The liberty
principle for this Freedom Friday is the simple fact that legal law and moral
law are not always the same. A bill
becomes a legal law when both houses of Congress pass it and the President
signs it into law. In order for that law
to also be a moral law, it must have a moral basis.
Walter E. Williams, professor of economics at George Mason University, understood
this fact very well. “How does something
immoral, when done privately, become moral when it is done collectively? Furthermore, does legality establish
morality? Slavery was legal; apartheid
is legal; Stalinist, Nazi, and Maoist purges were legal. Clearly, the fact of legality does not
justify these crimes. Legality, alone,
cannot be the talisman of moral people.”
(See All It Takes Is Guts: A Minority View.)
The government of
the United States of America is a nation built on law, but the nation itself is
built on the morals or lack of morals of the people. Mr. Williams explained why
this is so and how our society has changed since he was a child
. “A civilized society’s first line of defense
is not the law, police and courts but customs, traditions and moral
values. Behavioral norms, mostly
transmitted by example, word of mouth and religious teachings, represent a body
of wisdom distilled over the ages through experience and trial and error. They include important thou-shalt-nots such
as shalt not murder, shalt not steal, shalt not lie and cheat, but they also
include all those courtesies one might call ladylike and gentlemanly
conduct. The failure to fully transmit
values and traditions to subsequent generations represents one of the failings
of the so-called greatest generation.
“Behavior accepted as the norm
today would have been seen as despicable yesteryear. There are television debt relief
advertisements that promise to help debtors to pay back only half of what they
owe. Foul language is spoken by children
in front of and sometimes to teachers and other adults. When I was a youngster, it was unthinkable to
use foul language to an adult; it would have meant a smack across the
face. Back then, parents and teachers
didn’t have child-raising `experts’ to tell them that `time out’ is a means of
discipline. Baby showers are held for
unwed mothers. Yesteryear, such an
acceptance of illegitimacy would have been unthinkable.
“To see men sitting whilst a
woman or elderly person was standing on a crowded bus or trolley car used to be
unthinkable. It was common decency for a
man to give up his seat. Today, in some
cities there are ordinances requiring public conveyances to set aside seats
posted `Senior Citizen Seating.’ Laws
have replaced common decency. Years ago,
a young lady who allowed a guy to have his hand in her rear pocket as they
strolled down the street would have been seen as a slut. [The practice of] children addressing adults
by [their] first name was unacceptable….”
I have a lot of respect for Mr.
Williams because he sees things as they really are and is not afraid to tell it
like it really is. Our society is much
different from when I was a child, and freedom and liberty have been lost
because of the changes. Parents and
other adults taught their beliefs and values to the children because they
understood that family teachings, customs, and religious instructions cannot be
duplicated by law. I encourage you to
read the entire article by Mr. Williams.
Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles spoke about moral absolutes and moral relativism in public policy.
He said that “one of the consequences of shifting from moral absolutes to moral relativism in public policy is that this produces a
corresponding shift of emphasis from responsibilities
to rights. Responsibilities originate in moral absolutes. In contrast, rights find their origin in
legal principles, which are easily manipulated by moral relativism. Sooner or later the substance of rights must
depend on either the voluntary fulfillment of responsibilities or the legal
enforcement of duties. When our laws or
our public leaders question the existence of absolute moral values, they
undercut the basis for the voluntary fulfillment of responsibilities, which is
economical, and compel our society to rely more and more on the legal enforcement
of rights, which is expensive.
“Some moral absolutes or
convictions must be at the foundation of any system of law. This does not mean that all laws are so
based. Many laws and administrative
actions are simply a matter of wisdom or expediency. But many laws and administrative actions are
based upon the moral standards of our society.
If most of us believe that it is wrong to kill or steal or lie, our laws
will include punishment for those acts.
If most of us believe that it is right to care for the poor and needy,
our laws will accomplish or facilitate those activities. Society continually legislates morality. The only question is whose morality and what
legislation.
“In the United States, the moral
absolutes are the ones derived from what we refer to as the Judeo-Christian
tradition, as set forth in the Bible – Old Testament and New Testament. Despite ample evidence of majority adherence
to moral absolutes, some still question the legitimacy of a moral foundation
for our laws and public policy. To avoid
any suggestion of adopting or contradicting any particular religious absolute,
some secularists argue that our laws must be entirely neutral, with no
discernable relation to any particular religious tradition. Such proposed neutrality is unrealistic,
unless we are willing to cut away the entire idea that there are moral
absolutes."
I believe that laws can be both
legal and moral. In fact, I believe the
best laws are both legal and moral. When
our laws are legally passed and signed and are based on moral laws, our nation
will be strong. We must insist that our
political leaders stop passing immoral laws – such as Obamacare – and pass laws
that conform with moral laws.
No comments:
Post a Comment