The Purpose of the US Constitution is to Legislate Morality

1. Morality cannot be determined by legislation Pro claims that any differentiation between right and wrong constitutes morality. So by Pro's definition, claiming that 2 + 2 = 4 is right and 2 + 2 = 5 is wrong is making a moral judgment. In defining morality, Pro said nothing about society or social punishment or subjectivity being applied for right and wrong as being a part of morality. He tells us that “morally right” is a redundant expression because there is no other meaning to “right” to be distinguished from the moral meaning. So by Pro's reasoning, the purpose of a math textbook is to establish morality, because it distinguishes right answers from wrong answers. That's absurd. His problem is equivocation of “right.” Pro did not provide a special definition of “right” in his challenge, so we turn to a standard dictionary and find [http://www.merriam-webster.com...]: right: 1: righteous, upright 2: being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper <right conduct> 3: conforming to facts or truth : correctright answer> 4: suitable, appropriate right man for the job> The dictionary, and common sense, support my contention that right and wrong have a moral meaning (in definitions 1, 2) and what I call a practical meaning (in 3, 4). Pro must distinguish the two meanings. What is righteous cannot be determined by legislation, and the Founders knew that as well as anyone. That means their purpose was to make a practical system. That's how they sold the Constitution to States having widely varying fundamental religious concepts of morality. 2. The main purpose of the Constitution is provide organizational structure The next question is whether the purpose of the Constitution was to legislate what is righteous or what is suitable. Pro has the burden of proof in this debate, so be must prove the purpose was to establish righteousness. The announced purpose in the Preamble is to establish a government suitable to achieving practical goals. Many people, and certainly the Deist founders, believe that doing what is righteous will also produce the best practical result. Pro's mistake is confusing the purpose of achieving practical results with the purpose of asserting righteousness. Consider the Chinese adopting capitalism; they do so for the economic benefits even though it contradicts communist concepts of morality. Pro explains that driving not obeying driving rules is “wrong” because you will because you will crash. That confirms the reason is practical. The two sides of the road are morally interchangeable, but one is selected arbitrarily solely for practical reasons. 3. Moral behaviors are generally not prescribed by the Constitution Pro says “we are all accustomed to placing morality in a religious context.” I'm not at all accustomed to that, having long argued that strong political ideologies prescribe moral codes entirely comparable to religious moral codes. Anarchists base their entire system on an abstract concept of righteousness, with little care for results. What I object to is the preposterous notion pressed by the resolution that every finding of right and wrong is a moral judgment. The resolution claims that the purpose of Constitution was to establish morality. If that were true, then Pro should be able to provide a long list of actions that the Constitution establishes as being right and wrong, but he cannot. I don't understand Pro's truth table. By Pro's logic it should be discounted as a subjective moral judgment, because there is no assertion of truth aside from subjective morality. The Constitution enables passing Amendments and laws that involve morality, just as an airplane design necessarily deals with gravity. That does not mean that the purpose of the Constitution is to establish morality. It's comparable to the purpose of an airplane design being to provide a practical airplane, not to assert physical laws.