ASKING IF YOU CAN LEGISLATE MORALITY

We will assume for the purpose of argument that people have sufficient knowledge about how to respect human dignity and apply fairness.   In other words, we are taking their word for it that they have morality.

Today if you say you oppose abortion you will be met with, "Don't impose your morality on somebody else."  And its close relative, "You cannot legislate morality."

It is true that you cannot make people moral by creating or enforcing laws. They might just go along with the laws without changing inside. If they take steps to avoid getting caught they will do what they want. You can legislate for outward morality. You cannot legislate for real deep inner morality. And even if you cannot legislate morality you can still legislate against immorality. And indeed should. It makes no sense to moan that it is impractical to make people moral by making and using law and then make laws that encourage bad behaviour. For example, being unable to make people respect life enough so that they respect it from the heart does not mean you should legalise murder or legalise the ignoring of murder.

And believers of course think that God in fact has legislated morality. They mean there is a price for pretending you are moral by outwardly going along with laws.

And he has also legislated against immorality. That means that criminal law should be a mirror of what God would do if he were the Supreme Court incarnate.

CONCLUSIONS: Faith in a God of law, even a God of the law of love, faith in a Bible of law, is a threat.

APPENDIX:

Libertarians say that you should divorce, have an abortion or change your gender or whatever. “Adults can do what they choose to do.” But the contradiction here is that they ask and compel others to do these things for them. Doctors have less freedom than people suppose. A practice uses a code of practice to compel doctors in certain circumstances.

It is a fact that even if we have free will, the paradox is that we have to choose things to curb it and take away choice.   Freedom and therefore free will would mean choosing restrictions on your future choosing.  Freedom would be used for choosing the right restraint or at least one that is better than the alternative.  For example, you marry and that means you give away your right to sleep with anybody other than your spouse.  The choice to give away choice would need to be an informed choice. It needs to be an informed choice to be a choice at all.  Also, if you are choosing penalties and disadvantages, and restrictions that is another reason for it to be informed.  Informed choice happens less often than people care to admit.  It is definitely not right to affirm persons handing their freedom to something that is not needed the way bread is, like religion.  Some political parties are just as bad.  And when you give your freedom up you impose restrictions on others as well such as on your family.  You are not an island.

We see then that morality in some way hopes to restrict.  Naturally civil law will do that too but perhaps in a clearer and more practical way.