3 ms·

Your argument about not legislating morality is flawed. While the idea that you're trying to make may hold water, abortion is a flawed example. Let's say that

Your argument about not legislating morality is flawed. While the idea that you're trying to make may hold water, abortion is a flawed example. Let's say that we're playing with the idea that abortion is murder. You say that government shouldn't be able to affect people having abortions because it is a matter of "personal conviction." However, murder denotes killing a living being and, as you stated above, governments exist to "to allow us to live in peace with people we've never met before..." Now the question becomes is a fetus a living being? OR at what point does it become a living being? Someone needs to make these decisions and for lack of a better option, people turn to the government because if they think that the fetus is a living being then the government would need to protect it. You have proven that government should absolutely be involved when someone wants to have an abortion because it is no longer a person's personal convictions if she is going to murder another person. (Disclaimer: I'm not saying how I feel about the subject, just pointing out your arguments.)

chad_oliver 16y ago
Yeah, that's a good point actually. Perhaps I should be more direct and say that governments are trying to optimise happiness. In this case, abortion is less clear-cut because there is no good evidence that an unborn baby is conscious, or that it isn't. However, I agree with you that this isn't a good example, and someone has to decide when and if a fetus is a conscious, living being. In a 'perfect' form of the government I described, this issue would be decided by the government based on hard science, so there would be some decision. But this still leaves the question of what position to take in the absence of any conclusive evidence. To extend the flawed-ness: do you think this applies to issues such as homosexuality (to pick the most controversial)? Do you think that all morality should be legislated?

chad_oliver 16y ago

Yeah, that's a good point actually. Perhaps I should be more direct and say that governments are trying to optimise happiness. In this case, abortion is less clear-cut because there is no good evidence that an unborn baby is conscious, or that it isn't. However, I agree with you that this isn't a good example, and someone has to decide when and if a fetus is a conscious, living being. In a 'perfect' form of the government I described, this issue would be decided by the government based on hard science, so there would be some decision. But this still leaves the question of what position to take in the absence of any conclusive evidence. To extend the flawed-ness: do you think this applies to issues such as homosexuality (to pick the most controversial)? Do you think that all morality should be legislated?