The morality and politics of controversial issues- an open forum

Blog For Free! Archives Home 2007 April 2005 February 2005 January 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2003 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September My Links My essay: The Immorality of Marriage The Onion SelectSmart Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas! Tom Robbins Quotes Funny Name Analysis Bushisms Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell Life, Liberty, Logic Wasting My Time RedTigress's Blog Jimmytherighteous's Blog Octo6er's Blog Nivek's Blog Magicjoejoe's Blog Littlemrmahatma's Blog Kurtmaddox's Blog Winstonsmith's Blog Drforbush's Blog Juniperflux's Blog Iron Blog Religion! tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog Bookmark this site!

The morality and politics of controversial issues- an open forum 01.28.04 (3:54 pm)   [edit] I feel as though I have exhausted the point of maintaining a separation between religion and politics, morality and legislation. But I don't think the point is understood by all, and this separation certainly isn't implemented by all. On issues of controversy, such as abortion or gay marriage, I will typically say that the government shouldn't interfere with the private lives of the citizens and leave it at that. But that's not an adequate explanation. These controversial issues (abortion, gay marriage, the death penalty, affirmative action, drugs, and anything else you can think of) must be viewed from two different perspectives, based on two different standards. First is the political standard. This is what I generally focus on when discussing such issues. The political and legal ramifications of legislation regarding these controversial issues are necessary to examine. For instance, if abortion is banned, it is taking away the rights of the individual to choose. Conversely, if it is legal, it is argued that it takes away the rights of the baby. The legal implications must be examined without regard to the moral implications. The political standards are for all the citizens, moral standards vary from individual to individual. This is why it is dangerous for the government to dictate morality; it is not the role of the government to decide morality in such situations. This brings us to the second standard, morality. There are clear moral implications for the acts of abortion or the use of the death penalty. These issues must be examined from a moral perspective. However, this morality is of an individual nature. Each individual has the responsibility to exercise morality in regard to these issues. It is not the government's responsibility to determine moral standards. This being said, we should consider the issues from two separate perspectives, and refrain from allowing the two to intertwine. Abortion cannot be made illegal because it is immoral- that moral view is not standard, and should not be made so by the government. So, I urge you to contemplate both the moral and the political aspects of all issues, but remember that, in discussing legislation, morality must be maintained separate from politics. If you would like, please comment stating your two separate opinions on each issue mentioned (abortion, gay marriage, death penalty, etc.)- moral and political. State how you feel in terms of the ethical rectitude of each issue itself, regardless of the legality, and then state what you think the legally sound decision is.   posted by: RedTigress (reply) post date: 01.28.04 (1:07 pm) But when you're in lawschool you take a class called "Ethics." Many politicians are lawyers or have at least attended lawschool. Ethics is a very important impliment of politics. How are ethics regulated? I would think by morals, but perhaps I'm wrong. posted by: DragonCypher (reply) post date: 01.28.04 (1:11 pm) Shark bait ooh ha ha posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 01.28.04 (1:14 pm) Reply to: RedTigress Ethics are basically a system of morality. It is important that our politicians, or anyone for that matter, operate ethically, applying moral decision-making in their careers. However, there is a difference between doing what is viewed to be right and enforcing that view through legislation. Morality is based on individual judgment. posted by: newbie (reply) post date: 01.28.04 (1:55 pm) Abortion: None of the government's god-damned business. Between a woman & her conscience and a woman & her doctor. Ethically, a woman must decide for herself and by god, these "pro-lifers" treat the same "life" after it is out of the womb like SHIT-- so where is the ethics and morality in the hypocritical religious right's position? The state has no right to impose its will upon others regarding a woman's right to choose-- between two people forming a legal contract that gives them the rights that now are codified in law for married people-- no right to put the poor dumb slobs to death, while the rich shits (e.g. Kissinger, Shrub, Cheney, Poppy Bush, Rumsfeld) get off having massacred hundreds of US soldiers and thousands of innocent Iraqis. But of course, genocide of Arabs is OKAY-- it is only Americans and Jews who can't be HARMED today, right? Sorry, I know I diverted ... but ... posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply) post date: 01.28.04 (4:38 pm) It is immoral to use force to get what you want. I'm guessing this isn't taught in the politicians' ethics class. posted by: magicjoejoe (reply) post date: 01.28.04 (5:45 pm) Ethics is the study of morality. That's the definition. So there is no real difference between the two, unless you want to say that Ethics is the field of study. That's it. In the spoken language if you say ethics as pertaining to a profession, it basically means morals as far as that profession or professional is concerned. I had a class on ethics. As far as legislating morality, that's kind of tricky. That's part of what laws are there to do. They define what should be legal or illegal based on the will of society. That's what they have always done. That's why murder is illegal, and generally murder is considered immoral as well. Now abortion and like issues get murkier, because the collective will of society is close to evenly split. That's when a large amount of people become dissatisfied no matter what happens. That's why the greatest of statesmen in history would develop compromise where no one would be totally happy, nor totally dissatisfied. Now where morality should be left alone, and has been for the most part, is morality where there aren't victims or crimes. Which is why the government should in no way even take up the issue of a consitutional ammendment banning gay marriage. I mean who would the victim be? Also a good example would be freedom of speech. A person can say anything they want because it doesn't harm anyone. However, speech that threatens someone else is illegal. There's a huge difference. Your Name: Your Comment:

"Tragically, a nation that was created by intellectuals and visionaries has now been completely taken over by venal corporate gangsters, delusional Christian fruitcakes and hopelessly shallow Texas shit-kickers." -Tom Robbins