The US Constitution Legislates Morality

A) Semantics 1) Con claims it took 58 comments for me to agree to a definition of morality. 1st off, the comments have no bearing on this debate. Furthermore, the reason I disputed the original definition was because I was afraid he would use semantics to alter the context of the definition; a fear that pro confirmed in his 1st argument. By source 1, 2, and 3 I was referring to the sources of morality listed in the agreed upon definition, not a source for an argument. Pro stated that only Christians adhere to the morality of Christianity and those other members of the greater community may not agree with these subjective moral principles. This is exactly what I was referring to in the first round, when I said “some other group, such as a religion” refers to a sub community. Pro claims that I tried to semantically define rights, but the opposite is true. I pointed out that I was referring to a right, not being right, and that the two are homonyms. I gave no definition for the term “right”; I simply pointed out the manner in which I was using it. In Pro’s rebuttal he ignored this and semantically tried to shift which “right” I was referring to, from “a right” to “being right”. B) The Constitution's Jurisdiction Con claims that the constitution is still a moral code, despite only applying to the government. Even if this was true, politicians would only obey the law out of fear of repercussions, whereas a virtuous person is not coerced into morality. The very idea that laws are identical to morality implies that one can be coerced into being virtuous. Laws can sometimes be based on morals, but they are not themselves a code of ethical conduct. http://people.wku.edu... The printing of money is not a moral issue, it is economic. It came about because due to inflation the continentals were only worth 1/40th its face value. http://www.lib.uchicago.edu... C) Objective Morality Pro claims that natural rights (ius naturalis) are objective morality; they are no such thing. Again, a “right” (ius) and being “right” (rectus) are homonyms. One refers to an entitlement, while the other refers to something which is morally acceptable. Just because you have a right (ius) to do something does not mean it is right (rectus) to do it. I both advise and request that my appointment stop using semantic arguments. http://www.princeton.edu... D) Unjust Laws Pro claims that morality can be forced on the individuals within a community, and that if individuals disagree with the law, it is still part of the dissenting individual’s moral code. That is like claiming that the morality of Christianity is part of an atheist’s moral code. If an individual’s moral code conflicts with an organization’s moral code, such as a religious code, the individual’s code trumps the organization’s code. This further proves my point that laws (lex) are not a moral code (moralis). E) Misc. My point about the right to bears arms had nothing to do with morality. The constitution was not based on the ideals of the founders, but rather the constitution was constructed in order to best protect our natural rights. We first tried a confederation, and after realizing the problems with the confederation we improved on it with the constitution. The constitution included an amendment process so that the constitution could be changed or altered if need be. The right to bear arms was not idealist, it was realist and utilitarian. The effect of an arms ban is counterproductive, and therefore the government was prohibited from banning arms. It had no ethical basis, but rather a historical basis; the battles of Lexington and Concord were a direct result of a British arms ban. The founders based our constitution on lessons from history, and they often used words such as “Experience hath shewn” when referring to the Laws of Human Nature (lex naturalis).