Donnmathan

Is there any justification for attempting to base laws on morals, rather than on human rights? Perhaps I am missing something, but I was under the impression that the document our founding fathers laid down used universaly applied human rights as a basis for law, not any particular group's idea of morality. Why, then, the continual push by some to pass laws based on purely moral positions? All of the attempts to put prayer/bible studies/creationism in schools, the persecution of homosexuals, even things as minor as spanking children, have all been targeted by laws, some of which seem to VIOLATE the very human rights outlined in the writings of the founders of the USA. Is there any real justification for this?

meritocrat

Laws may be based on the morality of a society but the founding fathers believed in natural rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (distinct from Lockean natural rights which advocate the rights to life, liberty and property).

Besides from what I can gather not everyone here even believes in human rights or universal rights (yet they're still telling me everyone should have rights in that transsexuals thread...).

Donnmathan

If you say that laws can be based on morals, how do you justify it? Morals are different depending on what group/faith/individual you talk to, and as such, can't be universally applied without violate the rights laid out in the constitution.

Off-topic, but perhaps you should consider this little distinction, meritocrat - the rights the founding fathers laid down are the basis for our law, and hence have some legitimacy within that framework. Trying to imply that they are in any way 'universal' or 'natural' outside of that framework is a fallicy. There are NO 'natural human rights' - to use one example, what right to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific Ocean?

meritocrat

Laws ARE based on morals.

Again if you think all should have rights hen you can't denounce universal rights (part of the defintion being that rights extend to EVERYONE).

By your 'rationale' people here think that rights aren't applicable to all, yet transsexuals should still have them!!

Alonzo Fyfe

Within the criminal law, no person shall be punished who cannot be shown to have done anything wrong.

Any law that punishes a person for doing something that is not wrong is an unjust law.

Thus, there is an intimate and inviolable connection between what the law ought to punish, and what is wrong. There is no separating law from morality.

"Rights" theory is a moral theory. If you want to argue that the law should be concerned with protecting rights, then you are using a moral 'rights' theory as your basis for evaluating just and unjust laws.

I find very few things more curious, in fact, than a posting by somebody trying to proclaim "thou shalt not base laws on morality."

Now, saying that nothing should be illegal except that which is wrong, does not imply that everything wrong should be illegal. The law is a huge and unwieldy tool, and using it (for example) against minor wrongs, and wrongs that affect nobody but the agent, is a bit like using an atom bomb to kill a house fly.

Jack Kamm

Why should we punish what we think is "wrong?"

I can understand punishing someone for murder, to deter people from murdering myself.

I can understand punishing someone to protect oneself, and if one has empathy, to protect others.

But what's the point of punishing an action simply because it's "wrong?"

Donnmathan

First, Meritocrat

I said that the 'universal rights' in question were those espoused by our founding fathers. They defined these rights, and turned them into those documents which form the basis for law in our country. Therefore, within the framework of that body of law, those rights are valid and exist for every citizen of this country, as much as secular law can enforce them. Does that mean that a fellow citizen will be prevented by law enforcement from violating your 'right to life' (ei, attempting to kill you)? Most certainly! Does that empower those same law enforcement officers to order the ocean to stop attempting to drown you? No, because those so-called 'natural rights' have no existance or validity outside of a social structure. Now, thanks to the fact that the UN has adopted most of those same standards into it's legal framework, it can attempt (through WHO, the Security Council, and other groups) to enforce them around the world. Thus, while 'universal human rights' arguements are justified within a society, depending on the society to enforce them, no 'universal NATURAL rights exist.

Alonzo:

I protest this statement with every fiber of my being! Law has, or should have, nothing to do with the subjective concepts 'right' and 'wrong'! As no two groups, and often no two people, can agree on absolute definitions of these concepts, any law which is based on them will be oppresive to someone. It is for this very reason that the sodomy laws in so many states are being challanged and struck down - they are attempts to legislate the morals of one or two groups. Morals deal with 'right' and 'wrong'; ethics (as I was taught them) deal with 'harmful' and 'not harmful'. It is in this area that the laws of any nation with the C-SS that the United States holds dear must find the basis for it's legal code.

I believe the concept my 12th grade US History teacher gave us was: "Your right to throw a punch ends where my nose begins!" This single concept encompasses the major function of both (within the US) ethics and US law - to keep the free, democratic society that is the US of A running by ensure that no individual can harm another without repercussion. Does it always work? No, but it seems to work better than anything before, and no one has put forward a system that better encompasses and protects the many parts that make up American culture. By this principal, it CANNOT be legal, for example, to deny homosexuals equal rights in all legal ways, including opportunity for civil unions; to do so would emotionally and mentally set them apart from the rest of society, to their detriment and harm. It is ethics, and NOT morals, that are the true basis for human rights as they are applied in the US.

Part of that code is also standing up for someone else's right to do something that you would object to on a moral basis until your dying day, so long as it harms no other member of the community. And before someone says anything about it, smoking, drinking, eating fatty foods, and a host of other things that harm only the individual are quite legal to do in proper places or company, but illegal in the wrong circumstances. There are no grounds to try to illegalize homosexual behavior on the absurd pretext that 'Ooo, some may be pedophiles and rapists!"

Alonzo Fyfe

What makes "deterring people from murdering myself" a good reason for a law -- but not "deter my boss from firing me?" Or, "To prevent myself from getting a paper cut on my pinky?" They are all forms of protection.

Ultimately, it's going to come down to "murdering me is wrong," and "firing me is not wrong."

And, as I said before, "Thou shalt not legislate morality" is, itself, a moral statement. In saying this, you are saying it is WRONG to legislate morality, and you are saying that the legislators should be governed by this moral principle.

Please note: I think that the reason that legislation against homosexual acts is unjustified is not because the government ought not to legislate morality -- it should. But because homosexual acts are not immoral. People who believe that they are immoral have made a mistake -- either in believing in some supernatural critter who said it was wrong, or in believing that certain types of actions emit "wrongon radiation' that their moral sense allows them to detect, or some sort of mistake.

I just don't think "thou shalt not legislate morality" makes any sense.

Alonzo Fyfe

Right and wrong are not subjective (in the relevant sense) any more than good and bad law is subjective. Indeed, they are just two different ways of saying the same thing.

But that's a topic for another thread or, even, a formal debate

Suffice it to say, if morality is subjective, then "Thou shalt not legislate morality" is also subjective.

Most importantly, "There ought to be a law" or "That law ought to be appealed", or "This law is unjust" or "That law would violate our rights" are all moral statements.

Assume that there was a movement to repeal the first amendment to the Constitution. How would you object to it? You can't say that it's unconstitutional, because you would be mistaken.

So, why is it the case that the First Amendment ought not to be repealed?

Because it would be WRONG to force people to worship gods they do not believe in. Because it is WRONG to punish people for what they say and write. Ultimately, no defense can be given as to why the First Amendment OUGHT to stay there than it would be WRONG to remove it.

Donnmathan

Alonzo, you've just made my point:

Those who believe in that same supernatural critter (good image, by the way!) will say you are mistaken in believing it is not wrong, and thus we begin a whole, nasty cycle. Therein lies the problem with legislating morality - it is not the same for everyone!

The fact is, homosexuals do no harm to the rest of us by preforming homosexual acts. Key words: do no harm. Therefore, the state has no business saying anything about it. Your example of someone getting fired is just as valid - if you harmed the company or others within it, it is a legally allowed punishment to fire you. If not, then the company has harmed you, and so violated labor laws and statuates; you have recourse to punish them (depending on the case, criminal charges, civil suits, or at the very least, hitting them up for unemployment).

This also explains why the is no law to protect you from paper cutting your pinky - natural forces (the edge of the paper, in this case) are not governed by ethics, and can't be legislated against. Granted, you can make laws governing how to deal with the results of natural forces, but I don't think workman's comp will cover a papercut!