Legislating morality: legal and philosophical perspectives

Legislating Morality

Something Learned

The desire to legislate morality is well established in American history. Our forefather's passed legislation to prohibit acts that they felt might induce people to behave in a socially unacceptable manner. The impetus to legislate morality comes from the tension created between an individual's personal liberty and the concern that this liberty may create a licentious quality that would be terrible.

Some laws are necessary for protecting the physical well-being of individuals and their property and the ordinary function of society, however, legislating morality often has unintended consequences. For example the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment in 1919 outlawed the possession and sale of alcohol. Nevertheless, the demand for liquor continued resulting in the criminalization of producers, suppliers and consumers. Police, courts and prisons were overwhelmed with new cases, organized crime increased in power, and corruption among law enforcement officials was extended. The amendment was repealed in 1933.

The video made an interesting distinction between ethics and morality. Charles Willie, professor of education and urban studies at Harvard University, noted that ethics is a property of the group and morality is a property of the individual. One should not cause the violation of the other. The fact that moral causes have become popular among voters has contributed to the propensity of politicians to introduce bills that regulate morals, which historically religious issues. The problem is that legislative bodies are inherently institutions that facilitate compromise, whereas religion deals in absolutes. You cannot compromise on moral issues; this creates confusion and contradictions in the minds of citizens. The video gave an excellent example of the dilemma of the 18-year-old, mature enough to vote and go to war, yet not mature enough to drink alcohol.

Feelings Triggered

This video had me considering the role of government, and how it has in many ways overstepped its bounds. In many ways it only confused me. I do not think the framers of the Constitution would approve of the extent that the federal government has become involved in legislating values. Many of the issues raised should, by their very nature be local issues, decided within the community or state. Yet the federal and to some degree state legislatures impose their will on the entire country or state. We elect our officials for their ideas, not for their beliefs.

However the issues are not always this simple. For example the civil rights movement stemmed from the practice of pervasive discrimination in the south. This practice was well established and part of the local belief system. The question then arises should federal and/or state governments interfere with local government? The difference in my mind is that discrimination is unjust, so the federal government had a responsibility to intervene. However, a problem arises when one considers what an injustice is? We must be careful when use injustice to interfere in local matters to impose the will of the federal and/or state government. For example in Utah polygamy was an acceptable practice according to religion, however it is illegal according to law. The question arises is polygamy unjust? While I personally do not agree or approve of the practice do I have the right to impose my values on those who do? A case can be made for both side of this argument.