My last post talked about legislating morals and I ended with the question "Who's morals do we legislate?" This is an excellent talk on how we as Moralist can fight for morality in the public sector, and addresses how to approach morality in government.
http://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/02/balancing-truth-and-tolerance?lang=eng
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Legislating Morals
I often hear the idea thrown around that government "cannot legislate morals."
I can understand why people think this. Often they equate morals with religion, and they think that we must have separation of church and state (another post on separation of church and state to come later). Therefore, because the government and religion should be separate, we cannot or should not legislate morals, according to many.
It is important to realize that moral beliefs are more than religious beliefs. Even the idea that government should not legislate morals is a moral belief. The idea of "separation of church state" is also a moral belief.
Our government would not be a government if it did not legislate morals. Every single thing that it legislates is based on someone's moral belief. Even things that seem totally unrelated to religion, like taxes for example. The idea that we should all pitch in so that we can have things like roads, clean water, protection, etc. is a moral belief. The idea that people who rape and murder or cause any other type of harm should be punished is also a moral belief.
Government is government because it legislates morals: your morals, my morals, someone's morals. If the statement "we cannot legislate morals" were actually true, it would mean we should have no government. That would be anarchy.
Therefore, the question is not whether or not we should legislate morals (we should, unless we want anarchy), but whose morals do we legislate?
What do you think? Whose morals do we legislate?
I can understand why people think this. Often they equate morals with religion, and they think that we must have separation of church and state (another post on separation of church and state to come later). Therefore, because the government and religion should be separate, we cannot or should not legislate morals, according to many.
It is important to realize that moral beliefs are more than religious beliefs. Even the idea that government should not legislate morals is a moral belief. The idea of "separation of church state" is also a moral belief.
Our government would not be a government if it did not legislate morals. Every single thing that it legislates is based on someone's moral belief. Even things that seem totally unrelated to religion, like taxes for example. The idea that we should all pitch in so that we can have things like roads, clean water, protection, etc. is a moral belief. The idea that people who rape and murder or cause any other type of harm should be punished is also a moral belief.
Government is government because it legislates morals: your morals, my morals, someone's morals. If the statement "we cannot legislate morals" were actually true, it would mean we should have no government. That would be anarchy.
Therefore, the question is not whether or not we should legislate morals (we should, unless we want anarchy), but whose morals do we legislate?
What do you think? Whose morals do we legislate?
Thursday, February 7, 2013
My Personal Political Party:The moralists
Moralist:
I identify most with the third definition. Philosophy and the study of morals and morality are my greatest passions. I do try to live high moral standards and believe that it is important to encourage others around me to seek to live higher moral standards as well.
People often consider me a conservative. But I refuse to identify with either party. My sister wrote an excellent piece on political parties and their problems (which you can read if you click here) and my feelings mirror hers. People get so caught up with who is right and who is wrong. They get stuck on their "causes" or their platforms. It inhibits them from seeking what is most important: truth.
And that's my platform: seeking truth.
Some may argue that all truth is relative, and that there is no absolute truth. I laugh at that because that very statement disqualifies itself. If you say "there is no absolute truth" then you are actually saying "there is no absolute truth, except for this one statement" but if that one statement is true, then there IS absolute truth.
There are absolute truths out there. And yes because we are human and not all knowing we often interpret them according to our own subjective views of the world. However, just because we see things through a subjective lens, doesn't mean that there are no absolute truths.
I will not align myself with one party or the other because rather than focusing on the ever changing values of political parties, I want to focus on real, absolute values and focus on finding truth.
That is my goal. And I plan to blog my findings. Feel free to join me in the quest for truth, because in the end, the "truth shall set you free." (John 8:32)
- somebody with high moral standards: a follower of a strict moral code
- critic of moral standards: somebody who seeks to regulate the moral standards and behavior of others
- specialist who studies morality: a student or teacher of morals as an academic discipline
I identify most with the third definition. Philosophy and the study of morals and morality are my greatest passions. I do try to live high moral standards and believe that it is important to encourage others around me to seek to live higher moral standards as well.
People often consider me a conservative. But I refuse to identify with either party. My sister wrote an excellent piece on political parties and their problems (which you can read if you click here) and my feelings mirror hers. People get so caught up with who is right and who is wrong. They get stuck on their "causes" or their platforms. It inhibits them from seeking what is most important: truth.
And that's my platform: seeking truth.
Some may argue that all truth is relative, and that there is no absolute truth. I laugh at that because that very statement disqualifies itself. If you say "there is no absolute truth" then you are actually saying "there is no absolute truth, except for this one statement" but if that one statement is true, then there IS absolute truth.
There are absolute truths out there. And yes because we are human and not all knowing we often interpret them according to our own subjective views of the world. However, just because we see things through a subjective lens, doesn't mean that there are no absolute truths.
I will not align myself with one party or the other because rather than focusing on the ever changing values of political parties, I want to focus on real, absolute values and focus on finding truth.
That is my goal. And I plan to blog my findings. Feel free to join me in the quest for truth, because in the end, the "truth shall set you free." (John 8:32)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)