I am totally lost at this:
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.
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.
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? Well, the GDP is simply an aggregate average indicator of economic wealth (roughly) and to say that this is what we should maximize is a moral decision. Why not maximize the median, rather than mean, wealth? Or the wealth of the least well off? Or the aggregate utility (happiness)? (The idea here is that $10 given to a poor person on the street means much more to that person than $10 given to Bill Gates means to him.) And, I haven’t even tried to get into the ways in which GDP is a stupid measure of what we might want to maximize in a society because of the things it does and does not measure.
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.
Well, I am glad you agree that it is “alleged” too. But, in any decision there are going to be winners and losers…Very few decisions have a net gain for one or the other and thus they all have a moral component, just as the decision to set up welfare or unemployment insurance or food stamps or progressive income tax has a moral component, along with various economic and social justifications for how it benefits society as a whole.
Well, okay, I admit it does not logically follow if you do not believe in equality of opportunity (which is as much a moral decision as believing in it).
Oooookay…that’s what, six posts tonight? I’ve lost track. Anyway, I am mostly done for tonight, and I may well take the weekend off from this thread, and just hang out in MPSIMS, or maybe even go out of the house and do something not computer related…this is draining. OTOH of course, I might not keep my resolution and come right back here again tomorrow. We will see, but be assured I will be back by Monday at the latest.
However, before I finish for the night, I just want to respond quickly to a few things in two posts I noticed popping up as I was writing my posts tonight (I will respond to the substantive points in those posts when I get back):
Picking on my spelling, eh? Shall we go back over this thread and see how many times I could have picked on someone else’s spelling or grammer, and refrained from doing so? I for one would rather have a debate…
I must say, I am second to no one in my admiration for the ability to craft subtle insults, and so Mr. or Ms. Kimstu, I salute you, and did I mention that I don’t care what everyone else says about you, I think you’re ok?
However, I also admire the ability to craft a strong and intellectually coherent rational argument. So may I suggest that you…ahhhh…work on improving in those areas in which you appear to be weak.
Oh yes, BTW tonight I replied to two of your posts, and you only replied to one of my replies (as I write this that is). Ummm…yeah, I think that’s right…anyway, there is something I wrote in the second post that I want to be sure you don’t miss, so I am going to repeat it here:
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. Somehow. 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?
Dear Lord…do my eyes deceive me? Somebody has answered the question. Somebody has actually answered the question! I feel like…I feel like what one of those forty-niners must’ve felt like when he finally found a gold nugget. Everyone else here has been wriggling and sliding and avoiding the question like [insert name of ethnic, religious, or sociocultural group here] avoid [insert name of something that members of ethnic, religious, or sociocultural group stereotypically avoid]. And then this guy (or gal) steps in and answers the question, straight up, on his (or her) first post.
Ace_Face, I don’t know you, and I strongly disagree with you, but tonight you have bought tears of joy to my eyes. 
WAE, you’re grasping at straws here, with
No. Mandelstam is not (to my reading) conceding this point. But you appear to be trying to twist his post into such a concession. It may be an honest mistake on your part, and I am provisionally willing to take the view that it is an honest mistake. But Mandelstam is acknowledging that it is your position. This makes your later ascribing the position to him wrong, null, and void. You don’t win the point on that later serve.
Then, still later:
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.
Okay. I’m a latecomer to this conversation, and a lightweight in GD. But 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. 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.”
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.
I’ve got the answer to your essay question, BTW.
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.
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."
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.
Personally, I’d be more comfortable attempting to make the case that anti-sodomy laws are illegitimate under the above hypothesis.
Proof positive (if any further proof were required) of your complete inability to comprehend intellectually coherent rational arguments. Good luck in your future posts.
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.
Your strongest argument here is to say simply that all taxation is coercion and should therefore be voluntary. Perhaps I should be able to chose which agencies/programs receive my tax funds and which don’t. Or I should be able to opt out entirely and live in a cave somewhere in Montana. I completely disagree with this but it is a defendable position.
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. Utopias are fun to think about, but they’re obviously not so good at dealing with the messiness of human existence.
Weird_Al:“But, I set up this thread to talk about government enforced morality, and with God as my witness, I am going to stick to it.”
<uncanny deju vu like sensation> Could Weird_Al_Einstein secretly be the spirit of Vivien Leigh?
"Our perception of what is right and wrong evolves over time, but what is right or wrong does not. If slavery is wrong at all, it always will be, and it always was. Even when most people thought it was ok. This moral position is not “subject to historical change”.
Hmmm… On second though, could Weird_Al_Einstein secretly be the spirit of. . .Immanuel Kant? ;).
To wit: 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?
Warning: if you accuse me of straying off topic for attempting to explain something that is necessary to your understanding me, I’ll whack you with my copy of The Critique of Pure Reason.
“For God’s sake man (or woman), focus!”
Woman will do. 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. So let’s just drop this pretense, shall we? Else we’ll all have to conclude that you’re really just a troll looking to yank a lot of chain.
In the future, if a response strikes you as tangential, do us the favor please of considering it anyway, or, if you must, ignore it.
[re your liking of representative democracies] “I take…ehhh…mild offense at your subtle implication that I might not.”
Then you do me an injustice. You struck me as the kind of person who would regret the impracticability of a direct democracy. That was all I meant.
“The debate is, should the government force us to engage in a certain specific “social practice”, namely contributing to anti-poverty programs, if the only justification for this is, as you said yourself, a subjective moral position?”
I did not say that and, in order to help you recollect what I did say, and what others have repeatedly said, I have highlighted the key term in bold.
“I already addressed the issue of “economic rationales” for anti-poverty programs, at least twice, and for once I am not going to repeat myself. Go read what I said to Kimstu.”
I did. 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.
"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. 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.
So, actually, I hope we’ve made some progress here. I’m going to let go of the questions I asked you for today and give you a chance to absorb what I’ve said (and what the others have said).
But I hope that you now have the ability to view the OP as some of us have been doing. Here it is again:
"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.
"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.
Mandelstam: Thank you for considering my late observations worth citing (it really is an unaccustomed pleasure for me to see it), and please forgive me for the gender reassignment I subjected you to earlier.
kdad (if I may), The pleasure was mine. Since I was trying to speak for a number of people in this thread (rightly or wrongly), I thought I’d best refer to all. Looking back I see I forgot to acknowledge erislover’s contribution. Apologies elover (if I may).
Whoops…What I think I meant to say here is that very few decisions result in a net gain for everyone, i.e., that most economic decisions involve some tradeoffs between people.
You may 
However, I might add that my definitions were really only meant to give a basic idea for the difference which I hoped was all that was needed, and not to stand up to a rigorous treatment.
Okay, I am still likely going to take the weekend off from this thread, but I did just want to say something real quick here, to Kimstu. I took offense last night at what I felt to be the condescending tone in your post, and I responded in kind. I still find it offensive, but looking back I feel my response to it may have been too much, so I apologize for it.
Well, since you don’t want to be tempted toward digressions on this thread, I invite you over here to discuss why your view of absolute morality should be respected or accepted.
“Should” is a moral evaluation. Given that, let’s examine the possibilities:
I believe it is moral for government to enforce morality: The question becomes circular. The model fits my morailty, therefore government “should”.
I believe it is immoral for government to enforce morality: Therfore the government “should not”, but this in itself is a moral valuation, which I believe “should” be reflected in government. I have entered a self-referential paradox. This statement is a lie.
That would depend on the form of government. You seem acquainted with the representative republic in which you live, so I assume that this question is rhetorical. Is there some particular truth you were hoping to demonstrate with it?
Well, it is different in the restriction to ecomnomic areas, obviously. Whether this difference is fundamental depends greatly upon individual perception and the context for evaluation. I, for instance, recognize that the economic millieu in which I operate and from which I derive benefits is greatly supported by the social stability and economic policies of the government under which I live. That makes me more likely to accept economic restrictions from the government than restrictions on areas in which the government has not contributed matererially to my success. I am absolutely certain that no government official or policy aided me significantly in tricking Mrs. Mundi into marrying me, so I am not disposed to accept government restrictions on the methods we choose to provide sensual pleasure to eachother.
Is that distinction “fundamental” – I rather think it is two positions on a gradient scale. I suspect, though, that you are of a more absolute bent.
As others have tried to address, the distinction you draw is artificial. The proposition that human self-interest has a moral valuation (whether moral, immoral, or amoral) is itself a statement of morality. If you want government to reflect that positions, then you want to structure government according to a moral code.
Woops – got delayed before submitting and mandelstam snuck in and said everything relevant. Please edit the above to: what she said. Thanks.
I have to agree with what so many of the others have been saying, that the statement “the government shouldn’t enforce morality” is in and of itself a moral statement! How can it not be?
On the other hand, I wonder if I’m the only one who sees a crucial distinction between APPLYING my morality to a decision that affects someone else and IMPOSING my morality upon them.
As I understand it, Weird Al wants to apply his moral vision and say that the government shouldn’t impose morality on people. Somehow, and I guess I must just be incredibly dense to miss it, I don’t see how this is imposing anything on the other citizens. It’s obviously imposing a restriction on the government, but what on earth is it imposing on the other citizens? I really don’t mean to be dense, but I just don’t see how this imposes anything on anyone (aside from the government, of course).
Well, to be sure it wouldn’t affect other citizens if the government itself didn’t affect citizens. However, the government does affect other citizens, and so any moral imposition on government affects–at least indirectly–citizens of that state. No?
No, because the imposition on the government would be to not force anything on the citizens. That’s where I lose the logic.
Obviously, the statement that “you can make any moral decision you want because I, the government, will not impose any type of morality on you” surely DOES affect the citizens, and directly so. However, it doesn’t affect them in an impository (I think I just made that word up) manner.
It would be different if the state demanded that all the citizens went to church every third Sunday; then it’s forcing something on them. But by saying that they are free to apply whatever moral compass they wish, I don’t see how it imposes anything on them whatsoever.
Of course, a government which doesn’t impose any form of morality at all on its citizens isn’t much of a government (hey, let’s not outlaw rape and murder, because doing so would be forcing a particular form of morality on the citizens!), so I also think that saying that the government shouldn’t make ANY moral impositions on the citizens would be patently absurd, but that’s not exactly the point at issue.
I think we generally call that form of government “anarchy”. I don’t believe that the OP was asking about the morality of anrchy, but I may be wrong.
Crucial?
The distinction lies in the nature of the decision, surely. Whether the difference is “crucial” would depend on whether one felt justified in imposing one’s morality on another, which in turn is probably dependent upon the context of the decision.
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?