By Selwyn Duke
Every age has its mantras, and ours is no exception. Every age has people who will let these mantras pass their lips even when they’re fallacious and, once again, ours is no exception. One such modern utterance that leaps to mind is the proclamation “You shouldn’t legislate morality.” In reality, though, the statement should be “You have no choice but to legislate morality.”
I had half a mind to treat this subject a long time ago, but have been inspired to do it only now. This is because if I have to hear the statement in question once more without it being challenged, my gray matter just may implode and a half a mind is all I’ll have left.
“You must legislate morality . . . That’s a bold statement, Duke,” some may say; “What are you driving at?” Well, ponder what a law is. It is, in fact, the imposition of morality. After all, a law states that there is something you must do or something you must not. This implies that the “something” is defined as being a moral imperative, morally wrong or as a corollary of one of the two according to some moral standard. This is indisputable, for if something isn’t a moral imperative, why force people to do it? And if something isn’t morally wrong, why prevent people from doing it?
Of course, sometimes the connection between a law and the element of morality it’s based on is hard to perceive. Some laws are direct expressions of widely embraced moral principles, such as laws prohibiting theft. But then there are laws that seem to be at best tangential to anyone’s moral principles, such as the law stating that you must register your car. But this law is still a derivative of morality because its existence presupposes that we have made the determination that prescribing such action serves to make society safer. And mandating actions that serve to make society safer presupposes that we believe it’s moral to act in the best interests of others, and immoral to take actions or be guilty of a failure to act that would endanger them. So, such laws are corollaries of moral principles.
Truth be known, the admonition against legislating morality is only issued when that morality happens to diverge from what’s fashionable, and by that I mean “politically-correct.” It’s something certain people – usually those of a more liberal bent – warn about when the proposal involves morality that they don’t happen to like. For sure, not only do liberals – who are the authors of political-correctness – legislate morality, they do it with greater frequency and zeal than a Puritan moralist right out of 1650's Massachusetts could ever muster. For, no one is more obsessed with imposing morality on others through government. Why, their works in this area are legion.
For instance, anti-spanking laws are based on the supposition that it’s immoral to strike your child, even for the purposes of enforcing discipline. Seatbelt, helmet [for motorcyclists] and child-restraint laws are either based on the idea that it’s immoral to endanger yourself and others unnecessarily, or that it’s immoral to take such risks and burden society with the possible consequences of such behavior. Legislation proscribing religious expression in the public sphere is based on the notion that it’s immoral to expose people to such expression in publicly-funded institutions because some may find it offensive. Laws promoting quota systems are based on the idea that allowing a meritocracy that leads to inequality between groups is immoral. Now, whether or not you agree with some or all of these governmental impositions of morality is irrelevant. The point is that a law is a codification of morality, any which way you slice it. If a law weren’t a reflection of a value, there would be no value in having the law.
One reason this truth eludes many people has to do with what I call “invisible morality.” You see, there is a morality that is so popular, so taken for granted, so much a part of the spirit of the age, that some folks don’t even recognize it as morality. For instance, the idea that murder is wrong is embraced by virtually everyone, as well it should be. And the idea that it’s wrong to discriminate in hiring on the basis of race or sex is also widely accepted. Now, something else these two acts have in common is that our government has seen fit to legislate against them. But then there’s that commonality shared by the principles on which these two laws are based : they are both elements of a concept of morality, albeit elements that are questioned by almost no one. What makes invisible morality what it is, is that it is so thoroughly woven into the fabric of our culture that few can even see the stitch.
On the other hand, politically-incorrect morality is the white thread in black material. For example, suggest that we outlaw abortion or pornography and what will often result won’t be a discussion of the merits of the proposal, but excoriation for having the gall to attempt to “legislate morality.” Politically-incorrect morality cannot escape notice and, as the saying goes, “The nail that sticks up gets hammered down.” But if it quacks like a duck it’s a duck; morality doesn’t cease to be what it is simply because it wins a popular vote.
Lastly, there’s something afoot here that is much more insidious than a mere misunderstanding of the issue. There are those who don’t need Selwyn Duke to tell them that a law is the legislation of morality. No, they know full well that this is the case, but they’re content to define traditional/conservative/religious morality as such while allowing theirs to remain unnoticed. This is because, you see, it’s easier to win a political and cultural war when you can cast your opponents as grand-puppeteers who are trying to ram their medicine down others’ throats, while making your medicine indistinguishable from people’s everyday diet.
So the next time someone tells you that we shouldn’t legislate morality, you may want to ask, “Yours or other people’s?” Because the only way to not legislate morality is to not legislate at all. So what it all boils down to is that if you truly wouldn’t legislate morality, you’re not tolerant – you’re an anarchist.
