Sandel
claims in his article entitled Democracy’s
Discontent that “government should not legislate morality because all
morality is merely subjective”. I feel that this statement is explained by
Kelsen’s views on how it is hard to find a truly just transaction between two
independent entities. Kelsen describes a number of situations in where the just
transaction of to groups often results in the negative affect on another, like
two men fighting over the love of woman.
Sandel
and Kelsen both would agree on the point that a utilitarian approach to
government would not work because of the near impossibility to define the good
especially when it comes to a number of people that can equal the population of
an entire country. This leaves us with more of a Kantian approach where the
pleasures and action of one are not denying the rights of others in the
society. This leads to a more neutral approach to morality. I am sure that most
are willing accept a willed maxim of action that fell in line with another’s
morality as long as it did not affect their own. Unfortunately there will
inevitably be instances where the will of a maxim will conflict with another’s
morality.
I feel
that this most often happens when we start to dig into Kelsen’s idea of
competing interests. He claims that if we rank our interests and values there
will be no need for justice, because everything will be prioritized. This
prioritization creates a justification for our actions. We talked about in
class that the key to understanding Kelsen’s logic is to understand the
difference between a value and a fact. Just because you have a value that you
live by does not mean it is a fact. If morality is dependent on each individual
human being than no one can will his or her individual values to be fact. This
misunderstanding between fact and value has caused the government to believe
that they need to step in and create a final end to some sort of moral thing to
do which is the worst thing that they could possibly do. With larger issues
that take place, even in modern American society like abortion or gay marriage,
just because someone takes a moral position on the subject does not make it
fact. Government should stay neutral by opening the law to as include a large
amount of possible choices for the American citizen, so that positions of
morality are not tried to be made fact by law.
For the most part i agree with this view. Many decisions of morality should be left to the people and not the government. Marriage and abortion are two major political debates. But in reality neither one can be proven right or wrong it simply comes down to an individual decision and the government shouldnt be the on making that decision.
ReplyDeleteBut i also believe that some moral issues should be made into laws and have punishments. When the decision can directlly harm or invade the privacy of another person there should be punishment. For example Stalking is a moral choice, but this choice impedes the privacy of another person, which is a liberty that should be protected. In cases like thhis the government should step in and enforce laws.
I would like to respond to the suggestion above that marriage shouldn't not be dictated under the government. Because the United States is NOT a religious state and marriage has historically been a provision of religious groups, our understanding of marriage has had to evolve to include an opportunity for unions between atheists and persons of different faith traditions. We must acknowledge that the government cannot provide a "marriage"; we are misusing this term in our civil discourse. The government provide, now, to heterosexual couples a civil union-- that is a union provided by the state-- but not to homosexual couples. This is counter to the American commitment to equal opportunity. Perhaps what you were trying to say is that the government should not be involved in decisions of marriage because you still hold that marriage is a religious act, but this removes the possibility of unions for non-religious people. The decision about what blessings are available to individuals is a matter for religious leaders and organizations, but it IS important for the government to be involved and to continue to create equal civil opportunity for unions and the benefits that come along with those unions.
ReplyDelete