DAY 334
CHALLENGE
“People should not try to legislate morality.”
DEFENSE
Any degree of scrutiny causes this claim to fall apart.
First, law deals with the ordering of human affairs—what people are and are not to do—and this has an inescapably moral dimension. This is obvious with laws prohibiting things like murder and rape, but it is true of legislation in general. Laws that redistribute wealth or raise public funds to be spent on certain projects imply a set of values. Even laws that seem completely arbitrary from one perspective (e.g., drive on the right side of the road rather than the left) imply underlying values (i.e., drive in a way that doesn’t endanger others’ lives).
Second, what is the alternative to “legislating morality”? Would that mean eliminating all laws dealing with moral subjects? If so, the entire body of law we have would vanish. Suddenly, there would be no laws against murder, no prohibitions on rape, and you could take anyone’s property at will. In short, you could do anything you wanted as long as you were strong or swift enough to get away with it. The law of civilization would be replaced with the law of the jungle.
Or perhaps the idea would be not to eliminate laws but to merely make them in an amoral manner, not guided by moral considerations. In that case, we would end up with laws expressing an arbitrary set of values. There might be a law forbidding murder but endorsing rape (or visa versa).
Third, what is meant by saying that people should not try to legislate morality? According to what standard? There is no civil law saying that one should not do this. In the absence of a legal prohibition, the use of the term should suggests that a moral claim is being made. If so, then the claim is even more incoherent, as it would suggest it is immoral to make moral laws.
Ultimately, the proposal that people should not try to legislate morality is not a serious claim. Instead, it is used as a conversation stopper to shut people up, to shut down rational discussion, and to avoid having to answer others’ arguments. It is not a rational claim but an attempt to evade and fake out people with whom one disagrees.