outcry about this.

[iris lily]

What is morality? Or for that matter, love, freedom, liberty or any number of words which are empty vessels into which people pour whatever meaning they wish to confer?

I find it entertaining when people claim that morality has no basis in law or ethics... that people should be allowed to do whatever they wish as long as no harm is done to others. Really now, is that what you really believe? Because an awful lot hinges on the specific definition of 'harm' here; it's not as straightforward as it may seem.

For example should suicide be legal? Not just end of life euthanasia (which, tellingly, the courts have also struggled with to come up with a coherent legal framework w/o getting into moralism), but also just straight up suicide. Is that harming others? What if someone in your neighborhood setup a suicide center and then made money by selling tickets to watch, suicide for entertainment? I think most people would say that has a pretty high ick factor and would not want it in their community, but if everyone is consenting and no one is hurting anyone else what's the issue? Or, take it a step further, what if two adults agree to a fight to the death and a promoter sells tickets for the spectacle (either person can tap out at any time, but there's no guarantee that either will come out alive). There's a chance for death, but like the suicide case both people are consenting (and either can choose to quit at any time). Again, I think most people would say this is icky, should not be allowed.

The issue here is a question of the sanctity of human life. Are we nothing more than animals, simple meat machines, or is there something special about human life that it should not be ended prematurely even by one's own choosing <-- this is fundamentally a question of morality, of religion even... what is the purpose and meaning of life.  Furthermore, is human life special such that people should not be profiting from the ending of human life. Yes, I understand about the military industrial complex, but the fact that people rightfully point this out as an issue makes the point that we still belief there's something special about human life.

It's easy to say trite things like "don't legislate morality" but in practice this is much more difficult when you get into the nitty gritty.

This s the best answer on this thread, because it goes to the core.

The argument “whose morality” still assumes it should be legislated.

[caracarn]

Whose idea of morality?  That's the question.  One group may think something is immoral that another group does not think is immoral.

We already *do* legislate morality.  Laws that deal with fraud, for example.  It's generally recognized that misleading someone for financial gain is Bad, and so laws have been made to penalize people who do that.

Heck, some of the most important laws have a basis in morality.  Don't murder people.  Why?  Because we as a society think that murdering people is Bad.  Don't steal things, don't damage other people's property, don't assault people.  It's wrong to do.

Agreed.  To a certain degree, concepts of morality have to be legislated.  Theft, murder, rape, torture, slavery . . . these are considered immoral and thus we have legislated laws against them.  It gets tricky of course where there isn't unanimous agreement in what course is moral.

All the items in question impact others.  So in the question that started this thread, I do not think any disputes is it OK when the impact goes beyond yourself.  This is where abortion becomes difficult and sticky.  When it the fetus a life that has it's own standing?  That is certainly in the realm of morality.   The laws we have impacting consumption of alcohol center around impact to others.  You cannot drive drunk because you can hurt others or their property.  If a drunk could be 100% guaranteed to only harm themselves in 100% of cases, I would think we'd have less laws around it.

[formerlydivorcedmom]

I generally agree that legislating where there is no harm to another is going to be unsuccessful and is, itself, an immoral thing to do.  That kind of moral legislating, that often comes from religion (don't touch pigs, don't eat shellfish, don't have sex with people who have the same genitals) is no place for society's laws to tread.  But it's not because it's legislating morality, but because it's no business of society's to get involved in those types of questions of morality.

The problem is who gets to decide whether it's society's business?  My 8-year-old thinks pigs are cute and wants to run for president so he can ban bacon.  I told him I'm not voting for him.

A lot of people genuinely believe the government should pass laws to enforce their morals or to foster an outcome that fits with their moral code.  (I still have 10 years to finish indoctrinating the kid against this attitude.  Long live bacon!)

It's also not always a matter of what's legal vs illegal, but that the government has put in place laws and policies  to encourage certain behavior. I read an interesting article this morning about Sweden's governmental policies that encourage gender equality.  For example, there's guaranteed 480 days of paid parental leave.  Parents get a cash bonus if mothers and fathers take an equal amount of their guaranteed family leave with a new baby. 

The US's social welfare programs are also a form of legislated morality - as a country, we decided decades ago that it was immoral to let old people starve to death on the streets. We're now rethinking that one....good riddance, Paul Ryan!

[GuitarStv]

Whose idea of morality?  That's the question.  One group may think something is immoral that another group does not think is immoral.

We already *do* legislate morality.  Laws that deal with fraud, for example.  It's generally recognized that misleading someone for financial gain is Bad, and so laws have been made to penalize people who do that.

Heck, some of the most important laws have a basis in morality.  Don't murder people.  Why?  Because we as a society think that murdering people is Bad.  Don't steal things, don't damage other people's property, don't assault people.  It's wrong to do.

Agreed.  To a certain degree, concepts of morality have to be legislated.  Theft, murder, rape, torture, slavery . . . these are considered immoral and thus we have legislated laws against them.  It gets tricky of course where there isn't unanimous agreement in what course is moral.

All the items in question impact others.  So in the question that started this thread, I do not think any disputes is it OK when the impact goes beyond yourself.  This is where abortion becomes difficult and sticky.  When it the fetus a life that has it's own standing?  That is certainly in the realm of morality.   The laws we have impacting consumption of alcohol center around impact to others.  You cannot drive drunk because you can hurt others or their property.  If a drunk could be 100% guaranteed to only harm themselves in 100% of cases, I would think we'd have less laws around it.

The thing is, virtually everything you do impacts others to some extent.

You can't drive a car without creating pollution that causes deaths due to asthma every year.  People see the utility of the automobile, and decide that a certain amount of death because of it is acceptable for the utility gained by driving.

A line clearly has to be drawn somewhere regarding what impacts are acceptable and what are not . . . and where you draw that line will fundamentally depend on your view of morality.

[caracarn]

Lots of good responses so far.

There are things that many in our society think of as immoral that are legal.  There are things that many in our society think of as perfectly moral to do but that are illegal.  But, that being said, generally speaking our laws are an expression of our moral system.  There's not a perfect correlation, and there is under and overinclusivity, but the larger point many prior posters have made is accurate.

Even though I am generally a traditionalist Christian, I am also a strong believer that we should err on the side of fewer laws and more freedom.  Unless there is a clear and strong reason to make an act criminal (e.g., risk if imminent harm to persons or severe harm to property), it should be allowable.

I don't know if that makes me open-minded or tolerant or not.  Sometimes I think that just gives people the rope to hang themselves with.  But, to be totally honest, I am not sure there is another way to keep a cacophonous empire of 320 million people of various races, religions, cultural backgrounds, political belief systems, etc. together for the long haul without giving people wide berth to create their own destiny within reasonably acceptable rules of the game.

But making things legal that used to be illegal legal, or making things illegal that used to be legal, can have lots of interesting knock-on effects that reverberate through our society in unexpected ways.  For example, when no-fault divorce was enacted, very few people foresaw quite how many divorces would happen.  Or how that would effect the desire of the next generation to marriage.  Or what that would then in turn to do the birth rate.  Or what that in turn would do to the sustainability of various social welfare schemes, such as social security and medicare.  I'm not sure we could put the genie back in the bottle, culturally or legally though, even if we wanted to, so at this point we just need to watch and wait and see how it all shakes out.

@blinx7 my views are very similar to what you state here.

I am a Christian and would probably be viewed as open minded on the issues I raised.  I just stated above that harm to others and property make sense from a protection standpoint.  The rope to hand themselves point is an interesting turn of phrase but aligns with my thought.  Certain narcotics make people very likely to commit other things we agree are criminal (that harm others or property) so they should remain illegal, but drugs like alcohol and marijuana should not.  Nor should prostitution be illegal.  Again, I'm not suggesting that laws not exist for impacts to others.  So forcing someone into prostitution would still have laws around it, but as in other countries with legalized prostitution, removing the issues that make it dangerous can have a benefit.  There is an interesting TED talk on the subject.  If someone wants to engage in that type of work to make money and can find customers there is no harm to others and so why should we legislate that away?  A lot f my view on these topics is because I think we need to keep people out of jail for petty offenses where we turn them into hardened criminals moving to worse things that are criminal because they lack options regarding making a living and such that having a record place on you.

As a Christian or an individual I may still choose to keep away from those things, where for example prostitution is not something I'd get involved with regardless of the laws because it violates my Christian beliefs.  That's a choice I make for myself, but I feel it is wrong for me to make others make the same choice I would through legislation. 

[caracarn]

The thing is, virtually everything you do impacts others to some extent.

You can't drive a car without creating pollution that causes deaths due to asthma every year.  People see the utility of the automobile, and decide that a certain amount of death because of it is acceptable for the utility gained by driving.

A line clearly has to be drawn somewhere regarding what impacts are acceptable and what are not . . . and where you draw that line will fundamentally depend on your view of morality.

This is an interesting line of thought.  One could make the argument that eating caused cancer but obviously it would be hard to ban eating and get to far as a species.  I struggle that because fumes may cause asthma that is somehow a moral issue, but I assume you mean if we know it causes death that is bad. 

I think very few of the responses are really answering when it is OK to legislate morality and seem to focus more on what are morals and pointing out that we already do it and most of our laws are based on that.  That seems to be twisting the purpose of the question away from certainly what I, and I'd imagine @Glenstache, meant.  I was not proposing we just remove laws and let things handle themselves because we legislate murder as bad for example.

So back to your line of thought.  I agree that a line of what impacts are acceptable is required by any well functioning society.  That however also stretches the question into areas I was not asking about, as I'm not sure pollution from cars is moral in any way.  It may be responsible.  It may be viewed as nice to avoid, but not sure it rises to a moral level.  That's what I'm having trouble with. 

[formerlydivorcedmom]

Good stewardship of our natural resources can be a moral issue.  The World Wildlife Fund has a program that partners with religious leaders around the globe to help them articulate how conservation fits with their religious principles.  In that case, pollution from cars can be an issue of morality, depending on the effects.

That's the problem - the definition of morality and what fits within it is very very loose.

[living small]

Ethics are rough waters...

I grew up in a strict, evangelical home, but am now liberal in my values. I've run the gamut of emotions of thinking about these types of things over the years.

I guess, more than anything, I want to live in a society that values real, unbiased scientific data when it comes to making any policy decisions.  I also believe in personal autonomy and personal responsibility...and this can look different to different people.

For one example: the opioid crisis. I have seen it first hand as someone who performs surgeries and prescribes them for short term acute pain, I have always had the personal view that I would never prescribe more than a 4 day supply as I knew of the addictive potential.  The issue at hand, is that some of the science that showed the newer formulations of drugs (oxycontin) to be addictive, were thrown out by the drug manufacturers. Doctors were told to just give more to patients by sales reps. people became addicted.

I have had office staff steal prescriptions pads to write their own prescriptions. I have had to cancel my day to drive a detoxing office manager to the ER. I have had to protect myself against angry patients when I refused to refill their scripts. I have seen this and so much more.

But, I am wary of the way legislators approach this topic- usually from a moral perspective, and here is why-the problem is not going to be solved by telling people they are bad and incarcerating them.

If we look to the science on this topic, we know that people who have these addictions often cannot exist without some kind of maintenance dose for the rest of their lives. Also, we cannot help anyone who is dead from an overdose, so what do we do?

In countries that have been successful , they have not only legalized it, but offer it for free with a catch-it has to be administered in the doctor's office. There, addicts get needed medical care, get referrals for addiction treatment and psychological counseling.  Many of these folks go on to actually do things with their lives. HIV/Hep C rates go down. Crime goes down.

which is the most effective should be the question not which is the most moral.

Abortion is also in the same category. Making it illegal will not make it go away. I don't care what anyone's reasons are-of course some are very compelling. but, looking at the science, countries that take a liberal stance on birth control, science-based education, and unfettered access to abortion have lower rates of abortion. In countries where abortion is illegal, abortion rates rise, more women die from unsafe procedures, and more women (most of who already have children) end up incarcerated. Arguably, the most potential damage to society would come from the latter. 

[caracarn]

What is morality? Or for that matter, love, freedom, liberty or any number of words which are empty vessels into which people pour whatever meaning they wish to confer?

I find it entertaining when people claim that morality has no basis in law or ethics... that people should be allowed to do whatever they wish as long as no harm is done to others. Really now, is that what you really believe? Because an awful lot hinges on the specific definition of 'harm' here; it's not as straightforward as it may seem.

For example should suicide be legal? Not just end of life euthanasia (which, tellingly, the courts have also struggled with to come up with a coherent legal framework w/o getting into moralism), but also just straight up suicide. Is that harming others? What if someone in your neighborhood setup a suicide center and then made money by selling tickets to watch, suicide for entertainment? I think most people would say that has a pretty high ick factor and would not want it in their community, but if everyone is consenting and no one is hurting anyone else what's the issue? Or, take it a step further, what if two adults agree to a fight to the death and a promoter sells tickets for the spectacle (either person can tap out at any time, but there's no guarantee that either will come out alive). There's a chance for death, but like the suicide case both people are consenting (and either can choose to quit at any time). Again, I think most people would say this is icky, should not be allowed.

The issue here is a question of the sanctity of human life. Are we nothing more than animals, simple meat machines, or is there something special about human life that it should not be ended prematurely even by one's own choosing <-- this is fundamentally a question of morality, of religion even... what is the purpose and meaning of life.  Furthermore, is human life special such that people should not be profiting from the ending of human life. Yes, I understand about the military industrial complex, but the fact that people rightfully point this out as an issue makes the point that we still belief there's something special about human life.

It's easy to say trite things like "don't legislate morality" but in practice this is much more difficult when you get into the nitty gritty.

This s the best answer on this thread, because it goes to the core.

The argument “whose morality” still assumes it should be legislated.

It was a great answer and one I avoided responding to because it is so nuanced and interesting and I did not feel I had a good response.  That stance has not changed, but I'll share the thoughts I do have.

The suicide question is interesting.  At the base level, no I would not say suicide harms others.  I think the further progression written about takes it into places that I would like to think most people would argue against from a point of civilized versus gladiatorial, but is still I suppose, up to an individual.  I would have no interest in those things and fail to see how they are entertaining yet people watch shows about stupid deaths, so there does appear to be a population out there with interest.  To me the two consenting adults in the end comes down to that I would view the death of either of them an murder or manslaughter as minimum.  Accidental death even by someone who realizes it could happen at the hands of another is still punished at this point and I would feel should not change.  Again we seems to delve into the area implicating that the original question somehow indicated maybe morality should be off limits entirely, which to me seems an absurd extension. 

I've seen several legal arguments that suicide is actually not illegal, because if you are dead you cannot be tried so it is moot.  What is actually illegal is failed suicide for which you can be found criminally liable.  I assume these laws are on the books because of the costs from them and some belief that the law acts as a deterrent.  However as pointed out earlier, if you are good at it (succeed) it's really irrelevant if it is legal or not, so since I'm a logical person I'd agree suicide should be legal.  I'm guessing they felt it was tasteless and unlikely to pass to reveal the truth and make a law making failed suicide illegal.  For me this also entered a realm I do not have a great response on, but thoughts are pretty high that you can argue real harm to others with suicide due to loss of income, costs of either cleaning up after a success (both psychically and mentally for loved ones around them) or the medical costs for a failure.  So yes, this question was a tough one to answer.

[caracarn]

Good stewardship of our natural resources can be a moral issue.  The World Wildlife Fund has a program that partners with religious leaders around the globe to help them articulate how conservation fits with their religious principles.  In that case, pollution from cars can be an issue of morality, depending on the effects.

That's the problem - the definition of morality and what fits within it is very very loose.

The challenge here is that if religion and morality are one and the same.  I would say they are not as per this Wikipedia clip:  According to The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Ethics, religion and morality "are to be defined differently and have no definitional connections with each other. Conceptually and in principle, morality and a religious value system are two distinct kinds of value systems or action guides."[3] In the views of others, the two can overlap. According to one definition, morality is an active process which is, "at the very least, the effort to guide one's conduct by reason, that is, doing what there are the best reasons for doing, while giving equal consideration to the interests of all those affected by what one does."[

[caracarn]

I have had office staff steal prescriptions pads to write their own prescriptions. I have had to cancel my day to drive a detoxing office manager to the ER. I have had to protect myself against angry patients when I refused to refill their scripts. I have seen this and so much more.

None of these things justify making the drug illegal as they are covered by other laws or choices.  First is clearly theft, so they can get charged there.  Second is a choice of whether to help someone who is suffering or not.  Third is assault.  I do not think you were indicating you felt that these should be banned because of that, but my earlier response on narcotics comes in to play here because all of what you describe shows that the likelihood of driving a person to a behavior that is criminal (two of your three examples do that) is high so therefore to not just kick the can down the road and charge them with other crimes is it not best to criminalize the substance?  But I see the same results you do in countries that offer legal ways to do this in a doctor's office with good outcomes and less incarceration.  What I am not clear on is do they have less addicts overall?  But it does seem to reduce the crime but does it increase the societal cost because can these people hold down jobs (thinking not) so they are accessing a social safety net at that point which may then be decided to be a burden society should not bear from a cost standpoint and take the legislation into a financially motivated one that a moral one.

[GuitarStv]

What is morality? Or for that matter, love, freedom, liberty or any number of words which are empty vessels into which people pour whatever meaning they wish to confer?

I find it entertaining when people claim that morality has no basis in law or ethics... that people should be allowed to do whatever they wish as long as no harm is done to others. Really now, is that what you really believe? Because an awful lot hinges on the specific definition of 'harm' here; it's not as straightforward as it may seem.

For example should suicide be legal? Not just end of life euthanasia (which, tellingly, the courts have also struggled with to come up with a coherent legal framework w/o getting into moralism), but also just straight up suicide. Is that harming others? What if someone in your neighborhood setup a suicide center and then made money by selling tickets to watch, suicide for entertainment? I think most people would say that has a pretty high ick factor and would not want it in their community, but if everyone is consenting and no one is hurting anyone else what's the issue? Or, take it a step further, what if two adults agree to a fight to the death and a promoter sells tickets for the spectacle (either person can tap out at any time, but there's no guarantee that either will come out alive). There's a chance for death, but like the suicide case both people are consenting (and either can choose to quit at any time). Again, I think most people would say this is icky, should not be allowed.

The issue here is a question of the sanctity of human life. Are we nothing more than animals, simple meat machines, or is there something special about human life that it should not be ended prematurely even by one's own choosing <-- this is fundamentally a question of morality, of religion even... what is the purpose and meaning of life.  Furthermore, is human life special such that people should not be profiting from the ending of human life. Yes, I understand about the military industrial complex, but the fact that people rightfully point this out as an issue makes the point that we still belief there's something special about human life.

It's easy to say trite things like "don't legislate morality" but in practice this is much more difficult when you get into the nitty gritty.

This s the best answer on this thread, because it goes to the core.

The argument “whose morality” still assumes it should be legislated.

It was a great answer and one I avoided responding to because it is so nuanced and interesting and I did not feel I had a good response.  That stance has not changed, but I'll share the thoughts I do have.

The suicide question is interesting.  At the base level, no I would not say suicide harms others.  I think the further progression written about takes it into places that I would like to think most people would argue against from a point of civilized versus gladiatorial, but is still I suppose, up to an individual.  I would have no interest in those things and fail to see how they are entertaining yet people watch shows about stupid deaths, so there does appear to be a population out there with interest.  To me the two consenting adults in the end comes down to that I would view the death of either of them an murder or manslaughter as minimum.  Accidental death even by someone who realizes it could happen at the hands of another is still punished at this point and I would feel should not change.  Again we seems to delve into the area implicating that the original question somehow indicated maybe morality should be off limits entirely, which to me seems an absurd extension. 

I've seen several legal arguments that suicide is actually not illegal, because if you are dead you cannot be tried so it is moot.  What is actually illegal is failed suicide for which you can be found criminally liable.  I assume these laws are on the books because of the costs from them and some belief that the law acts as a deterrent.  However as pointed out earlier, if you are good at it (succeed) it's really irrelevant if it is legal or not, so since I'm a logical person I'd agree suicide should be legal.  I'm guessing they felt it was tasteless and unlikely to pass to reveal the truth and make a law making failed suicide illegal.  For me this also entered a realm I do not have a great response on, but thoughts are pretty high that you can argue real harm to others with suicide due to loss of income, costs of either cleaning up after a success (both psychically and mentally for loved ones around them) or the medical costs for a failure.  So yes, this question was a tough one to answer.

Have you ever known the family of a teenager who committed suicide?  I have, and the suicide had quite a long lasting profoundly negative impact on the mother, sister, brother, and father.  By the same token, I suspect that preventing an elderly parent who is ready to die from the release from pain that assisted suicide can offer also has a profoundly negative impact on those involved.

We are extremely social animals.  Very few actions that we take occur in isolation.

[caracarn]

What is morality? Or for that matter, love, freedom, liberty or any number of words which are empty vessels into which people pour whatever meaning they wish to confer?

I find it entertaining when people claim that morality has no basis in law or ethics... that people should be allowed to do whatever they wish as long as no harm is done to others. Really now, is that what you really believe? Because an awful lot hinges on the specific definition of 'harm' here; it's not as straightforward as it may seem.

For example should suicide be legal? Not just end of life euthanasia (which, tellingly, the courts have also struggled with to come up with a coherent legal framework w/o getting into moralism), but also just straight up suicide. Is that harming others? What if someone in your neighborhood setup a suicide center and then made money by selling tickets to watch, suicide for entertainment? I think most people would say that has a pretty high ick factor and would not want it in their community, but if everyone is consenting and no one is hurting anyone else what's the issue? Or, take it a step further, what if two adults agree to a fight to the death and a promoter sells tickets for the spectacle (either person can tap out at any time, but there's no guarantee that either will come out alive). There's a chance for death, but like the suicide case both people are consenting (and either can choose to quit at any time). Again, I think most people would say this is icky, should not be allowed.

The issue here is a question of the sanctity of human life. Are we nothing more than animals, simple meat machines, or is there something special about human life that it should not be ended prematurely even by one's own choosing <-- this is fundamentally a question of morality, of religion even... what is the purpose and meaning of life.  Furthermore, is human life special such that people should not be profiting from the ending of human life. Yes, I understand about the military industrial complex, but the fact that people rightfully point this out as an issue makes the point that we still belief there's something special about human life.

It's easy to say trite things like "don't legislate morality" but in practice this is much more difficult when you get into the nitty gritty.

This s the best answer on this thread, because it goes to the core.

The argument “whose morality” still assumes it should be legislated.

It was a great answer and one I avoided responding to because it is so nuanced and interesting and I did not feel I had a good response.  That stance has not changed, but I'll share the thoughts I do have.

The suicide question is interesting.  At the base level, no I would not say suicide harms others.  I think the further progression written about takes it into places that I would like to think most people would argue against from a point of civilized versus gladiatorial, but is still I suppose, up to an individual.  I would have no interest in those things and fail to see how they are entertaining yet people watch shows about stupid deaths, so there does appear to be a population out there with interest.  To me the two consenting adults in the end comes down to that I would view the death of either of them an murder or manslaughter as minimum.  Accidental death even by someone who realizes it could happen at the hands of another is still punished at this point and I would feel should not change.  Again we seems to delve into the area implicating that the original question somehow indicated maybe morality should be off limits entirely, which to me seems an absurd extension. 

I've seen several legal arguments that suicide is actually not illegal, because if you are dead you cannot be tried so it is moot.  What is actually illegal is failed suicide for which you can be found criminally liable.  I assume these laws are on the books because of the costs from them and some belief that the law acts as a deterrent.  However as pointed out earlier, if you are good at it (succeed) it's really irrelevant if it is legal or not, so since I'm a logical person I'd agree suicide should be legal.  I'm guessing they felt it was tasteless and unlikely to pass to reveal the truth and make a law making failed suicide illegal.  For me this also entered a realm I do not have a great response on, but thoughts are pretty high that you can argue real harm to others with suicide due to loss of income, costs of either cleaning up after a success (both psychically and mentally for loved ones around them) or the medical costs for a failure.  So yes, this question was a tough one to answer.

Have you ever known the family of a teenager who committed suicide?  I have, and the suicide had quite a long lasting profoundly negative impact on the mother, sister, brother, and father.  By the same token, I suspect that preventing an elderly parent who is ready to die from the release from pain that assisted suicide can offer also has a profoundly negative impact on those involved.

We are extremely social animals.  Very few actions that we take occur in isolation.

Yes I am aware of the broader impact of suicide and I was referring to what you mention in my comments on "pretty high that you can argue real harm to others with suicide".  I know people walked in unsuspecting on the bloody aftermath.  Saying it did not harm their mental state is very clear to me as not accurate.

[Glenstache]

How do we balance conflicting morality in a society and draw the line on what is a shared good (murder is bad) vs a preference based on arbitrary and/or religious views that are not universally shared (ie, gay marriage)?

In a democracy, we have the challenging task of balancing between mob rule, and individual vs social liberty/responsibility. What are the limits of our social contract?

The question of when is it ok to legislate morality is an ambiguous question because it does not implicitly state what is moral. It could be phrased in a different way: what is a reasonable standard, or basis, for legislating morality. If the morality is a broadly shared concept such as wanton murder being bad, this arises out of a clearly articulated common good foundation. But what about morality based on religious views that an individual may take to be fact, but is actually not a universally acknowledged or necessarily scientifically supported view (and may just be untestable, such as all things relating to the concept of a soul)? The question here is not only when do we think a specific issue would be acceptable to legislate, but how would you feel if a person on the other side of the fence were able to legislate their point of view on you to compel/restrict a choice? In these gray areas, someone will be unhappy. Are we willing to let other people do things that we feel are immoral (so long as they are consensual) in the name of recognizing that we don't always agree on something? Is it, in fact, immoral to impose a religious or functionally arbitrary view on someone else if the view is not shared?
 

[caracarn]

How do we balance conflicting morality in a society and draw the line on what is a shared good (murder is bad) vs a preference based on arbitrary and/or religious views that are not universally shared (ie, gay marriage)?

In a democracy, we have the challenging task of balancing between mob rule, and individual vs social liberty/responsibility. What are the limits of our social contract?

The question of when is it ok to legislate morality is an ambiguous question because it does not implicitly state what is moral. It could be phrased in a different way: what is a reasonable standard, or basis, for legislating morality. If the morality is a broadly shared concept such as wanton murder being bad, this arises out of a clearly articulated common good foundation. But what about morality based on religious views that an individual may take to be fact, but is actually not a universally acknowledged or necessarily scientifically supported view (and may just be untestable, such as all things relating to the concept of a soul)? The question here is not only when do we think a specific issue would be acceptable to legislate, but how would you feel if a person on the other side of the fence were able to legislate their point of view on you to compel/restrict a choice? In these gray areas, someone will be unhappy. Are we willing to let other people do things that we feel are immoral (so long as they are consensual) in the name of recognizing that we don't always agree on something? Is it, in fact, immoral to impose a religious or functionally arbitrary view on someone else if the view is not shared?

I've stated my stance a few times in other answers, but since this whole thread started at your suggestion, and you did finally post something (yay!  thanks by the way!) I wanted to restate here.

When a situation causes harm to others or property and also is a moral issue then I believe it is acceptable to legislate.  Outside of that (do things that we feel are immoral (so long as they are consensual)) no we should not legislate.  In that case what @living small said of most effective instead of most moral made a lot of sense.  I was sharing this thread with my wife last night and she went so far as to say we should just use @living small's standard as the rule all the time and remove morality entirely.  We talked about if that really made sense, and on some level (you still might be talking about a moral question, like is it OK to kill someone else, but still make the decision it is more effective if we do not make that OK because of all the harm it causes) and it somewhat does but we honestly did not spend a lot of time testing out the hypothesis.

Pressing my view onto someone does not work and I do not want to legislate that in those edge cases.  I do not smoke, not really from a moral standpoint but for health, it stinks, etc. but my initial decisions as a young child were probably driven more my morality of viewing it as wrong, but I'd never suggest doing anything other than where we are at with secondhand smoke and public spaces (harm to others).  If they want to harm themselves, have at it.

[gentmach]

My take:

There are 7.5 billion humans on this planet. Each has their own unique body chemistry, body structure and genetics. Each unique human is then thrust into an even more unique set of circumstances. Some people are inherently creative and some are inherently self destructive. Some are kind, some are cruel.

These people then formed groups, organizations, towns and civilizations.

Attempting to impose a uniform philosophy upon mankind is a path to insanity due to the gray area's inherent in the human experience.

Also the problem with laws is that it can become machine thinking. What is a law if not an "if than" statement? As a society gets more complex and structures are created to facilitate it, these structures can conflict with each other causing more damage.

So I would argue having a culture that holds its self to a higher standard would be more effective than laws.

[Travis]

So I would argue having a culture that holds its self to a higher standard would be more effective than laws.

Couldn't one argue that laws were created because some cultural standard wasn't being upheld in the first place? Like you said, we're all unique and full of gray.  How could you possibly get us to agree on the same moral standard?

[hoping2retire35]

What is morality? Or for that matter, love, freedom, liberty or any number of words which are empty vessels into which people pour whatever meaning they wish to confer?

I find it entertaining when people claim that morality has no basis in law or ethics... that people should be allowed to do whatever they wish as long as no harm is done to others. Really now, is that what you really believe? Because an awful lot hinges on the specific definition of 'harm' here; it's not as straightforward as it may seem.

For example should suicide be legal? Not just end of life euthanasia (which, tellingly, the courts have also struggled with to come up with a coherent legal framework w/o getting into moralism), but also just straight up suicide. Is that harming others? What if someone in your neighborhood setup a suicide center and then made money by selling tickets to watch, suicide for entertainment? I think most people would say that has a pretty high ick factor and would not want it in their community, but if everyone is consenting and no one is hurting anyone else what's the issue? Or, take it a step further, what if two adults agree to a fight to the death and a promoter sells tickets for the spectacle (either person can tap out at any time, but there's no guarantee that either will come out alive). There's a chance for death, but like the suicide case both people are consenting (and either can choose to quit at any time). Again, I think most people would say this is icky, should not be allowed.

The issue here is a question of the sanctity of human life. Are we nothing more than animals, simple meat machines, or is there something special about human life that it should not be ended prematurely even by one's own choosing <-- this is fundamentally a question of morality, of religion even... what is the purpose and meaning of life.  Furthermore, is human life special such that people should not be profiting from the ending of human life. Yes, I understand about the military industrial complex, but the fact that people rightfully point this out as an issue makes the point that we still belief there's something special about human life.

It's easy to say trite things like "don't legislate morality" but in practice this is much more difficult when you get into the nitty gritty.

This s the best answer on this thread, because it goes to the core.

The argument “whose morality” still assumes it should be legislated.

This is the answer that matters. Do we matter? Do we really have rights or are we meat machines?

As much as I want to be a libertarian I keep getting pulled back by this. Legalizing prostitution sounds like we are all being great legal ethicists until office ass slaps are permitted. Oh, sexual assault charges you say? Sure, until enough companies are sued and it is every job contract we all sign; I bet you would like to remove the drug testing clause from your contract but then you would't find a job would you?
Suicide is fine? Sure, until your mortgage includes you signing up for a 'death match' to help raise funds before you can declare bankruptcy.

I think we are just in this limbo were we cannot create the perfect set of laws. Legislate morality fully, and people will burn with anger and rebel. Full libertarian wet dream, and the world descends into chaos, without any order.

 Any time I am trying to decide what position to take on an issue or law I ask myself what will allow others to pursue knowledge without preventing someone else. A type of utilitarian but with human value as the goal.

[hoping2retire35]

In a democracy, we have the challenging task of balancing between mob rule, and individual vs social liberty/responsibility. What are the limits of our social contract?

The question of when is it ok to legislate morality is an ambiguous question because it does not implicitly state what is moral. It could be phrased in a different way: what is a reasonable standard, or basis, for legislating morality. If the morality is a broadly shared concept such as wanton murder being bad, this arises out of a clearly articulated common good foundation. But what about morality based on religious views that an individual may take to be fact, but is actually not a universally acknowledged or necessarily scientifically supported view (and may just be untestable, such as all things relating to the concept of a soul)? The question here is not only when do we think a specific issue would be acceptable to legislate, but how would you feel if a person on the other side of the fence were able to legislate their point of view on you to compel/restrict a choice? In these gray areas, someone will be unhappy. Are we willing to let other people do things that we feel are immoral (so long as they are consensual) in the name of recognizing that we don't always agree on something? Is it, in fact, immoral to impose a religious or functionally arbitrary view on someone else if the view is not shared?

I've stated my stance a few times in other answers, but since this whole thread started at your suggestion, and you did finally post something (yay!  thanks by the way!) I wanted to restate here.

When a situation causes harm to others or property and also is a moral issue then I believe it is acceptable to legislate.  Outside of that (do things that we feel are immoral (so long as they are consensual)) no we should not legislate.  In that case what @living small said of most effective instead of most moral made a lot of sense.  I was sharing this thread with my wife last night and she went so far as to say we should just use @living small's standard as the rule all the time and remove morality entirely.  We talked about if that really made sense, and on some level (you still might be talking about a moral question, like is it OK to kill someone else, but still make the decision it is more effective if we do not make that OK because of all the harm it causes) and it somewhat does but we honestly did not spend a lot of time testing out the hypothesis.

But why?

What is moral? In that case what is morality? Why does this even matter? Why do we have government and laws? Does it matter if they legislate based on the Constitution or some idea of right and wrong?

What if they just legislate on what is practical? What if they just legislated based preserving the most property and life? What if individuals have divergent interest? What if they have intersecting(conflicting) interests? What is science based legislation is still, every bit so, based on subjective human valuations?

Bolded; this is the question. Either we agree and base our laws on something or we disintegrate.

[gentmach]

So I would argue having a culture that holds its self to a higher standard would be more effective than laws.

Couldn't one argue that laws were created because some cultural standard wasn't being upheld in the first place? Like you said, we're all unique and full of gray.  How could you possibly get us to agree on the same moral standard?

I would agree that we need a social contract that guarantees basic rights.

But once you attempt to do social engineering with government, things may go wrong. And I figure it is easier to change a culture than a law, especially with the amount of disinformation that is in the world today.

Culture also gives us the flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances.

I see limitations to the reach of law. I have lent out a lot of money over the years that I will never see again primarily because of a lack of formal paper work.

Was I foolish? Yes. But I did it in that spirit of "you help a person up when they fall." All these people came to me in a time of need and after the danger passed, they disappeared.

It comes down to choice. Why do you do the right thing? Because it's the right thing? Or because somebody will beat you with a stick if you do the wrong thing? If no one is looking, do you do the right thing?

I understand this is an anecdote and not a data driven analysis.

[partgypsy]

Re the Blue laws - I'm in Indiana, and they just got rid of a restriction on selling alcohol on Sundays. I honestly couldn't tell you what changed though. I do know that if someone's a drunk, then they'll get around whatever restrictions anyway. Case in point: my next door neighbor, who is the town drunk, a drug addict, and has had police called to his house an average of once a month since I moved in.

To me, while I may struggle to understand something (transgender for example), I also try to be accepting. I am more interested in are you a good person based on your actions than other things. IE, if you're abusing animals or people, you're not a good person and I will hate your guts for that reason. If you're gay, as long as it's consensual, IDGAF.

Regarding abortion, realistically, there are 3 basic situations where an abortion is going to happen:
1. Medical issues of some sort require the pregnancy to be ended. This is a tragedy, don't make it worse.
2. Rape/incest - these are crimes. As such, they should not happen. Since they still do happen, why are we trying to traumatize an already traumatized victim? That's cruel, and see the point above are you a good person.
3. Didn't want to get pregnant in the first place - we can prevent these! Seriously, we have how many versions of the pill, and implants, and IUDs, etc? Ignorance and lack of access to birth control are the real problem here, and we can fix that. Require comprehensive sex ed that covers all the biology, STDs, problems, and let's throw in healthy relationships vs abusive behaviors. Make everyone go, and while we'll miss some people because they don't pay attention, we're going to greatly increase the average level of knowledge. Make birth control affordable and easily obtained. The numbers of unwanted pregnancies and thus abortions would plummet. And this is the category that everyone hates anyway - the first two are much less controversial.

The 4th is people who didn't want to get pregnant, used birth control, and it failed. eta this is a situation where an abortion may happen.

Regarding the larger topic, I feel the word "morals" and morality" is a loaded and subjective term. Civilzations happened and a lot of people live and interact in a relatively small space. The small hunter gatherer way of dealing with things is not going to work, so laws were created to create order and have consequences for bad behavior. So while everyone understands why we would have laws against the main things (murder, robbery, stealing, rape, etc) there are also a lot of laws created for the "public good". This can be anything from wearing seatbelts to littering. And different societies have different levels of how restrictive that society is to things that are against the public good, and what they interpret as harmful to the public good.

[hoping2retire35]

Relevant article, though not for any Western country. The basic idea of moral consensus is discussed. Haven't finished yet.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/middle-east/2018-04-11/post-liberalism-east-and-west

[electriceagle]

Perhaps the best argument for minimizing legislation of morality is that it minimizes battles over whose morality is to be legislated.

One moralist's heaven is another moralist's hell. Fights over power get bigger, uglier and more encompassing when one side becomes afraid that the other will impose its ideals on them.

In addition, moralist fights are never actually over. Once a society has decided that moralists can legislate their ideals, everyone with a religion or a philosophy scrambles to be part of the government so that they can impose their ideals on others. There's always a more ideal ideal or a more moral moral.

[simonsez]

Whose idea of morality?  That's the question.  One group may think something is immoral that another group does not think is immoral.

We already *do* legislate morality.  Laws that deal with fraud, for example.  It's generally recognized that misleading someone for financial gain is Bad, and so laws have been made to penalize people who do that.

Heck, some of the most important laws have a basis in morality.  Don't murder people.  Why?  Because we as a society think that murdering people is Bad.  Don't steal things, don't damage other people's property, don't assault people.  It's wrong to do.

Agreed.  To a certain degree, concepts of morality have to be legislated.  Theft, murder, rape, torture, slavery . . . these are considered immoral and thus we have legislated laws against them.  It gets tricky of course where there isn't unanimous agreement in what course is moral.

All the items in question impact others.  So in the question that started this thread, I do not think any disputes is it OK when the impact goes beyond yourself.  This is where abortion becomes difficult and sticky.  When it the fetus a life that has it's own standing?  That is certainly in the realm of morality.   The laws we have impacting consumption of alcohol center around impact to others.  You cannot drive drunk because you can hurt others or their property.  If a drunk could be 100% guaranteed to only harm themselves in 100% of cases, I would think we'd have less laws around it.

I'd say when it is no longer considered a fetus and is now considered a human, i.e. birth.  I don't mean to come off as overly patronizing/simplistic or anything, that's just when I literally draw the line.  I think it is easier to define when life starts rather than the morality of abortion. 

I am personally against abortion and would recommend as such to my wife (any other woman, I'm minding my own business) should a potential situation arise that she wanted to abort.  But in the end, it is my wife's body and life has not started yet.  I would abide by her decision.  Politically, I am definitely pro-choice as I feel we do not have the society nor the technology to be able to live in a world where we can control our population to such a degree that has ZERO debate.  e.g. if a risk-free prophylactic existed (FWIW, the pill is not risk-free even ignoring if the efficacy is not 100% - Ozark hellbenders have almost been wiped out in the wild as a result of the hormonal urine excreted by human females on the pill while enjoying float trips in MO/AR) that was universally available and provided with zero stigma, I might become pro life - because the only females having abortion under those conditions would be those purposely becoming pregnant to abort.  However, I don't think those conditions are really plausible.

[partgypsy]

My 11 year old daughter was having a conversation with another kid, who said, "If I was president I would make a law that everyone has to be nice to each other, and if they are not they go to prison". My daughter didn't tell her, but told me she thought that was a stupid law. It reminded me of this thread.

I guess my knee jerk response to morality that I dislike, is that historically there were different laws (crime for a woman but not a man) or at least different punishments for males and females. If a woman had sex out of wedlock, there were serious repercussions up to and including death. How a woman was dressed versus how a male was dressed. Where a woman was allowed to be in public, and with whom, versus men. The only thing where males got the short end of the stick was homesexuality, where often male homosexuality was more highly punished than female homosexuality. Reading about these things, they really don't have to do with morality as some absolute, universal thing. It has more to do with controlling other people, particularly females. So I have to questions morals which came from a time when men wrote all the laws, and women and wives were considered property. I feel that a lot of the abortion debate comes from this perspective, that it really doesn't have to do with the rights of the fetus so much as it has to do with the lack of rights of women over their own bodies.

 

[zoltani]

 One can only be moral because you like to do it that way. There really is no other reason whatsoever. And to try and find other reasons always perverts morality.