# Government Enforced Morality? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 2, 2001, 9:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-enforced-morality/70937 "2001-07-02T09:18:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2001, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-enforced-morality/70937/61 "2001-07-08T21:06:06Z")
**WAE:** \*As I said, the question is, do you feel you need to appeal to national self-interest, or can you justify anti-poverty programs with morality alone? \* But **why** is that the question? As I said when you first brought it up, it seems to me entirely irrelevant, because the fact is that anti-poverty programs are **not** being justified with “morality alone”. I thought you wanted to talk about morality and tax policy **as it currently exists**. You seem instead to be saying “Let’s consider the hypothetical case in which anti-poverty programs are being promoted **only** for explicitly moral reasons and not at all on the grounds of economic self-interest. Now, do you consider that to be valid or not?” And I continue to be baffled as to why you’re even interested in the answer to that question, because as I said, it’s completely divorced from the reality of the situation. Recapping again: actual tax policy is **always** fundamentally involved with moral considerations and **never** involved **only** with moral considerations. Why do you want to consider hypothetical cases that ignore those realities? \*You don’t seem to understand the difference between moral, immoral, and amoral. \* No, I think I do: the point I’m trying to make is that your ideal of what you think would be an “amoral” government policy is itself very strongly anchored in a particular moral vision. In other words, you’re **trying** to articulate an amoral policy, but you’re not succeeding. _You seem to be saying that when I advocate that government policy in re poverty should be amoral, that I am advocating that something should be forced on someone._ Close, but not quite: I’m saying that when you advocate that government policy in re poverty should be amoral, you’re **begging the question** and **asking for the impossible**. Deciding what government should do about policy is a profoundly moral issue, and cannot be removed from questions of morality, no matter what policy you come up with. As I said, declaring that “the government should work to relieve poverty and everyone should have to contribute to that via taxes” is **no more and no less a moral position** than declaring that “the government should not work to relieve poverty and nobody should have to contribute to that via taxes.” _So I ask you, if I were successful, and the government did not force people to contribute to anti-poverty programs, but let them decide for themselves whether or not to do this, as their own consciences dictated, who exactly would be getting forced to do what?_ All the citizens would be forced to live in a society where government was prohibited from using its resources to alleviate poverty. That **is** the enforcement of a particular moral vision about the role of government. In the same way, the separation of church and state enforces a particular moral vision of governmental neutrality in religion, which forces all its citizens to live in a society where government is prohibited from using its resources to promote religion. Does that analogy help clarify the point?—I made it a couple of posts ago in response to your question about forcing people to go to church, but I don’t think you responded to it. See, I think the fundamental point that I (and about six other posters) have been trying to make here is that your notion of “amorality” in governmental policy of this sort is flawed and superficial. As I said, you seem to be stuck on this libertarian reflex that assumes that advocating more government action is somehow intrinsically more enmeshed with moral assumptions than advocating less government action. It isn’t. The two positions do depend on **different** moral assumptions, but you can’t advocate more government **or** less government without invoking **some** moral assumption about what government “ought” to be. _I still find it offensive, but looking back I feel my response to it may have been too much, so I apologize for it._ Thank you, and I apologize for the “condescending tone” in my post that offended you. Most of it was actually trying to be funny, in an attempt to sort of gently point out that you seemed to be almost wilfully refusing to see the argument I was making. I won’t attempt that sort of thing again without putting in smilies, I promise. 🙂 (And in particular, I certainly didn’t mean any insult with the “selfish schizophrenic child molesters” crack: I chose that expression precisely because it was so ridiculous that I felt sure that nobody could imagine that I meant anything by it except to protest against making contrafactual assumptions. BTW, it happens to be “Ms.” Kimstu.) If these reiterations, and the similar remarks from several other posters, don’t get the point across, I think I will have to despair of making it clearer. So as not to waste the whole debate AFAIC, I have distilled the basic thesis into the following haiku for readers’ amusement. 🙂 > [@](#): > > Government is a > collective enterprise that > affects all of us. > > Individuals > can “leave each other alone.” > Government cannot. > > To say “We shall do > this”, “We shall not do this”—both > assume an ethos. > > We cannot break free > of ethos by pretending > that there is no “shall”. ---
**Author:** ![g8rguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7cd45c/32.png) [@g8rguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/g8rguy)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2001, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-enforced-morality/70937/62 "2001-07-08T23:58:47Z")
> [@](#): > > But the government is acting on its citizens even by not acting; that is, many citizens expect their government to act; to not do so affects them. No? Yes, of course it affects them; I admitted as much myself. What I’m trying to say is that to me there’s a significant difference between affecting someone and forcing something upon them. Perhaps I’m the only person who sees it that way, but I just don’t understand how one can say that the two are equivalent. If I force my next door neighbor to take a $10 bill from me, I’ve both affected him and imposed something upon him (not, mind you, that he’d complain), whereas if I give him the option of taking a $10 bill from me, I’ve affected him without forcing him to do anything. Surely those two are different? > [@](#): > > Crucial? The distinction lies in the nature of the decision, surely. Yes, I’ll freely grant that whether one feels the difference is critical or not depends on context; however, IMO, that there exists a distinction at all is what is important in this case. It seemed to me that people were saying that making a moral decision that affects someone else is AUTOMATICALLY imposing your morality upon them, and I can’t agree with that statement. To me, forcing my morality on other people means that either a) I’m saying that if they want to make a moral decision, they have to use MY moral code rather than their own, or b) I’m prohibiting them from making the moral decision in the first place, because I’ve already made it for them. To say that in applying my moral code to making a decision which affects other people without hindering their ability to make a decision, I’m imposing my morality on other people seems perverse. Kimstu’s point, however, clears up what I think people mean when they say that what WAE wants is still forcing a particular moral vision on the other citizens. I’m not sure I buy it yet (I’ll have to give it some thought), but at least I think I know what you’re saying now. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2001, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-enforced-morality/70937/63 "2001-07-09T05:01:53Z")
> [@](#): > > To say that in applying my moral code to making a decision which affects other people without hindering their ability to make a decision, I’m imposing my morality on other people seems perverse. Well, in any scenario in which government is actually a viable active agent, “without hindering their ability to make a decision” becomes an extremely difficult standard to support. I am not at all convinced that any legislation with positive utility can meet that standard. I think you are again left with anarchy. Again, I don’t mind discussing whether anarchy is the most moral form of government possible, but I am reasonably certain that was not the intent of the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2001, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-enforced-morality/70937/64 "2001-07-09T06:05:14Z")
Ok, I said I was gonna take the weekend off from this thread, but technically where I live it is now Monday morning…_early_ Monday morning. Also, I know I shouldn’t just grab this particular statement before I’ve responded to the others, but in this case I couldn’t help myself: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kimstu \* > \*\* > _So I ask you, if I were successful, and the government did not force people to contribute to anti-poverty programs, but let them decide for themselves whether or not to do this, as their own consciences dictated, who exactly would be getting forced to do what?_ > > All the citizens would be forced to live in a society where government was prohibited from using its resources to alleviate poverty. \*\* Not true, not here or in any other free country. People can come and go as they please, no one is forced to live here. So I reiterate, who exactly would be getting forced to do what? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2001, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-enforced-morality/70937/65 "2001-07-09T08:13:36Z")
Everyone would be forced to choose between living in such a society and leaving. Thanks for playing. “What have we got for him, Johnny?” ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2001, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-enforced-morality/70937/66 "2001-07-09T13:39:04Z")
**WAE:** \*“All the citizens would be forced to live in a society where government was prohibited from using its resources to alleviate poverty.” Not true, not here or in any other free country. People can come and go as they please, no one is forced to live here.\* !!! Well, that response applies **precisely** as much to the situation you object to in the OP! Nobody is being “forced to live” in a society where we **do** tax for poverty relief, either, so we’re not “enforcing morality” on anybody: so much for that. Way to completely destroy whatever semblance of an argument you had built up, **Al**!! ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2001, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-enforced-morality/70937/67 "2001-07-09T13:59:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by g8rguy \* > Perhaps I’m the only person who sees it that way, but I just don’t understand how one can say that the two are equivalent. If I force my next door neighbor to take a $10 bill from me, I’ve both affected him and imposed something upon him (not, mind you, that he’d complain), whereas if I give him the option of taking a $10 bill from me, I’ve affected him without forcing him to do anything. Surely those two are different? I agree they are different; as to how a governmetn would function like this I’m not sure. IMO, I _always_ have the ability to take your $10 bill, whether you give me permission or not. A government that actively guides society must do one of two things: it must outlaw certain behavior or extremeties of behavior, or it must outlaw everything but a form of behavior. The governmental equivalent, in this neighborly example, of non-coercion would be to do nothing about anything, and merely suggest that people do certain things. Now, as much as I’d like to believe we could get along like that doesn’t change the fact that the government wouldn’t have the power to do anything then. As soon as it acts it does so with some moral prejudice in mind. > [@](#): > > To me, forcing my morality on other people means that either > a) I’m saying that if they want to make a moral decision, they have to use MY moral code rather than their own, or > > b) I’m prohibiting them from making the moral decision in the first place, because I’ve already made it for them. Such as: your government can’t do anything? > [@](#): > > To say that in applying my moral code to making a decision which affects other people without hindering their ability to make a decision, I’m imposing my morality on other people seems perverse. This is like, “If you don’t want an abortion dont have one.” Or, the pro-life equivalent translation, “If you don’t like killing defenseless people, then don’t do it.” This is a very clear instance of making a moral decision which affects people. Would you say there is still no force involved? To some pro-lifers, I’m sure, abortion clinics are little concentration camps (albeit with the racial element removed). If you don’t like (non-racial) concentration camps, don’t work in 'em/buy their products/sell them yours/etc. I do agree there is a difference here; I don’t agree that one is necessarily better than the other. Kimstu’s point, however, clears up what I think people mean when they say that what WAE wants is still forcing a particular moral vision on the other citizens. I’m not sure I buy it yet (I’ll have to give it some thought), but at least I think I know what you’re saying now. \*\* [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2001, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-enforced-morality/70937/68 "2001-07-09T15:02:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > Kimstu’s point, however, clears up what I think people mean when they say that what WAE wants is still forcing a particular moral vision on the other citizens. I’m not sure I buy it yet (I’ll have to give it some thought), but at least I think I know what you’re saying now. I didn’t mean for this to be in my post at all. Forgot to delete everything aftre what I had quoted. ---
**Author:** ![g8rguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7cd45c/32.png) [@g8rguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/g8rguy)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2001, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-enforced-morality/70937/69 "2001-07-09T15:58:32Z")
> [@](#): > > Well, in any scenario in which government is actually a viable active agent, “without hindering their ability to > make a decision” becomes an extremely difficult standard to support. I am not at all convinced that any legislation with positive utility can meet that standard. I think you are again left with anarchy. Granted. As I said in one of my earlier posts, I think it’s foolish to insist that the government NOT impose morality in some form, for precisely these concerns. I was trying to understand the point you people were making, but certainly NOT trying to argue for anarchy. I suppose, in a way, what I wanted to understand was how even anarchy was forcing a moral standard on other people. > [@](#): > > I agree they are different; as to how a governmetn would function like this I’m not sure. Beats the heck out of me! But I didn’t want to use the example of me beating up my neighbor and looting his home, you see. 🙂 > [@](#): > > As soon as it acts it does so with some moral prejudice in mind. Yes, absolutely. Active legislation is going to inevitably involve a moral prejudice; what I was trying to see was how a lack of legislation did likewise. > [@](#): > > This is a very clear instance of making a moral decision which affects people. Would you say there is still no force involved? _wince_ Well, actually, yes. I’m probably frustrating all hell out of you, but if I say “if you don’t like X, don’t do X” how exactly **is** force involved? Suppose I tell other people something like “If you think eating meat is wrong, don’t eat meat.” Surely that is at best a suggestion that they are free to ignore or not as they see fit? If the people I’m talking to don’t think eating meat is wrong, the statement doesn’t even apply to them. If they do, they’re likely to have already reached the decision to, in fact, not eat meat, but even if they haven’t, they are quite free to ignore my advice. Where did I lose you? I think that there is perhaps a distinction between an individual interaction and a societal one. I believe I see what you people have been saying about even prohibiting the government from making moral decisions is imposing morality on others, but I think that it rests on the fact that by prohibiting the government from making moral decisions, I’m also prohibiting it from fulfilling the expectations of other citizens. Okay, that makes sense; I stand convinced. But what I don’t see is how my making ANY moral decision is imposing my morality on others, certainly not in the sense that I understood it a few posts back. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2001, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-enforced-morality/70937/70 "2001-07-09T16:26:54Z")
**gr8guy:** \*I think that there is perhaps a distinction between an individual interaction and a societal one. […] But what I don’t see is how my making ANY moral decision is imposing my morality on others, certainly not in the sense that I understood it a few posts back. \* I think you nailed the problem in your last sentence with your first sentence, **gr8guy**. I think that you’re absolutely right that it’s possible for **individuals** to pursue different moral priorities without imposing them on each other. (It’s not **always** possible, of course; some people’s personal moral codes do require them to impose them on others insofar as they can, and sometimes circumstances make it impossible for people with different moral priorities to avoid affecting one another.) But the government is not just another individual; it represents our collective self as a society, and any actions it takes are taken in the name of all of us and legally apply to all of us. Whatever underlying moral principle informs the government’s social policies is thus effectively imposed on all of us. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2001, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-enforced-morality/70937/71 "2001-07-09T17:00:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by g8rguy \* > I’m probably frustrating all hell out of you, but if I say “if you don’t like X, don’t do X” how exactly **is** force involved? Because, in the example I gave, you are forcing some people to be subjected to legal murder. It doesn’t matter that they don’t practice it; they have to live with it. “My neighbor is a murderer that can walk around free as a bird.” The connotation here is that of mental, or maybe psychological, coercion as opposed to physical: “Killing babies is legal, and you had better get used to it.” Of course, I could just be picking nits. My concern is one that a citizen cannot ignore the implications of government action/inaction, whereas I can freely ignore the guy two states over (in all but very extreme cases) because we don’t interact at all. ---
**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2001, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-enforced-morality/70937/72 "2001-07-10T02:19:47Z")
Going back to the linear response system, but with a twist…I am going to respond to each poster in order (if it kills me) but for each new poster I come to, I am going to respond to that post, _and each subsequent post by that poster_ (if they were addressing me that is). Hopefully this will work a bit better. So: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kimstu \* > \*\ ***WAE:** _Lemme get this straight. If the state forces people to do something, then it is forcing morality on them, and if the state doesn’t force people to do something, then…it is forcing on them someone else’s morality???_ > > Now you’re getting it!! See, the question of **whether or not the government should force people to do a particular thing** is itself a moral question, and can only be decided in accordance with some particular moral vision of what government ought to do. Saying “The government should spend money on poverty relief, and everybody should have to contribute to that via taxes” is no more and no less a moral statement than saying “The government should **not** spend money on poverty relief, and nobody should have to contribute to that via taxes.” See? > \*By this logic, if the state forces people to go to church, it is forcing morality on them, and if the state doesn’t force people to go to church, it is forcing another kind of morality on them. \* > > You’re still doing pretty well! The question of whether or not we should have a state-imposed religion is indeed a moral question. As I’m sure you know, there are many people who want their religion to have more direct influence in public life (“bringing this country back to God”, and so forth), and feel that the constitutional separation of church and state that prevents them from using government to sponsor their religion is “forcing” an alien and undesirable morality on them. Our Constitution (and probably the majority popular opinion too) does indeed force the moral principle of government neutrality in matters of religion upon many Americans who believe it would be more moral **not** to have such neutrality. > \*\* You have mapped out, in the above paragraphs, quite an interesting concept. You are not the only one to have done so (not by a long stretch) so I am going to respond to it in an “omnibus” post, possibly in a new thread, which I think the idea deserves. However, it seems to me that, for the purposes of our discussion in this thread, your answer to my first question is “yes”, seeing as how you seem to believe that everything the state does, or refrains from doing, constitutes an enforcement of morality, and you do clearly want the state to do things, including anti-poverty programs. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kimstu \* > \*\* > _By this logic, if I think you should give me money, and I force you to do so at gunpoint, then I am forcing on you my “morality”, and if I don’t think you should have to give me money, and I don’t rob you at gunpoint, then I am…forcing my morality on you._ > > Bzzzzzt!! Oh **Al** , and you were doing so well there for a while. But you blew it by unthinkingly mixing up relations between individuals and the government with relations between one individual and another individual. Individuals **can** have separate moral beliefs that they act upon separately without impacting certain other individuals. But since the principles of government apply to all its individual citizens, and are formulated and applied **in the name** of all its individual citizens, government policies are **always** enforcing upon **all** of us the moral principles that inspire them. See? > \*\* No, I don’t. In fact, I have read over the above paragraph several times over the weekend. I know what the words mean, and they appear to be combined in a way that is grammatically correct, but I haven’t got a clue what you are trying to say here. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kimstu \* > \*\* > _If you want to talk about “solid and practical economic justifications” for anti-poverty programs, set up another thread. For this one, we are darned well going to assume, for the sake of argument, that there are none._ > > But that’s just silly, because it’s completely divorced from reality. > \*\* I don’t think saying “but that’s just silly” is much of a debate technique. I have resisted the very powerful temptation to say it myself to some of these ideas I have encountered here, not just because I think it is bad form, but because you never know, I might be wrong. What I am trying to do here is make a _simplifying assuption_. Economists do it all the time. Making this assumption for the sake of argument is not the same as conceding that it is true. If you just can’t bring yourself to do it though, we will just have to part ways right there. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kimstu \* > \*\* > _Hmmmm…so, you’re saying that government enforcement of morality is ok if a judge says it is ok?_ > > Nope…Saying that judicial consensus about rights is relevant in determining what rights actually exist, and that rights are relevant in determining which kinds of government enforcement of morality are legitimate or illegitimate, is **not** the same thing as agreeing “that government enforcement of morality is ok if a judge says it is ok”. > \*\* Reading over this, it would seem that that the key difference is the phrase “is relevant”. What else is “relevant” to “determining what rights actually exist” _besides_ “judicial consensus”, which phrase I think could be taken to mean “what _judges_ say is ok”, as opposed to “a judge”? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kimstu \* > \*\* > For example, as I pointed out several posts ago, the question of whether there’s a constitutional right to privacy that protects consensual sex acts such as sodomy still doesn’t have a firm judicial consensus (SCOTUS said there wasn’t in _Bowers v. Hardwick_ in 1986, as you fuzzily remembered, while the Georgia Supreme Court said there was in _Powell v. State_ in 1998). > \*\* Yes, this is a fine statement of fact. I fail to see how it logically derives from the first sentence in the paragraph. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kimstu \* > \*\* > My point back in my first post on this thread was that the types of “enforcement of morality” that a government can attempt are restricted by the overriding principle (still ultimately a moral principle, of course) of paramount individual rights. > \*\* So, the state’s attempts to enforce morality are restricted by a moral principle? Like I said, I am going to address this concept in an “omnibus” post. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kimstu \* > \*\* > Now, **I** personally believe that the individual right to privacy **does** protect most consensual sex acts, and that anti-sodomy laws are therefore illegitimate attempts to enforce morality. Of course, for that to make any practical difference to actual governmental practice, there would have to be a judicial consensus that agreed with me (fortunately, IMHO, such a consensus is slowly but surely emerging). That doesn’t mean that I think anything is okay if a judge says it’s okay; it just means that I have an intelligent awareness of the practical relationship between judicial consensus and viable individual rights. \*\* Sooo…if a “judicial consensus” emerges…then that will make it legitimate…for you to impose your moral position that the state should not prohibit sodomy…on persons who _want_ the state to prohibit it. Is this correct? I am honestly trying to understand you here…I don’t agree with you, but I want to make sure I am not misinterpreting anyone on this very…_interesting_…concept of morality. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kimstu \* > \*\ ***WAE:** \*As I said, the question is, do you feel you need to appeal to national self-interest, or can you justify anti-poverty programs with morality alone? \* > > But **why** is that the question? > \*\* Why do birds fly? Why do wings take dream? It’s my question, I made it up. Answer it or don’t, whatever you want, but that is _the_ question. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kimstu \* > \*\* > And I continue to be baffled as to why you’re even interested in the answer to that question, because as I said, it’s completely divorced from the reality of the situation. > \*\* Indulge me. Or don’t. Like I said, whatever you want. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kimstu \* > \*\* > Recapping again: actual tax policy is **always** fundamentally involved with moral considerations and **never** involved **only** with moral considerations. Why do you want to consider hypothetical cases that ignore those realities? > \*\* Like I said, it’s a simplifying assumption. We make a simplifying assumption when we use Newtonian Physics to, oh I don’t know…go to the moon, and ignore all that weird relativity stuff. Making simplifying assumptions can be useful sometimes. Of course if you don’t agree, you are perfectly free to simply not answer. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kimstu \* > \*\* > _So I ask you, if I were successful, and the government did not force people to contribute to anti-poverty programs, but let them decide for themselves whether or not to do this, as their own consciences dictated, who exactly would be getting forced to do what?_ > > All the citizens would be forced to live in a society where government was prohibited from using its resources to alleviate poverty. That **is** the enforcement of a particular moral vision about the role of government. In the same way, the separation of church and state enforces a particular moral vision of governmental neutrality in religion, which forces all its citizens to live in a society where government is prohibited from using its resources to promote religion. Does that analogy help clarify the point?—I made it a couple of posts ago in response to your question about forcing people to go to church, but I don’t think you responded to it. > \*\* > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kimstu \* > \*\ ***WAE:** > > Not true, not here or in any other free country. People can come and go as they please, no one is forced to live here.\* > > !!! Well, that response applies **precisely** as much to the situation you object to in the OP! Nobody is being “forced to live” in a society where we **do** tax for poverty relief, either, so we’re not “enforcing morality” on anybody: so much for that. Way to completely destroy whatever semblance of an argument you had built up, **Al**!! \*\* Ahhhh…perhaps the misconception here is what is causing me such a headache in this thread. If you will do me the courtesy of rereading the OP, you will see that I was not in fact stating an objection to any situation. I wasn’t making an argument either, so there is no possible way that I could destroy any semblance of it. I was simply asking some questions. I didn’t explicitly say “…enforced _on persons living in the society_”…this was merely implied. I suppose I should have made it explicit. _Mea Culpa_. Please consider it so made. One more thing, a reply to someone other than **Kimstu** , but appropriate to put here: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kaylasdad99 \* > \*\*Everyone would be forced to choose between living in such a society and leaving. > \*\* The fact that you must live either _here_ or _someplace else_ is not something being forced on you by any individual or group of individuals (society, the state, whatever). It is a simple fact of existence. You might as well talk about being “forced” to obey the law of gravity. If you are religious, you could say _God_ is “forcing” you…but that is for another thread. ---
**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2001, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-enforced-morality/70937/73 "2001-07-10T02:27:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > There may be moral implications in what the government does, but how it spends our money ought to be determined by the consideration of the interests of the nation, not by someone’s idea of moral obligations. > > Excuse me, but “the interests of a nation” are a moral consideration. It must be gauged by some standard of _how things should be_. You might note that _how things should be_ is a moral standard. Your question in the OP, “So, I ask: should the state seek to enforce anyone’s morality through the tax code and/or other economic policy?” is then answered. Yes. Obviously, actually, else the state could not act at all and would not exist. > \*\* Fine, fine. You’ve answered the first question, and seem to agree with **Kimstu** ’s ideas about government and morality. Do you wish to answer the other questions in the OP? Totally up to you, of course. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > \*\*I am totally lost at this: > > > [@](#): > > > > I feel very strongly that it would be good if I had a million dollars. Is there any “moral” reason why anyone should give me a million dollars? No. > > And I mean lost. > YES, there is indeed a moral reason to want a million dollars, especially so if you think money will make you happy and you think happiness is good. That is, you have set a standard of things that are good. > \*\* Yeah…this is going on my list of things that I am going to respond to with an _uber_ post…a list of statements I am going to save permanently, as well. You seem to have a conception of “morality” similar to that of **Kimstu** et al, but different from my own. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > Something can’t be “good” unless it is moral? I beg to differ. > > Well then why don’t you proceed to tell us what morality means to you since the rest of us apparently don’t know what you’re talking about. \*\* Believe me, the feeling is mutual. I do think this is going to be a thread of its own. ---
**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2001, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-enforced-morality/70937/74 "2001-07-10T02:54:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ace\_Face \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein \* > > …collective self interest. > > An interesting phrase. What exactly is “collective self interest?” Specifically, how does it differ from majoritarian morality? If a person is revolted by public nudity, then clearly it is in his/her self interest to prevent people from walking around buck nekid. If a majority of Americans oppose public nudity, then isn’t this a “collective self interest”? > \*\* Like I said in the last post, another thread. We have opened a _fascinating_ can of worms here… > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ace\_Face \* > \*\* > So there’s a certain arbitrariness, a certain fuzziness, involved. If that’s a little too sloppy for your Libertarian utopia, well, you know what they say about democracy being “the worst system, except for all the others.” > \*\* Churchill. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ace\_Face \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein \* > > **Ace\_Face** , I don’t know you, and I strongly disagree with you, but tonight you have bought tears of joy to my eyes. 😃 > > Great, I’m thrilled. I guess. Whatever. My question to you is, if you “strongly disagree” with me … In your Libertarian utopia, who gets to decide which programs are “moral/immoral” and which are “amoral”? This involves its own moral dilemma, and “coercion,” as others have noted. > \*\* My Libertarian Utopia[sup]tm[/sup] is still under construction. Completion is scheduled for Fall 2003, although we have had to push that date back before, so stay tuned. I would think, though, that in it anyone could “decide which programs are ‘moral/immoral’ and which are ‘amoral’”. You can make whatever decisions you want, it’s your _actions_ we would be concerned about. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ace\_Face \* > \*\* > Your strongest argument here is to say simply that all taxation is coercion and should therefore be voluntary. > \*\* There is an argument to be made for this, but that will be yet _another_ thread, in the far, far future at the rate I am going here… > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ace\_Face \* > \*\* > When you start making distinctions between “morality justified” and “self interest justified” taxation, your postion weakens considerably. For instance, I don’t consider most of what the military (not to mention the CIA, DEA, NSA, etc, etc…) does to be in my “self interest.” Maybe you do. But getting any two people to agree on this for each and every issue/agency/program would be impossible. > \*\* Well…I really don’t want to get into this too much here, like I keep saying, another thread, however, I would think it would not be a question of whether we all _agreed_ that something was in our self interest, but whether or not the attempt to justify a given expenditure was made on that basis. I realize, of course, that you seem to think there can be no clear dividing line between these two things. ---
**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2001, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-enforced-morality/70937/75 "2001-07-10T03:17:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jshore \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein \* > > Corporate law and patent law were not created for reasons of morality. They were created because they bring about, or at least they were believed to bring about, an economic _benefit_ to society as a whole. > > \ > > It is simply not so cut-and-dry as you like to make it. What does “economic benefit to society as a whole” mean? Does it mean it increases the GDP? > > \ > > This idea that you can draw a line between some political/economic decisions that affect wealth and wealth distribution and say that they are morally neutral and then say others are imposing a morality is just bogus as all hell. And, it is exactly what those who benefit from the current laws governing our economy want you to believe. > \*\* Okay, that makes you, **Kimstu** , **mandelstam** , **erislover** , at least 2 or 3 others…who am I missing? If you guys could all get together on this come up with one general statement of this philosophy, that would be great. Anyway, as I’ve said to some of the others, I am going to infer from all this that your answer to the first question in my OP was yes, given, as I understand it, that you believe as the others do that everything the state does is an “enforcement of morality” of some type. Do you wish to answer the other questions? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2001, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-enforced-morality/70937/76 "2001-07-10T03:21:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein \* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Kimstu \* > > \*\* > > Recapping again: actual tax policy is **always** fundamentally involved with moral considerations and **never** involved **only** with moral considerations. Why do you want to consider hypothetical cases that ignore those realities? > > \*\* > > Like I said, it’s a simplifying assumption. We make a simplifying assumption when we use Newtonian Physics to, oh I don’t know…go to the moon, and ignore all that weird relativity stuff. Making simplifying assumptions can be useful sometimes. Of course if you don’t agree, you are perfectly free to simply not answer. Simplifying assumptions are all well and good, but when you make simplifying assumptions in physics, for example, it is very important to make them in a consistent way. For example, if you carry out a complex calculation to get an answer to second order in x, but somewhere along the way, you don’t bother to compute a particular term out to second order (or what corresponds to second order in the final result), then your result will be an answer where the second order coefficient is utterly wrong. (This, by the way, really happens!!! I know of a recent example from my work.) I think this is a good analogy to what you are doing. E.g., you are basing an argument on the simplifying assumptions that you can set up a morality-free taxation method without antipoverty programs (zeroth order in x) and then saying that those who add antipoverty programs to this (and assuming they are doing so only for “moral” reasons) are imposing morality. It is not a “simplifying assumption”…It is utterly wrong. If you want me to grant you that in a world where one can justify a certain taxation scheme with no moral assumptions then adding taxation to pay for antipoverty programs would be imposing my morality on you, I will be happy to do so. I also will grant you that if them moon were made of cream cheese and you could subsist on cream cheese alone, then you would be able to survive by eating the moon. Are you happy now? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2001, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-enforced-morality/70937/77 "2001-07-10T03:43:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Weird\_AL\_Einstein \* > Anyway, as I’ve said to some of the others, I am going to infer from all this that your answer to the first question in my OP was yes, given, as I understand it, that you believe as the others do that everything the state does is an “enforcement of morality” of some type. Do you wish to answer the other questions? > \*\* Question: Should the state seek to enforce anyone’s morality through the tax code and/or other economic policy? Answer: Yes, because it is impossible not to; those who propose not to are doing so by concealing their own morality (that they are enforcing) as being morally neutral. It is not. Question: If so, who decides what morality is enforced? Answer: It is decided through the democratic political process. Question: Would this be in any way fundamentally different from enforcing morality in non-economic areas, say by forbidding certain sexual practices? Answer: Well, one way in which it is different is that it is possible for the government to essentially stay out of regulating your sexual practices but it is not possible for the government to stay out of issues of how the money we use collectively through the government to run aspects of our society is spent. I believe there may be other distinctions that may have been pointed out by others already in this thread, but I will not hunt them down right now. Is that a direct enough reply for you? ---
**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2001, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-enforced-morality/70937/78 "2001-07-10T03:45:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kaylasdad99 \* > \*\* > > As near as I could see, your “addressing” of the ossue of “economic rationales” consisted of you saying that they are not relevant to the dabate. > \*\* Correct. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kaylasdad99 \* > \*\* > I’ve read every word of this thread, and it looks to me as if you are trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, you want to posit that anti-poverty expenditures in the budget are based **solely** on moral concerns. > \*\* Yes I do, as a simplifying assumption, as I have pointed out to others. Nothing more. Conceding this point for the sake of argument is _not_ the same as admitting that it is true. In fact I will cheerfully concede that it probably isn’t. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kaylasdad99 \* > \*\* > But when people point out to you (and **demonstrate** , for Cecil’s sake) that yours is a faulty, and therefore false hypothesis, you turn around and say “We’re only talking about **moral** concerns; your “economic rationales” have no relevance to the debate.” > \*\* Once again, the idea that anti-poverty programs have no economic rationale is not, repeat not a “hypothesis” that I am trying “prove”. For heavens sake, if I had been trying to prove this, I would have offered up _some_ evidence of it…give me _some_ credit. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kaylasdad99 \* > \*\* > You also seem to be having trouble accepting at face value the assertion that _every_ self-interest-based decision is on a fundamental level, a morality-based decision. > \*\* Boy howdy, **there’s** an understatement. But [boilerplate] as I have said to the others, we can deal with this in another thread[/boilerplate]. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kaylasdad99 \* > \*\* > I’ve got the answer to your essay question, BTW. > > > [@](#): > > > > The word “amoral” exists; it is in the dictionary, I just looked it up. Please tell me if this word ever is or can be used to describe any actual phenomenon in the real world and, if it cannot, tell me why it is in the dictionary. > > Part 1. Yes. > > Part 2. Not applicable, because it can. > > You didn’t ask for examples of real-world phenomena that are legitimately described as “amoral”, but I’m feeling generous today, so here’s one: lightning. > \*\* Ahhhh, score a point for you sir (I assume it is “sir”). My essay question was worded sloppily. I should have said, “…can be used to describe any _action taken by any human being, ever_ in the real world…” > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kaylasdad99 \* > \*\* > Getting back to your insistence that everyone conduct the debate on your terms alone. Resolved: Any law which is enacted _solely_ to satisfy an arbitrarily defined moral imperative is an illegitimate use of the power of government." > \*\* This is not what I asked in the OP, although if you wanted to address this I guess you could. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kaylasdad99 \* > \*\* > I don’t feel I have the intellectual heft to construct an argument opposed to such a hypothesis. > > If you want to argue that anti-poverty initiatives are such laws, you are welcome to make your case, but this forum is not really the place to simply assume the statement as fact and expect everyone to adhere to your assumption. > \*\* That is a perfectly legitimate thing to do, as long as you are not assuming something that you are setting out to prove. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2001, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-enforced-morality/70937/79 "2001-07-10T04:12:08Z")
> [@](#): > > Okay, that makes you, Kimstu, mandelstam, erislover, at least 2 or 3 others…who am I missing? Me. ---
**Author:** ![Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c67d28/32.png) [@Weird\_AL\_Einstein](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weird_AL_Einstein)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2001, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-enforced-morality/70937/80 "2001-07-10T04:26:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mandelstam \* > \*\* > > …you’ve just posited the existence of universal, transcendental notions of right. Now don’t get me wrong. Most people have very compelling reasons for wishing such things existed. But in practice, unless one is very religious, universal truths are slippery indeed. Right now, you can say with conviction that slavery is wrong and always was wrong. But if you–the very same physical and genetic you–lived two hundred years ago, chances are that you’d have judged slavery to be an acceptable social practice for some people to perpetrate. Doesn’t that suggest to you just how deeply historical and variable our notions of right are? And doesn’t that therefore mean that what is right–including what is deemed universally right–is always subject to the historical conditions of debate? > \*\* I honestly admit, I am quite unprepared to answer these questions. I do keep talking about starting another thread on this…I have some ideas about what I want to address in it, but they are still half-baked. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mandelstam \* > \*\* > As **Kimstu** has already told you, and as **kaylasdad** has further observed, you can’t expect us to exclude certain arguments just because they happen to demonstrate the absurdity of your logic. > \ > Now go read what both she and **kaylasdad** had to say in response to your transparent attempt to dismiss this and other proof that your central claim–(that anti-poverty legislation is based **only** on moral arguments)–is false. > \*\* Ahhhh…there’s my headache coming back. I dismiss “proof” that my “central claim” is false because that is **not** my central claim…in fact it is not my claim at all…in fact in the OP I made no claims period. I only asked questions. They were modified a bit in subsequent posts. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mandelstam \* > \*\* > "_Now I’m going to give you a quiz, in the form of an essay question. The word “amoral” exists; it is in the dictionary, I just looked it up. Please tell me if this word ever is or can be used to describe any actual phenomenon in the real world and, if it cannot, tell me why it is in the dictionary._ > > Actually–brace yourself–this is a very good point. “Amoral” (as **kaylasdad** has suggested) isn’t going to help your case. > \*\* I apologize for the sloppiness of the essay question. I amended it 1 or 2 posts ago. Please see that one. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mandelstam \* > \*\* > But a dictionary definition of “morality” will, I think, clear up something that has been confusing you all along. Indeed, I’m sorry this didn’t come up early. There are, in fact, **two relevant definitions** of the word “morality”. The first (the one that we, by and large, have been invoking) is value-neutral: a system of ideas of right and wrong. The second (the one that you, by and large, have been invoking) us value-normative: virtuous conduct, or the quality of being in accord with standards of good or right conduct. (These are paraphrased from _Webster’s II_.) > > So all along _we’ve_ been trying to say that even the guy who believes everything is motivated by self-interest, and/or the guy who prides himself on his unbridled love of sex, drugs and rock and roll (as all good liberals do, I might add 😉 ) is simply someone whose “system of ideas of right and wrong” is predicated on individualism and the primacy of individual liberties. > > But all along _you_ were probably assuming that “morality”–something advocated by religious types and bleeding hearts, no doubt–was _counter_ to your views on self-interest and to sex, drugs and rock and roll which you mistakenly saw as amoral. The reason being, I think, that you’ve imbibed a stereotype in which “virtuous conduct” is seen as something that only matters to preachy, busybody types. > > At least I’m guessing this was the case. > \*\* Fascinating. Absolutely fascinating. I concede none of this of course, but as I said, I am far from equipped at this time to attempt to prove you wrong. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mandelstam \* > \*\* > "_Should the state seek to enforce anyone’s morality through the tax code and/or other economic policy?"_ > > Our answer: regardless of whether it should or shouldn’t, the state already does this as a basic function of democratic governance: i.e., it enforces the “morality” of the majority through various tax policies and, indeed, through all governing practices. > \*\* So, once again, I assume your answer is yes, as I assume you want the gov. to continue to function. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mandelstam \* > \*\* > "_If so, who decides what morality is enforced?_ > > Our answer: So long as the democracy is functioning well enough, and so long as the particular act is deemed constitutional, the morality of the majority is what gets enforced. > > "_Would this be in any way fundamentally different from enforcing morality in non-economic areas, say by forbidding certain sexual practices?_ > > Yes it _would_ be different because, as **xenophon** and others have explained more eloquently than I can, our constitution attempts to preserve individual liberty as much as possible. But taxes are not seen as threats to individual liberty and to argue that they are, you’d have to overturn the dominant morality. > > \*\* I would appreciate a clarification of that last answer. Not seen by whom? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-enforced-morality/70937.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/government-enforced-morality/70937.md?page=5)