You can visit my new homepage, True Freethinker, via this feed

Friday, November 04, 2005

Legislating Morality

Not Doing so Would Shut the Courts Down


Have you ever spent some time watching the TV Judge shows? Regardless of the network, the show, or the Court, they are all alike. I don’t just mean the shows format – I mean, the cases. These can be broken down into two basic categories: sexual immorality and general wrong doing, both spiked with lack of personal responsibility. Some people say that we should not legislate morality but clearly this is what is taking up our Judge’s time.

You will find that in the first category, that of sexual immorality, the case usually revolve around men and women who have numerous fornication partners, they have children and don’t know who the father is, they are living together while not married, they are paying child support for various children to various partners, they have been married, divorced, and adulterers. We are talking about meeting a person, fornicating with them, moving in with them, having children with them, breaking up with them and then starting the whole cycle again with the next person. Allow me a moment to make a point about what has really become, via Wicca, the supreme commandment of our pop-culture: do what ever you want as long as you don’t hurt anyone else.

Firstly, why is it acceptable to hurt oneself? People who do so usually have some sort of mental instability. They do not need to be left alone, they need to be helped. Secondly, we must define hurt. This brings us out of the world of absolute relativism into facing reality. Hurt must be defined and doing so instantly takes you into the realm of building a moral system.

If hurt means shooting, then you can stab – if it means stabbing, then you can punch – if it means punching, then you can slap – if it means slap, then you can psychologically abuse, etc, etc. But, but, but, we must understand that hurt really means that you do not do to someone what they don’t want done to them. Let us test this hypothesis: we find a young man or woman who makes it a habit to get drunk—they are not hurting anyone but themselves and so we must leave them alone. This person has various sexual partners—they are not hurting anyone but themselves and so we must leave them alone.

This person lives with one person then moves on to the next—they are not hurting anyone but themselves and so we must leave them alone. Suddenly, we find that one of their sexual acts has produced a child (something that seems to surprise many modern day people) now what? All along they are not hurting anyone but themselves and so we must leave them alone, but now there is a third party involved.

There is an innocent child who may be aborted, being executed for a crime that it did not commit is certainly hurting someone else. Or they will be brought into this world unwanted and into a broken home, which is certainly hurting someone else.

They will be raised living, as it were, out of a suitcase being shuffled from the mother’s to the father’s home and back again (if they are lucky enough to even know who both parents are and if they, in turn, bother to be in the child’s life at all, or in the mere form of a child-support check – some people think that good parenting means signing their name on a check once per month) this is certainly hurting someone else.

Furthermore, unless this child’s parents turn their lives around the child will be taught by the parents that this is perfectly normal and acceptable, lest they have to admit their own errors. How quickly we can go from an attitude of I’m not hurting anyone but myself and so you can’t tell me a thing about what I’m choosing to do and that which I do with other consenting adults, to causing an innocent third-party all sort of HURT.

The second category, that of general wrongdoing, usually takes the following form, “Your Honor, it’s true that I did that and yes, it was wrong, but…” Thus, far they are apparently taking responsibility for their, admittedly, wrong actions. However, the rest of their statement is something to the likes of, “…but I should not be held responsible because of…,” or “…but I’m countersuing them because of…” In other words, some people seem to think that taking personal responsibility for their actions is merely an intellectual ascension, a mental exercise, an admission that is merely vocal and should require no further action.

Every single law that we have is based on a moral system; therefore, every single law we have established has been a legislation of morality. Whether this moral system is based on the Judeo-Christian scriptures, those of Islam, or even the concepts of atheism, they will be based on some sort of moral system. When people say that we aught not legislate morality they seem to mean, “We should not legislate morality when it interferes with something that I want to do.” If we did not legislate morality then we could not make a law that made murder illegal, no law that made theft illegal, no law that made running a red light illegal, etc., etc. All laws are based on the moral values and are thusly, legislated.

2 comments:

  1. Pull Up a Chair with Cafeglobe.com
    Yoko Aoki, founder and CEO of Cafeglobe.com There are hundreds of women's magazines to choose from in Japanese bookstores, not to mention at convenience stores and even subway station kiosks.
    Just like so many Americans my friend loves the clubs and pop r & b lyrics so he went ahead and built an awesome website about pop r & b lyrics. When he's in high spirit he goes to the site and start reciting all his favorite pop r & b lyrics. Says it's good for the heart. Guess what? I gave it a shot and it works great!

    ReplyDelete
  2. You said "If we did not legistlate morality then we could not make a law that made murder illegal, no law that made theft illegal, no law that made running a red light illfegal, etc., etc. All laws are based on the moral wavlued and are thusly, legislated."

    It appears that you really have very little knowledge of the law. I would suggest you look up the difference between 'Mala In Se' and Mala Prohibita".

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.