Moral Standard
Saturday, January 10th, 2009
“To set up as a standard of public morality a notion which can neither be defined nor conceived is to open the door to every kind of tyranny.”
Simone Weil
Here it is. This French philosopher said it all about the nature of morality in relation to government.
I am committed to believe that it is the responsibility of the private sector to set, maintain, and uphold the moral aspects of their daily life. Morality in its purest form has something to do with the principles of right and wrong in behavior.
A government, on the other hand, is responsible for, among many other things, maintaining law and order. Its job is to regulate behavior. When it starts to legislate morality (or when it says what is right and what is wrong), it treads on the border of invading the very principle of human rights and dignity. It follows also that such a government will look upon its citizens as “children” who are not capable of making their own decisions. Granted that there are certain things that the majority of the people find offensive (morally speaking), but so long as that which is deemed offensive does not infringe upon the liberty or the pursuit of happiness of the others, then the problem that seems to be pervasive becomes imaginary. This is the very basic concept of majority rules and minority rights.
To invite a government to interfere in the life a private sector is like inviting a lion to come live with you in your household. It is easy to coax it to come in, but it is extremely difficult to kick it out. This is what I fear most. As citizens, we must understand that there are times when we need such a lion and there are times when it is best to leave it outside of our domain. A government can best govern when its citizens comprehend the proper roles that a government should play and which roles they themselves should participate. The question of “moral standard” must be raised by the people and not the government; else we would lose our capacity to make judgments.
Simone Weil
Here it is. This French philosopher said it all about the nature of morality in relation to government.
I am committed to believe that it is the responsibility of the private sector to set, maintain, and uphold the moral aspects of their daily life. Morality in its purest form has something to do with the principles of right and wrong in behavior.
A government, on the other hand, is responsible for, among many other things, maintaining law and order. Its job is to regulate behavior. When it starts to legislate morality (or when it says what is right and what is wrong), it treads on the border of invading the very principle of human rights and dignity. It follows also that such a government will look upon its citizens as “children” who are not capable of making their own decisions. Granted that there are certain things that the majority of the people find offensive (morally speaking), but so long as that which is deemed offensive does not infringe upon the liberty or the pursuit of happiness of the others, then the problem that seems to be pervasive becomes imaginary. This is the very basic concept of majority rules and minority rights.
To invite a government to interfere in the life a private sector is like inviting a lion to come live with you in your household. It is easy to coax it to come in, but it is extremely difficult to kick it out. This is what I fear most. As citizens, we must understand that there are times when we need such a lion and there are times when it is best to leave it outside of our domain. A government can best govern when its citizens comprehend the proper roles that a government should play and which roles they themselves should participate. The question of “moral standard” must be raised by the people and not the government; else we would lose our capacity to make judgments.