Morality should be legislated

Thanks, Con. All I mean by "morality should be legislated" is that beliefs about what is right and wrong should be legislated. Why beliefs? Because, in the end, every other system of morality is, at best, the system that a certain group of people think accurately represent "natural" morals. In other words, systems of morality are judged by how the correspond to the conscience or inner compass of general humanity. If the NAP permitted us to murder or steal without worry, then the NAP, not our own sense of right and wrong, would be flawed. Con says: " . . . our laws shouldn't be based on whether society thinks an action is right or wrong, but by whether the action violates certain fundamental rights, as I laid down in my last argument." IF we applied the NAP and based all our laws on it, then what would be doing? We would be legislating Con's belief that the NAP is an adequate and complete foundation for "just" laws. When we adopt affirmative action "morals" as the basis for laws we are doing the same thing to a lesser degree. But how do we determine which "moral foundations" are best? So far we have not arrived at a better determiner than the simple majority vote balanced by a hopefully moral responsible legislative body[s] also accountable to the people. Sound familiar? Representative democracy is one of, if not the, best systems of governments. What you are advocating is more an utopic system that would sound good in theory but would soon fall prey to the issues of interpretation and would require decision-making, either from a ruler, judges, or the people. "Under your system, does being immoral qualify an action to be illegal, or not? Also, what is your justification for the existence of a government in the first place?" Generally, yes. It depends on the degree, of course, but if something is severely wrong, it should be illegal. People will differ on what is wrong and what is not, and whether the offense is serious enough, but in the end this is the true foundation of the judicial system. We punish murder because it is wrong. We punish theft because it is wrong. We punish the breaking of agreements (something not really covered by the NAP) because it is wrong. Today homosexuality is legal not because people have decided not to legislate morality but because they have decided homosexuality is not really wrong. I guess Con would say, to the same question, that he would refer to the NAP on every issue rather than depending on a subjective interpretation of "morality." He would still be punishing immoral behavior, but depending on the NAP to determine what behavior is "immoral enough" to deserve punishment. This is obvious, as if he does not punish immoral behavior, then what can he justly punish? Government should exist to safeguard the liberties of the people. What those liberties are, how far they extend, and how they should be protected, all are moral issues that must be determined. Oh boy. Look at this: "Pro does give a somewhat troubling statement which I would like to look at. "The people, through their elected representatives, should be the cause of morality-based legislation." Let's say we pick a state in the Bible Belt, where about 3/5ths believe in young earth creationism, [1] and let's hypothetically say that they found the teaching of evolution to the pure, innocent, defenseless minds of children to be immoral and passed a law banning evolution in any school teaching minors. According to pro, this would be "The people, through their elected representatives, (being) the cause of morality-based legislation," and their actions would be legitimate. This is highly troubling to me to think that a government can, supposedly legitimately, enforce the beliefs of the majority, which in this example were false [2], on everybody by making them comply with the use of force." Oh; I see we might have strayed. In the preceding paragraphs and rounds I seem to have laid an emphasis on the majority's opinion. I am willing to discuss this, but the main point of the debate is "morality should be legislated," not the majority's or the minority's. So far we have seen Con advocating his own system of morality while putting down mine. However, both are examples of morality being legislated. In the example above, I would assume that Con thinks a judge should step in and legislate HIS morality in that instance, forbidding the state from banning the teaching of evolution. In some instances that may be fair, in some instances it may be unfair. Con's example does not pit legislating morality against not legislating morality, but legislating the majority's morality against the minority's morality! Con's claim that the majority's beliefs were false is a reflection of his own moral beliefs. Whether he is right or not is a question for another debate, titled "Is Teaching Evolution Wrong?" Why morality should be legislated: Morality is belief in right and wrong, what SHOULD BE illegal and what should not be, what is a liberty and what is not, as well as what is justice. Laws should be just. That is obvious. We cannot get just laws without morality, as justice is a function, or component, of morality. Morality is therefore necessary and vital to the making of laws. All that remains is to decide whose morality should be legislated and how it should be done so. I'm in favor of representative democracy, personally. Thanks. I finished just in time!