It is inevitable that society will consist of varying opinions on morality. Some feel that it is immoral to have gay marriage be legal. The same goes for legalizing marijuana many people it is immoral to allow people to smoke it. Often people come up with excuses that in their opinion validates their morality. They'll quote exaggerated statistics that are misleading or inaccurate. They'll often use religion to validate their insecurities for example the 'God Hates (*)(*)(*)(*)' group. I asked this question on Yahoo Answers (I know not going to get the most intelligent answers) http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20131003194014AALBM2U It is true the government is made up of a collective of elected officials. Just because they have been elected that doesn't mean that their opinions necessarily reflect the opinion of the collective majority. There are often laws that contradict each other. Especially when it comes to state and federal laws. In Colorado they legalized Marijuana on a state level, however the federal government can still choose to prosecute people. I don't see what gives people the right to dictate how other people must live their lives so long as it has no harmful effects on other people. But that brings up the question what is considered harmful? I view it as something that effects other people's free will. Such as stealing, murder etc. My heritage has been traced back to coming over on the mayflower. My family came to leave oppression and have their freedom. Yet it feels like more and more our privacy and civil liberties are being infringed upon. From the NSA spying on it's citizens and ridiculous firearm restrictions (before the shut down there was a year and a half waiting list to get a gun permit in the state of New York. Moving into the state I have had to transfer it to a friend of mine with a license and trust him with a very expensive $2400 gun.) So with that in mind, how do feel about mandating morality? Dictating what is or is not moral by a group of politicians who often have their own agendas. Is it morally right to not allow people to control their own bodies and speak their mind?
Great OP. Something I have said here many times..we can't legislate common sense. Morality is right next to that.
The way I see it, issues along those lines are a little bit different in that it effects other people's civil liberties. It inhibits someone from their freedom, seeing it's a bit of a push in that Person A thinks it's ok to kill Person B. Person B doesn't think so, which creates the stalemate. You could take it as a moral value, but I see it more as a practical approach. Because there is a disagreement that directly conflict one another's free will, it would be most natural to say that the one invading the person's free will is in the wrong. I want to preserve people's ability to live their lives without having the government coming in and telling them what they can and cannot do; so long as it doesn't stop anyone else's free will. When the issues have absolutely no bearing on anyone else's lives it is quite ridiculous to start mandating something. Issues like gay marriage or weed. It's just silly to mandate things like that.
It is not. It coincides with it. Murder, rape, all violent crimes are illegal because they compromise safety and well being in society. In the early days of laws and rules, mostly made by kings or emperors those laws protected their interests.
I think your problem isn't so much with morality but with power. Everything involves a question of morality. EVERY law is based on a moral position. What you're asking is not should law be based on morality because it ALWAYS is, what you're asking is, does the current republican system of government in the US work? The answer, in my opinion, is that it has in practice become quite corrupted by various interests and practices, but it theoretically offers a very easy means of changing representatives that are in power. Every law from murder to weed, theft to abortion - they are ALL based on morality.
