MaxedOutMama

It can't be refuted so much as problematized. It's a commonly accepted moral in our society that insulting someone maliciously is bad, but we have had it written into a our constitution that we cannot prohibit insulting qua free speech. We have different levels of morality, and only some are appropriate for law.
 

But that's not without limit, is it? There are also slander laws. Don't an awful lot of laws steer between competing harms?

A good example is the ongoing debate between the pros and cons of having the police enforce immigration laws. Most police departments seem to have decided it's a bad strategy, because it leaves a lot of victims without recourse.

I think those "different levels of morality" should be separated by the recognition that law is an imperfect and defensive instrument, and that one of the questions that should be asked before passing one is whether the proposed law is likely to result in more good than harm over the long run.

I suppose we could pass a law saying that everyone is required to act cheerfully and speak nicely to one another, but the mind boggles at what the practical outcome would be. Law works best when it is restrained in focus.
 

Absolutely. If I'd written more than a paragraph, it would have been close to identical.

The only thing I'd add is that in some cases we've collectively prohibited legislating some forms of morality in order to secure protection for those areas in which our own morals differ. The morality of bracketing some forms of morality. Or something.

Anyway, I think we value moral self-determination in its own right, not just as a guide to expediency.
 

Yes, I do think moral self-determination is an inherent moral good. I could defend that on historical grounds, spiritual grounds, probably psychological grounds (if I knew enough), and practical grounds, so I'll stick with the last as being the most accessible.

To me one simple fact rules our world and our interactions with each other. I can't solve your problems nor you mine. I may at times be able to help you, and you may be able to help me at times. But I don't know all the circumstances of your life and you don't know mine - we are limited beings. So if I try to decide all the courses of action that will be best for you I'm quite likely to foul up the works of your life.

Even when you know someone very well, such as child or a spouse, you still can't solve all their problems without destroying their ability to cope. One of the difficult things about marriage is that you sometimes find yourself on the sidelines, anxiously watching as your spouse battles something out for him- or herself.

On the other hand, if you permit others the freedom to work out their own strategies and solutions, they have something to offer others who face the same circumstances and problems.

I think law works well as a system of limited defense against inequities, but that it works badly at nurturing the aspirational side of life - that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness thing" as the elder Bush would probably put it. That side of life seems to work out best when relatively free people interact on a relatively free basis.
 

The fundamental basis of the American Revolution, and the principle outlined in the Constitution was, your freedom stops where it imposes upon my freedom. That is, you're free to do what you like, as long as you don't hurt anyone else.

We like to think of the high-minded ideals of the American Revolution, but it was primarily a revolution founded in economic principles with few ideals until people like Thomas Paine gave it a moral purpose. It was the business class, more than anyone, which fumed at laws of taxation without representation, and forced trade with England. We mustn't forget that the failure to achieve a more just society is in large part a factor of the capitalist nature of the Constitution. It protects private interests to such a degree morality often takes a back seat. Don't get me wrong. I'm not a strident socialist, but neither does unrestrained capitalism have any virtue.

Morality is a critical factor in enforcing the law. What would happen, for example, if traffic laws weren't coercive enough, and everyone decided to run stop lights? There aren't enough police to monitor traffic at every intersection. Chaos would ensue. People's mobility would be hindered. Everyday we get into a car, we see the potential for this breakdown of the law everytime some jerk races through an intersection just as the light turns red. There will always be people in society who shirk their responsibilities to their brethren so that they can get ahead--so they can get a little more than the next guy.

I think "the government" often gets a bad rap. The government is, ideally, the expression of the will of the people. We need to pay attention, however--and this requires an informed citizenry--to those occasions when the government exerts it's coercive power to benefit a few at the expense of the many--when the government allows a few select people to run red lights. Usually, this is caused because the principles codified into law are circumvented by lawmakers who are being personally rewarded by the beneficiaries of changed laws.

We are often reminded, to our chagrin, that vigilance is the price of democracy.
 

A lot of well phrased solid points, Schroeder.

I'm not a fan of unrestrained capitalism myself. Still, I tend to think some degree of relatively free economic activity tends to develop social freedom, innovation and adaptation.

I can, for instance, mentally construct a society that would have structured its taxation and social benefits in such a way that without any explicit law being passed, it would be relatively unlikely that anyone could have more than two children, or raise a child as a single parent.

It is this tension between public and private goods that shapes our society. I'm not at all sure that the constitution is biased toward individual freedom at the expense of the public good.

I can think of no strong definition of morality that does not entail both a recognition of an outward reality and the principle that others must have rights that must be respected. I hate to put it like this, but permitting to others a certain degree of what I define in myself as immorality is necessary to permit individuals the scope necessary to implement their own ideas of morality. The older I get, the more I realize how limited the scope of my perception of the broad expanse of reality is, and so logically I have to concede that others' ideas of morality are sometimes better than mine.

I'm not questioning your assertion that societies rely upon moral behavior, although I would point out that apparently in Rome they don't stop for red lights, and the society hasn't destroyed itself yet. People are very adaptable.

I do wonder whether, if the rights of individuals aren't protected, societies don't evolve towards concentrations of power. To me the best thing about the constitution is that it seems to function pretty well to allow people to circumscribe those concentrations of power, whether economic, social, or political.
 

Since I'm delighted to find your remarks so personally enriching, I have to reply, but we could probably carry on endlessly.

There are any number of splintered directions which a discussion of morality, law, and governance could travel. It's difficult to sum up one's views without resorting to specific cases. The discussion is one played out in courtrooms every day. I'm primarily concerned with the application of morality to economic behavior, but the current (intentional) distraction is to focus on the morality of legislating the right to same-sex marriage--an extension of the harmful denigration of government action.

That drivers in Rome don't stop for red lights may not spell the demise of civilization (and I agree that some amount of room to stretch ones concept of morality is beneficial), nevertheless, I was striving for a metaphor to describe what happens to the rights of people, and to the costs to society, when morality breaks down to such a degree that it requires legislation.

I wholeheartedly embrace your criticism of "takings" by the government for the benefit of private interests. One should be very careful, however, not to suggest that the government has no right to the exercise of eminent domain for public goods.

One could point to the "wise use" movement which is fond of criticising the exercise of any regulatory power as a "taking," while passing on the hazards of environmental degradation to future generations. The movement is a thinly-veiled conglomeration of mining, timber, and chemical interests. They have successfully thrust their argument into the mainstream, so that I commonly hear the complaint, among less-informed citizens, that government interferes too much in the activities of private individuals. I can only respond that the government is the expression of the will of the people.

The Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and any number of other environmental and public safety laws exist because there was a citizen outcry against private interests profiting by passing on their costs to the public. These are highly moral laws, and they had to be passed because some people weren't acting morally.

Yet, typically, it's most often those who proclaim their monopoly on personal morality who complain about government regulation of economic activity. That's because they know they can get away with screwing other people when the coercive power of the government can't protect their rights.

As I have inferred, this isn't just a moral debate. It's an economic debate involving questions about who ends up paying for the damages caused by others. For example, why should individuals, numbering in the hundreds, have to suffer deteriorating health, horrible and debilitating diseases, economic hardship, and death, because refineries and chemical plants all along the Mississippi "cancer alley" corridor openly dump toxins into the air?

Of course, people could sue for damages, but the companies know that the costs of organizing are far greater for a large number of people than for a comparatively small, but powerful, corporation.

Even when communities win, the legal fees and fines are often less than what the companies would have paid to clean up their operations.

This scenario plays out in other arenas--when pharmaceutical companies block research demonstrating that their medication causes heart damage; when medical accidents cause injury or death; when Walmart blocks workers from organizing for better pay and benefits; when Enron energy traders intentionally shut down electricity plants to force grandmothers to pay more.

These battles can continue to be fought out in the courts. All too often, the outcomes benefit the defendants. The accused know this. That's why, having largely successfully blocked any attempt to legislate their behavior, and now engaged in a pitched battle to roll back environmental and public safety regulations, they are now focusing their endeavors on limiting the ability to seek recompense by suing for damages.

Again, the question we should be asking is, who pays? Who pays for the immorality of a few individuals?

In this regard, I believe our society has indeed evolved toward a concentration of power. The constitution offers ways to redress that balance of power, but it requires an informed citizenry, therein lies the problem. People who live in ignorance become fodder for the people in power whose actions are not moral.