Posted on 07/19/2002 3:38:08 PM PDT by aconservaguy
It isn't? It would seem to me that enforcing laws against "stealing things and assaulting people" has an inherent moral component which is "imposed" upon society. The notion of "violating the rights of others" seems a moral notion in itself...
If we look back, historically, moral standards have slackened a lot just in the short 230 years our country has existed.
The standard since Christs time is amazingly changed. I long for the good old days.
However, immorality can exist freely alongside morality with it's liberty only restrained by rules of privacy. How will I know what you do in the privacy of your own home? Saying "you cannot do that here" is different than saying "you cannot do that at all."
I've said all this before so I'll end it with my soup example. If I have 6 guests for dinner and I serve soup but 3 guests want salt and 3 do not how do I give EVERYONE exactly what they want? Obviously, I leave the salt out and the ones who want it can add it. Salt corrupts the whole pot. It cannot be removed like a pizza topping. Immorality is the same in society.
Maybe a lame example but there you go. Liberty DEMANDS order and morality based on a consensus of the INDIVIDUALS that make up a community.
For example: No one will argue that it is moral for married people to have sex. However, most will also say it should be done in private. There are many lines we draw, like that one, that just go without saying. But, if you really think about it, they are moral judgements. If a married couple has sex in front of the kids they lose the kids. That is a moral judgement and a right one. Or if they do it in public they will be arrested. That is a moral judgement too.
Should someone have the right to be a flasher? How about a school yard flasher? If you don't want to corrupt the kiddies you have to infringe on the freak's liberties a tad. He can go home and flash his own refrigerator all he wants. (and if he tells us about it we will all think he's a weirdo)
Lines must be drawn. There is no such thing as "all of the above" regarding public behavior, and in some cases private behavior -- like the "in front of the kids" example.
Balance, consensus, participation in the process by reading, voting for the representative that shares your values, informing yourself and expressing your opinions, are all the ways society comes up with the norm. It's the mean of ideas equals the direction of progression. We must all participate and this great government was set up on the principle that no individual whatsoever is the know all, be all, supreme decision maker in anything. Individual freedom is at its highest when structure and balance exist. Individual freedom is only one of the balancing factors that result in maximum freedom for all.
I would favor a monarchy as long as I am the monarch.
Do you mean any and all govs or just the fed gov?
For instance, is pre-marital sex immoral? You'll get various answers depending on who you talk to and certainly laws can be (and have been) passed outlawing it. Assuming we're dealing with consenting adults, there are certainly no victims here so whose morality do we follow? That of the majority?
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? I would think a morality is followed in both instances... And as for "whose morality" to follow: i would think whatever moral standards and practices of the community. Why not follow the morality of the majority? What are the negative consequences? Whose -- or which -- morality do we follow if not the majority?
When discussing any particular behaviour you can certainly find someone who will find it immoral and that gets complicated. However if we stick to the concept of whether the rights of an individual are being infringed then things get simpler. There has been a huge cry about moral relativism lately, but when aren't morals relative? Looking at different cultures, different time periods, and different people you will find that concepts of morality differ greatly. Right here and right now, even if you limit yourself to Christians, you will find huge differences in perceived morality.
That "concepts of morality differ greatly" doesn't necessarily mean that morality is relative -- that no "objective" morality exists. 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.
Keep it simple: gov't should protect the rights of the people and not attempt to be the keeper of morality.
I'll ask to clarify to make sure i'm on the same page as you;) What do you consider "morality" -- imo, i think morality is inherent in laws, because i think there's a certain moral paradigm on which the laws are based. So, when you say "keeper of morality," could you expand a little or give some example(s)? thanks
Because groups of people don't have greater rights than individual people. If I cannot impose MY moral beliefs on you, than neither can me and my friend, me and 100 of my friends, me and 1000 of my friends, or "society" as a whole.
do groups made up of individuals have the right to "enforce" their beliefs?
Nope. See above.
The "right" to high property values? I must have missed that one in my copy of the constitution.
It can be, but in the context of constitutional, representitive government, it is not. It is simply the delegated function of government, lest there be anarchy.
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.