Forum Post: Legislating Morality
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 9, 2011, 8:46 p.m. EST by mattjiggy
(31)
from Durham, NC
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Much of the rhetoric that I've seen from the OWS movement towards the wealthy/corporations/lobbyists/etc includes words such as "evil", "unfair", "immoral", "corrupt", and other similar language that suggests most this site's visitors hold a shared view of right and wrong, especially when it comes to how very wealthy people should dispose of their money.
Regardless of how wealth has been gained, does forced redistribution of wealth constitute a legislation of a moral choice?
Moral influence among the people is the basis of all legislation, or it fails, and although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 10% Management Group of Business & Government, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers ourselves. Consequently, I have posted a 1-page Summary of the Strategic Legal Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do this at:
http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategic_legal_policy_organizational_operational_structures_tactical_investment_procedures
Join
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/
if you want to be 1 of 100,000 people needed to support a Presidential Candidate – myself – at AmericansElect.org in support of the above bank-focused platform.
Forced redistribution of wealth is the definition of greed.
Aren't laws against other kinds of "corruption" legislating a moral choice?
All legislation is moral.
NO! We do not believe in a forced redistribution of wealth. We call for the end of Fascism in America.
Ok, for you now it becomes a moral issue? Can you explain to me the origins of this moral?
That is the result of misdirected anger at the rich. The propagandists are winning!
Amen!
I have asked many people over 30 years time. Do you want a free ride to and from work? We need to think as 1, not many individuals with disparate senses of self.
The answer has consistently been, "No I want my Freedom" This is derved from GM'smarketing metaphor. "It's not just a car, It's your freedom"
Whoey, I don't feel free when it takes me 45 minutes to get to work and 1 hour to get home. I am not free when my rental expenditures invlove the expense of getting to and from work. $10.000+ in rental expenditures with a $45K salary is gut wrenching.
In order to get that GM grain of rice engram out of our minds we need to think much more practically and be geared for successfully solving our income subjugation.
In short, yes. Legislation of morality is inherent to society.
Whose morality?
Anyone's. I'll give you an example, but first we must agree that concepts of right and wrong are completely unique to each individual. Now, suppose there is someone who believes murder to be right, whereas society as a whole believes it is wrong. When that person kills someone, they are forced into captivity. This is an extreme example, but it makes the point. The entire purpose of democratic society is to legislate morality in accordance with the beliefs of the majority.
I've read this entire thread and I have a fundamental disagreement with your argument.
In brief, our law is based not on enforcing what IS right, but protecting what ARE rights. Put another way, our government was founded on the notion of inalienable rights, and our system of laws since the founding has been an attempt to defend those rights while balancing them with the necessary responsibilities.
Regardless of a citizen's moral view of killing, the act of murder violates a person's inalienable right to life. Regardless of the of the immorality of slavery, it violates a person's right to liberty. The majority's view of these matters, at least in a pure argumentative sense, is irrelevant.
One's view of what is right, is just as subjective as one's view of what is a right. Just because someone says everyone has a right to life or liberty does not necessarily mean everyone agrees with it.
Alec, the rights to life, liberty, and property aren't just what "someone says" -- they are the principles on which this country was founded. Our agreement with those principles is implied by our continued presence in this country, our payment of taxes to this government, and our participation in its system of representative democracy.
On the contrary. This nation was founded by individuals, all of whom had their own opinions. And while you and I may agree with the rules they put in place, it is possible that someone else does not.
Also, "our agreement with those principles" is NOT implied by our continued presence in this country. If that were the case, laws would never be broken. In fact, slavery would never have existed. After all, "All men are created equal," right?
That can become dangerous and unfair to the minorities. Our founding fathers were worried about exactly this. For example, the majority belief in afghanistan may be that women shouldnt study. Is that right? I agree we all have some sense of basic right and wrong but it is a difficult issue. Take slavery. At one point in time, the majority felt it was right. That didnt make it right.
"Is that right?"
To some it is, to some it isn't. The answer to this question is relative to the person answering it. The concept of democracy recognizes this fact, and chooses to side with the majority in order to satisfy the highest possible number of people.
It is true that slavery was once considered right by the majority. That didn't make it right, nor did it make it wrong. But eventually opinions changed, as they often do, and the minority (anti-slavery) and the majority (pro-slavery) evolved to form an even larger majority (anti-slavery).
But then you point out an inherent flaw with democracy. If tomorrow we woke up and 51% of the people (in our theoretical democracy where everything is decided by popular opinion on the spot) decided homosexuals where harmful to society and must be imprisoned, we'd round up all homosexuals into prison camps.
But you are operating on the assumption that right and wrong are mutable philosophies. What if, as Socrates may have argued, virtues were immutable, and that it is our personal responsibilities to question our actions, motives, and prejudices to find out what being Virtuous really is?
The problem with democracy is that it seeks to please, rather than to do what is right.
This question came to me while thinking about abortion, actually. It struck me as odd that the individuals who rail against pro-life activists because they seek to legislate morality and interfere with a woman's right to choose have an awful lot to say about what other people do with their property.
Even if they are using their money to heavily sway the political process, what makes that an immoral act, since they are disposing of their property in a manner that seems right to them?
You're missing the point. What is right to some, may be wrong to others. Therefore, the "problem" with democracy is one that is impossible to solve.
Well, then I quite get your point. Perhaps you didn't get mine. So maybe democracy is a form of government which we should abandon, for the sake of what's right.
“A good decision is based on knowledge and not on numbers.” -Plato
"For the sake of what's right." Again, what is right cannot be defined because it is subjective. If you're searching for a system that can accomplish this, you'll be searching for all eternity.
And are you implying that mathematics are completely separate from knowledge?
Take that quote to mean that if 99% of people think that jumping off of a cliff in order to live is a good idea, then that doesn't make the 1% who disagree and know jumping off a cliff will kill you wrong.
The problem with the mindset that "right cannot be defined because it is subjective" is that you then make no attempt to determine what is right. You make no attempt to better society or yourself. That mindset would allow atrocities like slavery, antisemitism, and homophobia to occur unaltered throughout history.
Well, it makes them wrong in the eyes of the 99% and right in the eyes of the 1%. Both equally valid judgements.
You're still unable to view these hypotheticals from a point of view outside of your own. You've made your opinions on discrimination clear, but you must admit that another person might see the world differently. Forget these subjects of equality, they're too loaded. Try instead to think about something more abstract, like beauty.
Imagine that two people are looking at a piece of art. One finds the work to be beautiful, while the other finds it to be ugly. I'm arguing that they are both right in their own minds, but that they are also both wrong from the other person's point of view.
Alex,
I must assume based on your reasoning that you have no issue or misgiving about what the 1% do with their money or how they obtain it, as long as they are acting within their own framework of what is right. Is this true?
That question is irrelevant to what I'm arguing and so I will not answer it. The fact that you think my username is Alex tells me that you read the first 2 or 3 letters and then ASSUMED what was to come next. By your responses, I'm guessing this is how you've treated the content of my posts as well. Take the time to read what I'm saying and then I'll take the time to answer your question.
Alec,
1) "Alex" was a typo. X is adjacent to c on the keyboard. Please forgive me.
2) I want to understand your position. I think you were saying that since morality is relative to each person's concept of right and wrong, that no one can accuse someone else of an immoral act, with any integrity, because that person may have been acting according to what he/she believes is right. Is this correct, and if not, could you clarify your position?
Yes, that is more or less what I'm saying.
To answer your question, no that is not true. I am often disgusted with how the 1% spends/obtains their money. Especially if it involves corrupting journalism and politics or destroying our environment.
My point was that I believe you disqualify yourself from the debate about right.vs wrong actions if you insist that there is no objective moral standard to which we can appeal. How can you expect to persuade anyone to your opinion if you give them that big of an escape hatch? I believe its not only permissible but intellectually honest to declare your belief in one true, right course, and then argue for it.
I dont agree it is ok to get the minority to make sacrifices for the sake of the majority. It is not right. At the extremes, this can lead to legitimizing inhuman things. Like it happens in many hardcore islamic nations.
Then you should be protesting against democracy.
Edit: I'd like to add that in many hardcore islamic nations, such as Saudi Arabia, it is not the majority imposing their beliefs on the minority, but visa versa. So I ask you, which do you prefer: the minority making sacrifices for the majority, or the majority making sacrifices for the minority? In a democracy, the goal is to have the least sacrifice possible.
Take the same example of slavery. The majority is not making any sacrifice by not having slaves yet they imposed their will on the minority and violated their basic human rights. It just becomes mob rule. No side should be able to impose a rule that will benefit one side at the expense of the other.
That goes both ways.
You're getting off topic. I happen to agree with what you just said, but I acknowledge that this is just my opinion. Someone who thinks differently from us might think it is right to be allowed to own slaves.
A bullet travels quickly to someone who is standing still, but to someone travelling at the speed of light, it travels quite slowly. The speed of the bullet changes depending on the observer's point of reference, just like opinions of right and wrong change depending on peoples' points of view.
I admit morality is a difficult subject. We just have to do our best to make sure no one gets exploited because of majority rule. I guess there is no easy answer.
Agreed.
All laws have some basis in morality. Think about it.