welsh wrote:
If you abstract this, all laws are laws of morality. The question is a matter of degree.
good eyes, welsh.
That's true, but finding an answer to that is another matter entirely. Like you mentioned earlier, it is now becoming socially acceptable to be gay. One could say that it is now becoming morally acceptable as well. Perhaps not with certain groups of people, but it's more accepted now than it was in the 1950's.
My point is, if the perception of morality can change according to the whim of society, then what basis does any law have that regulates morality? Taking what you said, all laws can be considered laws of morality. So that would mean that if the definitions of a societies morals change, some laws wouldn't be useful or needed, and others will be added.
So now we have a constant changing basis of morality, with our laws changing to accomodate it. Your question remains though, to what degree?
Right now the government is considering allowing homosexuals to be legally married. That idea wouldn't have been well received 50 or 60 years ago. Just one example of the relationship between the perception of morality and laws. Let's say that the law is passed, or an Amendment to the Constitution. Whatever legal action neccessary to ensure gays have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. What then about incest, pedophiles, and bestiality?
montez wrote
As far as pedophilia and beastiality: Pedophilia is illegal (and will hopefully remain illegal) and beastiality is illegal in most states and is recognized as deviant even in the states where it isn't illegal - therefore these "sexual preferences" have no status before the law. There's no point in taking that line of thought any further.
If we take Montez line of thinking, then the ideas, the morality of pedophilia and beastiality will never change. They will always be considered deviant or illegal. But being homosexual was considered deviant not half a century ago, and now gay people are getting married. To say that we shouldn't "take that line of thought any further" is to stick your head in the sand and hope the problem will go away by itself. I'm sure there were many people who chose to simply ignore the gay protests and parades years ago, hoping they would go away.
I wouldn't want to see someone marry a dog or child or their sibling as much as I wouldn't want two homosexuals getting married. But that's my opinon, my perspective on morality, and not neccessarily public opinon.
But i'm getting away from my point, i think. If some of the laws of a government can change to accomodate societys changing morality, then why not all? What's stopping them from taking away freedoms instead of granting them with laws? Public opinon, political support and influence. Look at the Patriot Act that was published soon after 9/11. That infringement on civil liberties was made law because of the public opinon that supported the hunt for terrorists in America. Some may have thought that the government would have never passed a bill like that. But it doesnt surprise me a whole lot, given what we've discussed about how the publics perception of morality affects law and legal rights.
So where's the stopping point? If we lived in a truly democratic society, then there would be none. Whatever the public opinons and perceptions of morality would be, the laws would change to accomodate them. But there are many influences on the people that make the laws beyond the mere will of the people they represent. Political deception and pandering will play a role in which "morality laws" will be allowed to pass. So although I'm concerned that one day people might think it's okay to marry your dog or a child, I would hope that there are enough people in charge that think like me to make sure that doesnt happen.
Of course, the whole debate of societys morals is dependent on the morals of the person who is observing the group or society. I know that I am not completely objective. What I think is right morally, I am for. But I am willing to place the wishes of my society above my own, as far as legal concerns go. I don't agree with what the "deviants" are doing, but I will support their right to do it. That seems like a conflict between my beliefs and the ideals of my country. I don't think of it like that. I will always have my own beliefs, and no one else really cares what they are. But the ideas that my government and society are based on affect people other than myself. A whole lot of people. So there needs to be a continuing effort to make sure that those ideals, based on freedom, are redefined to accomodate the will of the people. The degree of the changes to the law, and the different perceptions of morality are dependent on the society.