0
Can a government legislate morality by mandating certain positive behaviors?
Wiki User
∙ 11y ago
Conformity to the mandated moral laws requires constant observation to detect non-conformity to said laws, and then swift punishment of the violators.
Delayed punishment, unpunished violations and no consequences for violations only encourages further violations of said moral laws.
Morality can be mandated by making it in the best interest of the people to follow common sense morality.
Wiki User
∙ 11y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Can a government legislate morality by banning certain negative behaviors?
si, dont flip of little kids
Is it the job of government to legislate morality?
No. This is up to the individual . Laws can not be passed on morality. What may be moral for one person may not be for another. A government that does this is ruled by a church or is a dictatorship. Laws are made to keep the peace, organize the government and to ensure the safety, health, and protection of the people.
Can you legislate morality?
Considered in general terms, the question of legislating morality (that is, can one legislate it) is a definitive "yes." Indeed, it is generally impossible to avoid legislating morality, since every law is a commitment to there being right and wrong actions, with certain actions specified as right or wrong by each law that is passed. When moving from actions to thoughts or feelings, of course, the question becomes much less easy to answer.
What cannot be imposed by the Federal Government?
Morality
Did Aristotle judge a government morality on whether those running the government worked for the people or for themselves?
no he did not
Did Aristotle judge a government's morality on whether those running the government worked for the people or for themselves?
Yes, Aristotle believed that the morality of a government depended on whether those in power worked for the common good of the people or pursued their own self-interest. He argued that a government that prioritized the well-being of its citizens was more virtuous and legitimate.
Aristotle judged a government's morality on whether those running the government worked for the people or for themselves?
true
Why do politicians attempt to legislate morality?
It is the job of politicians to make laws, and every law that has ever been passed was because somebody thought it was the right thing to do; and was able to convince enough other people that he is right. It is impossible to remove morality from law making, a person's ethos will always determine what bills and laws he/she supports.
Aristotle judged a government's morality on whether it worked for the people or for itself?
It is a true statement that Aristotle judged a government's morality in terms of whether it work for itself or worked for its citizens. Aristotle was a Greek philosopher.
How far into the private lives of citizens may government sanctioned views of morality properly intrude?
One OpinionAs the civil and criminal law has evolved over the last few hundred years, certain behaviors were determined to be detrimental to a civilized society and were deemed to be in violation of law. Those laws have evolved and been reevaluated and refined over time.Some laws remain on the books that are reminders of a time when government took a greater role in setting moral standards. Many of those have been ignored for years and are no longer enforced. Some have been officially discarded as society became more sophisticated about laws that had discrimination at their root and originate from a time when government took a greater role in setting "moral standards".Entire state legal codes have been rewritten in order to remove the offensive, discriminatory parts and include more fair and modern thinking. The modern civilized world has rejected the idea of having the government dictate morality in spite of relentless pressure from various religious groups that seek to dictate and legislate their particular brand of morality.The government should be extremely unintrusive in "sanctioning" any particular view of morality. That's not its job. In fact, its main function is to preserve freedoms under the United States Constitution. The government should go no further in legislating morality than is presently allowed by existing laws. The government should not intrude at all in the private lives of its citizens.It should be noted that the more a government imposes moral restrictions on its citizens the less freedom they possess.
What represents the Puritan idea and practice of government?
Puritans believed that the government should strictly enforce their ideas of morality and human behavior, which were inspired by Catholic beliefs. The Puritans had a rather strict interpretation of morality and laws.
How is morality in government?
In thinking about the government's proper role in promoting morals, it is helpful first to understand the nature of the disagreement. Part I of this Essay examines what is commonly meant by-as the great Lon Fuller described it-the "morality of law."' Following Professor Fuller's framework, this Essay distinguishes between two very different moralities of law: the "morality of duty" and the "morality of aspiration." The morality of duty consists of the basic proscriptions-against murder or theft, for example-required by any governmental authority. The morality of aspiration, however, is a different matter altogether. It comprises the rules associated with promoting virtue. Part I concludes by recasting government's role in promoting virtue, in light of Professor Fuller's insight, as an attempt to promote a specific type of morality: the morality of aspiration. Part II explores the wisdom of giving the government the role of regulating the morality of aspiration by asking why there is an apparent inclination to legislate virtue. The Essay concludes that this inclination owes more to history than to nature and can be traced to the merger of the state and the church in Tudor England. "Aspirational morality" was once the exclusive province of the church, outside the jurisdiction of the state. King Henry VIII, however, saw this separation of church and state as onerous because the Church repeatedly exercised its freedom from his control by condemning his adultery as "immoral." To correct this state of affairs and facilitate his own "affairs," King Henry commandeered the responsibilities of the Church and made morality the responsibility of the State.
