Anit-Moral Legislation
October 09, 2000
All-too-often people tend to equate laws with morals. Too many people, way too often have a tendency to believe that the law books are guides to moral action. All we have to do to see that this is not necessarily the case is look to history. What law authorized the American Revolution?....or any revolution for that matter? Are the instigators of revolutions 'immoral' individuals? Were the members of the American Revolution acting immorally when they broke from Brittain? Most lovers-of-America would say the opposite; that the circumstances in which the colonists found themselves were so awful that it was their moral obligation to revolt to save themselves and their families from oppression. Yet they broke the law by severing themselves from Brittain. The fact of the matter is, the individuals' morality overrode the law....as it should. Just because something is illegal does not mean that it is immoral (and, vice versa, just because something is legal does not make it moral). I would go as far as to say that obedience and law have no necessary connection to morality whatsoever.
Morality has to do with what is right and wrong behavior for an individual. The morality or an action is something that we call on our conscience to determine. A person's moral code is used as a motivator to action under certain circumstances. It is something internal, within ourselves, that guides us to action. Whether we are born with a natural instinct for our morals or whether we learn them is not the issue; simply that it is something that lies within each of us, directing our actions. It is not some set of pre-existing rules and guidelines that tells us how to live and enforces the burden of guilt upon us. What one person easily sees as purely natural and good, another can see as awful and despicable. Does this make one person 'more moral' than another? No...it just means they have different moral standards. This is something that needs to be recognized in the world.
We need to take a step back and realize that all individuals should be guaranteed the liberty to do anything that they desire as long as it does not violate the rights of another person. They should have the freedom to hold whatever moral standards they want, and act on them accordingly. When questioning someone's actions and beliefs, the first thing we need to ask is what difference does it make to me as an individual?....did this person's actions or beliefs in any way interfere with my or anyone else's liberties as a human being? If the answer is no, then that person should be allowed to do whatever it is that they wish.
Nevertheless, even in the relatively liberal climate of the world these days people still pass moral judgments on others. People become appalled by the actions of otheres simply from the fact that it is something that they, themselves, would never do....something that goes so much against their moral code that it comes to the point of anger and contempt. When an individual performs some act or leads a lifestyle of which we don't approve, we judge them. And this is completely natural. People judge; it's part of what it means to be human. If you don't approve of the way a certain person is acting, it is your right to disapprove of it. However, bear in mind, it may still remain the right of the individual to act that way.
I am of the firm belief that as long as any individual is not threatening or impeding the rights of another individual AND that individual is not escaping some responsibility, then that person has a right to do anything that they wish....anything. Victimless crimes are aimed at homogenizing the moral climate of the country. Moral legislation gets in the way of individuals' liberty. The law is not about defining what is and what is not moral. The law is about protecting individuals' rights.
by Dan A.
