LEGISLATING MORALITY
There were two types of debate in my high school: Lincoln-Douglas and Oxford. Lincoln-Douglas was one-on-one, values-oriented; Oxford two against two, based on evidence. I did Oxford all four years, but was familiar with the people that did Lincoln-Douglas. My first full year in debate, while we Oxford folks haggled over prison overcrowding, the Lincoln-Douglas topic was "Is it right to legislate morality in a democratic society?" We Oxford debaters liked to haggle over that one, in between researching positions and accumulating evidence for our own subject of prison overcrowding.
But over a decade later, the question still hangs in the air. Is it right to legislate morality in a democratic society? As I blog away, I am filled with more questions than answers. Most people would agree that it is right to legislate that there are certain crimes against society that the government will defend against by punishing offenders. But even then, is making murder illegal, punishable by a life sentence, a matter of legislating morality or simply protecting the common good?
I call this old Lincoln-Douglas topic to mind as the nation debates over gay marriages; the conservative front argues that marriage must be defended as a sacred institution. That sounds like legislating morality. Whether or not you are for gay marriages, you must answer the question of whether legislating morality is something democratic societies ought to do. Again, I think there is something deeper here than protecting society. Call me uptight, but I feel morality is important enough that it shouldn't be a means to an end, but an end unto itself. In other words, I'm uncomfortable saying that morality should be legislated in a democratic society as a means to protecting society.
But then I'm left with two undesirable choices: impose morality on everyone, when not everyone agrees with my morality; or allow for a moral free-for-all, which not only is chaotic to society but is detrimental to the innate moral fabric of humans and Americans. My Lincoln-Douglas friends had to be prepared to persuasively argue both sides of this debate. I too find myself finding persuasive arguments on both sides.
There were two types of debate in my high school: Lincoln-Douglas and Oxford. Lincoln-Douglas was one-on-one, values-oriented; Oxford two against two, based on evidence. I did Oxford all four years, but was familiar with the people that did Lincoln-Douglas. My first full year in debate, while we Oxford folks haggled over prison overcrowding, the Lincoln-Douglas topic was "Is it right to legislate morality in a democratic society?" We Oxford debaters liked to haggle over that one, in between researching positions and accumulating evidence for our own subject of prison overcrowding.
But over a decade later, the question still hangs in the air. Is it right to legislate morality in a democratic society? As I blog away, I am filled with more questions than answers. Most people would agree that it is right to legislate that there are certain crimes against society that the government will defend against by punishing offenders. But even then, is making murder illegal, punishable by a life sentence, a matter of legislating morality or simply protecting the common good?
I call this old Lincoln-Douglas topic to mind as the nation debates over gay marriages; the conservative front argues that marriage must be defended as a sacred institution. That sounds like legislating morality. Whether or not you are for gay marriages, you must answer the question of whether legislating morality is something democratic societies ought to do. Again, I think there is something deeper here than protecting society. Call me uptight, but I feel morality is important enough that it shouldn't be a means to an end, but an end unto itself. In other words, I'm uncomfortable saying that morality should be legislated in a democratic society as a means to protecting society.
But then I'm left with two undesirable choices: impose morality on everyone, when not everyone agrees with my morality; or allow for a moral free-for-all, which not only is chaotic to society but is detrimental to the innate moral fabric of humans and Americans. My Lincoln-Douglas friends had to be prepared to persuasively argue both sides of this debate. I too find myself finding persuasive arguments on both sides.
Comments