[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
I tend to agree with this statement to a degree. Most if not all of our basic laws are “legislated morality”. Murder is against the law because it’s immoral. Theft is against the law because it’s immoral. Rape is against the law because it’s immoral. Incest is against the law because it’s immoral. Loan sharking, extortion, blackmail, arson, fraud, etc. are all against the law because it’s immoral.
The origins of most of our laws are based on property and economic rights, not morality per se. For instance, the crime of rape originated in the Middle Ages because a girl’s father had a “property right” in his daughter’s virginity – it was easier to marry off a virgin than a girl who was “experienced.” Over the years, society has come to define rape as a “moral wrong,” and rightly so, but its origins had nothing to do with it being a wrong against the woman herself but a wrong against the father.
To this day there is no crime of “rape” that a woman can commit on a man, at least I don’t think so, although there may be lesser charges such as “indecent acts” that a woman can commit on a man.
The civil wrong of fraud (i.e., when you personally sue someone for damages as opposed to the D.A. bring criminal charges) requires proof of damages. For instance, suppose I made the following offer: send me $100 and I will send you a workout program that will add 50 lbs. to your bench in one week. I don’t have such a program, and most people would be smart enough to know that this is darn near impossible. Can you sue me for fraud even if you never send me the money? No, because without sending the $100, you have suffered no damages.
Theft is a crime because you are depriving someone of property without compensating them for it. Believe it or not, in real property law, there is an instance where “stealing” someone’s land is ultimately rewarded with the thief gaining title to that land because it makes economic sense. It’s called acquiring title by adverse possession. Look it up.
The problem with legislating morality is defining “morality.” As T.C.‘s column noted a few weeks ago, there are people who find the content of T-Nation immoral and unacceptable. If enough people agree with this proposition, should there be a law passed that would prohibit T-Nation from putting what it wants on its site? Or is the better solution to let people decide for themselves what sites on the Internet they do or don’t wish to visit? It’s not the job of the government, at taxpayers’ expense, to figure out what’s right and wrong. It’s our job. Instilling moral values starts with us and how we educate our children. [/quote]
I guess it depends on how far back we go. But speaking for the USA, our basic laws started with the foundation of our governmental system, which is the constitution and the D of I. The constitution was written and ratified by Christians with Christian values and morals. The constitution mentions God many times.
So with these facts in mind it would be inaccurate to say that most of the laws are not related to the values that started this country. Which would mean most the laws are related to a Christian moral perspective, at least in the USA.
Also, there are many laws that are still on the books, but not enforced due to PC that are directly related to moral values. For example sodomy is illegal in California, but not only are men in San Francisco not written up for it, it is held up as a cool thing to do (strange in light of the HIV/AIDS problem they have there, but that’s a discussion for another thread).
The point is there are many purely moral-related laws on the books that were made laws by Christians with Christian values. The reason it is now stated that you can’t legislate morality is that those on the losing side of that argument don’t want people (or legislators) to vote with their conscience, because most in the USA still vote with their conscience. And when that happens we get an elections like we just had here in the USA; Bush in and Kerry out.
