Over the years, on issues such as abortion, doctor-assisted suicide, euthanasia, infanticide, human experimentation and others, I have been struck by proponents arguments. I mostly been fascinated by the statements and arguments they use, particularly when they state that "You Should Not Legislate Morality," and "Society Cannot Impose Morality." I find these statements and arguments weak and flawed for the reality of the matter is that society and government legislate morality all the time. They legislate little else. The question becomes Whose Morality and What View Of Morality becomes dominant. What it all comes down to is the ideas and the pressure groups involved, and whether or not those pressure groups are strong enough to influence the legislative and executive branches of government.

If the pressure group believes and has the means to influence government to to ban firearms,for example, that pressure group via government is imposing  its morality on society.

If a pressure groups believes and has the means to defeat legislation designed to impose standards on public school teaching, they will impose their morality on society by claiming that the standards are burdensome and will, with the help of a majority of legislators, defeat it once it comes up, at the detriment, I believe, of captive public school students.

If the pressure group in question states and believes that taxpayers should fund economic stimulus for businesses, fund abortion, fund public television, fund arts and humanities or other, again, that pressure group is imposing their morality on society. They will cover it up by using the word "policy" and not morality. Make no mistake about, it is the imposition of moral views.

There are some libertarians and others that say that these attempts at morality should be struck down by state and federal courts. That maybe a correct viewpoint: but, even there, however, the judiciary is not immune to the influence of pressure groups and others. It also comes down to what judicial philosophy a judge or a band of judges follow. There will be judges that who will use their power on the bench to force their moral judgments and their morality on society at large, thus creating a quasi-oligarchy. There are judges that will go along with this, albeit a few modifications. Then, there are judges that will strictly look at the law and the Constitution, as it is written, and then decide whether it violates the plain meaning. It is these types of judges that allow the system to work and defer the lawmaking abilities rightfully to the people and their elected representatives.

If society at large wants to decrease the influence of the pressure groups, as well as other special interests, then it could only be done by cutting government down to its Constitutional size and well as allow the Chains of the Constitution to once more limit its length, scope and reach. This should be done and done absolutely. It will take a great deal of work and the getting of the hands dirty to accomplish this goal. Nevertheless, it is the moral thing to do for all.

Pin It