Huge abortion case ruling today in the Court

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

I agree that what is currently legal is different from what many may or may not consider to be moral. That being said, doesn't what society agrees (you used the term consenus) to call legal or not legal stem from society's moral values collectively? I agree it's based on consensus, etc. but it is still based on moral values isn't it? (i.e. based on what is good for society - and defining what is or isn't good is at the heart of the concept of morals).

I often hear people say "you can't legislate morality" but isn't all legislation basically about morality (obviously I'm using a broader definition of the term than just the narrow "sexual morality" that people often think of) at it's core?

In other words, I don't see anything wrong with saying "I think something should be (il)legal because it is (im)moral". You get enough people to agree with you (consensus) and then you make a law. If enough people disagree with you then you don't get a law. But at the root of the law lies some moral principle - some concept of good and evil.

Sure, much of what we legislate corresponds to much of what we societally deem moral. That is not to say that morality equates with law. While one may influence the other, the extent of that influence is frequently difficult, if not impossible, to measure.

Take murder, for example. Is it immoral to murder? Yes, but is that really the reason we legislate against it? Isn't the actual purpose of the legislation to promote societal order and secure individual liberty? The fact that it is also immoral is true, and perhaps we are motivated to legislate against murder in part because it is immoral, but can you possibly state the effect morality has on our murder laws? I don't think you can at all.

With abortion, the issue becomes even hazier because, as I have been arguing, society in general hasn't even adopted a standard of morality for abortion, and society in general is having a difficult time determining what the appropriate legislative response should be to abortion, if any. Those two issues overlap with abortion, but, like murder or burglary or many other laws, they are distinguishable.

Of course, all of this analysis depends on what you mean by "morality" as well. Do you use that term just to mean "things society values?" Or do you mean it in the more Judeo-Christian sense? If it is just "things society values," then a concept as broad as liberty or social order could be moral. I don't think you mean it like this, though.

And, to be clear, I am not advocating "partial birth abortions." I am simply stating that the issue is not black and white as conservatives frequently want to pretend.

[BigFatMeanie]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Sure, much of what we legislate corresponds to much of what we societally deem moral. That is not to say that morality equates with law. While one may influence the other, the extent of that influence is frequently difficult, if not impossible, to measure.

Take murder, for example. Is it immoral to murder? Yes, but is that really the reason we legislate against it? Isn't the actual purpose of the legislation to promote societal order and secure individual liberty? The fact that it is also immoral is true, and perhaps we are motivated to legislate against murder in part because it is immoral, but can you possibly state the effect morality has on our murder laws? I don't think you can at all.

With abortion, the issue becomes even hazier because, as I have been arguing, society in general hasn't even adopted a standard of morality for abortion, and society in general is having a difficult time determining what the appropriate legislative response should be to abortion, if any. Those two issues overlap with abortion, but, like murder or burglary or many other laws, they are distinguishable.

Of course, all of this analysis depends on what you mean by "morality" as well. Do you use that term just to mean "things society values?" Or do you mean it in the more Judeo-Christian sense? If it is just "things society values," then a concept as broad as liberty or social order could be moral. I don't think you mean it like this, though.

And, to be clear, I am not advocating "partial birth abortions." I am simply stating that the issue is not black and white as conservatives frequently want to pretend.

Good questions - very thought provoking. I'll try to answer as best I can:

- I agree that the two things (legal and moral) are distinct but I've always thought that society's notions about what is moral drives society's laws.

- I use the term to "moral" to mean a discussion of whether something is good or evil. Because I come from the Judeo-Christian tradition then my concept of what is moral (good) or immoral (evil/bad) largely reflects my Judeo-Christan background. A Shinto's persons concept of what is moral (good) or immoral (evil/bad) will reflect his background and may or may not be different than mine. Regardless of our backgrounds, moral issues are still related to determining what is good or what is bad. Is that not how most people use the term moral? Perhaps I'm misusing the term.

- With your specific example of murder, I do think that it is illegal because it is immoral. I think that society has defined it as illegal because society was able to form a general consensus that murder is generally bad (immoral). Are there really people who say "XYZ isn't bad from a moral standpoint but it's bad from a societal order/liberty/greater good/whatever standpoint and so therefore we will make a law against it"? If so then you'll have to explain the logic behind that type of thought because I don't understand it. You say I can't state the effect that morality has on our murder laws. For the sake of dicussion (probably better off doing it in a different thread) how about if I state that morality's effect on our murder laws is 100% and you show me how I am wrong?

- I do believe that broad concepts such as liberty or freedom can be moral. I don't think things are moral just because society values it. Instead, I believe that society values things because they are moral. That being said, I haven't done a big logical analysis of my beliefs/notions in this area so I would be interested in having someone challenge me on it (again, probably best done in a different thread).

- I realize you aren't advocating for partial birth abortions. I probably should have started a new thread but your statement about law/morality was curious/interesting to me because I have always held the (untested) notion that virtually every law had morality at its root.

[ute4ever]

The court majority is so conservative right now that I doubt any type of public policy will slip past those strict constructionists until there is another shakeup on the bench.

Of course, I don't project President Mitt Romney adding anything other than more clones of John Roberts. So precedent it is, and precedent it will stay.

[BlueHair]

Originally Posted by ute4ever

President Mitt Romney

Good one!

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by BigFatMeanie

Good questions - very thought provoking. I'll try to answer as best I can:

- I agree that the two things (legal and moral) are distinct but I've always thought that society's notions about what is moral drives society's laws.

- I use the term to "moral" to mean a discussion of whether something is good or evil. Because I come from the Judeo-Christian tradition then my concept of what is moral (good) or immoral (evil/bad) largely reflects my Judeo-Christan background. A Shinto's persons concept of what is moral (good) or immoral (evil/bad) will reflect his background and may or may not be different than mine. Regardless of our backgrounds, moral issues are still related to determining what is good or what is bad. Is that not how most people use the term moral? Perhaps I'm misusing the term.

- With your specific example of murder, I do think that it is illegal because it is immoral. I think that society has defined it as illegal because society was able to form a general consensus that murder is generally bad (immoral). Are there really people who say "XYZ isn't bad from a moral standpoint but it's bad from a societal order/liberty/greater good/whatever standpoint and so therefore we will make a law against it"? If so then you'll have to explain the logic behind that type of thought because I don't understand it. You say I can't state the effect that morality has on our murder laws. For the sake of dicussion (probably better off doing it in a different thread) how about if I state that morality's effect on our murder laws is 100% and you show me how I am wrong?

- I do believe that broad concepts such as liberty or freedom can be moral. I don't think things are moral just because society values it. Instead, I believe that society values things because they are moral. That being said, I haven't done a big logical analysis of my beliefs/notions in this area so I would be interested in having someone challenge me on it (again, probably best done in a different thread).

- I realize you aren't advocating for partial birth abortions. I probably should have started a new thread but your statement about law/morality was curious/interesting to me because I have always held the (untested) notion that virtually every law had morality at its root.

I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that our perceptions of what is moral (defined as being good versus evil) drive our legislation. It suggests that things that are illegal are perceived as being evil and things that are legal are perceived as being good. Is that really what you are arguing?

Are the following activities evil?

Illegal immigration (is it a sin to cross an imaginary line drawn by man?)
Jaywalking
Speeding
Failure to properly register a stock offering (even if only by accident)
Failure to properly maintain a professional license

Are the following activities good (i.e., favored by God?)

The tax code
Laws prohibiting prayer in school
Professional licensing requirements
Laws regulating air traffic control
Military expenditures

Isn't it more likely that our laws have much more to do with order and justice than they do with good and evil? I think you are probably focusing on a small subset of our criminal laws when you make your arguments (rape, murder, etc.). Yet, as I noted above, there are perfectly valid arguments to proscribe each of those activities that are wholly separate from morality. In fact, if you were to attempt to pass a law based solely on morality without any secular reason for the law, it wouldn't even be upheld in a court of law. This is part of the reason why creches can't be displayed in government buildings (unless they are part of a secular display including such items as a Santa Clause or a seasons greetings sign).

I see a whole lot more in our legal system dealing with social order and justice than I do with good and evil (though the two may overlap at times).