On Legislating Morality Part II

A conversation on Facebook reminded me of my previous post on legislating morality. It is important to understand the relationship between morality and law. One of the causes of much confusion in modern political discussions is that this relationship is often misunderstood.

There is a constant balance of individual rights vs. the welfare of a society. When a law is passed, say for example a certain activity is banned, there several moral judgements involved, noted by these criteria:

1. That the activity in question is not beneficial to society. This is a moral judgement.
2. It is proper that the state is involved in enforcing that said activity does not occur. This is also a moral judgement.
3. It is reasonable that state coercion will deter said activity from occurring (i.e. such laws are enforceable). This is a prudential judgement.
4. The law in question does not unreasonably interfere with individual rights of the citizenry. This is a prudential judgement.

I'm not under any illusion that these are always taken into account. Indeed most of the laws passed in our society these days lack sufficient reflection on such criteria. However it is the case that when we are passing laws for "the good of society" this is essentially the criteria that we are abiding by, even if we don't follow through and think clearly on the law with regard to the criteria.

Any time a law is passed it is always first and foremost preceded by a moral judgement of how human beings interact with each other. As I stated before, morality at its heart contain the rules of conduct that human beings abide by, both as individuals and as groups (family, community, etc). The state is essentially the expression of that moral viewpoint at the macro level. Thus for one to say "One cannot legislate morality" is to say "One cannot legislate."

We have a consensus!

An interesting side effect of the gay "marriage" debates is that it reveals a principle that we all agree on regardless of one's viewpoint. It is both shocking and yet so simple. That consensus is that there is such a thing as objective morality.

Now one may object to this idea. Indeed it is a fact that those who advocate for same-sex "marriage" is that marriage is a fluid concept. It is defined and redefined throughout the centuries by various societies. Indeed the whole argument for same-sex "marriage" is based on the proposition that marriage can be redefined by society at will.

Yet a curious thing happens next. The same-sex marriage advocate goes on to argue that not legally recognizing same-sex "marriage" in law is "wrong." It is unfair, says the advocate, that gays are excluded from the benefits that opposite-sex pairings of people possess under the law. It is only right and just that gays be allowed to "marry."

Right and wrong, just and unjust. These words are very odd indeed. By definition they imply that there is such a thing as "objective." In order to be "right" there must be a truth that is true regardless of one's opinion. In order to be "wrong" one must be incorrect about said objective truth.

If then it is the case that marriage is subject to the whims and fancies of the populace, then any definition of marriage is acceptable. There can be no right or wrong because marriage is whatever we want it to be. Man and woman? Man and Man? Man and boy of 11 years? Man and girl of 11 years? Man and Plant? You get the idea. A definition of marriage detached from any objective meaning is simply the flavor of the month. It is certainly not worth the huge amount of resources devoted to the project.

In short a person who argues for same-sex "marriage" already acknowledges that there is such a thing as the objective definition of marriage. He has to. Otherwise arguing about marriage would be like arguing which alcoholic beverage is "the best." If any definition will suffice, why is the current one so bad?

So we should rejoice that both sides have some common ground to work from. The whole basis for an argument about the "right" definition of marriage by definition implies an objective definition of marriage. The devil, as they say, is in the details.

On Legislating Morality

One of the more curious arguments against laws that would appear to have religious views as their origin is to say that one "cannot legislate morality." That is, if I understand it correctly, is that there is something inherently wrong with making laws that reflect a moral viewpoint.

After thinking about it for some time I had trouble coming up with laws that did NOT reflect a particular moral viewpoint. Oddly enough if one stops and thinks about such things we find that all law, in some form or another, is the imposition of a particular point of view from a moral perspective. From healthcare to abortion to welfare to the military every issue that is talked about today is talked about from a moral perspective.

This should not be a surprise if one thinks about it. The law itself is a set of rules that a society of people use to regulate interactions with one another at the political and social level. The intent behind all law (ideally) is to achieve the common good as well as the rights and liberties of the individual. In order to do this one must have a view about the human being, and this view must include how the human being as a person in a society interacts with other human beings. This view goes to the very fundamental nature of man, and as such it is only logical that at the political and social level the laws of a society reflect the views of man in a social context.

Yet some would have us believe that we must put aside our moral views when making law. The view that morality, be it from a philosophical or religious view, should be private and thus absent from the social and political discourse. Politicians for their part seem to have this notion that their "faith" should not affect their policy making decisions.

This view however lacks anything resembling reason or common sense. A religion or philosophical view considers the very essence of Man. It asks fundamental questions about the nature of Man and his relationship to nature. To say that these views about the nature of Man and the fundamental questions of being should not affect how we regulate at the social level is a view that the English language has no words to describe the folly. If anything, the moral viewpoint must come first before we start considering what the law should be.

Moral Cowardice in the Modern Age

A particularly unpleasant episode in my personal life got me reflecting on morality and moral actions in the modern world. It would appear to me that the modern mind is lacking in the ability to understand that good not only means to avoid evil, but that we are obliged to do good.

Obliged. That is a word we do not hear often these days. And yet it is just as true today that we do wrong not just by commiting evil, but by our omission to do what is right. Helping the poor, telling the truth, even a simple act such as an apology are all obligations that we owe to our neighbor, and to fail in such actions can be just as wrong as doing something wrong.

This simple idea is lost on us I think because we find it is sufficient to simply feel bad about a particular situation. If we have done something wrong as long as we sufficiently torture ourselves with guilt this fulfills our obligation. I feel bad about the poor. Therefore I am a good person. I was a jerk and I feel bad, so I am a good person.

And yet all we really prove is that our conscience isn't so far dead that we can still distinguish between right and wrong. Guilt is simply a vector for us to do good. It is our conscience motivating us to do what is right. To simply feel guilty without actually doing something to fulfill our obligations is not an indication of a moral person, but simply moral cowardice. It is the attempt to feel like a moral person with the need of doing anything right.

It is thus not surprising that the Church calls us to make an act of repentance for what we do not do as much as what we do. In the opening prayer we say, "I have sinned through my own fault, in what I have done and did not do(failed to do)." In her wisdom She calls us to repentance for when we fail to do what we owe to others. For if we do not do what we are called, we will become just as lost as those who do wrong.