![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Ghosts of Philiosphy Classes Past
Dec. 6th, 2008 07:02 pmOMG - the things you find cleaning out the hard drive. Left over from a "critical thinking" class several years ago, I think it had a 2 page limit with footnotes. Could I have possibly picked odder examples for discussion?
“Morality can’t be legislated.”
When I first began to work on this essay, I decided to begin by choosing a model of morality. There are many to choose from and initially I was attracted to Kohlberg’s model using developmental stages(1). It provides plenty of material to work as it takes into account several points of view. Immediately, I began to have problems however. Kohlberg’s model doesn’t acknowledge the passion most children have for fairness. The reality check was bouncing.
I decided liked Robert Heinlein’s idea better. He said children and barbarians care about the justice due to them, adults care about the justice due from them(2). Both points of view can be legitimate. Especially when you consider children are frequently powerless. At the very minimum, it advocates a less self-centered approach to life, a practice I have found useful. Other people give me less grief if I consider their needs too.
Morality is difficult to define. Even Heinlein’s pithy epigram leaves wiggle room. In a diverse society like California, morality is a concept too large and varied to be easily summed up. What is considered acceptable behavior varies greatly and hinges on attitudes and assumptions that may not even be articulated. And yet my gut tells there is a relationship between legislation and morality.
Does legislating morality mean to force a consensus? I don’t think legislation can force agreement, only possibly compliance. I’ve heard legislation defined as the authorization by the government to the government permitting the use of force against the citizenry(3). If morality is set of interiorly assimilated attitudes, assumptions and the resultant behaviors, no external order can impose a morality willy-nilly on large segments of a population. But if the values held by individuals are sufficiently important, legislation that runs counter to those principles may be disobeyed even if sanctions are legislated. Civil disobedience is a tactic used frequently by individuals of differing political persuasions.
My personal experience leads me to suspect in many, but not all cases, legislation is the expression of somebody’s morality. The first example that comes to mind is the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The people who develop, refine and enforce the code constantly consider safety issues. That concern is hard to oppose. Minimum building standards seem like a good thing to me; especially living here in earthquake country.
But, not everyone sees the need for a building code. My father retired to Pushmataha County, Oklahoma; a tiny rural community. He decided to build a garage. He went down to the county offices and got his permit. When he inquired about scheduling inspections, the permit issuer looked surprised. Then she said, “We don’t do inspections. We’ve never had anybody try to build something who didn’t know how.” My father discovered then they had never adopted a building code(5).
In California, we have a UBC precisely because we know we don’t all agree and we don’t all trust each other. In Pushmataha County, there is an assumption that builders know their business and they will trust you to build it right. But they won’t trust you with a drink, it is a dry county. And that bit of legislation was born out of moral convictions. Try making Santa Clara County a dry county. I think you’d hear howls of laughter, not outrage.
Therefore, if morality drives legislation, the regional differences in legislation make more sense. The controversies over some legislation make more sense. If legislation drove morality, I would expect to see greater uniformity in legislation and greater uniformity in society. So I say that the statement “morality can’t be legislated” confuses cause and effect. Morality drives legislation.
(1) See Http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/kohlberlhtml for an elegant little summary
(2) It’s in one of his novels, don’t ask me which one. I don’t remember the book, just the line.
(3) Dinner with my Libertarian friends.
(4) Just finished up the class at CSM. The instructor talked about safety issues in every lecture with passion.
(5) Conversations with Dad, over Texas beer.
Notes from the 21st Century - Things have changed in even in Push County, they now have a building code. I'm not sure about the alcohal.
“Morality can’t be legislated.”
When I first began to work on this essay, I decided to begin by choosing a model of morality. There are many to choose from and initially I was attracted to Kohlberg’s model using developmental stages(1). It provides plenty of material to work as it takes into account several points of view. Immediately, I began to have problems however. Kohlberg’s model doesn’t acknowledge the passion most children have for fairness. The reality check was bouncing.
I decided liked Robert Heinlein’s idea better. He said children and barbarians care about the justice due to them, adults care about the justice due from them(2). Both points of view can be legitimate. Especially when you consider children are frequently powerless. At the very minimum, it advocates a less self-centered approach to life, a practice I have found useful. Other people give me less grief if I consider their needs too.
Morality is difficult to define. Even Heinlein’s pithy epigram leaves wiggle room. In a diverse society like California, morality is a concept too large and varied to be easily summed up. What is considered acceptable behavior varies greatly and hinges on attitudes and assumptions that may not even be articulated. And yet my gut tells there is a relationship between legislation and morality.
Does legislating morality mean to force a consensus? I don’t think legislation can force agreement, only possibly compliance. I’ve heard legislation defined as the authorization by the government to the government permitting the use of force against the citizenry(3). If morality is set of interiorly assimilated attitudes, assumptions and the resultant behaviors, no external order can impose a morality willy-nilly on large segments of a population. But if the values held by individuals are sufficiently important, legislation that runs counter to those principles may be disobeyed even if sanctions are legislated. Civil disobedience is a tactic used frequently by individuals of differing political persuasions.
My personal experience leads me to suspect in many, but not all cases, legislation is the expression of somebody’s morality. The first example that comes to mind is the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The people who develop, refine and enforce the code constantly consider safety issues. That concern is hard to oppose. Minimum building standards seem like a good thing to me; especially living here in earthquake country.
But, not everyone sees the need for a building code. My father retired to Pushmataha County, Oklahoma; a tiny rural community. He decided to build a garage. He went down to the county offices and got his permit. When he inquired about scheduling inspections, the permit issuer looked surprised. Then she said, “We don’t do inspections. We’ve never had anybody try to build something who didn’t know how.” My father discovered then they had never adopted a building code(5).
In California, we have a UBC precisely because we know we don’t all agree and we don’t all trust each other. In Pushmataha County, there is an assumption that builders know their business and they will trust you to build it right. But they won’t trust you with a drink, it is a dry county. And that bit of legislation was born out of moral convictions. Try making Santa Clara County a dry county. I think you’d hear howls of laughter, not outrage.
Therefore, if morality drives legislation, the regional differences in legislation make more sense. The controversies over some legislation make more sense. If legislation drove morality, I would expect to see greater uniformity in legislation and greater uniformity in society. So I say that the statement “morality can’t be legislated” confuses cause and effect. Morality drives legislation.
(1) See Http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/kohlberlhtml for an elegant little summary
(2) It’s in one of his novels, don’t ask me which one. I don’t remember the book, just the line.
(3) Dinner with my Libertarian friends.
(4) Just finished up the class at CSM. The instructor talked about safety issues in every lecture with passion.
(5) Conversations with Dad, over Texas beer.
Notes from the 21st Century - Things have changed in even in Push County, they now have a building code. I'm not sure about the alcohal.
