Should we view our laws as upholding morality, or as protection liberties.

[Ronaldson]

A common idea I have seen proposed in many debates and lectures is the idea that our laws were put into place in order to keep our society moral. So in effect we are legislating morality.
I think this is the root problem in our society. When legislating morality, one has to ask "Who's morals?" and it opens the door to silly debates on what society should allow.I.E.: Gay marriage, censorship of films, games etc. I think in order to have a just society we need to throw the concept of morality right out the window when making laws.
Instead the sole principal that should be considered is the liberties of the people a law would effect.
In order for a act to become illegal, that act has to infringe on the rights of other citizens. For example I cannot assault a person because I have taken away that persons right to go about their day unmolested. Drug laws however would by necessity become much looser. As long as I am not hurting another person in order to use them, no drug should be denied to me. If I want to ruin my body that is my right.
Anyways I would like to read what you people think. Should morality rule in the making of a law? Or should laws only be determined by considering the liberties of the citizens.

[SoylentGreen]

You have not presented the full scope of laws in your OP.

There is also preventitive law.
Preventive Law Law & Legal Definition

Preventive law seeks to anticipate and prevent legal problems and litigation in a broad scope of areas, such as environmental law, sex discrimination, computer law, estate planning, corporate compliance, business planning, and property transactions.

These laws are not based on morality but neither do they deal with events that infringe on other peoples rights.

An example would be drink driving. A drunk might make it home in car without causing a serious death or accident. But should they be allowed to put property and life at risk by driving under the influence.

[Ronaldson]

I think my idea of law still covers it. If you could guarantee that you could drive drunk, without putting anyone's life or property at risk, than that may be ok. But that is an impossible thing to guarantee. When a person makes a choice to drive drunk, it removes other peoples right to drive on a safe road. If that drunk person crashes they crash into other people's property, and cause harm to that person. Therefore by choosing to drink you are removing the choice of every other person on the road to be in a safe environment. I purposely left the scope of my idea very broad, but it can be applied to any form of law. Another reason for the broad strokes approach to this debate is because I am trying to discuss the entire culture of law making, and I was afraid that by getting into too many specifics too early, I would not be starting a debate so much as a rant. But yeah if we approach law making in a broad way, do you think we should consider morals? or liberties?

[tishe]

A common idea I have seen proposed in many debates and lectures is the idea that our laws were put into place in order to keep our society moral. So in effect we are legislating morality.
I think this is the root problem in our society. When legislating morality, one has to ask "Who's morals?" and it opens the door to silly debates on what society should allow.I.E.: Gay marriage, censorship of films, games etc. I think in order to have a just society we need to throw the concept of morality right out the window when making laws.
Instead the sole principal that should be considered is the liberties of the people a law would effect.
In order for a act to become illegal, that act has to infringe on the rights of other citizens. For example I cannot assault a person because I have taken away that persons right to go about their day unmolested. Drug laws however would by necessity become much looser. As long as I am not hurting another person in order to use them, no drug should be denied to me. If I want to ruin my body that is my right.
Anyways I would like to read what you people think. Should morality rule in the making of a law? Or should laws only be determined by considering the liberties of the citizens.

Hi and with Respect.
Humans will never be able to " legislate morality",,, think about it? A human versus a human. They all have different morals. I agree with you! It is a root problem. We can not legislate human morality. Humans have been trying this, since the beginning of time. You do not need a link or a source to prove this point. All you need is history. YOU are right. With respect!!

[SoylentGreen]

I think my idea of law still covers it. If you could guarantee that you could drive drunk, without putting anyone's life or property at risk, than that may be ok. But that is an impossible thing to guarantee. When a person makes a choice to drive drunk, it removes other peoples right to drive on a safe road. If that drunk person crashes they crash into other people's property, and cause harm to that person. Therefore by choosing to drink you are removing the choice of every other person on the road to be in a safe environment. I purposely left the scope of my idea very broad, but it can be applied to any form of law. Another reason for the broad strokes approach to this debate is because I am trying to discuss the entire culture of law making, and I was afraid that by getting into too many specifics too early, I would not be starting a debate so much as a rant. But yeah if we approach law making in a broad way, do you think we should consider morals? or liberties?

I think you miss the point

If you could guarantee that you could drive drunk, without putting anyone's life or property at risk, than that may be ok. But that is an impossible thing to guarantee.

To continue with that thought, nor can the law garantee that anyones property or safety will be damaged by the actions of a drunk.
it is purely, completely a speculative offense against liberties.
It operates solely on the fact that the more drunk a person the more likely damage will occur, not that damage will occur. In fact even if the driver makes it all the way to his house without any damage they can still be arrested and charged with an offense, despite no damage to anyone or thing.

If you wish to discuss the "entire" culture of law making then the concept known as "fence at the top of the cliff is better than an ambulance at the bottom" must also be included. And this is a moral concept, not one of liberty.

[Crappo]

A common idea I have seen proposed in many debates and lectures is the idea that our laws were put into place in order to keep our society moral. So in effect we are legislating morality.
I think this is the root problem in our society. When legislating morality, one has to ask "Who's morals?" and it opens the door to silly debates on what society should allow.I.E.: Gay marriage, censorship of films, games etc. I think in order to have a just society we need to throw the concept of morality right out the window when making laws.
Instead the sole principal that should be considered is the liberties of the people a law would effect.
In order for a act to become illegal, that act has to infringe on the rights of other citizens. For example I cannot assault a person because I have taken away that persons right to go about their day unmolested. Drug laws however would by necessity become much looser. As long as I am not hurting another person in order to use them, no drug should be denied to me. If I want to ruin my body that is my right.
Anyways I would like to read what you people think. Should morality rule in the making of a law? Or should laws only be determined by considering the liberties of the citizens.

We think too much of rights and too little of responsibilities in America. This is not the best way.

It has long been recognized that the mature human being will be the more moral one. Laws, therefore, are formulated with this in mind. We are guided to obey standards set for our society based upon what the vision of maturity should be. Now this is variable as is morality because we all are of differing levels of consciousness. Why consciousness? Because the more conscious among us are the ones with stronger consciences and a strong conscience guides us towards moral living automatically.

Maturity equals responsible and moral behavior therefore morality is a function of maturity and nothing else.

What of freedoms? Again to the degree that each of us is mature the degree of freedoms that we require, or desire, will vary.

For instance the spiritually advanced human being is truly free no matter his or her social circumstance where the ordinary person will always be concerned with freedoms as primary objectives in life.

[R.F.]

Hi and with Respect.
Humans will never be able to " legislate morality",,, think about it? A human versus a human. They all have different morals. I agree with you! It is a root problem. We can not legislate human morality. Humans have been trying this, since the beginning of time. You do not need a link or a source to prove this point. All you need is history. YOU are right. With respect!!

Actually, no.

Their are ways to be right and wrong. For instance if someone said to you:

"What if shredding babies up with a chainsaw, and force feeding them to their mothers that i just raped is what makes me happy- who are you to tell me it's wrong?!"

This is in no way good behavior, or even neutral behavior. Anyone who would argue this is either lying, or is pychopathic.

Morality exists in species other than humans. Morality is just a set of [innate] right and wrong behaviors. In a society as advanced as ours [human society] many of our moral issues are subjective to opinion, but we could have never progressed to this point without moral order. Just as other species cannot become so large in population without some form of moral order.

[Ronaldson]

I think you miss the point


To continue with that thought, nor can the law garantee that anyones property or safety will be damaged by the actions of a drunk.
it is purely, completely a speculative offense against liberties.
It operates solely on the fact that the more drunk a person the more likely damage will occur, not that damage will occur. In fact even if the driver makes it all the way to his house without any damage they can still be arrested and charged with an offense, despite no damage to anyone or thing.

If you wish to discuss the "entire" culture of law making then the concept known as "fence at the top of the cliff is better than an ambulance at the bottom" must also be included. And this is a moral concept, not one of liberty.

If one looks at law as a way of upholding liberties, than the drunk is guilty regardless of whether he hurt someone or not. I feel like I am repeating myself on this, but if I get drunk, and then climb into a car I am making taking a risk. That would be fine except that my choice also puts others at risk. These other people had no choice in the matter, so in effect I am removing their right to a safe drive. Whether I get into an accident or not, I have still decided to risk other peoples lives against their wills. I know it seems like alot of reasoning and work to come to the same conclusion as someone who thinks drunk driving is morally wrong, but my major objection to the ideas of legislating morality comes from the idea that to find something morally wrong, no thought is required, meerly a icky feeling, or a gut reaction. With that in mind I am not entirley sure what your argument against my pruposed philosphy is. In your responce to me you have accused me of speculating that by saying the more drunk a person is the more damage they will cause. I never said that. I meerly think that person should be able to do what ever they like as long as it dose not effect others. Keeping drunk driving illegal, but maybe taking some heat off drug offenders, or gay people.

[Ronaldson]

We think too much of rights and too little of responsibilities in America. This is not the best way.

It has long been recognized that the mature human being will be the more moral one. Laws, therefore, are formulated with this in mind. We are guided to obey standards set for our society based upon what the vision of maturity should be. Now this is variable as is morality because we all are of differing levels of consciousness. Why consciousness? Because the more conscious among us are the ones with stronger consciences and a strong conscience guides us towards moral living automatically.

Maturity equals responsible and moral behavior therefore morality is a function of maturity and nothing else.

What of freedoms? Again to the degree that each of us is mature the degree of freedoms that we require, or desire, will vary.

For instance the spiritually advanced human being is truly free no matter his or her social circumstance where the ordinary person will always be concerned with freedoms as primary objectives in life.

I never said people should not be responsible for things, quite the oposite. And as far as what freedoms I am talking about, I am speaking about the freedom to do what ever you like, so long as it dosnt negativly impact another person. I have the right to swing my hands around like an idiot. That is until some one else may be hit by me, in which time I must stop, or be commiting an offence against that person.

Also I have no idea why your ideas of a spiritually advanced person would hold any weight on this conversation. I mean I could use your argument about a spiritually advanced person being okay with their lot in life against a slave and it would be just as apt. That dose not make it correct. If every one had such a roll over and die attitude about their lots in life, we may have never left the caves we crawled out of.

[Thanatos]

Liberty is a utility. So is the ability to breathe.

As a utilitarian, I believe that laws exist to maximize the number of people who are allowed to live life as they choose.

[SoylentGreen]

If one looks at law as a way of upholding liberties, than the drunk is guilty regardless of whether he hurt someone or not. I feel like I am repeating myself on this, but if I get drunk, and then climb into a car I am making taking a risk. That would be fine except that my choice also puts others at risk. These other people had no choice in the matter, so in effect I am removing their right to a safe drive. Whether I get into an accident or not, I have still decided to risk other peoples lives against their wills. .

You are not repeating yourself, you are contradicting yourself.
In another post you say:

I am speaking about the freedom to do what ever you like, so long as it dosnt negativly impact another person. I have the right to swing my hands around like an idiot. That is until some one else may be hit by me, in which time I must stop, or be commiting an offence against that person.

Yet driving drunk does not impact negatively on any other, it only has the increased potential to do so, just as swinging a fist idiotically does.
Swinging your fist according to you does not impact negatively on any other but it does increase the potential to do so, as in if you hit someone.
Yet one you feel you have the freedom to do and not the other.

I know it seems like alot of reasoning and work to come to the same conclusion as someone who thinks drunk driving is morally wrong, but my major objection to the ideas of legislating morality comes from the idea that to find something morally wrong, no thought is required, meerly a icky feeling, or a gut reaction.

Then you misconstrue my argument.
I am pointing out that there is quite good reasons to have laws that are preventitive. But that those laws are not based on rights but on the moral obligation that it is better to prevent.

With that in mind I am not entirley sure what your argument against my pruposed philosphy is.

Well then let me make it clear, there are two reasons.
First, you are trying to simplify. "One size fits all" type of law making. As in all laws should be based on rights not morals. But law is not simple that is why we have a sysytem of trial by which lawyers argue the pros and cons of each case instead of a system of straight judgement by a judge pronouncing what is the law.
Second, We have a disagreement on what a right is.
A person driving drunk is no more a menace to any one than a person waving a fist around. No one can garantee they will cause harm or that they will not cause harm. yet for some reason to you one has a right to throw a punch but not the right to drive drunk.

In your responce to me you have accused me of speculating that by saying the more drunk a person is the more damage they will cause. I never said that. I meerly think that person should be able to do what ever they like as long as it dose not effect others. Keeping drunk driving illegal, but maybe taking some heat off drug offenders, or gay people

And yet you can not garantee that a person driving drunk will cause harm. You can only point out that the drunk has a greater chance of causing damage. And you are making the descision that such a person is a menace to society and should be outlawed, merely on the probability that it will cause harm.
Do you understand that you are not discussing rights here but instead you are taking a moral position of what is harmfull.
And I agree with the preventitive laws. I agree that a drunk driver should be prosecuted regardless of whether they do harm or not. But i also undertand that i am taking a moral stand and that the law must include the concept of morality.

[Anguspure]

Liberty is a utility. So is the ability to breathe.

As a utilitarian, I believe that laws exist to maximize the number of people who are allowed to live life as they choose.

In the sense that moral law is always a negative, I agree that (broadly speaking) Law is the legislation of morality (the Ten Commandments).
Broadly speaking because the view on what is or is not immoral or evil varies.
Law is a necessary evil that exists because men do not wish to do only good to one another.
The Law is a boundary that is placed around a group making that group set apart from other individuals or groups who have other priorities.
Whether the group is a Church or a Nation or a whole planet, law marks the limits of acceptable behaviour for those who are part of the group.
It serves both to control the members of the group by demarking certain behaviours that will result in exclusion from the group, and also serves to protect the members of the group from the consequences of the prohibited behaviour.
Law that is overly restrictive provides for a smaller range of acceptable behaviours but may on the other hand provide greater protection against the negative consequence of certain behaviour.
Conversely Law that allows greater liberty of behaviour within the group may result in harm for vulnerable members of the group.
Good and effective law will balance the joys of liberation against the need to protect the members of the group from harm.
In the sense that morality shows us the path to a good life, Law is of no use (the Beatitudes).
We must realise however that Law cannot tell the individual how to live. It only tells us how we may not live if we wish to be a part of the group.
Law is by nature negative, it sign posts the path to consequences detrimental to the members of the group.
There is no law against:

love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Gal 5:22-23 (NIV)

But neither can there be a law for them, for there is no upper limit for the expression of these qualities that could be imposed.
The life of the truly liberated is in fact free from any law that maybe imposed to protect any group from harm.