Legislative Morality

Let us assume for this purpose that legislative morality can be universally defined as, “Laws created to ensure acts that the majority would define as moral.”

In a different thread, we touched upon one such law which is the banning of gay marriage, as we all know this law has a strong base in Christianity as well as a few other religions and is mostly existent (where it is a law) due to the religious majority. Any law that is anti-abortion in its nature probably also has a strong base with the religious majority, although, I think that there are a few more pro-life advocates that are not religious than there are anti-gay marriage advocates that are not religious, but I can’t be sure.

Anyway, I would like for those two issues to be kept out of the conversation as they are obvious examples of legislative morality and I believe that they would lead any conversation away from what my intent behind this question is.

That said, here is my question:

Can you think of any hypothetical examples, or actual laws (whether or not they be based on core religious moral values) that represent legislative morality going to far in terms of forcing us to live our lives in a, “moral,” way? In other words, is there anything that is dictated to us that you feel should not be?

Obviously, most laws are based on what I would consider generally accepted moral principles, i.e. rape and theft being crimes, but are there any laws that may not represent something that is as commonly viewed as moral?

An example that I would choose would probably have to be SEC enforced laws regarding insider trading. If I were a sole-proprietor I might sell my business and that business may be bought by another person who doesn’t know something that I do know, how is the sale of stocks any different? Ultimately, when one owns stock, one is an owner in a business, and even though the entity is corporate, many of these stockholders are individuals. That having been said, if I am privy to information that the public is not aware of I would have to say that I am going to do whatever it is that I have to do in order to protect my investment, even if it means selling stock because I know it will lose value.

If anyone would like to debate the morality of insider trading, please do so. Also, please add any other examples of legislative morality that you may feel do not reflect a commonly held moral belief for discussion.

It’s a French law but…

In the UK it is only possible to commit an act by omission if you have caused the act in some way previously. So, by law, if you see a car crash there is no impetus on you to do anything but sit and watch, yo can even go get popcorn if you wish, unless you say, spread oil on the road beforehand which caused someone to skid out and crash.

In French law (I think it’s called the citizens law or something) one has a duty to help one’s fellow man if you see them in need, and you can be prosecuted if you don’t attempt to help.

Edit: I don’t know about the American system, but it’s quite hard to find examples in the British one since, in the 1960s, there was a general state agreement that, except for special scenarios, morality was personal, the law could not accommodate all the possible variations and exists as the outer boundary of what one can do.

The only semi-moral cases we’ve had recently are the two ‘free vote’ laws, that is votes in parliament where the MPs didn’t have to follow the party line and they were votes to ban fox hunting and smoking in pubs. You could interpret them as a semi-moral proclamation to the nation.

No, no, no. Our last election aside, the majority has demonstrated a propensity for mob rule and irrationality when trying to arrive at any consensus. “You’re moral if you go to church on Sunday” was a past definition. Now it’s, “We’re moral if we are compassionate with our involuntary charity”.

Maybe I should just put this in my signature: Morality is honoring and protecting the equal rights of all to their life, liberty and property from violation through force or fraud. This morality is universal and (should be) the only objective of legislation. Everything else is virtue, which is an individual value system that must not be legislated.

The rules against insider trading are to preserve confidence in the market. And in fact, there are disclosures one must make to sell a private business. In most states, there are disclosures one must make when one sells a house or a car - even privately.

The example of insider trading is an interesting one, I think, because it suggests that morality is a question of following the rules, therefore insider trading is “immoral” because it transgresses the rules of the market: there is no longer a level playing field, to pursue the analogy a little further. I would extend this point by suggesting that any form of justice, or legislation, assumes a moral outlook because it sets up rules and boundaries that have to be respected - even, I would argue, PT’s “universal” moral rule of “equal rights”, which is founded on a similar (if generalised) sense of fairness.

“Laws created to ensure acts that the majority would define as moral.”

Surely in a democracy there is no other kind of law? You describe certain acts: murder, rape etc. as being prohibited on the grounds of their incompatibility with “generally accepted moral principles”. Presumably your definition of legislative morality would entail laws enforcing religious or sexual tolerance (sorry to avoid your insider trading example but it’s something I don’t know much about) but both kinds of law are based around majority opinion, the only difference I can see is the size of the majority; whilst probably everyone but the murderer would be in favour of murder’s illegality, a significantly larger proportion would oppose equal rights for homosexuals, in the end though, both are cases of a majority enforcing their opinion on a minority.

I’m not saying this is wrong by the way, nor attempting to justify murder or vilify gays, just pointing out what I feel is the reasoning behind legislation in our systems (I’m from the UK). My understanding of liberal democracy is that only those laws which protect the rights of the individual, including their right to not be exploited by other individuals, can be justified; in my eyes it’s on these grounds that the difference between the two examples above exists.

Oh and hi =) first post an all

I don’t know, but I was talking to a Russian friend of mine and she said that the Russians enacted a law making all paper currency worthless. Most older Russian don’t use banks and have never used banks. This made their entire life savings, which they had held in cash, worthless. I don’t oppose this morally, but if I were an older Russian I would be quite pissed off.

The upshot of the law is that the younger generations and future generations will be more streamlined with the new Russian economy and will be able to be more competitive with other nations.

I guess my point is sometimes laws don’t even have to be made for the majority of people alive today, but can be made for future generations of people who aren’t yet alive.

I’m surprised that this topic got such a great reception! I am going to respond to you guys individually:

Phoebus Wrote: In French law (I think it’s called the citizens law or something) one has a duty to help one’s fellow man if you see them in need, and you can be prosecuted if you don’t attempt to help.

My Reply: That is a ridiculous law, I think. A few U.S. states have something to that extent known as a, “Good Samaritan,” law. Now, if that law does not have some serious Christian basing I do not know one that does.

I think it is a crazy law because if it makes someone laste for a very important event at work and they are terminated, can they merely cite that they were following that law, or do they have to have evidence? What, if any, action could they take against the company if that happened?

I think that is an example of legislative morality going to far, I have no problem with laws that exist to protect people as long as the results of those laws are not intrusive when it comes to other people. I think the, “Good Samaritan,” law is entirely too intrusive; I should have the right not to help.

Faust Wrote: The rules against insider trading are to preserve confidence in the market. And in fact, there are disclosures one must make to sell a private business. In most states, there are disclosures one must make when one sells a house or a car - even privately.

My Reply: Confidence in the market is both relative to those who participate in the market and incredibly volatile, anyway. The fact is all businesses exist primarily as a means for an individual or group of individuals to make money, by seeking that result the market should be played in mostly a fair manner.

I am thinking of this whole Mark Cuban thing. I mean, he had more stock in the company than anyone else and the board arbitrarily decided to do stock-splitting which would essentially reduce the value of the money that he had already put in the company and also reduce his level of ownership, how is that fair? Oh well, I guess laws exist for the sake of fairness, but those same laws can also be used to take advantage of people, no system is foolproof. You either want to be a capitalist country, or you don’t, now I am a registered Socialist myself, but if you want to be a Capitalist Democracy, be a Capitalist Democracy, which theoretically should equal free-for-all in matters of business.

Matty: I understand about rules and boundaries that have to be respected. But, should morals not be rules and boundaries that an individual respects and creates for himself/herself? If it is enforced, can it any longer be a moral, or is it just a matter of law? When a person avoids a certain action for fear of retribution or retaliation and would not avoid the action if the possibility of retribution or retaliation were not there I do not think they are acting morally, per se, because their decision was not made without any outside influences.

Sheep: Keep in mind that we are a representative democracy, not a true democracy. We do not make the rules and laws, we just have a hand in suggesting who should make the rules and laws.

In terms of your majority rule point, I agree wholeheartedly.

SDWilson2002: In terms of the paper cash thing, was there not a period where individuals could exchange their cash for the new currency?

I understand what you mean about laws that benefit the people that will inhabit countries in the future, that pretty much covers any environmental law, for example.

Sure - no system is foolproof. Doesn’t mean the rules that are in place are either A. moral or B. useless.

I would tend to distinguish, following someone like Foucault, between ethical and moral situations, with the “rules and boundaries that an individual respects and creates for himself/herself” constituting the ethical aspects. In moral, which is to say general situations I think it is fair to say that there are many people who respect the rules and boundaries set down within the civilizations/nations/societies for more committed reasons than the simple “possibility of retribution or retaliation” and that even were this the case it would not change the fact that they were the agreed-upon moral codes within that particular context. I suppose, in simple terms, I take “moral” here to mean “generalised” - morality is not personal.

The Good Samaritan law is to protect the people who step in and help from being sued if something goes wrong.

Getting a species like human beings selfish, egotistical, indifferent, and apathetic to agree on anything collectively?

Nice pipe dream. Let me know how that ever works out.

I think that insider trading is seen as immoral because people feel like the stock market should be fair to play. Insider trading gives a few people control and screws over the ‘little man’. I’m not saying I agree or disagree with the laws, just commenting on the moral ‘background’ for them as I see it.

The primary one for me would be not giving the right to die (assisted suicide). The law should has no right, in my mind, to dictate this. It is a case of overstepped boundaries. Like many examples, though, I think these are relics of past times when the generally accepted morality was different, I think the law will always be a few steps behind common morality on such issues.