Should legislation be morality-based?

Only if your morality is “don’t harm people.”

@Ivan That could be argued for most anything.

That would be far too difficult to manage, I think.

@ohmyword Hi :)

Exactly. Too many people have too many variances in their morals to justify establishing penalty for breaking someone else’s.

Umm… yes?

But it could be nearly impossible to satisfy everyone definition. therefore why you create a government that takes together many opinions and creates one idea that satisfies the most it possibly can.

Interesting question.

You can not legislate morality, not as long as there is free will. Morality is an individual concept because you can take a moral stand for or against ANYTHING. Legislation should be guided by justice, fairness, equity and equality. My ideal is do what you will as long as you do no harm to anyone but yourself. And by that I mean, what you choose to do should have no direct negative impact on anyone who does not explicitly consent. Now your actions can have unintended indirect negative (and positive) impacts on others, and unless those impacts are easily forseeable. In other words, you do something as a particular means to an end…it’s one thing if an unrelated party gets hosed, even though that was not your intent or expectation and there was no way you could know, that’s one thing. If you figure, OK I’ll do this, and I’ll get what I want out of it, but some innocent people are going to get hosed…but fuck em, not my concern…that’s a whole different thing. But if you start to say things have to be approached from a moral standpoint (because that philosophy in and of itself is based on my personal moral compass), whose moral compass do you use for the basis? I think at least what I suggest is based in reason…to me it’s not only moral, but logical that one should be able to control one’s own destiny, make one’s own decisions, but that no one has the right to make decisions for another unless there’s a reason that serves a greater good (aka, do what you want, but don’t hurt anyone else).

@dalepetrie Perfectly put! I couldn’t have said it better! (lurve)

Once again… I’m in complete agreement with Dale.

@dalepetrie, in my understanding of the universe, there is no Free Will. Still, your general sense of morality is so close to mine.. in fact you touched on it when you said: ”it’s not only moral, but logical that one should be able to…”

Morality, I think, in a universe without Free Will is best understood (and necessarily practiced) this way:

Moral = sound arguments.
Amoral = fallacies.

Yea, seems clear to me that in a deterministic universe legislation ought to be based on Morality by this understanding of it.

@ninjacolin – I suppose just like morality, the term free-will, or any other term for that matter can mean many different things depending on the perspective from which you view it. If I get your point about free will (and I’m not sure that I do), you are speaking in broader terms than I am…in other words, I think you are looking at free will as a concept about whether or not what you do matters in the grand scheme of things (aka you CAN do what you want, but ultimately forces beyond the control of any one of us dictates our situation at any given time and therefore it controls our will), whereas I’m talking more on an individual basis…right now I’m free to get in the shower, turn on the radio or throw a pot of boiled macaroni noodles at my cat….it’s my choice, and ergo I have free will.

@dalepetrie, “right now I’m free to get in the shower, turn on the radio or throw a pot of boiled macaroni noodles at my cat….it’s my choice, and ergo I have free will.”

hmm.. I guess not, no. To say that you have free will is a metaphor not a reality. It is practically useless to consider your actions as free. It’s an idea that we can do without entirely.

You aren’t free to do any of those things. it is POSSIBLE to do any of these things if you wanted to which is One of the necessary conditions for any action that it is at least possible for someone who wants to do them to do them.. But between all options for action, the only action you WILL take is that one that you happen to Prefer above all other options. That one action that you prefer will always be the most rationally sound action that you can conceive in the allotted time.

I believe it to be evident that there are no exceptions to this rule. (It should be obvious that involuntary actions such as Spasms don’t count because obviously they are “involuntary” and hence not free actions)

no. whose morality should we base that on?

yours, mine….GWB’s?

Need to define morality for my feeble mind to begin at this question.

@ninjacolin: The fact that we are free to do anything we want and the assumption that in general we do what is most rational are not the same thing. Without free will we could not act on our rational thoughts especially if those rational thoughts went against the outside force that inhibited our free will.

@boots
Legislating morality and having legislation that is morality based are not the same thing. Of course legislation should be moral. Are you proposing we start crafting legislation that’s immoral?
Let’s license kids to drive at 10?
How about allowing the soda manufactureres to put cocaine back in Coca Cola?
@dalepetrie

My ideal is do what you will as long as you do no harm to anyone but yourself. And by that I mean, what you choose to do should have no direct negative impact on anyone who does not explicitly consent.
And in a perfect world that would be nice and since we don’t live in one we need laws to regulate accepted standards.
@ninjacolin
Automaton argument notwithstanding, morality is an accepted set of societal standards.

@critter1982.. uh.. i didn’t say it was an assumption. and if i did, that was an accident.
also, let me adjust your word choice in that paraphrasing: We are only free to do what is possible and what we coincidentally also happen to prefer to do…

@critter1982 said: “Without free will we could not act on our rational thoughts especially if those rational thoughts went against the outside force that inhibited our free will.”

We have no freewill. We are amazingly complex automatons, as per SeventhSense. We don’t “choose” to act on our preferences. We act on them automatically in the same way that a plant acts automatically when it grows toward the sunlight coming in your kitchen window.

@SeventhSense.. “Accepted” societal standards are not necessarily moral. Just ask the repentant SS soldiers from Hitler’s army. You’ve heard the adage: Just because everyone’s doing it doesn’t make it right. This adage is also a popular fallacy in logic known as ad populum.. clearly, following simply what others (eg. society, law makers, your boss, “everyone”) say is right is not necessarily the most moral thing to do.

It’s tough to answer this question without coming to a consensus on what you believe morality to be. Generally speaking, I would think that morality is most often defined as what is inherently right. If this happens to be your definition as well you will be hard pressed to find a law that does not legislate morality. A law states that there is something you must do or something you must not. This implies that the something is defined as being a moral imperative, immoral, or as a corollary of one of the two according to some moral standard. Some laws are direct expressions of widely embraced moral principles, such as laws prohibiting theft. But then there are laws that seem to be at best tangential to anyone’s moral principles, such as the law stating that you must register your car. But this law is still a derivative of morality because its existence presupposes that we have made the determination that prescribing such action serves to make society safer. Don’t get me wrong, it’s important that our government does not embrace any one particular set of moral principles, but to not legislate morality is best described as anarchy.

@ninja colin
Morality has nothing to do with logic.
Just because everyone’s doing it doesn’t make it right.
Yes and just because everyone’s not doing it, doesn’t make it right. The point is that we come to a consensus as society.
From Webster’s
1 a: a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b: a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson
2 a: a doctrine or system of moral conduct b.plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
3: conformity to ideals of right human conduct
4: moral conduct : virtue

@critter1982
Thank you. Perhaps we can agree with Webster’s

Correction
My statement is too extreme-Morality has nothing to do with logic Morallity has a basis in logic and consensus

@critter1982
but to not legislate morality is best described as anarchy.
Exactly

@ninjacolin: You are right in that we are amazingly complex. But in the same paragraph you state that we act automatically as a plant grows in sunlight. If only it were that easy, people would be so predictable. But as you know, people are not predictable, they act on their own beliefs and have free will to do so.

Let’s define the term rather than go off on tangents pleeeeeeeasse.

^ no problem. here’s my input on the definition:

@SeventhSense said: “Just because everyone’s doing it doesn’t make it right [but] just because everyone’s not doing it, doesn’t make it right.”

I fully agree. I didn’t say that that would make it right. That would be silly. I said that it’s a fallacy to base decisions simply on what the majority (or some particular authority) thinks is cool.

@SeventhSense said: “The point is that we come to a consensus as society.”

For the above reason, I submit that what is Moral must not be defined as: “the popular opinion of the masses.” If this is what Moral means then all the actions of Hitler’s soldiers would qualify as Moral since they were the popular choice under Hitler’s Regime.

conformity to ideals of right human conduct?

@critter1982 said: “If only it were that easy, people would be so predictable.”

I am suggesting that people are predictable in that they only ever choose to do what actions they prefer over other possible options in all cases. But their actions are not easily predictable (nearly impossible to predict) because we cannot predict what their Preferences will be.

@SeventhSense A person who “conforms” to a set of ideals, i think, would only qualify as a “law abiding” person but not necessarily a “moral” person.

How about.. a Moral person would be one who is “committed” to “right conduct” ??
Even in the face of an authority who demands wrong conduct from them, like Hitler.

@ninjacolin
No because that’s a self regulated definition. We can’t just redefine terms to suit a position. Should I say an elephant is a cat like creature? The questioner should frame this one.
@boots
Hello. Heloooo. Helooooooooooo.

oh! i didn’t realize who this boots person was. I thought YOU asked the question. lol.

I agree that it’s up to the original question asker.

@SeventhSense For me, morality has nothing to do with consensus. If society as a whole decided rape was OK social practice, it wouldn’t make it moral. It wasn’t moral for Nazis to exterminate Jews. Slavery is not, and never was morally justifiable.

That said, I do think that all laws must be moral, and based on morality. They should be passed and enforced regardless of what is popular.

I don’t think of “moral” as meaning or implying “ideological”. I don’t think “morality” could be used to justify legislating against promiscuity or homosexuality. I do think “morality” could be used to justify legislating against slavery, sexual (or any type of) violence, discrimination, and any number of other issues.

Undoubtedly it is an amorphous and complicated issue with many reasonable perspectives. I’m not exactly sure how I’d define “moral”, but I find all the dictionary answers – as is usual with philosophical, legal or technical terms – unsatisfying and incomplete.

It’s definitely problematic. Laws have to be based on some kind of community consensus- this does not however dictate morality. We’ve had plenty of immoral laws.
Laws (and morality) must be internally consistent, and this is where it seems to me it usually falls apart.

@theluckiest
But there are universal ideas of virtue. Personal property, not killing, not abusing, etc. It’s not a nebulous term.

@SeventhSense I would definitely take issue with the idea that “personal property” is a “universal virtue”. I find the idea neither particularly universal nor particularly virtuous, and there are literally thousands of cultures historically and presently that do not have personal property – or indeed the sense of “self” that the idea of “personal property” relies on.
But that (and “virtue”, which is another problematic term) aside, I do believe in some sort of universal “morality” which is more or less discernible through reason, observation, and dialogue. To what degree this is revealed varies from time to time and location to location.

@SeventhSense @ninjacolin Hello! I was at work while you fellows were debating. I’m glad my question could get sucht a roll!

@boots, your question is great. it’s your fault that we’re interested really.. but you have to provide a definition of Moral so we can answer your question.
(or decide whether we want to)

@ninjacolin The lack of a proper definition was my whole point. You can’t go making laws based on someone’s morals because people share different morals.

@boots
So then you’re saying that your question doesn’t make sense. You can’t ask a question and not be clear as to what your terms are. Or maybe we should just answer yes or no. Or make it even simpler and have a completely meaningless discourse and just say A or B.

@SeventhSense My point was that legislation can’t be based on ‘morality’ because there’s no such thing as concrete morals.

I was trying to inspire discussion based on the question. I succeeded better than I thought I would have.

@boots
Yes but if you can’t define the term or won’t decide on a definition of morality then your question is either nonsensical or not a question at all but a statement.
Do you understand?
See the dictionary definition I posted above to clarify.

alright.. then i wish to express my disagreement.
i believe there is such a thing as concrete morality.. and it is found always in sound logic.

@SeventhSense Then don’t fucking answer it.

@boots
That was unnecessary. You are obviously confused and are taking this personally and you simply don’t understand that there is nothing to answer because there is no question. You did not want to generate a discussion but wanted someone to validate your opinion.
But since you can’t even define what the term morality means then your question itself has no meaning and I will only validate the fact that you are opinionated about something. Peace.

@SeventhSense Can you see far on that high horse?

Who are you to tell me the reason for asking this question? That’s your take on it. Was that a sly attempt to psychoanalyze me? You fail.

Have a good one.

@ninjacolin: You stated, “I am suggesting that people are predictable in that they only ever choose to do what actions they prefer”. This is free will. The fact that we have the ability to choose an action we prefer is the exact same thing as free will stated in 10 words rather than 2.

@critter1982 yes, it’s deceptively close to free will. it’s funny, in explaining it the argument always starts seeming impossible to believe then as people come to closer to understanding it starts to seem like it IS freewill… it’s a subtle and important difference though.

My statement was actually quite problematic because i used the word “choose” without quotes. The fact of the matter is that animals don’t “choose.” For example, consider if you were handling papers and you got a paper cut. You didn’t choose to get a paper cut. You simply GOT a paper cut. It happened to you. Similarly, if you are raped. You don’t choose to be raped, it happens to you. It is in this way that “Choices” happen as well. They aren’t free choices. They happen to you just like a DejaVu happens to you. Make more sense?

The idea of “choice” is technically superfluous but I do like to use it grammatically to describe the highest ranking preferences (in a hierarchy of preferences) that people have. So, you make choices.. they just aren’t ever “free” choices. Technically, all animals simply DO (like robots or slaves) according to whatever actions their brains happen to prefer in a given moment and they never do anything else unless it is what libertarians classify as “involuntary” such as spasms.

@ninjacolin Maybe I’m being simplistic, but I just can’t agree with that. We often choose to do things that we don’t prefer, for whatever reason. Like things we feel we should do, even though we hate doing them.

@ choice conversation
We also frequently fail to choose what we prefer due to poor availability of information, difficulty in acquiring a superior product, or cost, in addition to other factors I’m sure I’m forgetting.

arg.. maybe we should have a fluther question on determinism vs free will. i can explain all of this but it will lead to more questions and this is a huge derail of the original topic. i don’t know what question to ask though.. i’ll try to come up with one so that these arguments can be had there instead of derailing topics.

my answer to the question of this thread is: “Yes, it is only moral to base legislation on morality.” And my definition of the term “moral” comes from my understanding of the universe as absolutely deterministic in nature.

Other people with libertarian view points or other understandings of determinism will give different answers based on their world view. (which is an awfully deterministic fact, by the way.. lol)

A few days ago I stopped contributing to this discussion as I think the whole concept of free will not existing is based solely on semantics, and therefore, I either exercised my free will, or chose the most preferable option (whatever you want to call it) and stopped trying to argue a point which is both unimportant (a rose by any other name), and irrelevant to the question asked in the first place.

lol, if it free/determinism simply “didn’t matter” i would agree with you. but no, i think it matters a great deal. it is not just a semantic issue. accepting free will vs accepting determinism actually affects the way we live our lives. it affects the “decisions” we would make or rather the “preferences” we would have.

@ninjacolin – I’m going to quote from your first response to your own question about whether free will exists:

”

Myself, i have no reason to believe we have free will.

I think all animals, including humans, act on their momentary preference. for example, if a child prefers not to be bullied more than s/he prefers not to try a cigartte, s/he will try the cigarette. Animals never seem to do anything that doesn’t happen to be their highest priority preference over other preferences they may have in a given moment.

This highest priority preference is what libertarians (people who believe in “free will”) refer to as their “choice.” But this sensation seems to be more-so of an illusion as no choice is ever actually made. Rather, this “choice” occurs to them as a conclusion in much the same way that the answer to the simple mathematical question 4 + 6 is arrived at as a conclusion.

There doesn’t seem to be a choice in the matter. Our brains seem to function as logic calculators. Basing conclusions on the evidence the brain has taken in historically and happens to be aware of in the moment.”

First problem is this…it STILL seems to me that what you are saying is all semantics. Essentially your arguments are twofold…one is that it is actually determinism because every decision is reactionary, and one must “determine” one’s next step. But there is no conceivable state of being where one would have nothing to which one could react, all actions are reactionary to some stimulus, otherwise you have a state of nothingness. So, to me, to state that it’s not free will because it’s in reaction to something IS a semantic argument. Again, a rose by any other name.

The first definition I found of “free will” on doing a web search is, “the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies ”. To me, if one is free to make one’s decisions without being constrained by others in regards to which decisions one can make, that is free will. I believe that what you are doing is equating external INFLUENCE with external CONSTRAINT. These are two completely different concepts. Now certainly you can parse words and make the semantics conclude something different, but words at their core are simply tools that humans use to convey meaning. The meaning that is conveyed to most people when they hear “free will” is, “I can make this decision.” It doesn’t mean that with absolutely no context or outside influence I must make a random decision.

Now this is not to say that decisions are not also determinism, I simply do not see them as mutually exclusive concepts, nor do I see any reason to “live one’s life differently” based on whether you believe in determinism or free will. Essentially I’m well aware that the choice I make is a conclusion I draw. But I think therein lies the second problem with your argument. The choice does not “occur” to us as a conclusion, not ultimately….though it is true that in any given situation, a choice occurs to us as a conclusion, but you must realize four important things about this.

One, the choice we make does indeed “occur” to us as a conclusion, but so do the other choices we do not choose. It is our free will which determines which of these “choices” we make.

Two, not every individual will pick the same “choice” among the available options, some of this is personality based. For example, given an investment opportunity with a certain amount of risk, two people with similar backgrounds might draw the same set of choices, and pick two completely different choices when one is simply wired to be more risk averse than the other.

Three, not everyone comprehends things in the same way, therefore, the five choices that may occur to me might not occur to another person who actually considers four different choices, simply because of the way we are wired (and yes in part due to reactions and past experience as well).

Four, I am not bound to make the most logical choice. It is NOT simply a matter of highest priority preference. Writing this is in no way a priority to me, there are other things that I am well aware are a higher priority, and yet I’m choosing to write it. This is not in reaction to my past experiences as I’ve chosen to refrain from writing it before. It’s just what I felt like now.

@dalepetrie said: “to me, to state that it’s not free will because it’s in reaction to something IS a semantic argument. Again, a rose by any other name.”

It’s strange but I have to accuse you of misunderstanding the concept of free will. You are too much of a determinist to be a true compatabalist (someone who thinks free will and determinism can co-exist). What you, dale, call free will is actually determinism. Most people do not accept the idea that everything is “reactionary” in that way. Libertarians believe the human brain is magically capable of making completely random decisions without any REASON or CAUSE to that decision over another.The believe they can FREELY decide between two options at one moment or another.

@dalepetrie quoted:“the power of making free choices unconstrained by external agencies ”—exactly.

@dalepetrie said: “To me, if one is free to make one’s decisions without being constrained by others in regards to which decisions one can make, that is free will.” But you disagree with this because you said: “every decision… is reaction to something.” which is the opposite of being constrained by external agencies as per the definition of free will.

@dalepetrie said: “I believe that what you are doing is equating external INFLUENCE with external CONSTRAINT. These are two completely different concepts.”

external influences are constraints. for example, if you are only seeing black as an option then you will only choose black and not red or green or violet. If you are lacking some influence in your life you cannot choose it. For example, no one ever enrolls in a class for a language that is not being offered. If an option is lacking, it is never chosen. (hmm.. that sentence is actually absolutely true about all animals)

@dalepetrie said: “The meaning that is conveyed to most people when they hear “free will” is, “I can make this decision.” It doesn’t mean that with absolutely no context or outside influence I must make a random decision.”

I’m going to correct the part in italics. Free will doesn’t mean what you said there. What free will suggests is that with absolutely no context or outside influence, a particular decision can possibly be made. For example, Eve “freely” choosing to eat the apple. Free Will states that the decision was not a product of anything but personal will irrespective of any and all influences in her history or present. A decision made by her soul and her responsibility being tied up with it rather than with the influences in her life.

This is what makes free will different from determinism. Causality. The problems of free will become apparent when you examine sitations like: If I shove you and you lose your balance and you fall it is my fault but if I forget my cellphone in your car set to LOUD and it rings and distracts you so that you rear-end a car.. you are held accountable.

@dalepetrie said: “nor do I see any reason to “live one’s life differently” based on whether you believe in determinism or free will.”

This one is difficult to explain. I won’t get into it for now. This is way long already.

@dalepetrie said: “One, the choice we make does indeed “occur” to us as a conclusion, but so do the other choices we do not choose. It is our free will which determines which of these “choices” we make.”

Nope. Your option is a belief about which option is best. For example consider what do you believe is the correct answer to this simple, grade 3 mathematical equation: 4 + 4 = what? 7, 8, 9, or 10?

I know that you believe the correct answer is 8. And this belief, whether it is right or wrong, is what you would go with on a test that you thought mattered. You would never on a test choose an answer that you do not believe in that moment is the best possible choice for you to make. It just won’t ever happen.

It is not your will that decides what choice you will make, it is your belief about which option you OUGHT to make that will determine your selection in all cases. The other options available on the test are technically impossible for you to select as long as your belief is that they are wrong to select.

@dalepetrie said: “two…given an investment opportunity with a certain amount of risk, two people with similar backgrounds might draw the same set of choices, and pick two completely different choices when one is simply wired to be more risk averse than the other.”

False dilemma. “Similar backgrounds” is not the same as “Exactly the same backgrounds.” If they had “exactly the same backgrounds” yes, they would choose the exact same options because they would be the exact same person arriving to make their selection at the same time walking in the same door with the same ideas in their heads about what they day feels like, how confident they are in the choice that appeals to them and all other factors in the universe would be equal.

@dalepetrie said: “Three, not everyone comprehends things in the same way, therefore, the five choices that may occur to me might not occur to another person who actually considers four different choices, simply because of the way we are wired (and yes in part due to reactions and past experience as well).”

Exactly, see point 2.

@dalepetrie said: “Four, I am not bound to make the most logical choice. It is NOT simply a matter of highest priority preference. Writing this is in no way a priority to me, there are other things that I am well aware are a higher priority, and yet I’m choosing to write it. This is not in reaction to my past experiences as I’ve chosen to refrain from writing it before. It’s just what I felt like now.”

if 3 angry bears burst into your computer room before you could finish typing you would not have sent it when you did because THEN you would have had a higher priority preference to ahead of posting: saving your life.

it was beacuse you were in the abscense of any higher priority preference in that moment that typing that up was possible for you and everything else was impossible for you.

consider your reading this right now, why are you not instead tying your shoes or eating a chair or building a nuclear reactor or focusing on the news or eating in another room or doing anything else important to you in the world? .. it is because this IS your highest priority preference of the moment. It supercedes all others.

@ninjacolin – but it’s my choice to respond to this or not, and how to respond to it. It was my choice to read it, vs. either not reading it or just skimming it. What I do and how I do it is my choice, what makes me say, not knowing that this quip was there, that now is the time I’d like to log onto Fluther…it’s there, it’s an option..there are other things that are there that are options. Yes, I do what I most feel like doing. Though there are some times things I take a risk and do even though they might not be my preference. All of what you say just seems like parsing words to me. I understand what you’re saying, but I believe that in the way that you define the term free will, free will could not exist. I however define it in a way that I believe it can and DOES exist.

that’s fine, @dalepetrie but as i said already.. your definition of free will isn’t what libertarians accept either. i submit to you that your definition of free will is simply determinism. :)

I’m re-posting the rest of this from the end of a debate on another forum:

I’m not a fan of Compatiblist positions as I prefer to find dependable absolutes rather than slippery compromises. However, it is in my moral code to find compatiblistic seeming solutions. ha. So, my solution is thusly:

Let all preferences leading to actions be regarded as “chosen” preferences.

This is NOT to say that they are “freely” chosen preferences nor “freely” chosen actions, as they clearly are not. However, the designation “chosen” indicates which preferences in moment M were the most appealing to the rationale of a given mind causing action. Again, a “chosen” preference is the most rational and sound-seeming preference in the hierarchy of preferences that a mind will happen to act on in a given moment. In the deterministic world view this “chosen preference” is still regarded as a determined preference and not as a freely chosen preference.

so, there you have it: You do make choices.. they just aren’t ever free.

—-

also a sidenote:
for people who are inclined to say: “well, if i can’t change anything then i may as well just stay in bed all day” ...the answer to this is that you do! You do just stay in bed all day and things just happen. You happen to prefer to get up so you do.. You happen to prefer to go to work.. so you do.. You happen to prefer to get paid and go on trips and have fun and have drinks and what not.. so you do. Our preferences force us to have babies, protect them and rear them well. Our preferences force us to debate. Our preferences force us to find sound arguments and to abide by them. Our preferences, it seems clear to me, force us to enjoy life.

A deterministic universe isn’t stale and boring and unrewarding… it’s what we experience everyday.