Should the government be legislating morality? You have to ask? by Rimfrel
(libertarian)
Thursday, August 20, 2009
President Obama yesterday referred to universal health care as a moral imperative (report). He was speaking to a group of people who are religious leaders, and attempting to enlist their support for his health care plan.
According to www.m-w.com (definition), moral "implies conformity to established sanctioned codes or accepted notions of right and wrong". Certainly the Bible and many, if not all, religious documents contain an imperative to take care of those less fortunate. Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, healing the sick -- these are acts of charity, which is a type of love.
It is interesting to hear the President promote the health care reform legislation as a "moral imperative" when he isn't generally going to a church (but perhaps is getting sermons in the White House chapel?) and has publicly, in a speech overseas, averred that the United States is not a Christian nation (but Christianity is not the only religion in play). We also have an oft-referenced separation of church and state in this country. One could conclude that he was promoting this as a religious act, since he was pointing it out to a group of the faithful, but I don't think that was the intent. I think it was more that he was pointing out "what's in it for you". Legislation forcing health care plans on the whole country might cover that pesky obligation to be charitable to our fellow citizens on an individual basis. It should also be noted that a thing is not bad or immoral just because one or more religions also support it.
Unfortunately, the President is starting down what I think is a slippery slope. Legislation to provide health care insurance is one step, but what about legislation to give everyone food and clothing? Wouldn't that be equally "moral"? And decent housing, with paid utilities, should not be far behind. After justifying the legislation on the grounds of morality, how does he avoid promoting these other legislative acts?
The basic question I have is whether we want the government to start legislating morality.Its lack of Constitutionality doesn't seem to be an inhibition, based on Congressional legislative history over the last 80 years or so. Even if we set aside the Constitution as a purely historic document, I think there is a disconnect between "doing the allegedly right thing" and "doing the societally mandatory thing".
Some things need to be made laws because without them, it is impossible to have much in the way of an advanced society. A single individual living on a frontier might not need a law against murder because there is no one to kill or be killed by. A society of 300 million people would need this kind of law, or everyone would be afraid to leave their homes lest they be killed or their families be killed while they are away.
Other things need to be laws in order to establish a convention that promotes safety, like everyone driving on the right-hand side of the road. When someone fails to do that, head-on collisions may ensue.
Where is the objective societal imperative to providing health care insurance for everyone? Admittedly some people suffer and even die without it, but many also suffer and die even if they have it. The society is not in danger of becoming another Lost Colony due to lack of people. That's callous, yes, but we have lots of people and attrition due to lack of insurance or the medical care it might cover is at a financially tolerable level. The human cost is another matter, especially for those who lose loved ones. But insurance doesn't guarantee health or long life or an easy death when the body simply can no longer hang on.
Promoting this as a moral imperative that fundamentally legislates specific charity is also bad because it removes the responsibility for taking care of others from the individual's shoulders and places it on society, burdening even those who think death is natural and should not be impeded. If your religion is totally against any form of medical care, you will be out of luck if the legislation passes because you will have to pay taxes and insurance premiums anyway. And even if you believe in charity, you might figure your religious obligation in this area is taken care of. Maybe on your own you would have given more, but hey, the government has it in hand. You can't feel good about the act of charity because it is now merely obeying the law. Those who receive the benefits don't have any reason to appreciate your generosity because, from their perspective, it is the government that is giving them the benefits.
I don't mind rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, but I don't think my charitable obligation to take care of the less fortunate is Caesar's. I am a person of faith, a Christian, and the Bible (which I read through completely, every year) doesn't say anywhere that government should be taking care of those who cannot take care of themselves. It says the believers should.
Some sources have tried to insist that religion is on its way out, but to me that makes it less compelling that government should take over. If there is no religion, why take care of anyone at all, except as they are capable of contributing to society? This is the kind of thinking behind ideas like Ezekiel Emmanuel's complete lives concept, that encourages more medical care be made accessible to those between 15 and 40 than to those younger and older. This is how quickly one can go from a "moral imperative" to take care of others to an "immoral" imperative to only take care of those one derives a benefit from.
This is why I consider the health care insurance reform legislation to be an immoral imperative. It takes responsibility from believers (and kind-hearted non-believers) and gives it to a government that derives no spiritual benefit from it. The less we do in service to our religious beliefs, the less effect our religious beliefs manifest in our lives. It actually interferes with the practice of our religions.
There are many reasons to be against the proposed legislation embodied in HR 3200, but the supposed "moral imperative" is not a reason to be for it.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 2
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Rimfrel only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Rimfrel is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-08-20 12:33:42
Hi Rimfrel,
I think the question is: Can government legislate morality? The answer is no. It cannot.
Here is the simple proof. If you bind an immoral man with duct tape is he suddenly vituous? No. Likewise, if you bind a man with law does it make him a better man? No.
You are writing about social engineering which is based on the idea that obstructing an undesirable action is the same as encouraging and rewarding desirable actions.
Fostering desirable behavior or designing policies to have desirable outcomes are not effective political tools. They cannot deliver the votes in the next election.
Taking legislative action against particular behavior is far more powerful for delivering votes because it decouples preceptions from actual consequences. This means that the same promises and the same legislatively defined perceptions can be repeated election after election after election with impunity.
That is a far more efficient tool than aiming for desirable outcomes.
I agree that government cannot legislate genuine morality, which comes from the heart/mind/soul -- whatever you want to call it. They can enact legislation that produces the outcome they think they would have if people subscribed to their morality (if they can figure out the necessary behavioral drivers). This is only needed when people do not agree with the alleged morality's perspective. in the first place. Government, as some have pointed out (including Thomas Paine), is about limitations and punishment. So as you said, they can legislate against a behavior, e.g. failure to buy health insurance.
I'm not sure I followed your point about delivering votes. If they pass health care reform in its current form, doesn't this inhibit them from making the same process (enacting health care reform) in ensuing elections? They can claim credit for it, they can promise to maintain it, but doesn't that assume that the majority of people either approve of it or don't care enough for it to be an issue?
I admit I didn't pay as much to Bush as I should have, and I regret it. But on principle I am in favor of separation of church and state and freedom of religion. If religion runs government, maybe it's my religion to start with and yay for me, but next election or down the road, it could be some religion I cannot subscribe to or comply with. It isn't fair or reasonable for me to force my religion on others, and I resent it deeply when someone tries to force theirs into law that will apply to me. I am against abortion not because I think the embryo infuses with a soul at conception, but because human DNA requires a human being. An embryo at fertilization has human DNA.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
