Wulfie's Wurld

Commentary: Legislating Morality

One of the discussion points we see cropping up every so often is about whether or not we should be legislating morality. To some it seems unambiguously clear that we should, and to others just the opposite. On the one extreme, we have religious zealots who feel that their beliefs are God's beliefs, are laid out in Holy Scripture, are therefore the "definitive" morality, and ergo there is no problem to legislate it. Muslim Sharia law, or many of the "blue laws" of Utah or the Deep South are examples of this. On the other extreme, we have the cultural relativists who feel that each culture defines its own morality, and all moralities are equally valid.

Have I mentioned how I hate extremism?

One of the examples use for supporting the concept that morality can be legislated is the thing we all are supposed to agree upon, that murder is bad (bad=immoral) and that it's a good thing that it's against the law. We can't even agree upon that. Among the so-called civilized western nations, there is a huge discrepancy about the subject of state-sponsored murder. And yes, I'm using the word "murder" rather than "executions" merely to rattle some cages. I'll rattle the others later.

The problem, as I see it, is a lack of communication. I do not subscribe to any religions dogma, and I do not subscribe to the concept that what other cultures do is okay, yet I believe that there is a basic, universal morality that can safely be legislated. Perhaps all I'm doing is creating yet another cultish or culturally specific schema, based upon a cult or culture of one.

This "morality" of mine can be expressed in four, very simple words: Do not hurt others. I'll expand it a bit when I extend it to legislation: If an action hurts another (physically, monetarily, possessionally) it should be illegal. This would not apply to seeking restitution of one who has already violated the morality. A quick example, taking money from someone is an act of "hurting" and should be illegal, but taking stolen money back is an act of restitution and is not. A seeming "exception" to this basic morality can be explained by the concept of "informed, uncoerced consent." In that example, then, it's okay for a person to take money if it's given freely.

If we think about it, we would realize were we to apply this template to our current laws, most of them would remain unchanged. A few would be dumped. The dumpees would be the pet laws of the extremists.

Notice this "morality" does not apply to individuals themselves. This means that people have the right, unfettered by laws, to be stupid. They have the right to populate the Darwin Award rolls. That means that if we, as a culture, understand that coffee is hot, and that the corporation selling the coffee informs a customer that the coffee is hot, that the individual has the right to spill this coffee in their lap, but not to shift responsibility of that act to the corporation. In other words, many of our frivolous lawsuits should disappear.

You think?

Nawwwww.