Morals are a good and proper thing for a functioning
society. They serve to govern the relationships between individuals, shared
opinions among cultures, and provide structure for the discussion of the
undefinable absolutes (right versus wrong). However, given their very objective
nature, they do not provide a finite answer. What is deemed acceptable by one
culture may be very objectionable by another. While there is nothing wrong with
the differences in these objective definitions, conflict will arise between
those that are overly invested in their version of virtue. Every religion,
culture, or other definable segment of the population suffers from people that
take the sentiments of their shared beliefs to the edge of considerations, and endeavor
to force those views onto others. An individual, embracing the narrative of his
ideals, is limited in what he can accomplish. A group, sharing the same
viewpoint, while their voice is stronger, can’t inflict change, but only try to
inspire agreement. A governing body, empowered by the consent of the masses
with a monopoly on the use of force, can instill the viewpoints it agrees with.
Therein lays the threat of allowing a Government to legislate
morality. Whose morals are going to be enforced? Such is the threat of a
Democracy, where the whims of the majority reign. One group, with a shared
belief of what is morally right, utilizing governmental might to enforce their
view points and infringe the rights of those that disagree with them. Some
public debates of the day that best reflect this problem are the issues of Abortion
and Gay Marriage. Religious sentiments are that each is morally wrong, found in
violation of the teachings they espouse, or at least the understanding that
those opposed have adopted. So, they rally those that agree with their views
around them and voice their objections, an activity protected by the Constitution.
They vote for politicians and legislators that share their belief, that if
elected will work to govern by these beliefs. These officials promote
legislation that endorses and enforces these beliefs on the rest of society.
At that point, the limitation of Government Authority has
been violated. For, much to the supposed chagrin of those that wish otherwise,
the United States of America was constructed as a Republic, limited and
governed by the rule of law, vice suffering the whims of the majority. The
powers granted to the Federal government by the Constitution are finite,
purposefully done to limit the overall power it can wield, for the stronger
government is the less liberty the citizen can enjoy. Yet, despite those
limits, our Federal Government has continued to enhance and extend its
authority over the member States, taking actions that overreach the authority
granted to it. Such activities have been allowed to take place because of the
grand abdication of responsibility by the majority of the populace. In each of
the mentioned arguments, and the many others that plague society, people view
government as a tool to instill their ideals, doing so either in spite or
ignorant of the fact they are violating the rights of those they object to.
Government officials, eager to retain or gain authority in their office, follow
the sway of the majority, placating the crowd. The crowd embraces the overreach
of government, specifically in the areas that reflect and support their
interests, surrendering more power to the behemoth.
Such is the threat of allowing the Government the power and
ability to enforce morality on society. Creating social change, by bringing
people into agreement with the merits of your belief, is an appropriate endeavor
for any citizen. Using the Government authoritarian muscle to violate or
subvert the rule of law is a perversion of its design. Everyone must be
reminded, as often as it requires that there are things Government not only
should not, but can not do.
Personal Viewpoint Corner:
I am opposed to Abortion, mostly because it is a
demonstrated abdication of responsibility for actions taken. Past that it becomes
a trickier issue that I haven’t completely settled on. At some point, the
gestating parasite turns from a collection of cells to a life, with the right
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That should be the defining
line of any legislative protection for the ‘unborn,’ which brings its own level
of subjectivity. When is the point when it can be considered alive?
Regarding Gay marriage, in their efforts to enforce the
morals of one constituency, Government has served to violate the contractual
freedoms of another. Government violates the sanctity of Marriage by taking any
action at all. Marriage is solely the province of the religious entity that
people seek to be wedded by. No matter the religious preference that people
wish to be wedded by, that is a protected right to do so, up until it starts to
directly conflict the rights of someone else. No one, however uncomfortable
they might be, has the right to not be offended. The Governments sole role in
this relationship should be to protect the contractual rights of each member,
to include the realms of taxes, inheritance, custody, medical decisions, and
other related matters. The only limitation the Government should be allowed to
place is to ensure each involved party is of an appropriate age of consent and
that they are competently entering into the contractual agreement. For clarity,
note that I did not allow for any limitation on the gender or number of the participants
in the contract. While it is my personal preference for monogamous relationships,
why should my will override the will of those that would consensually participate
in a polyamorous relationship?
No comments:
Post a Comment