Legislating Morality

A recent debate with my father has caused me to more deeply and introspectively consider my stance on freedom and the role of government in creating a moral society.  My conclusions remain the same, but I hope to be more articulate in explaining why.

I am reminded of Thomas Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence, that we are “endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”  Jefferson, of course, was of a more libertarian mind than the typical American today.  Yet the question remains, do we believe Jefferson’s claim today?  Do we believe that we are given by God the right to life, to liberty, and to pursue our own happiness as we best see fit? 

If these rights are, as Jefferson claimed, unalienable and God-given, then what right do we, or anyone, have to take them away against their will?  Indeed, if freedom is a gift from God, than to deprive another of that gift would appear to defy God’s will.  If we are to be advocates of freedom, we must accept that some will choose things that we don’t agree with.  If we cannot, then we cannot be free.

Certainly it is argued, sometimes powerfully, that our nation was founded on principles of morality, and that our nation’s structure could only function in a moral society.  Notably, it was John Adams who made this claim, a political opponent of Jefferson’s.  Jefferson would have likely rejected such a claim, but why?  It certainly coincides with Benjamin Franklin’s assertion that the more evil we become, the more we stand in need of masters to watch over us. 

But consider the causal relationship between government power and moral decay.  Which came first?  It is my adamant contention that government power and corruption precedes the moral decay of society.  Indeed it seems the disposition of government power to facilitate such moral corruption.  Nazi Germany, communist Russia, and other socialist and communist nations have directly and intentionally banned and burned religious and moral texts for the express reason that moral people prefer to be free.  We see America's decline into immorality begin as the Progressive movement takes hold and begins to take away our freedoms.  In other words, centralized power causes moral decay, not the other way around. 

But what of these immoralities that are plaguing our communities now?  What are we to do about them?  The answer is simple.  We fight against them.  We teach of their dangers.  We lead by example.  We raise our children to understand right and wrong.  I came across a story in which a spontaneous internet community emerged to help youth break free from porn addictions.  The scientific evidence given, moral support offered, and personal experiences shared have allowed this (non-religious) community to find morality on its own.  The story noted that the growth of this community (on reddit.com I believe) has been astronomical.  This is how we make society moral again.

Can government be the answer?  No.  Laws do not change a person’s moral stance.  They simply change otherwise law-abiding citizens who have differing moral opinions into criminals.  Might they stop their immoral behavior if we ban it?  Maybe, if they fear the risks and consequences of being caught greater than the benefit they expect from that behavior that they previously pursued.  But it creates resentment, animosity, and distrust among those citizens who share a community.  And it creates dark and dangerous outlets for those who regard their sinful pleasures worth the risk.

Let me illustrate with an example.  Suppose some crazy leftist biologist has determined that chocolate is bad for you, and has convinced congress to pass a law banning chocolate consumption.  Now, it is obvious that this scientist’s study is junk science, and that the law is beyond stupid.  But let me ask you, will you stop eating chocolate?  Many of you might answer yes, as we try to abide by the laws of the land.  But how will you feel about it?  How will you feel toward the supporters of the law?  Let me ask you further, what if a friend of yours stops by after taking a vacation abroad, and happens to have snuck in some premium foreign chocolate and offers you some.  Would you resist?  Obviously, as we know that chocolate is not evil, and the law is stupid, I suspect that many of us would be more than happy to indulge, especially as it’s probably been a while since we’ve tasted it.  In other words, the lawmakers have turned us chocolate lovers into criminals at heart, whether we act on our desires or not, because we disagree with the law and want to break it.  Furthermore, we become quite irritated with those who have limited your freedom thus, removing from your life one of your most prized pleasures.  They have inhibited your freedom and ability to pursue happiness as you see fit, and have thus made you disgruntled and angry instead.

Interestingly, both sides of the political debate (excepting the libertarian stance) are quite adamant about the importance of legislating morality, but takes extreme umbrage when the other side seeks to do the same.  For example, liberals are incensed when conservatives push their Christian morality on them, such as the ban on drugs, no gay marriage, or a ban on abortion.  Conservatives, on the other hand, find liberal legislation of taxing the rich to feed the poor, regulating businesses, universal health care, and saving the planet from ourselves to be repugnant.  Indeed each side is passionate about their causes, and thus there are incessant debates both in congress and in public discourse over the right morals to legislate.  In the end, each side fights for the power to enact their morality on the other side against their will.

But the question remains: if we could enact laws to legislate a morality which returns to the principles we once held, wouldn’t that work?  Wouldn’t that speed the transition back to the society we wish to live in?  No, not really.  Unless you have localized legislation only, and have destroyed and distributed the federal power among the smaller localities such that they can choose how to live and where, unless this is how such morality is legally enacted, forcing such a morality on those who do not wish it (even if it’s good morality) will still create discontent and resentment, and will necessarily lead to crime and corruption.  People will only endure moral enslavery to a limited extent.  I suspect if such legislation made it through the federal system, the nation would very quickly erupt into violence and civil war.

Economist and philosopher Friedrich Hayek offers a compelling explanation of why freedom can and does create a moral society.  In a free society, best practices emerge naturally in a sort of natural selection (i.e. survival of the fittest) which weeds out those practices which do not work.  The history of mankind has shown this to be a moral and religious society which has endured the test of time.  Hayek gave strict warning of casually throwing out the moral codes which have endured time (as they have survived for a reason), which society began doing at the turn of the 20^th century as “science” began to suggest supposed better moral codes.  Enacting policies based on such science (e.g. abortion, social security, income taxation) have eroded and displaced the moral society which made America strong, and replaced it with a dichotomous nation of two general moralities.

We must trust in freedom and have faith in mankind if we are to become moral again.  I know it’s tempting to want to have government codify those principles which you know to be right and true so that you can live in a society that behaves as you think it should.  But you must resist that urge.  Freedom works!  Those immoral societies which emerge from granting such freedom will soon be displaced as they fail.  But most people are reasonably intelligent (when they have to be), and will, if free, quickly adapt to that freedom by learning and adopting those moral practices which truly work.  It shouldn’t take long, as many of us already know and will live by those principles that work, for certain moral principles to emerge as most effective.

God meant us to be free.  That’s why Satan was rejected, and we have a Savior.