For years I have heard that government should not legislate morality. Edited- I must amend my earlier statement- I do not believe it is the government's primary function to legislate morality, but I do understand that many laws have moral implication. There are several distinct areas government does the opposite which is strange. One instance I have thought about is legislating helping the disadvantaged. Helping the disadvantaged is definately a moral choice. It is without question a morality and most specifically a religious morality. Here is the case and logic: 1. Helping the disadvantaged is an act of moral compassion. Answer these questions- Do you volunteer at a nursing home to help? Do you go to homeless shelters and give them money? Do you give money or assistance to neighbors who have serious needs? Do you pay medical bills for strangers? All of these actions would be choices made based upon a moral obligation. No one is obligated to help someone disadvantaged, it is always an individual moral choice in life. 2. Morality is based upon the free choice of individuals. Helping others if forced cannot be considered as right or wrong (moral) since there was no choice. If help is not given freely or voluntarily then it is not considered morality. Whether it is right to help your neighbor or to keep to yourself is an individual choice and is not forced. 3. Helping the disadvantaged must be viewed as a benefit to those who are less fortunate. By definition if you choose to benefit someone who does not have a legitimate need or if they have earned a benefit then this would not be a moral compassion or a moral assistance. For example if you gave someone a job because they deserved the job and qualified for the job then there was no need for moral assistance. Or if you gave money to someone who refused to work but could work then this would not be moral compassion since they are not truly disadvantaged. 4. Helping the disadvantage is distinctly religious since there is no secular benefit derived from this action. To care for one's fellow man may benefit how one views himself, or how one views his fellow man, but since there is no self profit or material benefit in moral compassion or moral assistance then the motive must be one of spiritual or personal edification. This is religious by definition since no secular benefit or motive is present. I could go on, but let's leave room for discussion. I give to charities, I help the disadvantaged, and I practice moral compassion by choice for religious reasons, but is this the role of government and should morals be legislated? Whenever government passes laws that spend citizen tax revenue on moral assistance it has forced all taxpayers to comply with legislated morality. Should even one person be forced to a moral choice?
I'm probably an odd bird in that I believe that : 1.) Drugs 2.) Prostitution 3.) Gambling Should all be legal. Tax them and take the violence and strain enforcing these policies cost our system. We waste millions/billions of dollars combating a drug trade that we can never defeat because of the demand and the high price of drugs. By legalizing these, we reduce organized crime and much of the funds of organized crime. But I also believe that if someone is overdosing and shows up at a hospital, they should not be ENTITLED to medical service if they're not going to pay for it. If someone does the action, they should deal with the consequences and not have our socialized medical system deal with the results. If they die, then they die and we continue to thrive within society as our weakest are dwindled and the smart and the strong survive. I believe that charity, whether it be free clinics, homeless shelters or living assistance to poor families, should be voluntary charity. As people are giving their money to these causes they will DEMAND financial assurance and audits to verify efficiency of funds spent. I don't just preach this, but act on it as an active rotarian for many years and in the last month i've judged scholarships for the texas livestock show and rodeo, raised almost a $1000 for Multiple sclerosis, taught business skills to ex-inmates on probation and given time and energy to multiple causes. In Rotary, we have strict defined rules on our spending and strive for strong returns on investment capital and I can virtually guarantee you that we are more efficient than the government programs.
I’m not sure I’m catching your angle here. Governments essentially enter into contracts with the people to perform certain services for them in return for tax dollars. You can take that principle back to feudal times if you like. The main difference is in the particular group/class in the society of the day the contract is with. Criminal law can be viewed as a form of charity, for example. The government is interceding on the part of a party who is unable to protect themselves, but this is an agreement that our society deems to be valuable to all citizens and to society itself. Is there morality involved? Sure there is, probably different levels of morality for different people but unless one is a sociopath there will be some morality involved in either deciding to keep or break a law, or in doing or not doing the thing that is illegal aside from a consideration of the letter of the law aside. So I’m not really following your question. Helping the disadvantaged is can be a moral choice, or from the government’s standpoint it can be simply a contractual obligation that it agreed to in its contract with the people it governs. The same would be true for almost any law or policy, wouldn’t it?
I can clarify it for you. In a feudal government helping the disadvantaged was a moral choice on the part of the Lord or King with HIS own money. The Founding Fathers never took this stand in a Constitutional Government. If elected government employees from the President to the page in Congress took their own money and helped the disadvantaged that would be a moral choice on their own part. But if their own morality is placed into legislation it is then forced as law upon all citizens and thus their morality is legislated. In no way does the US government enter into any contract with its citizens unless expressly commanded in the Constitution. There is no contract to protect citizens with military forces except as it is constitutional. There is no contract to pay medical bills, educational bills, grocery bills or otherwise that is enumerated in the Constitution. I am not asking if helping the disadvantaged is right? I am asking if government should legislate morality?
Well I don't think you are right in that. Insofar as our elected Congress, President, and other representatives act in the interests of their constituents, they are the vehicles of the will of the people. If that will is to help the disadvantaged, then we are doing so, as a country, voluntarily. It is corporate; we may have people who don't agree but were outvoted; but the people as a mass decided it was something we wanted to do. So what's the problem? Our disagreement goes much further than that though, even if you have a good answer to that. I think the government should legislate morality. I also disagree that helping the disadvantaged is only a religious moral choice -- on every point, in fact, since I don't see a problem with it being secular, amoral or compulsory. I enjoyed your argument all the same since it is well-thought out, but it relies on a lot of assumptions I don't share.
so what about if i am speeding and get in a car wreck. obviously i did the reckless action. am i not entitled to any 'socialized medical' service?
But helping the disadvantaged is only one of a number of protections that have been added to the contract between the government and the citizens over the centuries. As I was saying, criminal law is a form of “helping the disadvantaged” right? What difference to you see between the two cases? I’m sure you agree that criminal law has a moral component too. On the Founding Fathers, many of them were also slave owners and that’s clearly not acceptable today so rights change and the degree to which the government helps the disadvantaged, be they disabled, victims of crime, or victims of racism, etc, changes over time. On the contracts, if a given party states that it will establish a certain program if elected, and then it is elected, then you could certainly view that as a moral contract to do just what they said they were going to do. They made an offer. The people at least in part accepted that offer by electing them, so they are obliged to carry though. On the morality of helping the disadvantaged in general, if the government provides economic support that certainly doesn’t prevent people from helping in other ways and thus making the same free, moral choice to help the disadvantaged. Indeed what these people often need most is company and friendship, and that’s something the government can’t give. The reason the government is the vehicle of choice to deliver financial aid is that it can do it more efficiently and close to universally. If you have a patchwork of charities it will be an inefficient system that would undoubtedly allow many more people to fall through the cracks, and that’s a moral issue in itself. You certainly want to watch the government and lobby for changes where you see they need to be made, but I don’t see any moral or practical advantage to cutting government support for disadvantaged people. Do you have a specific instance in mind? I’m still not sure I’m following the issue you’re getting at.
I think the problem here is with the initial assumption. As far as I'm concerned, the reason that the government helps the disadvantaged is to ensure that people who could be exceptionally productive members of society aren't marginalized by an artificial class and wealth structure. This is enumerated clearly in the preamble - "We hold these truths to be self evident - all men are created equal". In otherwords, it is to help the cream rise to the top.
Criminal law is not a form of helping the disadvantaged at all. Criminal law has nothing to do with being disadvantaged. Criminal law should be equal to the rich, the poor and all in between. If a rich person murders or a disadvantaged person murders there is no difference, criminal justice should be blind. (impartial) I must amend my earlier statement- I do not believe it is the government's primary function to legislate morality, but I do understand that many laws have moral implication. Now- My point has absolutely nothing to do with what a politcal party may promise to do upon election. I don't care if the Democrats promise to build new churches or hospitals or promise to give every minister in the nation a $10,000 tax break or if they promise to give Wal Mart $100.00 gas cards to anyone who drives a Chevrolet. Contracts with citizens are not constitutional and they do not exist in government outside of politics. These so called 'contracts' are more or less political promises, pork spending and laws enacted for the benefit of a constituency. My question has to do with the idea that a government can or cannot decide moral issues for its citizens. In other words force their morals upon the populace. Whether elected or not.
You have stated three conflicting principles- 1. That government acts in accordance with the will of its constituancy. 2. That legislation produces voluntary compliance from the citizenry. 3. You assume that government actions are always the will of the people. First, government does not pass legislation based upon consensus and unanimy. The populace is never represented in majority or consensus. When a law is passed it is passed upon a consensus of government legislators. Thus any moral choice is made by those passing the legislation not the populace. Remember I am not saying the law is right or wrong or that people agree or disagree. I am saying that the government is deciding for everyone. A law is binding on all citizens not just those who agree. Second, laws do not allow for voluntary compliance on moral basis. If I have a moral choice on the legality of abortion laws it has escaped me. Third, individual morals govern the choice people make individually. To assume that a government law is the will and thus moral choice of all people is untrue. I am not debating whether laws are good or bad. That view is a moral choice we can all make. I am asking if it is the responsibility of government to make those choices for us.
Here is a link to a letter Congressman Davy Crockett wrote concerning this issue, it might clarify if you want to read it. link
If you have medical insurance or are willing to pay the tab, yes you are. You are only entitled to what you pay for. That line of thought never ends as one can surmise that each of us is entitled to food, housing, and automobile, and IPOD, college etc. Which will ultimately result in very high tax rates which will lower productivity as people will not work as hard if they recieve less of what they make, which will then spiral into bankruptcy of our government. *Note* See USSR
Helping the disadvantaged is much more than simply a moral thing, though, isn't it? I think the criminal law analogy is pretty good. Why not let everyone fend for themselves? If you're wronged, why should the government go after the bad guy? Why spend everyones resources to make you right? And those of us who are rarely wronged don't get the benefit of that justice system, yet we pay for it. But somehow there's comfort in knowing it's there. Sure rich and poor should have the same access to that justice, but the same would hold true for social programs. Except rich/poor is no longer a good division, because if the program is designed to help the poor -- the rich have no need to access it. If the rich become poor, then they get to access that benefits gravy train! Yea! If you insist on tying it to the constiturion, then Otto put it pretty well. It's setting the base of what constitutes equal. Government's just a means to make collective decisions. And that's the rub with doing things collectively -- sometimes you don't get exactly what you want.
So you are saying if Davey Crocket says that's the way it is, then that's the way it is? I don't think anybody would argue that Davy Crocket was one of the great thinkers of his time. The fact that he chose to look at it that way has no bearing on how I look at it. In seems, in fact, to be more of a debating tactic than anything else. You could argue that defending the nation from invasion is charity because it protects people unable to defend themselves at cost to the greater whole and so the government shouldn't raise an army or do anything to protect the nation.
Actually I am not saying it is that way at all, because it isn't that way. Charity and military defense are two different things. I am not asking if we should defend the poor and the rich or any other ethical question at all. I am asking should the government legislate morality. And whose morality does the government legislate. Is it right for government to force their morality upon you?
No, helping the disadvantaged is only a moral thing. That is why people choose for themselves if they do it or not. If is was instinctive everyone would be doing it. Everyone does fend for themselves. Laws that are passed based upon moral implication are primarily moral laws. For example, laws against murder are passed because murder is wrong. That makes it moral. Are you telling me it is criminally wrong if you don't want to go help someone pay their hospital bill? You are mixing to separate principles. Criminal law, Constitutional law, and national defense are principles of either the constitution and a legitimate function of government or they are the morals of those in government. Each of us hold to different moral views with regard to helping the disadvantaged. Is it the primary function of government to force one moral view upon all citizens in this regard?
BTW- I have already stated that I think it is morally right to help the disadvantaged so I do it. My question is should the government force all the rest of you to hold the same moral choice I do? Is that their function not only in this example but in all other individual moral decisions?
