When, if ever, should the government legislate morality?

  • News
  • Thread starter wasteofo2
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Government
In summary, the conversation discusses the topic of whether or not the government should legislate morality. While there are different opinions on the matter, it is generally agreed upon that the government has a responsibility to prevent acts that cause harm to individuals and society. However, the definition of "harm" is subjective and can lead to contradicting views on what should be considered illegal or immoral. The conversation also touches on the idea that the government is not a perfect entity and may contradict itself, but there is a desire for a more perfect government.

When should the government legislate morality?


  • Total voters
    23
  • #36
wasteofo2 said:
The thing is, with heterosexual marriage, the government provides all sorts of tax breaks and whatnot. Marriage isn't just a spiritual thing in America, it's a legal contract which the government acknowledges and treats people who've agreed to that contract differently than others. That being said, do you believe that the government should treat gay and heterosexual marriages in the same manner as far as not saying who can and can't be married, and allowing the same financial aid and that sort of thing to all married couples, straight or gay?

Very good point, and thought-provoking. Perhaps marriage should neither be legal or illegal for anyone, but just commitment (after all, the "red" states have higher divorce rates, as if having a piece of paper makes a difference from this perspective). I don't think there are any significant government benefits left, such as tax breaks, and most issues can be handled via other legal instruments (e.g., wills). The big issues for gays with their loved ones in intensive care with AIDS have been that of health care benefits and visiting restrictions per hospital regulations. Though based on legal recognition, these are private sector policies really, which I feel should be changed. Increasingly heterosexuals are opting to live together rather than getting married, and face the same things, though true--heteros at least have the choice. Some of these matters apply to other scenarios as well, such as legal guardians, etc. So perhaps these things should be viewed as a larger social issue, and not just a gay issue.

I really prefer Big Brother to stay out of our private lives as much as possible--also when you mess with the rights of others, you open the door for your own rights to be tampered with in some way. This ultimately is my concern. (I don't guess we'll solve the world's problem in one day, huh?)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
by definition

wasteofo2 said:
So, where is the line drawn, or should the government not legislate morality at all, and allow things like murder, rape, theft, slavery etc.?

In this poll, you can select multiple options, so check all the instances in which you feel it is appropriate for the government to legislate morality.

Morality cannot be legislated however the people of a nation can be influenced through law generated threats and governmental positive reward reinforcement to behave in ways which mimic beings possessing morality.
 
  • #38
russ_watters said:
Mill's ideas were based largely on Locke's (though I'm having trouble finding a source for that specific idea...).

I'm pretty sure that Mill's libertarian ethics were an elaboration of Jeremy Bentham's.
 
  • #39
Would anyone care to conjecture that Mill may have been original?
 
  • #40
selfAdjoint said:
Would anyone care to conjecture that Mill may have been original?
Is anyone really original?
 

Similar threads

Replies
29
Views
10K
Replies
12
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
70
Views
12K
Replies
21
Views
4K
Replies
68
Views
13K
Back
Top