Comments on: Part 1: Legislating Morality Refutation

By: SEIFERILE

SEIFERILE — Wed, 22 Sep 2010 23:50:55 +0000

By: Shaun Connell

Shaun Connell — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 17:34:43 +0000

Nick,

Actually, I’ll agree that /maximized/ happiness is when we follow Christ. However, this is not possible to enforce this, and it is, of course, possible to find /some/ happiness in other manners. Remember, we have the right to pursue happiness — that doesn’t mean, as even Jason admitted, that we have to be happy.

Government shouldn’t force it’s people to be happy. So I think we’re in agreement, after all.

By: Nick

Nick — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 16:34:23 +0000

I totally agree Shaun, except for on one point. As a Christian, I believe that the only way to find true happiness is by following Christ. However, I dont think that Christianity should be forced on people. I think you are absolutly right in saying that people have a right to choose which religion they want to be. Using the government to enforce religion is reminiscient of the Taliban.

By: Part 2: The Enforcement of Morality Debate | Logical Consistency

Part 2: The Enforcement of Morality Debate | Logical Consistency — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 20:24:23 +0000

[...] responded to my first essay. Because Shaun posted his two articles in response to mine, I’m going to have to write two [...]

By: Ian

Ian — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:01:36 +0000

Excellent refutation–I can remember having made all those points in the past, and it is nice to see them used so well together. I must agree: there is no logically consistent ground between a totalitarian theocracy and autarchy.

By: Will

Will — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 19:39:11 +0000

Excellent clarity and refutation.

I, personally, need to research social contracts more.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 17:09:59 +0000

Great post Shaun, I agree with you 100%.

I was wondering if you have the time; I’d really like to hear your thoughts on Iowa and what it means for the various candidates.

By: Shaun Connell

Shaun Connell — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:23:04 +0000

You are certainly right about a differing moral standard, and how I think morality should not be ignored. However, coming up with a label for what I believe to be moral government is interesting. A friend of mine, Josh Kerr, said it this way, and I think he’s dead on:

“It seems like you draw a distinction between “legislate morality” and “legislate morally.” The former would indicate a series of laws which would force people to behave in ways that are “right” and prohibit them from behaving in ways that are “wrong.” The latter would involve the supposition that legislating is itself a morally significant event, and we have to grapple with the difficult question of what is “right” and “wrong” when it comes to the nature of the laws themselves.”

By: Andrew Slater

Andrew Slater — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:10:17 +0000

I couldn’t agree more….excellent refutation and discussion. I’m really enjoying reading what you and Jason are posting. One point I’d like to make: I think you both advocate “legislating morality”….. you just differ on the interpretation of the “moral standard” that should be used. You hinted early in the refutation that you believe someone can’t just run over another person with their car…meaning you believe that there IS a justified moral standard to protect life (laws against murder, manslaughter, etc.) that should be enforced. You and Jason differ on the moral standard that should be used, in that you don’t believe the state – the legitimate body able to execute a monopoly on the use of violence- should violently enforce an absolutist moral standard . Just my thoughts =). Great post.