Liberty, Morality and Order

[aconservaguy]

I hope to spin-off of a recent discussion of censorship the issue of liberty, morality and order.

What are the limits of each? Are there any limits to a person's freedom? Or can the community in which he lives enact prohibitions -- moral prohibitions -- against things like pornography, as an example -- or any things it doesn't like.

Must moral ideas and standards -- and the upholding of them -- be at the mercy of liberty, or vice versa, at all times? Can there be a middle ground? Is an objective morality needed for an orderly society? To have liberty, must order take a back seat?

To have order, must liberty be curbed? Or is it a gray area, with one not superseding the other?

Finally, do majorities have the right to "impose their will" upon society, or is majoritarianism an implausible, dangerous doctrine?

Here's a link to the original thread

[moderation_is_not_a_bad_thing]

"What if dealing with non-consensual sex? Yes, if there aren't any victims, you can make the argument; but what do you do when it's non-consensual? Isn't there a morality followed?"

There is definitely an overlap between law and morality. But in some societies at various times non-consensual sex has not been considered immoral, but we can easily look at it from the perspective that the victims rights were violated. Legislating from a Rights perspective versus morality makes things simpler.

"Even "different cultures, different time periods and different people" doesn't mean that morality is relative; objecitive standards still exist independent of the person, time period or culture. "

That's a common opinion, but I'm curious as to your arguments to substantiate it? If you're going to point to the Bible, then what about people of other religions? Jews and Christians certainly don't view the Bible in the same way, and even among Christians alone there are widely varying concepts of morality. Looking at Catholics alone you will see church standards on morality changing radically over the centuries.

Basically, I view morality to be too slippery a topic and I really don't like the idea of gov't telling me what I can and can't do on an arbitrary basis (because someone finds it immoral). But I think we can agree that people have rights and legislate our behaviour only to protect the rights of others. This keeps things simple, or at least simpler : )

[aconservaguy]

There is definitely an overlap between law and morality. But in some societies at various times non-consensual sex has not been considered immoral, but we can easily look at it from the perspective that the victims rights were violated. Legislating from a Rights perspective versus morality makes things simpler.

I agree.

That's a common opinion, but I'm curious as to your arguments to substantiate it? If you're going to point to the Bible, then what about people of other religions? Jews and Christians certainly don't view the Bible in the same way, and even among Christians alone there are widely varying concepts of morality. Looking at Catholics alone you will see church standards on morality changing radically over the centuries.

I won't point to the bible or any "religious" reasons; you make a good point about the changing standards of the church, though; however, those changing standards don't necessarliy mean morality is relative, imo. and it's true that "church standards" have changed over the centuries; but, and this is just pure conjecture, could it be possible that the reason the standards have changed (or not) isn't because of any difference in time, place, etc., but because the "church" realized it was in error? Also, again i look at my earlier statement which stated that morals exist "independent of..." we may have differing opinions on what is morally right or wrong, but nonetheless i believe that objective morals do exist (now finding those out is another story all together, lol).

Also, I think if we admit morality is relative, then so are rights and other such things.

Basically, I view morality to be too slippery a topic and I really don't like the idea of gov't telling me what I can and can't do on an arbitrary basis (because someone finds it immoral). But I think we can agree that people have rights and legislate our behaviour only to protect the rights of others. This keeps things simple, or at least simpler : )

I agree that morality is a slippery topic; but just something i'm just wondering : how would you defend your statement that

"I think we can agree that people have rights and legislate our behaviour only to protect the rights of others."

in light of your statement

"I really don't like the idea of gov't telling me what I can and can't do on an arbitrary basis (because someone finds it immoral)"

It just seems there's a little tension between the two... Also, I think there are certain underlying "moral" principles which formulate and influence the (or any) government.

[weikel]

Yes they did it was just their own sick morality.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Yes, that's true, but they enforced it from the barrel of a gun.  The more moral a society is, the less that the threat of force will be needed.  The Nazi and Communist regimes are based on an almost total lack of trust of their own peoples.  How moral is that?

[weikel]

They did do it from the barrel of a gun but no matter how moral people were the Commies and Nazis were going to kill a lot of people.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Yes they were going to kill a lot of people.  My point is that moral governments trust their people, immoral ones don't.

[moderation_is_not_a_bad_thing]

>"I agree that morality is a slippery topic; but just something i'm just wondering : how would you defend your statement that "I think we can agree that people have rights and legislate our behaviour only to protect the rights of others." in light of your statement "I really don't like the idea of gov't telling me what I can and can't do on an arbitrary basis (because someone finds it immoral)""


While the difference between legislating Rights versus Morality can seem to be a minor semantic argument the results can be significant.

The biggest difference between legislating rights versus morality is that when looking at rights there can be no crime if no one's rights have been violated. Yet, legislating morality allows the gov't to proscribe even private victimless behaviour and that is too arbitrary for me. I believe that unless there is a victim, unless someone else is affected, a person should be free to follow their own conscience and moral standard without interference from gov't.

[aconservaguy]

While the difference between legislating Rights versus Morality can seem to be a minor semantic argument the results can be significant.

True.

The biggest difference between legislating rights versus morality is that when looking at rights there can be no crime if no one's rights have been violated. Yet, legislating morality allows the gov't to proscribe even private victimless behaviour and that is too arbitrary for me. I believe that unless there is a victim, unless someone else is affected, a person should be free to follow their own conscience and moral standard without interference from gov't.

I guess I'm asking how do you explain the idea of "I think we can agree that people have rights and legislate our behaviour only to protect the rights of others." in light of the seemingly relativist position you took in an earlier post. To me it seems that the idea of "individual ights" underlying the government's... legitimacy, if you will, is a "moral" idea in itself. I guess I really wasn't looking at legislating per se, but more like the basis of the government, ends and so forth. Sorry if i wasn't explicit.

[moderation_is_not_a_bad_thing]

>"I guess I'm asking how do you explain the idea of "I think we can agree that people have rights and legislate our behaviour only to protect the rights of others." in light of the seemingly relativist position you took in an earlier post. To me it seems that the idea of "individual ights" underlying the government's... legitimacy, if you will, is a "moral" idea in itself. I guess I really wasn't looking at legislating per se, but more like the basis of the government, ends and so forth. Sorry if i wasn't explicit."

Ahhh.... I understand your question now. I'd say basically that we all have rights because we all agree that we have rights. It's highly unlikely to find anyone who would say that they shouldn't have any rights, although it's easy to find people who would that OTHERS shouldn't have rights : )

[aconservaguy]

Ahhh.... I understand your question now. I'd say basically that we all have rights because we all agree that we have rights. It's highly unlikely to find anyone who would say that they shouldn't have any rights, although it's easy to find people who would that OTHERS shouldn't have rights : )

Cool, and sorry for the confusion early on:) That's an interesting idea you have there... It sounds like some type of "social contract". Would you say it is, or is it different? Also, is this an "absolutist" or "relativist" idea... from the looks of it, it seems more relativist to me, seeing as how people are all in "agreement" with one another on the rights they hold.

would you think any consequences would come if the government were to not agree with that belief? Supposing that this belief underlies government (or at least any legitimate one), it would seem that if the government doesn't believe that "we all have rights because we all agree," and from that not legislating to protect "rights of others," a question of legitimacy could arise. What do you think?