Should our government enforce morality?

[belverron]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Of course the Government is going to moderate morality. The thing most of you miss is simple, the PEOPLE vote representatives in office to enforce thier views on the government. This is how the system works. If the Reps are doing their JOBS as they are supposed to, then "morality" will be enforced, and that will be the morality of the voters. Should that morality change, on wahtever subject, those currently in office will be replaced by the voters with people who will change things.

The people's voices are supposed to be moderated by their learned representatives. Also, checks and balances and constitutional limits come into play. I would argue that these are here because we have a vested interest in a government which does not enforce morality. It's along the same lines as a government that does not make laws "respecting an establishment of religion."

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio That's how it's supposed to work. The real monkey wrench in all of this are activist judges and special interest groups, like the ACLU for example.

"Activist judges," which are rarer than some conservatives make them out to be, may be a problem, but judges who deem bills which happen to deal with the "protection of marriage" or abortion unconstitutional are not necessarily members of that breed. WE DO NOT LIVE IN A PURE DEMOCRACY, AND THE PEOPLE'S WILL DOES NOT ALWAYS NEED TO SEE FRUITION. People who do not agree with the majority on every issue shouldn't make this argument, and few people fall into that category.

[castille]

The government can enforce morality, but if they go too far, people will find a way.

Remember Prohibition? People still drank alcohol. Remember China's ultra-socialist era during the 1960s? The black market flourished. What about the Spanish final inquisition? Spain eventually collapsed as a world power when they were unable to deal with the new ideas.

[asterix404]

There are of course some things that can should be mandated as law... but I am not sure if they are becasue they are moral or becasue they are humane. Murder isn't very humane although my point was really that there are cultrues that it is. This is why no country should makes laws for morality. That can change on a whim. Is abortion right or wrong... is stem cell reasearch okay... these questions shouldn't be taken ever from a moral persepctive because that brings fealings into law. I don't think that law is ment to have fealings... I think it's cold and impersional. I mean think if the Amish were the people who formed our government... our morals would be totally different, so would our laws, a great deal of them... but what makes murder and rape and theft and physical harm differnt? I honestly don't know but if someone asnwers that question we would have a sound answer to the one that is posted.

[Gilligan]

I think its immoral and a little bit insane for a human being to demand to be "more" restrained by another human being. We have enough laws that hide under the moral guise.

[IndieC]

Morality is an opinion. It differs enormously from person to person on certain issues, and covers an enormous anount of issues, and it would therefore be unfair for certain morals to be enforced, while it would be considered immoral by many not to enforce other morals.

In other words, some mrals are already enforced, while others are not, not all should be enforced, but it is necessary to enforce certain ones.

[Thunder Wave]

I think it all has been very well covered in all previous posts. Morals are an opinion based on religion, life experiences, and community driven people. If this country(US) is driven more to christian morals than that is because there are more Christians here than not. If it goes too far than there will be rebellions. If it goes to far to the otherside of lacking morals than there will also be rebellions.

I am not for the lack of morals, but I am not for Christian morales to the point of Living as a Christian. ESPECIALLY Mormon. You can't drink, smoke, think of anything declared even closely as immoral, (Because if you think an immoral act you did an immoral act by thinking about it) and so on. So there needs to be a good living lifestyle where we can all get along even if we have to accept certain "immoral" acts as long as it doesn't affect good living standards than let it be.

What are good living standards?

No thievery, Harming of others mentally or physically.

No obscene gestures, actions, or public demonstrations of vulgar acts. (Depends on Cultures' POV)

Pretty much we have all the bases covered in US and I believe most major cultures.

Ever notice that the Bigger Cities have more openminded people? That's because bigger cities attract multicultures and naturally, hopefully, all soon will come to an agreement on what is morally acceptable in their community. If not it will be endless battles until they do.

Iran, Iraq for example.

[asterix404]

I agree though my morles are deff not where yours are. I don't really care about being vulgar or nudity or sexuality... I don't care about drugs or porno... or swearing. What I do care about is respecting other people. I don't care how little you respect yourself, but rape... murder.... voilence... that I deem as bad. That I guess would be morle...

[Libertarian]

It is very hard to have one set of morals for a non-relgious state. With a single religion, morals are easy to define, but with America, and with the freedoms that we all enjoy, one set of morals cannot be given to all. This is the major problem currently. Is it right for the majority do decitiate the morals, or is it everyone, or is it even the minority?

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Technosoul Yes. No. It all depends (see remarks)

If government is the modern version of the role once held by village elders then, yes.

[Athena]

Quote by: Chalk Perhaps discourage the outright immoral.. but morals tend to be shaped by a persons' individual experiences and views, meaning there is arguably no one correct moral stance. I don't think it's possible to enforce morality without enforcing a type of ideology on people.. and you only need to recap the history books to see that ends in disaster.

From 1840 to 1958 free public education transmitted the ideology of democracy, and prepared our young for good moral judgement, while maintain separation of state and church. I am unaware of any disaster, except what has happened since we stopped doing this.

"Liberty is not merely a privilege to be conferred; it is a habit to be aquired". Lloyd George
William James in his 1899 book "Talks to Teachers on Psychology" explains the importance to teachers of training children for such habits, and at the 1917 National Education Association Conference, speakers spoke of preparing students for good citizenship. Following text books stressed this as the reason for taxing all people and educating all children.

"Reason and virtue alone can bestow liberty" Shaftesbury Again, I say education was about training the higher thinking skills for good reasoning, and moral judgement. We thought "good manners" and "moral" were synonomous, and that "virtue" and "strength" were synonomous. When we add an "e" to "moral" we get "morale" that high spirited feeling that comes from believing we have done the right thing. Morale is the Spirit of America.

My grandmother would say, we teach children math to teach them how to think. Diagramming sentences was another way to learn logic. The Conceptual Method of education taught progressively more complex concepts. This is tied to liberal education.
It is also tied to preventing mental dis-order, a state of mental confusion that can be dangerous to self and others.

"Personal liberty is the paramount to essential to human dignity and happiness".
Bulwer

"In the same proportion that ignorance and vice prevail in a republic, will the government partake of of dispotism". Sprague (note a republic can be despotic and that is what those who insist we are not a democracy are going to get if they don't gain a better understanding of democracy)

Or in other words, only highly moral people can have liberty. For how to prepare people for good moral judgement, go to Socrates.

"No free government, or the blessings of liberty can be preserved to any people but by firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by the frequent recurrence to fundamental principles". Patrick Henery

We taught all children a set of values until 1958. Do you know them? Do you believe we can maintain liberty when what is written here is not taught in our schools and is not common knowledge?