Should we always vote to put our own moral standards into law?
While the issue being discussed was that of homosexual marriages, the question is a valid one regardless of the topic. Here's a bit more of what I said:
Should we always vote to put our own moral standards into law? This does not seem a bad idea, per se, but where do we draw the line? Should I make it illegal for my neighbor to have a different set of standards than me? Or, to be more precise, to legally be able to act on his standards?I now turn this question to all of my readers. When should we vote to make our moral standards into law? Always? Never? Do we push for these laws to be made, or do we wait for matters to reach a certain level of social relevance before we make a political stand? Why and when should we refrain from passing laws that are based upon moral standards? Does it really depend on the particular issue at hand? What makes the difference?
In a democracy, it seems the majority should be able to uphold whatever legal definitions they choose. But is this notion dangerously vague? What if the majority wanted to outlaw premarital kissing? Many would find such a law to be ridiculous, but I'll bet more than a few would also consider it a breakdown in the legal system itself. But, if that's our gut reaction, we are forced to ask ourselves: why the difference?
Obviously, we should always vote with some sort of moral conscience. Whatever moral principles we have should be adhered to while we vote. But that's not the same as voting to put those principles into law. So, when is it okay for morality to stop driving the agenda and become the agenda itself?
4 comments:
This is a hard question. It seems to me that I would want laws that match my moral beliefs. I would vote to uphold certain standards etc. But, if I look at it objectively and fairly, I don't know that that would be the "right" thing to do. Who am I to inflict my standards on someone else? And, why should I need to, as long as I'm free to uphold them in my own life?
I keep thinking of abortion. I have strong feelings in one direction about this. I feel like it's more than a moral issue and I would have to vote to reflect that belief. But, I also have to recognize that to some people, with different beliefs, it's not a moral issue. It doesn't go farther. So, again, do I really have the right to inflict my judgement on their beliefs (or my beliefs on their judgements)?
I think you should if it threatens other people on a civil level. I believe abortion is murder, murder violates an individual's civil rights, abortion is wrong. But every argument you make raises more questions.
this question makes me think about our Logic class. remember the posting exercizes? making an argument? the danger, i think, is that people have such strong emotional feelings and reactions tied into moral decision making.
Exactly! People get very emotional and that's probably why it's not PC to comment or object as Amie-J was saying. On the other hand, I don't think that an emotional reaction means that it's illogical or should not be voiced. The strong emotion is evidence (usually) of strong moral belief, one way or the other. This doesn't mean it's right or that it's okay to burn down the clinics, but I think it does make it important for us to keep communicating, voting, teaching our children etc.
Post a Comment