The further we go down the path of the latter days, the more convoluted the differing messages in society become concerning morality and law. But the serious nature of the topic makes me want to say a few words about the it. I sincerely hope not to offend anyone, and I recognize that I am as prone to imperfection as the next person. Anyway, it helps me to wright my thoughts down, and I hope that it helps you to read them.
Many people take issue with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints because from time to time the Church takes a stance on a certain politically charged topic of the day. They get angry with Mormons, or with Christians or Catholics, saying, "they are always trying to legislate their morals and beliefs on the rest of us." They feel that it is not right to force people to abide certain morals through passing laws that contain moral positions. "Who are you to tell me what morals I should have and what I can and can't do?", they say. "I get to choose what is right or wrong for me. Not you." What do you say in response to this? I can certainly understand why they might feel this way. Here are a few ideas of how I would respond.
 |
| Image from tcapologetics.org |
Laws, for the most part, all have some moral component to them. That is the nature of law. Take murder, for example; pretty easy to see the moral component there. Let's look at a less obvious example or two. How about speeding? Speeding laws exist because we have a moral obligation to try to keep people safe from harm. False advertising laws exist because we have a moral obligation not to take advantage of another person. It's not honest or fair, both of which are moral concepts. Tax evasion laws exist because we have a moral obligation to all contribute to the infrastructure that we benefit from each day. It's not fair to take advantage of those who do pay taxes by using those amenities without contributing. Again, fairness is a moral concept.
So, let's apply the "you can't legislate morality" mentality to all of these examples.
- Murder: "Why am I in jail for killing him? My belief system tells me that there is nothing wrong with killing someone that has shamed my family. You have no right to tell me what is right and wrong. That is my decision."
- Speeding: "I get to decide how fast I can go, because you can't dictate my morals to me and tell me that I should care about your safety."
- False Advertising: "Who are you to tell me I can't make false claims in my ads? I get to choose my morals, and taking advantage of someone or lying doesn't seem wrong to me; if it gets me ahead. It's survival of the fittest out there. That's natural law."
- Tax Evasion: "Why should I be punished for not paying my taxes? It's my money. I get to spend it how I want. Why should I care that you pay taxes? I never payed up for gas on road trips in college. So, why should I care about putting in now. Contributing to the group means nothing in my morality."
Some then change the subject from morality to rights. They say that these laws are all about protecting people's rights and not morality. That doesn't work either, for a few reasons. First, you can't dictate to me the moral obligation to care about your rights. Second, rights either come from the state or from God. If they come from the state, then you have no real claim over them anyway. They are on loan to you from the state and can be taken away or infringed upon at any time. If rights come from God, then they are drenched from head to toe in morality. Third, the whole concept of rights is that there are certain privileges that everyone is entitled to. And it is right for them to have those privileges and wrong to take them away. But when the concept of right and wrong enters the picture, with it comes morality.
The truth is that morality has been legislated in civilized government since forever. Legislating moral laws has never taken away people's God-given agency, just attached civil consequences to their choices. They can still choose to murder, to speed, to lie, and to freeload. And just because someone promotes a law with a certain moral foundation, it does not mean that he or she hates those that choose a different moral stance. So, the question is not, Can or should we have laws with moral foundations? but What do we as a society want our morals to be? And when the majority of society chooses morals that are contrary to "the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ," that is the day we loose the protection of Heaven (Ether 2:7-12). Thus, above all other things in our country we should be promoting and pushing for Judeo-Christian morals, for they are the only thing that keeps us free.
The truth is that morality has been legislated in civilized government since forever. Legislating moral laws has never taken away people's God-given agency, just attached civil consequences to their choices. They can still choose to murder, to speed, to lie, and to freeload. And just because someone promotes a law with a certain moral foundation, it does not mean that he or she hates those that choose a different moral stance. So, the question is not, Can or should we have laws with moral foundations? but What do we as a society want our morals to be? And when the majority of society chooses morals that are contrary to "the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ," that is the day we loose the protection of Heaven (Ether 2:7-12). Thus, above all other things in our country we should be promoting and pushing for Judeo-Christian morals, for they are the only thing that keeps us free.
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteA friend has introduced me to your blog asking my views on your post. As the blog is set in an open public forum, I am making the assumption that you wish to engage in the sharing of ideas. I believe there are several fundamental errors in your position and I believe the discussion must start with identifying the roles and nature of morals, ethics, and laws.
Morals are personal codes of conduct guiding our behaviors and conduct. Because of the personal nature, both logic and feeling can and should play a role in creating morals and morals can help each individual behave in a manner that best fits that unique person’s needs. Morals are not always universal and can include effective beliefs for guiding individuals such as complete alcohol abstinence for the person with an alcoholic past, acceptable and unacceptable foods to eat, and even the way we dress. Morals are by nature relative in nature and the role it plays in the individual and society even if morals are adopted from a prescribed source.
Ethics are a code for behavior at an organizational level. Therefore, ethics are by nature universal, at least when looking at an organization, profession, or similar group. As such, ethics must carry universal attributes fitting to the group. As feelings are not universal, feelings are an unacceptable approach in creating ethics, instead preferring an appeal to logic that may be better shared by the group. To say I feel all teachers should wear ties is an unacceptable position when creating ethics, but saying professional dress is a component of professional behavior, neckties are a considered professional dress, therefore all teachers should wear neckties is an acceptable position when developing ethics. The merits of the syllogistic argument can be debated whereas the feelings cannot. That is not to say ethics cannot take feelings into account and can include considerations of individual feelings and morals, but are taken from a logical perspective. An example would include ethics requiring that a teacher should not require a student to undertake a task that would result in negative feelings to the individual or to do something against one’s moral beliefs.
Laws are a code of behavior at the civic level and are universal for all people in a jurisdiction. Being a universal code of conduct, laws should appeal to logic rather than individual feelings. Laws enacted on the basis of an individual’s feelings or the feelings of a majority are considered unjust. Through this lens, one can look at laws that were based on moral “feelings” that it was unnatural for inter-racial couples to wed, or for women to serve in the military. They beg the question as to why your feelings are more important than mine, for which I am unaware of any good explanation. The laws cited as examples are all based in logical arguments. Foundational logical arguments for life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness building upon the writings of John Locke and other are the basis of these laws. Murder is directly an assault upon life, driving at unsafe speeds is built upon the high risk for death and injury of others, false advertising is built upon the theft of property, as is tax evasion (including the social contract argument). Effective and constitutional laws are based out of universally applied logical arguments, not individual morals or a collection of individual morals.
ReplyDeleteAs to the role of rights, rights are by construction always socially (governmentally) constructed and enforced. They exist within the framework of the social contract. The power to act or be for humans exist either through rights or abilities. Rights are a mitigation of individual abilities by the society at large. For example, my property rights are established through the mitigation of the abilities of a large or well-armed person from taking my property from me. Rights are given and even taken away by governments. Essential to the establishment of rights are the enforcement of rights, and I have yet to encounter an argument establishing god-given rights as I have not seen evidence which would enforce those rights. Many believe that the right to life is a god-given right, yet I have yet to see a god ever enforce such a right making it non-existent in the absence of a socially enforced right. I am grateful to live in the United States where our foundational rights found in the constitution are based upon logical foundations.
Your conclusions are correct in stating that morals have traditionally played a role in governments. That is not to be challenged, but the outcomes of such is. Where morals have coincided with universal logical and universal laws, this is not a problem. However, laws with a basis of individuals’ personal feelings extend beyond the purpose and role of morals and quickly create unjust laws. Just because someone feels it is wrong does not make it wrong. I have friends who feel that eating meat is wrong. For them, in their lives and with their beliefs that may be so. If I were to live in a place where the majority shared this individual belief, to legally prohibit the eating of meat would be unjust. In the same way, I do not share your Judeo-Christian beliefs. Just in the same way, to establish laws based on those beliefs creates unjust laws. I openly challenge your position that your morals should play an important role in legislation.
ReplyDeleteMany of your moral positions will certainly be defensible in a logical manner. I would consider the ability to logically base your positions, even if they are originally based in feelings or intuition, the barometer for just and unjust positions. If you cannot build a presentable argument in the civic forum, perhaps you should reconsider their viability.
As a final caveat, this is not an attempt to ignore the merits of post-positivistic theory, it is simply acknowledging the positivist paradigms wherewith ethics are normally created and include the position of the original post. An analysis with a post-positivistic lens would be engaging and insightful (assuming parties involved would entertain such discussions), yet would drift from the current discussion topic.
Cheers,
Scott
Thanks, Scott for your comments. I'm grateful for your thoughts and your cordial approach. I will respond as I get the time to gather my thoughts. Hopefully in the next day or two. :)
ReplyDelete