Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Should morality b incorporated into law, and if so how far should it go?

_________________

I believe people should have a right to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else...(at least not physically--while I respect the emotional/psychological well-being of people, I think that Political Correctness takes it too far by suggesting that humans have some sort of birth right to go through life without ever being offended. Freedom of speech should mean that people have the right to say ANYTHING, including offensive speech, just as others have the right to tell them off for it.)

That's a very basic, simplistic, yet all-encompassing sense of morality that I feel the government should not extend upon.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

And that's were our opinions part. You see I believe that the government should enforce morality. I could always specify the exacts, but well it's 11:25 and I'm kinda tired of typing by 11...

_________________

I agree with PMG. The only morals we should adhere to are those that state we cannot cause major distress to other organisms.

The problem is that morality is not objective. There has to be a standard by which you can say things are moral or immoral, and there is no such standard that our law can follow. We can't have that standard be the Bible or something, because of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which was designed to prevent exactly that sort of thing.

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found

Who's morals? Mine? Yours? There's no one set of morals.

_________________

Forcing an anarchist to live by Christian morals or forcing a Christian to live by an anarchist's morals would have horrible side effects.

All organisms? Including chicken, beef, and pork? I mean cows and pigs?

_________________
Listen to the Black Crowes.

I say we consult them and the wheel of morality.

I can see your point, but I also see my point. I can see that things can happen if you force religion, morals, etc on the wrong people, but I can also see good things come out of it too.

_________________

We've tried it. Everytime the government tries to legislate morality it is met with a lot of backlash. In my opinion, social issues are no business of the government.

_________________

You don't really want people to be allowed to torture cows just for fun, do you?

Go ahead, punk! Make his day!

_________________

Wesstarrunner, could you please provide us a concrete example so we can get an idea of what exactly you mean? What kind of law would constitute "legislating morality"?

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found

Wes, some food for thought: the Establishment Clause that gives the anti separation of church and state people such headaches comes part and parcel with the Free Exercise Clause, and without the latter your particular sect might never have been allowed into this country in the first place. The tricky part about theocracy is this: one denomination tends to be dominant. The winning sect goes on to vilify, restrict, or even directly outlaw the other denominations. If your particular sect doesn't come out on top you can anticipate persecution from the one that did, sometimes over the tiniest theological details. History provides us with many examples of this (and if you need further reading on the topic just let me know). Let's ask our Mormon friends on the forum: what do you guys think would happen to you if the Southern Baptist Convention had direct and unrestrained power over this country?

Aside from that, when you boil law down to its basics it is government enforced morality. However, Wes, I assume you are unsatisfied with the current scope of the law. Enough with the half answers...let's hear your vision of what America should be. What else should be illegal, what should the penalties be, and most importantly, who should bear the tax burden for the additional police, prison space, and so forth that would be required by a stricter legal system?

Mike

_________________
Logical fallacies ahoy! I'd also like to say: graaaaagh!

To some extent. Heh, many laws of that type are the kind I hate (like anti-gambling laws... thanks for putting me out of a job, former senator Frist). But a lot of laws are necessary for us to maintain a civilization. You can't have a civilization without some variation of "Thou shalt not kill", no matter your moral opinion of it. Of course, we do have many, many more laws than are necessary to maintain a civilization...

- Kef

_________________
404 sig not found

Of course not. But you didn't say "torture cows just for fun." You said "cause major distress to other organisms."

How do you define major distress?

_________________
Listen to the Black Crowes.

Well I just gotta say if I led the country we would legislate basic morality (a.k.a. no porn, no adultery, etc.) But I would not go to the extent of criminalizing other religions.

B.T.W. Most of our denomination withdrew from the Southern Baptist Convention a long time ago. It makes people speak too much with the mind and not enough with the soul.

_________________

YOU consider those things moral. Some people have no problem whatsoever with pornography or adultery (at least, within strict definitions that would also deny polygamy). Adultery in the form of two people having promised to remain monogamous, and one person (or both) breaking that promise, causing pain and grief for the other, is something I would say isn't very moral. But that's possibly a topic for another thread.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

Yeah, but that limits people freedoms and that will not fly very well in this country.

_________________

Well. I don't see a single true freedom limited. I see crimes punished, yes, but no freedoms limited.

_________________

Any limitation to freedom that doesn't objectively and measurably protect someone/something of greater value is, in my book, a prime example of tyranny.

Why should pornography be a crime? Why is it not a freedom to create and view it?

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

Actually, Adultery is illegal in this country. A marriage, by nature, is a consensual legal arrangement, and the breaking of that agreement by one partner can (and often does) result in severe penalty. Usually monetary, or the loss of assets.

_________________

Pornography falls under the First Amendment, under Freedom of Press and Expression. If you outlaw pornography, you would be violating the First Amendment, which is unconstitutional.

_________________

I don't see how it would violate it. To me it looks dirty and unlawful, not freedom of press or expression.

_________________

you hit the nail on the head right there..
"to me"

To some, things I hold dear are (the Bible, for example) is dirty and awful..

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Last time I checked, porn was printed in magazines and magazine publishers are categorized as being part of the press. Since they are part of the press, they are protected by the First Amendment.

_________________

It violates it because to suppress any opinion is to eliminate a truly free market of ideas. When you start suppressing one opinion, you open the flood gates for the opportunity to suppress any other. And then another. And another. Soon enough, you can have a wonderful tyranny where only one idea is allowed to be expressed, and expression of anything else is punishable.

This is why we compromise by saying "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

I never said that I would want unimaginable tyranny. I just want decency. simple as that. Besides. I never said I didn't want free speech.

_________________