Quote:
|
It is morally wrong to coerce or compel moral behaviour.
|
I understand your statement about coercion, Bethberry, but I'm a little confused about your use of the word "compel".
According to the American Heritage Dictionary:
compel (tv)
- To force, drive, or constrain
- To necessitate or pressure by force; exact
- To exert a strong, irresistible force on; sway
I think it's safe to assume that you used the word compel to imply one (or more) of the above statements.
A ordered society (as apposed to an anarchy) is based on the idea that *some* sort of behavior or act *somewhere* should be curbed or even outright banned for *some* reason. The actual reasons and conditions(and their relative morality) are largely irrelevant at the moment. I think it's fairly clear that both bad laws (e.g. persecution of religous groups) and good laws (e.g. penalties on rape, murder) both fit into this extremely rough template.
At least in America, government holds power by the consent of the people. It has a mandate from the people to perform certian duties (listed in the Constitution).
For example:
Quote:
|
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
|
The highlighted section seems to fairly clearly indicate that the new government is intended to keep order and justice. To such an end, the government has passed a large number of laws. It bans premeditated murder, grand larceny, drug use, child abuse, and a large number of other questionable activities. It regulates (and sometimes bans outright) certain economic activities.
In the case of criminal laws, the government takes a fairly uncompromising position on enforcement. People know that if they commit murder, it's extremely likely that the police will find them and arrest them. The fear of punishment would therefore force a certain reaction from citizens. (E.g. Not murdering)
This (hopefully) becomes even more clear in the economic aspect. The government forces companies to operate in a free market through anti-trust litigation. It drives durg companies to comply with FDA rules and regulations. Both are economically necessary--monopolies promote economic inefficiency and defective drugs that cause irreperable harm or death would harm the industry's productivity.
Basically, I'm wondering if your statement that compeling a "moral behavior" (whatever that is defined as [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img]) is wrong would lead to a direct (or indirect) condemnation of the modern system of judicial thought.
[ October 29, 2003: Message edited by: Ransom ]