In debates about wether gays should be married, one phrase I've heard
come up is something to the effect of "The government should not
legislate morality".  In my experience for something to be categorized
as morality, that means there must be counterparts.  Also, for the
purpose of this question, I'll refer to anything that is legislating
morality as moral laws.

What I want to know is, what are the counterparts to Moral Laws?  How
do they interact with Moral Laws (if at all)?  Is it possible for a
government to not legislate morality?  Examples to real laws are
necessary in my opinion.  (it doesn't have to refer to a specific law,
just the idea behind the law).

Maybe a good start would be defining morality as it pertains to laws.

As far as I'm concerned, as much as I think about it, there are no
laws that aren't moral laws at least on some level.  Maybe that's the
answer too.

---

Clarification of Question by nrduncan-ga on 06 Oct 2004 12:12 PDT

You don't have to go all out on this.  Mostly I want to know what (if
any) are the counterparts to Moral type laws.

---

Clarification of Question by nrduncan-ga on 06 Oct 2004 13:32 PDT

I realize that morals are intertwined in our soceity, to the point
that they are almost second nature.

Maybe there is no counterpart to a Moral Law.

What I'm looking for is hard for me to explain.  Maybe by comparing
what I want to something else, it might help define the question
better.  Seeing vehicles on the road, they could be categorized as
Cars, Trucks, SUVs, and Semis.  They could also be categorized as
Fords, Chevys, Dodges, etc.  They could also be sub-categorized as
Compact Cars, Sedans, Station Wagons, Convertibles, etc.  They could
also be sub-categorized as Festivas, Tauruses, F150s, etc.  Between
the different classifications there is substantial overlap.  I.e. You
can have a Ford that is also a Convertible, Car, Mustang.  You could
also have a Chevy that is also a Convertible, Car, Impalla.  There are
also hybrids between the categories (i.e. is a PT Cruiser a car or a
SUV?)

After writing all of that, I think what I want to know is...

What are the different types of laws (moral, civic, etc)?

The main reason I'm asking is because I want to know, if a government
can not legislate morality, what can it legislate?

---

Request for Question Clarification by pafalafa-ga on 06 Oct 2004 15:07 PDT

The philosophical theory of "natural law" attests that there are
natural moral laws that underpin all human-created law, and that the
law must be in accord with these natural moral laws, or they are
inherently invalid.  By this measure, then, I suppose that all laws
are either moral or unjustified.

Others take a positivistic approach -- law is what it is because a
bunch of folks got together and decided that it is so.  It's an
entirely human invention, with no larger "natural" laws underpinning
these actions.

A discussion of all this (not necessarily easy reading) can be found here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lawphil-nature/


I'm not sure the philosophers have taken the discussions in the same
direction you're heading, though.  Still, I'd like to hear if the
Stanford material is of any use to you.  Let us know...

pafalafa-ga

---

Clarification of Question by nrduncan-ga on 07 Oct 2004 08:26 PDT

(sorry it took so long for my response)

Yes, the "Stanford material" was exactly what I was looking for
(though it was a bit rough to chew)!

There are tons of laws that are based on morals. For example, in the
U.S. it's illegal to:

* murder
* rape
* molest
* marry a relative that's "too close"
* have sex with or marry a minor
* marry more than one husband or wife
* steal

All of these are a matter of morality.

Kriswrite

sure, but is there such a thing as a non-moral law?

Is speeding a moral issue? How about not wearing a helmet when you're
on a bike? Or jay-walking? Or keeping the grass at a "reasonable"
height in your yard? All of these things are laws in many parts of the
U.S., but I don't think it can be argued that by breaking such laws, a
person is being "immoral."

Kriswrite

Thanks!  That's along the lines of what I want, now if Moral Laws are
type A, is there a specific type for "wearing a helmet when you're on
a bike" or "keeping your grass below a certain length"?

Hi nrduncan~

They are called ?Civic? laws...laws that relate to the common good and safety.

Do my comments help answer your question? If so, I can dig up some
more information on this and post it as an answer.

Regards,
kriswirte

Yes and no.  Laws that relate to the common good and safety, wouldn't
moral laws fit under that category?  I.e. rape would be considered to
be against common good and saftey, but also a moral law.  As a
counterpoint, wearing a helmet would be considered a civic law (for
the common good and safety), but not a moral law.

This is where I keep getting stuck.

I don't think it can be quite that clear cut. Yes, moral laws are
sometimes (even often) also "civic" in that they are for the moral
good, but civic laws are never really "moral." In the past, attempts
have been made to create only civic laws...and failed.

Kriswrite

see my latest clarification, I hope I've done a better job of asking
the question.  Sorry for being vague.

>>> Maybe a good start would be defining morality as it pertains to laws.

Let's start there.  I think in the context of your question and the
quote about the government legislating morality, "morality" is used as
a euphemism or code word for "sexual morality".  Laws that legislate
(sexual) morality would be laws that ban gay marriage, as you
suggested, laws against polygamy, or laws that ban sodomy.  These type
of laws attempt to ban certain sexual behaviors or practices that
arguably have no victim.  The "crimes" simply offend some people, even
though those people are not hurt by the commission of the crimes. 
These type of laws do not relate to protecting the public's welfare or
safety.

Rape really hurts somebody, so a law against rape does not legislate
morality in that sense.  It truly attempts to keep the public safe.

I'm not sure what you would call those 2 types of laws, but that's
where I see the dividing line - whether or not there is really a
victim.

Think of it this way: assume there is no God, no Ten Commandments, no
Judeo-Christian ethic, no Bible or Talmud or Koran or other text
espousing "correct behavior."  Now put a group of 100 people on a
desert island who are completely free of those putatively moralistic
constraints (since in our hypothetical they do not exist), and appoint
ten of the people as the "legislature" who will create laws by which
the island society will live.  By definition, they cannot create
"moral" laws since "morality" is an unknown construct.  What type of
laws will they create?

Well, they could create "Laws Promoting the Welfare of the
Legislature," i.e., laws that say the other 90 island dwellers must
bring food to the members of the legislature, must wash their clothes,
build their huts, etc., and that seems like a fairly plausible outcome
since absent "moral" constraints most people are motivated purely by
self-interest.  But common sense tells us that those types of laws
would not be well received and would not be subject to
enforcement/enactment since the 90 other island dwellers would object.

OK, so that type of law is out, so the other type of laws the
legislature could create are "Laws Promoting the Public Good."  For
example, they could create a law forbidding murder.  This is
supportable even absent an underpinning moral fabric because murder
depletes valuable human resources--the law becomes purely an exercise
in Malthusian economic theory at that point--it has nothing to do with
the moral edict, "Thou shalt not kill."  Similarly, they could write a
law that says, "Everyone must help gather coconuts at dusk," again,
not because that's what Jesus would have taught, but because the
entire society is benefited by a communal coconut gathering effort
because more coconuts are gathered.  The legislature could pass a law
outlawing abortion because it is found to be in the island community's
welfare to continue to increase the population base to promote genetic
diversity and an increased labor supply.  The legislature could even
pass a law forbidding adultery because empirical research clearly
shows that children are happier and more well-adjusted coming from
stable two-parent homes, and adultery leads to divorce and contention.
 Plus, happy, well-adjusted children make for a better island.

You see my point?  Every law has an arguably "non-moral" justification
based on secular theories as wide ranging as economics to the Nash
equilibrium (see http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Nash%20Equilibrium).
 (As a personal aside, I thus find it ironic that certain
political/demographic factions accuse other factions of attempting to
?legislate morality.?  That is purely a fiction of semantics.)  We
have become conditioned, however, to think of laws in most civilized
countries as having a "moral" foundation because of the prevalence of
Judeo-Christian thought, when in fact it makes little sense to try
attempt such a categorization when it can be readily shown, as by my
island hypothetical, that even laws which ~must~ be moral actually
have a very secular rationale.
 
So, to answer your clarified question, ?if a government can not
legislate morality, what can it legislate?,? it seems clear that it
can indeed legislate ?morality,? but it is a fiction to call it that. 
The are just making ?laws,? which hopefully will serve the common
good.

If what you're suggesting is:
If there's a victim, civil
If there's no victim, moral

Then I have to disagree.  Jaywalking has no real victim, but I
wouldn't consider it a moral law.

I really think my last clarification really specified what I want to know

"What are the different types of laws (moral, civic, etc)?

The main reason I'm asking is because I want to know, if a government
can not legislate morality, what can it legislate?"


If you want me to cancel the question, and resubmit, I will.

It could also be argued that if a 14 year old girl is in love with a
50 year old man, and they marry (despite it being against the law),
there is no victim. And although we used to be told that close cousins
could produce children with birth defects, many scientists now say
this is quite unlikely...yet the law remains.

Kriswrite

I would argue that in a secular society there are no 'moral' laws
1) morals require absolute right and wrong - generally 'God given rules'
2) Western societies strive to separate Church and State
3) We do have /ethical/ laws

Ethics are a social concept of 'right' and 'wrong' and vary according
to the prevailing consensus of each specific society.

The ancient Egyptions saw nothing wrong with incest, many societies
practiced polygamy, some polyandry. A discussion of what the Ancient
Greeks got up to would probably put most people off their food. I
believe the Esquimos practised euthenasia and the 'age of consent' has
varied radically over time.

Hi Nrduncan,

You have answered your own question within the first two lines of your
opening question.

True, there is no need for a government to attempt legalising
morality. Morality itself will dictate the end to the means.

What is the definition of marriage? To multiply the species as nature
intended, surely. The question as to gays (or sads) marrying is
similar to considering marriage between two donuts. It is not up to
the law to judge. As gays produce no end result of procreation due to
their "happy" affliction, the argument is irrelevant, until unnatural
adoption of children is brought to the equation.

The children then become the "counterparts" in an unnatural confused environment.

This is where moral laws have their place in society.

Phil

It's a common misconception that "separation of church and state"
means that religious values cannot be a part of laws or government.
However, the phrase was designed to refer to the idea that the U.S.
government would not have a state-sponsored church. In other words,
the state could not tell it's citizens: "You will all be Christians,"
or "You will all be Muslims." This was the sort of background many
colonists were fleeing from.

If the founding fathers had intended to separate religious values from
the government, they would not have included a line in The Declaration
of Independence stating that freedom comes not from man, but from God.
We also wouldn't have based our basic laws on the Ten Commandments.

Kriswrite

I think this one is worth taking from the top down :-

<It's a common misconception that "separation of church and state"
means that religious values cannot be a part of laws or government.>

Or that the laws of church /shall/ not dictate the laws of government ?

<However, the phrase was designed to refer to the idea that the U.S.
government would not have a state-sponsored church. In other words,
the state could not tell it's citizens: "You will all be Christians,"
or "You will all be Muslims." This was the sort of background many
colonists were fleeing from.>

Yeah, and people fled from oppressive 'religions' long before a few
people booked a cruise on the Mayflower.

<If the founding fathers had intended to separate religious values from
the government, they would not have included a line in The Declaration
of Independence stating that freedom comes not from man, but from God.>

They were a bunch of teleocratic hypocrites
- in my opinion a sensible move, throw a sop to the morons, while
castrating the (Christian) Mullahs.

<We also wouldn't have based our basic laws on the Ten Commandments.>

I see, so because two 'sets' (as in Venn diagrams) overlap, and one
was defined 3000 years before the other, it implies that the later
'set' is derivative of the older.

A neat concept - prior existence means that later concepts are
precursors of older concepts. No possibility of people independantly
deciding that eating people is not a good idea for long term social
survival.

For my 2 cents, religious laws are necessary for a fragile social
structure, rather like the 'Divine Right' of monarchs.

As societies stabilize, they invent things like 'democracy',
'senates',  'moots' or 'parliaments' - or even modern things like
'congress' and ridiculously the 'United Nations' and 'Human Rights'.

Mostly, unless physically enforced by a dominant majority, these
artificial constructs are maintained by self deception - if it suits
most people to believe that the king is not stark naked, then it works
just fine.

The interesting bit is when one substitutes 'Rules' for the word 'Laws'

If I were setting an essay on Moral Philosophy, it would be tempting to ask:
   'Discuss the similarities between morals and Tinkerbell'

Regarding the terminology:

Technically, all laws enacted by legislators are statutory, but the
term "statutory laws" is sometimes used in common parlance when
discussing such matters as traffic control, city zoning restriction,
and other areas where morality is not directly involved.

I think rephrasing "legislating morality" in terms of "moral laws" is
a source of confusion here.

There are laws whose intent may be a moral one but not "legislating
morality" as that phrase is ordinarily meant.  For example, the
traffic laws in the US oblige us to drive on the right side of the
road (except when passing), where the UK laws oblige drivers to drive
on the left side.  To the best of my knowledge no one believes that
one side is more moral than the other, although having a regulation of
this kind undoubtedly serves a moral purpose in contributing to public
safety.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

I would quibble with kriswrite-ga's description of the historical
background to the anti-establishment clause of the First Amendment. 
European colonists in America would have been very familiar with laws
that required them to pay taxes to support state churches but not laws
that forced them to "all be Christians" or "all be Muslims".  In
forbidding the establishment of a state church, the First Amendment
was trying to both protect individual religious rights _and_ prevent
the use of the state's power of taxation to support any church.

Those who have ears to hear and eyes to see will note that this intent
has all but been turned on its head by the arguments of the religious
right.  According to various plaintiffs in federal suits and many
advocates of "faith-based initiatives", the failure to provide tax
dollars for religious purposes on an equal footing with secular
purposes is unfair religious discrimination.

The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the
Constitution.  However Article VI, Section 3 is known as the
"separation clause" and states:

"[N]o religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any
office or public trust under the United States."

As to the origin of the phrase, historians point to a letter written
by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to Connecticut's Danbury Baptist
Association, where the anti-establishment clause is said to build "a
wall of separation between Church and State."

[Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association]
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/danbury.htm

regards, mathtalk-ga