FREE ESSAY ON SHOULD WE LEGISLATE MORALITY

SHOULD WE LEGISLATE MORALITY

Can we, do we, and should we legislate morality is a question that rings in the ears of
many Americans. It seems that there are more factors, conditions and answers to this
frequently asked question than the common person is willing to consider. Let's attempt to
take the best ideas from the top scholars on the issue. In order to answer the questions
presented, one must fully understand the idea of morality and what it means to legislate
it. What is morality? 
According to Webster, morality is "A doctrine or system of moral conduct: or particular
moral principles or rules of conduct: or conformity to ideals of human conduct." This
definition leaves much to be answered, such as: Who sets up this system? Is it relative
to ones personal preferences? And can morality be forced on an individual? To further
understand morality let us discuss it in more detail. Is morality relative? What laws
would be considered laws of morality? Can a democratic country consider morality while
writing laws? To deal with the question of relativism we will turn to the writings of Dr.
Stephen Schwarz, who is a medical doctor and a writer for Ohio Life, a non-profit
pro-life organization. While responding to the idea that people should not impose their
morality on others Dr, Schwarz replied, "The morality of not raping, and of not murdering
a fellow human being is not "my morality" or "our morality" but morality itself." This
implies that there is an absolute morality, maybe we are not capable of achieving it, but
it seems that the gray area between white and black is not as large as most would hope.
Now on to the next question of: What exactly constitutes morality? 
We have already discussed that morality is not relative and at some point becomes
absolute. C.S. Lewis gives an in-depth analyzes of morality in his book "Mere
Christianity" he talks about morality being the deciding factor between the instinct to
help or the instinct to run. He also discusses the idea that morality is not relative and
brings up the fact that we judge other cultures by how we rate their level of morality.
For instance if morality is relative then no one could have told the Nazi's that they
were wrong. So in this way the government has already set a precedent that morality is
not relative, they have chosen to judge other countries and in doing this they imply that
their morality is better. 
First, let us try to further our understanding of the issue by reviewing what Eastern
College students and faculty had to say about it. A survey of 50 students and faculty
conducted on campus showed that 52% of those polled thought that morality could not be
affectedly legislated, while 48% said that morality could be legislated. The make up of
this survey was as follows: average age 19.8, 70% female: 30% male, 72% white: 20%
African American: 3% Hispanic: 5% not reported. 40% of those polled were Republicans
while only 16% were Democrats, a huge 36% of students were undecided on a political
affiliation and 8% were independents. Most of those polled said the thought Congress
tried to legislate morality but failed. The survey showed that on a scale of 1-10
Congress only received a 4.1 when asked to rate the morality of Congress. This would seem
to explain why they thought Congress passed immoral bills. 
But in fact if one looks at the history of the Congress and takes into consideration how
many bills are passed by them, very few could be labeled as immoral. In fact what most
people see as the government passing immoral laws is the Supreme Court finding moral laws
unconstitutional. Most people group the three branches of government together and say
that the government is immoral. However, we are focusing only on Congress and if it is
possible to legislate morality. 
In our democratic representative government Congress has often been called on to make
laws that can only be seen legislation of morality. The first question at hand is: Can
Congress legislate morality? Most experts in the field of law and politics agree that it
is possible to pass bills to make people moral or at least force them to act in a moral
way. In other words it is possible to legislate morality. However, one must concede that
no one is absolutely moral, that is no one is always moral. As Dr. Bird, a Eastern
College professor with a career in The Christian Medical Society, said in an interview on
this topic of morality 
I can make you moral on a individual basis. [How] No smoking in public places, now I can
not make you abide by that, you can refuse to show up or you can choose you show up and
smoke and pay the penalty. But sooner or later if it's a place you want you be, you want
to see the Fliers games [...] yea the occasional oaf will light up but in general you
have high compliance and if someone lights up next to me I am going to get an usher. So
you can choose to take your season tickets elsewhere or you can comply. So your
individual choices are limited and I will force you to be moral almost, not totally, not
absolutely, but it is in your best behavior to behave morally on some of these issues. 
Dr. Bird clearly explains how it is possible to legislate action by setting consequences.
However, he also says absolute morality can not be legislated. Len Munsil is an attorney
and the president of The Center for Arizona Policy. He also claims that all laws are an
attempt to legislate morality. His argument is that laws are by definition a rule of
conduct, while a rule sets a standard or separates right and wrong, and standards or
codes of conduct are referred to as morality. (Munsil) By this explanation every law is a
rule of morality. Moving on, lets answer our second question.
Do we legislate morality? In the past fifty years the Government has become very cautious
when dealing with religion and morality. It has abused the establishment clause, which
says that the Government will not establish a state church or publicly endorse any church
in any way. This clause has been used to remove prayer from schools; it has led to the
removal of The Ten Commandments from the walls of our courtrooms. Christians have not
stood by and watched their rights stripped away but it seems their hands are tied. Wayne
House discuses this issue in an article he wrote for a political journal. He said 
The attempt of religious citizens, particularly the majority religion, Christianity, to
make an impact of the political and legal process has fallen on hard times in recent
years under a theory that the law should reflect no religious view since this would
violate the Establishment Clause. The fact that this might be an expression of the free
exercise of religion carries little weight, for in the jurisprudence of the court, the
Establishment clause, which is absolute, always trump the free exercise clause which is
more narrow as to conduct, though not belief.
The reason the government has taken the stance that its impossible to legislate morality
is simple. It makes their job easier to say we can not legislate morality rather than to
try to legislate it and to deal with any consequences that might arise from their
decision. Because we know that all laws are a form of morality we know that Congress does
legislate some degree of morality. Now on to our last problem: What happens when the
morality that's legislated is not moral? 
Should Congress legislate morality? I mentioned the consequences that might arise from
the legislation of morality. These need to be taken into account before deciding on
weather or not we should go out of our way to develop some kind of moral code through
law. We must take into account that to some extent morality changes, for instance, two
hundred years ago it was acceptable to write a law that said women could not vote and
that blacks were animals. We have a different morality today and now know that our past
morality was wrong. So how do we stop this from happening again? Do our past mistakes
merit removing morality from making future laws. No, as a developing nation we must learn
from these mistakes and continue to grow. We need to use our ability to make laws to give
the people of this country a moral code to live by. 
The idea is simple: all legislation is a legislation of some kind of morality. To what
extent is not always easy to determine. However, to say that we can not legislate
morality is just another quick fix phrase to make ourselves feel better about our
declining society. The truth is we can legislate morality but it is not always effective
and sometimes we legislate the wrong morality. The society must be prepared for these
minor setbacks. We must determine who will develop the moral code of conduct. As it
stands now we can not look to the government for moral support because they feel that
they have no role in morality. So it is now necessary to choose what moral code you want
to live by and use self discipline to follow it.