Laws control the lesser man... Right conduct controls the greater one.
Mark Twain
Posted on 11/21/2009 5:23:29 AM PST by Kaslin
When I argue that abortion under most circumstances should be illegal, I am charged with trying to legislate morality.
When I say divorce ought to be harder to obtain, not easier, I am accused of trying to legislate morality.
And when I say states should be free to make laws concerning adultery, homosexual behavior, contraception, or premarital sex, I am accused again of trying to legislate morality.
Yet when Barack Obama and the Democrats propose making it a crime to not carry health insurance, no one seems to notice that they are very aggressively trying to legislate morality.
In fact, the same people who object to my proposed legislations of morality seem to think it’s a wonderful virtue that he wants to do so many “good” things for the poor people who can’t currently get health insurance. And if that plan entails criminalizing the decision to forego such insurance, well, why wouldn’t we fine people or put them in jail for refusing to repent of their obstinate immorality in obstructing such a virtuous social project?
We have been told that poor people, children and people with pre-existing medical conditions are all being mistreated by our current health care system. We have been told that it’s embarrassing to be the only developed nation in the world to not provide universal health coverage to its citizens. And we have repeatedly been told, “The status quo is unacceptable.” The only possible meaning here is that it is “morally” unacceptable.
But President Obama hasn’t merely claimed that “we must” (read, “it’s morally necessary that we”) help people get insurance, he’s actually gone a significant step further by grounding his moral vision in arguments from the Bible. The president has said that opposition to his plans comes from people who are unwilling to obey the Biblical mandate to “be our brother’s keeper.” He’s not just legislating morality. He’s doing so on the basis of religion. If a conservative dared to offer such rationale, “Republicans Seek Theocracy” would be the Newsweek cover, not some picture of a former vice-presidential candidate in running shorts.
Now, before misunderstandings take root, let me make one thing perfectly clear: None of this bothers me in the least. Hearing Obamacare sold with moral and even Biblical language is perfectly fine with me. What irritates me is the hypocrisy of people who accuse their enemies of legislating morality and then blithely resort to making moral arguments in favor of their own political agenda. So in the name of clarity and finality, I suggest we all admit one simple, obvious fact:
All laws legislate morality.
To clarify, a law is nothing more and nothing less than a piece of codified intolerance. A society, through whatever mechanism it makes such decisions, agreeing that some behavior is not just bad, but so bad it must be prevented by force, and that’s how you get a law. Whether that behavior is abortion, adultery, divorce, speeding, marrying more than one woman, using heroin, or refusing to purchase health insurance, the point is that all laws prohibit behavior society deems evil or immoral enough that force “should” be used to discourage and punish it.
Furthermore, if morality did not precede and underpin legislation, there would be no basis for criticizing “unjust” laws. Slavery was banished, women were given the vote, and interracial marriages were finally allowed for supremely moral reasons. Not only is morality the basis for “good” laws, it is the vital motivation for rectifying “bad” ones.
“But legislating morality doesn’t work.” Really? Well, I know there is truth in the claim that you can’t change hearts by coercing the body, but there is also truth in the claim that laws create taboos which influence both behavior and hearts over the long run. Laws have a stigmatizing effect on behavior, thus being both the result of and the reinforcement for the culture’s moral codes.
Also, even though law is an admittedly clumsy instrument of moral influence, it does tend to make people behave as if they are good even when they are not. And so far as the public interest is concerned, getting people to act good is nearly as useful as getting them to truly be good. Although I’d prefer you not stab me because you are a decent person, I’m still willing to stand in line next to you at the baseball game so long as I know you’re merely (but vividly) afraid of what will be done to you if you do act on your violent impulse. Simply put, we legislate morality because it’s the only way to get some people to behave.
Oh, to be sure, many legislations of morality are unwise. But the notion that there could ever be some amoral legislation which is preferable to the moral sort is pure nonsense. There is no other kind of law besides that which coerces a particular vision of morality. After all, what besides a strong moral argument could ever justify taking people’s liberty or property away? Yet somehow, in a linguistic masterwork fit for the propaganda hall of fame, some (usually conservative) proposals are decried as “unjust” moral legislations, whereas other (usually liberal) proposals are just good ideas whose time has come.
“But your conservative proposals infringe on individual liberty.” Agreed. Just like your liberal proposals infringe on individual property (and often liberty as well). And I really don’t mind, just so long as you recognize that we are all making laws on the basis of our vision of morality and a “good” society.
So the next time someone complains in print, in person, or over the air that some proposal is an illegitimate legislation of morality, I suggest booing him. If you have a newspaper nearby, whap him on the nose … twice for good measure. Short of a self-induced epiphany, this may be the only way he finally notices that saying it’s “wrong” to legislate morality is itself an overtly moral position.
Finally, just to be sure the point is made rather than implied, I have no problem with Barack Obama phrasing his moral ideas in Biblical language. I don’t generally agree with his interpretation of Scripture, but I certainly have no objection on principle to him amplifying his case this way. However, I just want to be sure that the next time I refer to the Bible in explaining what I believe, I don’t have to endure another hypocrite claiming that I’m injecting religion into the public arena. Let’s make sure the strike zone is the same for everyone.
If people are going to be allowed to legislate their morality (remember, there really isn’t another option) this means religion is going to a factor in these discussions. If such reasons are unpersuasive to you, so be it. But please don’t give me any silliness about how it’s fundamentally wrong to mention religion in the public sphere. For the vast majority of people, including both the president and me, our morality flows from our religion. Hence our political views are ultimately going to be outworking of our religious views, even the ones about freedom and tolerance.
This means that all laws not only enforce a moral vision, but they also all represent some sort of religious vision as well. Even the complaints that one religious viewpoint is being “unjustly” overemphasized or that some religious principles “ought” not be codified in law are both themselves byproducts of particular ideas about the place of freedom in God’s world. If this final step seems like simply too much for you to embrace in a single column, that’s okay. I understand. It can be painful to suddenly discover yourself ravaged by so much previously undiagnosed hypocrisy.
Hence, I’m quite satisfied merely to see us all agree that morality is, in fact, the only source and justification for law. Restoring tolerance for religious talk may be one cognitive bridge too far for today. But you can’t blame me for trying. After all, I’m only following the lead of my president.
You can ONLY legislate morality!
Legislation is the codification of morality.
The only question is, whose morality will be codified?
the environment movement is an attempt to legislate morality
Laws control the lesser man... Right conduct controls the greater one.
Mark Twain
Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.
Alexis de Tocqueville
(who also said: "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.")
I would point out that legislation that infringes on my property rights infringe on my liberty as well. There is essentially no difference. If I am not free to do as I wish with my property (as long as I don't hurt anyone), then I am not really free. Overall, a great article.
Why even bother responding to this charge? Only ignoramouses believe it. Most people proud to be labeled nihilists, even, are not entirely without morals (in fact, they’re probably more moral than most of the unthinking, unwashed masses).
“When I argue that abortion under most circumstances should be illegal, I am charged with trying to legislate morality.
When I say divorce ought to be harder to obtain, not easier, I am accused of trying to legislate morality.
And when I say states should be free to make laws concerning adultery, homosexual behavior, contraception, or premarital sex, I am accused again of trying to legislate morality.
Yet when Barack Obama and the Democrats propose making it a crime to not carry health insurance, no one seems to notice that they are very aggressively trying to legislate morality.”
You are very correct that all of the above are attempts to legislate morality although the health insurance thing is really stretching the point.
The government should keep its nose out of all of the above.
The thing that is the most divisive issue is the one of abortion. For the record my personal opinion is that abortion is wrong and anyone who gets pregnant and there are no really overriding issues to the contrary should carry the child to term and should offer the child for adoption if there is no other choice. That being said, I am totally, absolutely and forever convinced that the refusal of the pro-life movement to concentrate their efforts on education and not legislation is a HUGE part of the reason we are in the current political situation (disaster) we are in.
A real warm and fuzzy feeling may come from the knowledge that a “law” is passed and abortion would be forever illegal. The fact is it really would not change much. Without an intense educational program designed to change the mindset that abortion is OK.. the women that want an abortion will still get one... one way or another.
Sad fact is all abortion will never be stopped but I am convinced that education not legislation is the answer to keeping it to the lowest level possible.
Very repetitive, but very valid! I would only add that laws are also to protect the defenseless.
The pro-life movement has been engaged in intensive efforts to educate from Day One. You seem to be unfamiliar with the bulk of prolife activity for the past 40 years.
For the record, most of the prolife movement's legislative campaigns have been defensive: trying for example to stop the goenrment from funding abortion entreprneurs at home and abroad. Scan the NRLC's legislative check list And you will see what I mean.
More to the point, most of the legislative activity has itself been educational. That's how you mobilize support: by educating about the issues.
In outreach activities in churches and community meetings, its activities on college campuses, and so forth, the prolife movement has been relentlessly focused on accurate, science-referenced information.
Your comment is ill-informed.
I find nowhere in Scripture where we are called to be "our brother's keeper". Help the poor? Yes. Show compassion and mercy? Yes. Deal honestly and fairly to all? Yes. Love your neighbor as yourself? Yes. All these are required of us individually.
But being "our brother's keeper" (as Obama proclaims) implies we are responsible for his whereabouts, actions, health, etc. - those things for which an individual is himself responsible. In other words, Obama is calling for us (the government) to be the ultimate master over the individual.
Isn't that the very definition of tyranny?
Why is it not surprising he would twist the meaning of Scripture to promote a lie?
Laws do not protect anyone from anything. They are punative judgements against antisocial behavior. As such they may limit some such behavior but they do not cast a protective net around anyone. They are, in fact, only activated when they are violated. This is not protecting, it is punishing perpetrators.
"Am I my brother's keeper?"...was the defensive, back-talk Cain presented to God when He asked him where his brother Abel was. (after he'd murdered him)
I can't tell you how many times I've heard lawyers twist scripture to fit a defense theme. Like we can't look it up for ourselves....
I agree also that we are to have mercy and compassion on those less fortunate....but it should never be a forced legislative policy..... which is tyranny.
Now there's a split hair! Of course laws protect the defenseless, and they are neither, intrinsically, punitive nor are they judgments.Oh never mind, just have a nice day, and get a spellchecker -- two times! ;)
Imagine, if you will, a young lady, newly pregnant but unmarried, who has always unthinkingly followed the party line about abortion. Now, realizing for the first time what it really means, she has reconsidered. She would like to dig her feet in and protect the new life within her, against the pressure brought against her by those who see only an "inconvenience" (family, boyfriend, etc.). Time was, she could appeal to the law and say, "It's illegal!" and make the pressure stop. But not now.
In such a case the law doesn't have to be activated to serve a useful function.
.....based on junk science and false pretenses.
Here’s a long article “Virtue & Morality: Freedom’s Prerequisites” from a few days ago. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2388578/posts
One need not be religious to be thankful that our Founders and Framers put the best of Western Civilization into our Constitution.
“The only question is, whose morality will be codified?”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The only rule that makes sense to me is the one Ayn Rand put forth, basically the idea that no individual has the right to INITIATE the use of force. That is why in all countries governed by reason it is a capital offense to kill someone for no good reason but it is not a crime to kill someone who is trying to kill you.
No law should be passed if we can live without it, we have thousands, maybe millions of laws on the books that never should have even been considered, let alone passed. If there were some way that everyone who breaks a law could be caught, tried, convicted and sentenced there would be no need for prisons, we could just declare the whole country a prison.
Back in the mists of time when I was a lad someone who proposed to make a law requiring a person to buy health insurance with fines and even imprisonment possible for violators he would probably have been imprisoned...in an insane asylum.
The only mention of being “my brother’s keeper” that I am aware of is Cain’s question when called to account for his crime. I am not aware of any command to be my brother’s keeper, but then Obama knows of several states of which I am unaware so it isn’t surprising that he knows of biblical commands of which I am unaware.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.